web
counter
 

15 Movies that Critics Loved and Audiences Hated and the Inferences We Can Draw

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (76)



high-fidelity.jpg

I’m endlessly fascinated with the psychology of moviegoers, and what it is that makes their minds tick. Why do certain bad movies resonate, while some very good movies do not? There’s not an enormous amount of academic literature devoted to the subject (at least to my knowledge), so we’re mostly left with assumptions formed on the basis of box-office results, and on critical and audience aggregation services like Metafilter, RottenTomatoes, and IMDB. There is no Moneyball for movies: There are formulas, obviously, but for everyone that works, another formulaic movie fails for the exact same reason: Because people are tired of the same old thing. Unless they aren’t. What makes moviegoers embrace formula in some instances and reject it in others? Why do dark unsatisfying endings in films like The Dark Knight resonate, while they are rejected in movies like The Grey?

There’s not a lot of openly available data to subject — we are not privy to the results of focus groups, nor do we know if changes suggested by focus groups hurt a film’s success as much as they help it. Film studios are businesses, and businesses value profit over creativity, so film studios tend to rely on what works. They make choices based on past performance; they greenlight movies in familiar genres, with familiar storylines, with familiar actors because they don’t know any better. If one comic book movies succeeds, they will make 100, or at least as many as it takes to realize that audiences have grown weary of them. Successful anomalies beget new trends, which are pulverized until a new anomaly surfaces. The success of Iron Man beget comic-book movies based on lesser known characters; Liam Neeson’s Taken gave studios the bright idea that decent action flicks might work in January; and Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland spawned the fairy-tale movie trend that we’re currently in the midst of.

What we don’t understand is why these anomalies work or don’t work. Psychologically, we don’t understand why certain movies — like Office Space or Donnie Darko or Swingers or Napoleon Dynamite — do not resonate with audiences until months or even years after their initial release, but then — almost overnight — become part of our cultural lexicon.

It’s a funny business.

Beyond box-office numbers and critical scores, and the assumptions we can derive from them, I am particularly fascinated with Cinemascore, a box-office evaluation service that started in Las Vegas in 1999. The company surveys 400 to 500 people in 25 cities around the country on the night a movie is released and makes predictions about box-office based upon letter grades assigned by moviegoers. Those predictions are often very accurate. For instance, Cinemascore predicted the box office success of The Hangover (nearly to the exact million), as well as the failure of Land of Lost. Movies are given a grade score, and the vast majority of films fall within the curve: B+ to A-. A pluses are rare (there have been less than 20, including The Help, Tangled, King’s Speech, The Blind Side, Remember the Titans, A Few Good Men, Titanic, Antoine Fisher, Toy Story 2 and Driving Miss Daisy), but not as rare as an F (The Box, Solaris, Darkness, Bug and recently, The Devil Inside). Grades are not always indicative of opening weekend (see The Devil Inside’s $30 million), but they are very good in predicting box-office multipliers (see The Devil Inside’s $52 million overall gross, far less than double its opening weekend).

Anything below a B is considered a bad score. A C is the kiss of death, box-office wise.

However, Cinemascore’s Grades are very hard to come by. They’re easier to find with more recent films, but it took a hours of Google Searches (and the Wayback Machine) to find scores for several older films. I have managed to collect the grades, however, for 15 good to great films that were nevertheless received poorly by audiences, and in most cases, the box office results reflected the poor Cinemascores.

The question is: Why did audiences reject these movies? What can we extrapolate from this information? And it has to be something more than simply: Audiences are dumb because “dumb” audiences are nearly as likely to embrace a well-reviewed film as they are a poorly reviewed one. What is it about these critically embraced films that audiences disliked?

Drive — Cinemascore (C-), RottenTomatoes (93 percent), Box Office ($35 million).

Haywire — Cinemascore (D+), RottenTomatoes (80 percent), Box Office ($16 million, after three weeks)

Let Me In — Cinemascore (C+), RottenTomatoes (89 percent), Box Office ($12 million)

Hanna — Cinemascore (C+), RottenTomatoes (71 percent), Box Office ($40 million)

Shutter Island — Cinemascore (C+), RottenTomatoes (69 percent), Box Office ($128 million)

Children of Men — Cinemascore (B-), RottenTomatoes (93 percent), Box Office ($35 million)

High Fidelity — Cinemascore (C-), RottenTomatoes (92 percent), Box Office ($27 million)

Wonder Boys — Cinemascore (C+), RottenTomatoes (81 percent), Box Office ($19 million)

The Royal Tenenbaums — Cinemascore (C-), RottenTomatoes (80 percent), Box Office ($52 million)

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind — Cinemascore (C), RottenTomatoes (79 pecent), Box Office ($16 million)

Contagion — Cinemascore (B-), RottenTomatoes (84 percent), Box Office ($75 million)

Splice — Cinemascore (D), Rottentomatoes (74 percent), Box Office ($17 million)

The Grey — Cinemascoe (B-), RottenTomatoes (77 percent), Box Office ($35 million after two weeks)

The American — Cinemascore (D-), Rottentomatoes (66 percent), Box office ($35 million)

Boogie Nights — Cinemascore (C), Rottentomatoes (92 percent), Box Office ($26 million)

——

What ties all of these poorly graded, highly reviewed movies together? Ambiguous, unhappy, or unsatisfying conclusions. What implication can we draw? That, formula or no formula, audiences overall really do love a Hollywood ending (exemplified again in this weekend’s Chronicle, which deserved much better than the mediocre B Cinemascore it received). It does not, however, explain the relative box-office success of Shutter Island and Contagion, both of which had bleak endings, nor the high Cinemascores of movies like The Dark Knight (A-) or Inception (B+), which also had dark or ambiguous endings.

What is at play here? Maybe it’s simply that behavioral patterns are difficult to nail down. Maybe that’s why there’s been so little academic study done on the mind of the moviegoer: We’re too goddamn unpredictable to tick off in a box.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Mindhole Blowers: 20 Facts About Drive That Might Leave You Craving Benzedrine, Dexedrine, Caffeine and Nicotine | Celebrating Thirteen Glorious, Boobtacular Years of Oscar Caliber Nerd Pandering









Comments

Didn't High Fidelity have a fairly unambiguously happy ending?

(Not entirely. He did end up with the girl, but as you recall, he still made that mixed tape for the journalist, even after everything they went through. In a pure romantic sense, it wasn't completely satisfying. -- DR)

Posted by: Eep at February 6, 2012 3:02 PM

It's been a while since I've seen either, but I feel like I would say the same for Boogie Nights. Perhaps some segments of the public were turned off from Boogie Nights because it was a long epic immersed unabashedly in the porn industry?

Posted by: Eep at February 6, 2012 3:06 PM

HOW COULD ROYAL TENENBAUMS POSSIBLY BE A C- I HATE EVERTYHING

Posted by: Flenker at February 6, 2012 3:09 PM

I didn't hate Splice for it's ambiguous conclusion, I hated it because it had the single worst sex scene ever filmed this side of the R. Kelly collection.

Posted by: Devil Child at February 6, 2012 3:13 PM

I'm most surprised by Haywire; granted, it wasn't Oscar material, but the trailer was 90% "Gina Carano hits people," and those parts of the film certainly delivered.

Posted by: Markus at February 6, 2012 3:13 PM

Sad fact is a lot of people just go in for either the explosions or the stars. Dark Night was a goddamn Batman movie and Shutter Island had Leo Dicaprio, and wasn't boring as fuck like J Edgar . Also, after TDK came out and people started raving about how intelligent it was, everyone started eating up Nolan's films and other so-called smarty films, just to show off to their friends how smart they are. I have a thousand friends who genuinely loved Kill Bill or Kick Ass but didn't want to acknowledge liking it because in their opinions they weren't "smart" films. Or atleast that's the trend back here in India.

Posted by: Uzumaki at February 6, 2012 3:14 PM

@Devil Child, I couldn't agree more. I felt at least two (apparently non-critical) internal organs shrivel up and die when I got to that scene. I can't look at Adrian Brody anymore without cringing.

Posted by: Markus at February 6, 2012 3:15 PM

What if I just think "High Fidelity" is okay? A B?

Posted by: Jay at February 6, 2012 3:17 PM

Dustin I think that was a last look back at his wandering bachelorhood, but the movie ends with him making a mix tape for Laura "full of stuff she'd like, full of stuff that'd make her happy. For the first time I can sort of see how that's done."

I love the movie, it's beautifully honest, which maybe leads to the confusion, but I maintain my position about its ending.

Posted by: Eep at February 6, 2012 3:17 PM

I think it's more of an issue that people, in general, prefer a movie that lays its cards on the table. A movie where you know exactly what you're getting when you see the trailer. I think it's kind of unfortunate that something unfamiliar seems to not do very well. I'd be very interested to see similar information regarding the rest of the world.

Posted by: Alex at February 6, 2012 3:18 PM

On The Dark Knight- it's not uncommon for the second movie in a trilogy to have an unhappy ending (Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future 2, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Two Towers, etc). I think people know that if the series is continuing, it's going to get better, so they're okay with it. Also, it's Batman.

Posted by: fracas at February 6, 2012 3:21 PM

I think trailers play a role here as well. The initial impression sets up audience expectation which effects word - of - mouth. Surely, a film in retrospect might be seen as a good experience, but it's the fulfillment (or the exceeding) of the initial expectation that will lead to immediate recommendation.

Several of these movies were rated great - to - amazing, but the trailer set the film up as "traditional" in some way - an action movie, a movie about fast car chases, post - apocalyptic action, standard jump - scare horror fare, etc. Those "types" don't really fit the movie. Take the lady who expected "Drive" to be Faster and Furiouser. People don't buy a product a second time or recommend a product to others if the result is different than advertized.

Posted by: JByrd at February 6, 2012 3:21 PM

In regards to The Dark Knight: it might be that people knew it would be the middle of the trilogy and a darker/unambiguous ending would be normal.

Is there any way to account for how a movie is marketed? Drive, for instance, was not marketed well. I would attribute the low cinemascore to people who had the wrong expectations (based on the movie being marketed as an action thriller, which it wasn't) going in. How many young women do you think went to that movie to see Gosling be tough, yet adorable? Seeing him face stomp a guy to death probably kinda ruined the movie for them. And how many young men do you think went to the movie to see a lot of awesome driving and action? The majority of the movie is quiet moments and introspection with little bursts of action. All those quiet moments probably ruined the movie for those people. I think expectations (perhaps largely based on marketing) have a lot to do with the cinema scores.

Posted by: Lucas at February 6, 2012 3:22 PM

well geez, i took to long to post my comment. sorry to duplicate your guys' points, JByrd and fracas.

Posted by: Lucas at February 6, 2012 3:24 PM

not to be an elitist bitch (though I probably am), but it seems to me that the majority of the films explore those emotional shades of grey that go above a)boy meets girl-boy loses girl through a stupid high-concept complication-boy gets the girl back through a big flashy gesture or b)boom-shia labeouf-boom-robot-boom-boobs-boom-the end.
Most of these movies will be seen as the defining films of our era, but unfortunately these things will go over the head of people who are still dismayed that According to Jim was cancelled. And based on the show's ratings, that would be your average American.

Posted by: astounded at February 6, 2012 3:25 PM

Well, for one thing, you can't lump audiences together into one giant Audience like that. Consider that if movie tickets run $10 and the box office is $100 million, which is usually great, that means only 10 million people saw the movie (not counting anyone who saw it more than once). Now I know 10 million sounds like a huge number when you're selling books or CDs (old school, bite me) or even movies, but it also means 300 million people didn't give a fuck. But slivers of those 300 million DID give a fuck about something else, and there may be little or no crossover between the two groups.

I think what I'm saying is your premise is flawed. There is no one giant audience for anything anymore, and probably hasn't been for decades. I mean, Esquire just devoted an issue to "79 Things We Can All Agree On" and I probably disagreed with half of them -- No. 1 was Bill Clinton.

We're a fragmented audience, and probably even in our fragments large numbers of us will vary our likes and dislikes and decisions from day to day depending on how we felt when we got up in the morning, or what we had for breakfast.

Moviemaking is like much of everything: You lays down your money and you takes your chances.

Posted by: , at February 6, 2012 3:38 PM

No worries Lucas. When all three make the same good point, you get to call it a reiteration.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at February 6, 2012 3:39 PM

@lucas, I agree that marketing played a big role in the discrepancy between the critics' and the audience's reviews of Drive, but in the case of my opinion of the movie, the discrepancy lied in my VERY HIGH expectations of the film based on what the critics have been raving about. I was expecting it to really blow me away and to be pretty much a perfect film because almost every critic has just been raving about it. When I saw it, I found it to be just okay. A solid B+. It was a good film with a number of flaws.

Posted by: sars at February 6, 2012 3:39 PM

I agree with Eep. Rob is tempted to make the mix tape for the journalist, but then decides to make one for Laura instead. Unambiguously happy.

I think Jbird, Fracas, and Lucas make a great point. Many of these movies were advertised as films that they just weren't, and so I think the opening audience weren't really the target audience. Based on the trailers, I would've expected Let Me In to be a straight up vampire flick, or Children of Men to be an action packed post-apocalyptic zombie movie in the style of 28 Days Later.

Posted by: McSquish at February 6, 2012 3:42 PM

That's funny you only gave it a B, Jay, because 87% of High Fidelity is them mocking others' taste.

Posted by: Alabaster Salamander at February 6, 2012 3:45 PM

Why oh why did people see Shutter Island - it was completely rubbish.

Posted by: TS at February 6, 2012 3:45 PM

Firstly, wow, moviegoers are frustrating.

Secondly, in reference to the movies you discussed in the last paragraph that have box office draw, those movies all had star power, big budgets, and well-respected directors. Several of the movies in your main list were independent, cast with relatively less popular actors, or marketed incorrectly (or, in the case of Drive and Let Me In, all of the above).

Posted by: ChristianH at February 6, 2012 3:46 PM

I think the phrase "I just want to turn my brain off and be entertained" factors into a lot of those low scores. I'd rather pay ridiculous sums of money to see a great film on the large screen but perhaps I'm a bit strange. Not that I don't like popcorn junk. I'll just wait and see that at home.

Posted by: admin at February 6, 2012 3:49 PM

He never made the tape for the girl journalist. He ripped the tape out of the player and yelled "when is this going to stop?!"

Then he tells his girlfriend that all these other distractions, other women that the fantasy never delivers and he is tired of the fantasy but the one thing he never gets tired of is her.
Which I find incredibly realistic and beautiful.

The tape he makes at the end is for his girlfriend and he is filling it with music she likes, things she will enjoy because he is finally starting to see how that is done.

Yeah I love that movie so you're wrong.

Posted by: daria at February 6, 2012 3:51 PM

I agree that the ending of High Fidelity is a happy one, but there is enough material over the course of the movie illustrating just how messy real relationships are to leave the viewer with a little uneasiness - not about what will happen to Rob and Laura but rather just about life in general and our expectations of it. To me, Rob technically receives a Hollywood ending, yes, but it differs from many Hollywood endings in that it doesn't represent instantaneous change, streamlined character evolution, or the magically romantic deus ex machina of running through an airport to stop someone from boarding a flight. It's earned change, which is less escapist than most films of the genre.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at February 6, 2012 3:54 PM

All of the movies listed here that I have seen I absolutely loved. Maybe I should be a critic. Children of Men and High Fidelity are on my own personal best movies ever list.

Posted by: Jifaner at February 6, 2012 3:57 PM

I hated "Splice" because it failed as a movie. There was no conflict, no characters to root for or against, no resolution to hope for, seek, or care about.
Also, that sex scene thing. God, that was just ghastly.

Posted by: Miss Beca at February 6, 2012 4:03 PM

I think it comes down to mainstream movie goers want to have a happy ending and be unchallenged in their views. They don't want the movie to make them think or depress them.

Most of the movies on your list have downer endings and get pretty dark before they are over. There is a subset that prefers it when a movie gives them the unexpected (mainly those of us on Pajiba) other than what is advertised. But I think the vast majority want their Big Mac and fries with little deviation in flavor.

You can't market a movie as one thing, then be taken aback when that audience feels ripped off by the finished product failing to fit into the genre they expected. I remember when The Lion King came out there were protests from parent groups because the TV ads played up the frolicking in the forest parts while obscuring the whole murder and exile angle. If I remember correctly there was a push from those groups to re-rate the movie a PG rather than a G due to the content.

Posted by: TylerDFC at February 6, 2012 4:04 PM

87% of High Fidelity is them mocking others' taste.

The book was better.

BOOM!

I WENT THERE!


tee hee

Posted by: Jay at February 6, 2012 4:10 PM

This is going to be vague.

But some of these movies are just...off. Somehow.
Solid acting. Solid scripting. Solid direction. But off.
In some nameless, indefinable way.

Except for The Royal Tenenbaums, of course [he said obviously].

Posted by: superasente at February 6, 2012 4:24 PM

Look, let's boil it down to this. Good movies are specific. And if you don't like that specific, you may not like that movie. You may not want to spend $12 on a specific you're not sure you'll like. So people don't go see it.

That's ok. Maybe a shame for those pieces financially (though I definitely don't think all the movies on that list are "good" by a long stretch), but not as pieces of art. It's to be expected that the "general public" doesn't like a piece of art - because a piece of art isn't "general".

How many times do you go out to eat at a comfortable place, maybe even ordering your typical, favorite dish, rather than a place that is going to serve a dish that will either blow your tastebuds away or nauseate you?

Posted by: Sara Tonin at February 6, 2012 4:25 PM

on the whole, all of these movies would be considered a "slow burn." that doesn't bode well for the masses.

Posted by: gunnertec at February 6, 2012 4:26 PM

CHARLIE! YOU FU*KING BITCH! LET'S WORK THINGS OUT!

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at February 6, 2012 4:28 PM

Those predictions are often very accurate. For instance.

For all the "complex statistical analysis" that CinemaScore supposedly does, why do all mentions of the accuracy their scoring method come off as so anecdotal? I've read other articles about it, and in some cases it is extremely accurate, and others they're just "in the ballpark," whatever that means. There is no hard data that I've found about their actual accuracy.

In addition, the immediacy (the scores are typically released those Friday nights or at least by the next day) influences credibility of the predictions themselves as positive scores are bandied to boost box office, while poor scores are used by competing marketing campaigns to steal audience share.

Basically, they seem to be casual statistics used to drive speculation rather than actual accurate measures.

Posted by: branded at February 6, 2012 4:38 PM

I honestly do not know how Children of Men wasn't better received. That movie is sublime! It is beautiful, gut-wrenching and heartbreaking. It is one of my absolute all-time favorites, so much so that I've only seen it once -- at the movie theater.

After that one viewing, I never wanted to change or ruin the emotional high and heartbreak it gave me, so I have never seen it again. It will remain perfect perfection in my memories forever....

Dang! What if my memories are screwy and it isn't as good as I remember? See there, that's a chance I can't take.

Posted by: Carmelita at February 6, 2012 4:47 PM

Why do we need a complex answer when a perfectly simple one will do? People are dumb. Film-makers (I'm talking about the actual talented people here, directors, writers, actors....not the suits and money men) are creative and talented people. The majority of the movie-going public are stupid assholes.

Seriously, why can't that just be the answer? Sometimes dumbasses who watch CBS and think Chipotle is authentic Mexican will latch on to a genuinely good movie like TDK. Am I an elitist if I think, "They don't really get it, they just like the explosions and shit and I'm still smarter than them." Well, tough shit that's the way the world is. Just because they are dumb and like dumb movies doesn't make them bad people, they just find rewarding stimuli in broad stereotypical characters, gratuitous action/nudity and simple to understand "Hollywood" endings. I'm capable of enjoying those things as well, but I'll take the movies on this list any day. I'm glad that great movies that I love sometimes fail commercially. It reassures me that I have a little more taste than the next guy.

To sum up, I'll paraphrase (because I'm too lazy to CTRL+C CTRL+V the quote) George Carlin: Think about how dumb the average person is...then realize that half of all people are DUMBER THAN THAT.

Posted by: Tom at February 6, 2012 5:04 PM

What the hell happened with Haywire's Cinemascore? Most of the rest of those movies I can figure it out, but Haywire is a kick-ass, propulsively-paced action flick full of cool fight scenes where (spoilers) all the villains are punished and the hero triumphs in the end. It has way, way less talky-talky or lovey-dovey scenes than, for examples, Transformers 3. It's a straight-up "turn off your brain and enjoy" good time. How did it get a D+?

Posted by: Hector at February 6, 2012 5:20 PM

Critics liked "Let Me In"?

Huh. I refused to even watch it once they dumbed down the title and made the vampire into a girl.

Posted by: Rest In Peace at February 6, 2012 5:22 PM

Splice's ending isn't ambiguous or particularly sad for a horror film. It's the penultimate action sequence that is mind-numbingly stupid and throws away any good will the film built with its audience. Films that fuck up a good thing that badly deserve to do poorly at the box office.

Posted by: Robert at February 6, 2012 5:32 PM

Hanna was so fucking boring. I wanted to love it and ended up hating it.

Posted by: Jakob Montrasio at February 6, 2012 5:33 PM

Oh dear, math, statistics, rating schemes, modeling...murky water for most people. The art of evaluating all this data is subjective, specific to time & place. I am personally not bothered by the way an opening night audience rates a film relative to critics, since I'm comfortable being a jerk about being smart and having real taste for the film experience. Opening crowds strike me as a poor sample, since many discerning viewers won't or can't run to a movie immediately upon opening. Either because they have qualities that give them other things to do or they don't want a film-going experience ruined by an obnoxious crowd. Say it altogether: sample error!

A few specific points:

Children of Men is a wonderful film that sits among the most existentially depressing of the modern movie era. There is no way audiences would skew positive.

Drive was mis-promoted, and represents the kind of mood film with a bit of shocking violence that doesn't lend itself to easy rewards for the viewer. Hopefully the producer regrets the marketing decisions.

I could go on, but it's better to stop and encourage everyone to embrace the difference between enduring quality and mainstream acceptance. Budweiser gets adverstised during the SuperBowl for a reason, and that reason is that masses will eat shit.

Posted by: Tao at February 6, 2012 5:49 PM

Ok, I haven't the time or energy right now to read all the other comments, but one obvious observation of the numbers - they're incomplete. Box office is an important measurements, but without total cost it's almost meaningless. And I'd love to see this comparison with the addition of marketing budget/effort figures and total cost of production.

Another important aspect that seems to be ignored here is the quality or completeness of the story. More so than the emotional outcome of the story's resolution is the quality of the resolution. Does the story ultimately provide a satisfactory answer to the questions that it is posing? A story that fails to resolve all these questions affects the emotions of the viewer negatively.

Simple, stupid movies don't ask very hard questions. As a result, they can flash, bang, and 'splode and then give a cheesy ending, yet the audience feels the resolution and ultimately is satisifed with the movie. The harder the questions you ask, the more diligently they must be resolved, or you will lose your audience.

Ultimately, you're looking at a multi-variable calculation here. Movie cost, story-telling quality, audience reception(which does indeed appear to correlate to "neatness" of the ending), critical reception, and marketing spent all drive the ultimate profitability figure (and ultimate sucess or failure).

P.S. - By way of full disclosure, the idea of story quality isn't my own. Read more about these ideas by googling "Dramatica". It's an interesting theory of story, but it seems to provide some answers to questions like this one.

Posted by: NateS1973 at February 6, 2012 5:56 PM

I don't the "people are dumb" theory, I think what you're leaving out is the movie experience as a whole, most of the time people want to have a nice time, not to have uncomfortable feelings in the middle of a date because of a movie for example, there's nothing wrong with wanting to have a nice time, basically all hollywood cashes in on that. And then there are movies meant to be seen at home and alone (the list above), and then they become cult films because a lot of us have enjoyed it because we love movies and not just GOING to the movies.

ps. my english is not very good, but my point should be clear somewhere in there.

Posted by: lady_wraith at February 6, 2012 5:58 PM

I think I would have given Children of Men a B- after seeing it for the first time. I think my expectations for what the film would be, and what it actually was, caused me to be somehow out of sync with the film. It stayed with me though. A few weeks later I watched it again and was truly amazed. I now think it is one of the best films made so far this century. So I guess from personal experience that marketing campaigns and expectations do play a large role in perception.

Posted by: Conurtrol at February 6, 2012 6:05 PM

I don't think there's one big reason that these movies weren't well received by the public. On top of mis-promotion (Drive, and even Children of Men which made it look like more of an action movie and less of a thinker) and not typically happy endings, I think unrelatability of the main characters plays a role. I liked Hanna, but I didn't love it as much as I thought I would because they down played her attachment to other human beings quite a bit. And, although I may get lynched for this, I hated the Royal Tenenbaums because they were unrelatable!

Posted by: Stina at February 6, 2012 6:23 PM

People just like happy endings. Conversely critics hate happiness which is why they love movies where everyone dies.

Posted by: logan at February 6, 2012 6:28 PM

"Critics liked "Let Me In"?
Huh. I refused to even watch it once they dumbed down the title and made the vampire into a girl."

It was a girl in the original movie. If you liked the original, you would like the re-make, I think.

I've seen most of these and almost all were pretty good, not great movies. A lot of them were kind of thoughtful, slow movies, some might say boring movies. These kinds of films depend on the actors connecting with the audience more than most actors are able to. I know that Clive Owen, as good as he is, just doesn't seem to connect with me enough to make me care what happens to him. That's death for these kinds of films.

Posted by: James S at February 6, 2012 7:41 PM

Could it have something to do with the reality that critics take themselves way to seriously and tend to have lousy taste in movies.

Posted by: clancys_daddy at February 6, 2012 8:25 PM

It was a girl in the original movie.

Ummm... it wasn't. The vampire was a boy that had been emasculated. He even pretty much said, "Eli, I'm not a girl,"

Other than that, I agree with your assessment. Except for your assessment of Clive Owen, I would watch him read The Cat In The Hat goddamn that boy is good...

Posted by: Rest In Peace at February 6, 2012 8:28 PM

I think the biggest influences on gross are the ones Hollywood has known about for years: marketing, time of release, and competition. Many well-received films are, IMO, sidelined in ads in favor of assured moneymakers. Many more either open against strong competition ("Children of Men" came out in the middle of the blockbuster Christmas season), or are released when attendance is mediocre anyway ("Tenenbaums" in the dreadful month of January, "Contagion" in historically-pathetic September, etc.).

Posted by: Palaeologos at February 6, 2012 8:42 PM

Look around your house or apartment. It's pretty likely it's a pice of shit. Don't take that personally most comercially built houses are made as quickly and cheaply as possible. Wood framing, aluminum or vinyl siding, imitation divided light windows, outdated masonry veneer, crappy insulation, foyers that serve no real purpose, etc. And yet 99% of you don't care, and shouldn't. The building you're in serves it's purpose. There are some extraordinary buildings out there, both residential and commercial. However, they are often not appreciated until much later, and in some cases only by small number of people. This doesn't make everyone who doesn't appreciate them stupid by definition, it means that people have different priorities. Movie reviewers are self-selecting movie lovers, thus their understanding and appreciation of movies is different than the viewing public. Just as architects view buildings differently than other people, movie reviwers view movies differntly. Also judging by this post, I'm kind of a pretentious ass, which is why I chose to use an appropriate nome de plume.

Posted by: Ted Moseby at February 6, 2012 9:51 PM

Eli was a boy in Let The Right One In. Played by a girl but the character was born male. With that said the remake was a scene for scene remake. Changed barely anything. The few superficial changes it brought to the table made it a bit of a mess when you dug deep. Pretty easy to see why that was a failure though. The people that would see a movie like that already saw it. When the original came out. Which is one of the many reasons people should stop trying to make the Oldboy remake happen.


Also critics didn't exactly like the remake. They basically gave it a, "it's good because the original is good".

Posted by: googergieger at February 6, 2012 10:56 PM

half those movies never even got cinema releases that I can remember in Australia

Posted by: Ben at February 6, 2012 11:23 PM

I think in general American audiences want to know exactly what they are getting into before they are willing to make an investment, especially if it is new or different. Drive was marketed like a serious Fast and Furious movie but we knew deep down Baby Goose would never do anything like that so we were unwilling to expend the time and money to find out what the heck it was about- what if we didn't like it!! I think the same could be said about everything on the list. More than geeks and comic book nerds go to see super hero movies because they all pretty much follow the same formula. Origins, internal friction, fight scene, win and resolution. We can handle ambiguous ending like Inception because we know it's about a dream and we expect dreams to be ambiguous. Same concept with The Sixth Sense.

It holds true for tv too. Friday Night Lights was marketed as "football" but that was not what the audience got, Arrested Development was always hard to explain to a non-watcher, and Lost fizzled when it strayed too far off the track that we "expected". Hell, the same thing can be said about food. There is a reason why "comfort food" exists and there are 10 pizza places for every Thai restaurant even if the Thai place gets a four star rating and costs the same.

So if a movie is experimental, about "feelings" and self discovery, foreign, or with a lessor known cast I think marketing wise, the studio has to give up the ghost and overly explain rather than tantalize the viewer into making the time and money investment to check something out they are unsure if they will enjoy.

Posted by: brdkelli at February 6, 2012 11:54 PM

Dustin, you need to re-watch High Fidelity. Sure he made the journalist another mix-tape but he called himself on it and so did his GF. It ended up being a crucial little complexity and ultimately the movie still ended on a romantic -- if a little more realistic -- note.

Posted by: eliza at February 7, 2012 12:07 AM

"What is it about these critically embraced films that audiences disliked?"

Um, that Boogie Nights and High Fidelity aside, they weren't very good films? superasente is right.

"Drive" is extremely tedious, with half-baked characters and appalling appalling sub-Georgio Moroder music. And the last part of the movie makes no sense. Why in the hell would he go to that restaurant? For what purpose? If he had a death wish he could have dealt with everything a lot sooner and saved us all a lot of "mood". Trust me, that movie is not going to age well.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind had Sam Rockwell, but otherwise it was a pretty crappy movie.

I've never forgiven Wonder Boys for the way it treated Frances McDormand, even if it does have a fantastic performance by Mr Downey.

Even High Fidelity, while it has a place in my heart, is a pretty flawed movie. A lot of women think Rob is a drop-kick loser. Especially the ones who haven't read the book. I gave it a pass because it was Cusack.

BTW, you must have a different definition of "critically embraced" for some of these films. Most critics (at the time) didn't praise Tenenbaums, Fidelity, Confessions, Wonder Boys, or Contagion, and more than a few were scathing about Shutter Island which was a truly horrible horrible film. I had to watch Goodfellas again after that to remind myself that Scorcese once knew how to recognise a script when he saw it.

Posted by: rocky at February 7, 2012 1:23 AM

I disagree with "Drive" having been marketed wrong. I'm European, and had no expectations of the movie being Faster and Furioser sequel 15658457 based on it. In fact the main reason I went to see it (other than Baby Goose, Albert Brooks, Christina Hendricks and the soundtrack), twice, was because I expected it to be nothing like those movies. Also, I happen to be female. Then again I also like to think I have a modicum of good taste. As for how my being European factors into the equation, I'd argue that the entire feel of that movie as well as some others on the list seemed distinctly European, even those that were all-American, so perhaps that might be a reason?

Posted by: Kateshi Rinkichiku at February 7, 2012 3:53 AM

This happens because if it didn't I and all my brothers and sisters on this Pajiba that we love would not be able to feel that glorious morning blowjob smugness that accompanies loving a film that everyone hates, all the while knowing that we are ahead of the curve, and that, given enough time, some of our niche loves may eventually make it through the clogged highway brains of the Others and be accepted. Or maybe not. The important thing is that we don't care. Unless we do. Which we always do.

Posted by: zeke the pig at February 7, 2012 4:43 AM

Mega power star Ram Charan’s new movie is “Racha” and the heroin is Tamana. Racha movie has been launched by mega star churanjeevi from super good movies banner.

Posted by: wdizer at February 7, 2012 4:45 AM

I think most people were upset about Drive because they thought they were gonna see a Fast and Furious/Statham like movie, and instead they saw a good movie.

Posted by: bill haverchuck at February 7, 2012 7:51 AM

Also I highly doubt the Drive producers regret the way they marketed the film. It was a neo-noir arthouse film, and they marketed it as an action packed, muscle car film. It took in twice its budget domestically, which would have never happened if it was marketed for what it was.

Posted by: bill haverchuck at February 7, 2012 7:59 AM

I'm still trying to figure out why all (many of) the critics think George Clooney is going to win an Oscar for The Descendants. Sure, he's good, and so is the film, but.... an Oscar??

Posted by: Nick at February 7, 2012 9:11 AM

Erm am I missing something? It seems like Shutter Island had a fairly even response from critics and audiences (69% is about a C right?)and $128 million is nothing to be sniffed at. Why is it on the list?

Posted by: Katie at February 7, 2012 1:02 PM

Focusing on the movie endings as a reason is a little silly and comparing The Dark Knight to The Grey in the same way is Extra Silly.

For the most part, these movie's have bleak premises that guarantee alot of unhappy meandering in a semi-depressing setting. Wouldn't ya know it, the masses aren't into that. There are absolutely movies on this list that I love and think are great, but I can also see reasons why the general public wouldn't embrace these and that's because I can remember their muddled trailers.

Posted by: valerie at February 7, 2012 1:21 PM

Obviously audiences' guts have shit for brains.

Posted by: K at February 7, 2012 2:01 PM

This theory doesn't make sense to me. Overall viewership wouldn't be related to the quality of a movie's ending unless people only went to see movies that they knew the endings of. From what I can tell from the article, Cinemascore doesn't survey people who've seen the movie's ending, either.

Now, I've only seen three of the movies on this list, and I'm sure there are lots of movies that have better reviews than they have Cinemascore ratings, but I can tell you right now what Children of Men, The Wonder Boys, and High Fidelity had in common: unlikeable characters, and a high level of self-importance. I didn't emotionally connect to any one of the characters in those movies with the possible exception of Jack Black's. My bet is that unlikeability is something that the movie audience wants and that critics are willing to overlook.

Posted by: Pinky at February 7, 2012 2:36 PM

One simple issue that may be partially responsible - weren't most of these rated "R"? A lot of people draw the line right below PG-13, so an R-rated movie is going to draw from a smaller population. Both "Dark Knight" and "Inception" were PG-13.

Posted by: TGWShark at February 7, 2012 2:52 PM

Yes film critics take themselves too seriously and the reviews,these days are quite subjective,so the reader gets a heavy dose of the reviewers'political,religious,historical take on the film and not much else.The reviews can be angry,as in how dare Haggis work again after Crash winning for best picture!Outrageous! Ridley Scott is a right wing film-maker according to A.O.Scott in his review of Robin Hood.Rotten Tomatoes scores suffer from grade inflation and so does the movie goers expectations exceed reality.A lot of these films are tedious studies of nasty people doing reprehensible things to others,but with pretty cinematography.I heartily dislike There Will Be Blood, Before the Devil Knows Your'e Dead,Solaris,Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth,Babel,and many other dud dramas Hollywood and the critics think are great.Happy endings are getting rarer and ambiguous open ended tends to dominate.

Posted by: jepressman at February 7, 2012 3:02 PM

I'd be interested in seeing the cumulative scores for all of the above Leading Performers (Stars). Like John Cusack or Leo DeCaprio. And how those numbers relate with box office over time. Is it that the Teenie/Tweenie girl audience will pay to see the Leo in a Rom-Com? But neither she or her Teen Bro won't pay to see him in a Thriller/Actioner?

We don't seem to have MOVIE STARS that can dependably put butts in seats. Can it be as simple as that?

Posted by: zeprin at February 7, 2012 4:53 PM

I always thought that Splice was junked by the critics (whoa! RT 74%) and that High Fidelity was a box-office success. Back in the ancient internet days in the 00s, High Fidelity lines were often quoted on messageboards.

Posted by: Adrien at February 7, 2012 8:55 PM

the fact that dustin considers a movie good to great or that
the compendium of rotten tomatos critics confer a certain
percentage of approvals doesn't close the discussion. to take
a recent offering, i thought " the grey " was preposterous. the
film segued from howling winds and frigid temperatures to
gently falling snowflakes and romps in the rushing river which
seemed to have no effect on liam neeson. his teeth didn't even
chatter. he is a fine actor but could have memorized his portion
of the script in 15 minutes. it was relentlessly grim and
totally predictable.if the movie audience eschews this
abomination , it shows that, in this case, they are much
smarter than dustin or the the rotten tomatos crew.

Posted by: snake at February 8, 2012 1:00 AM

Datebi* C O M The best c o m m u n I ty for seeking bi s e x u a l and b I –c u r Io u s In d I v I d u a ls   You’ll find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality..Join it right now and have fun…tes it is so nice

Posted by: lily at February 8, 2012 1:56 AM

Datebi* C O M The best c o m m u n I ty for seeking bi s e x u a l and b I –c u r Io u s In d I v I d u a ls   You’ll find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality..Join it right now and have fun…tes it is so nice

Posted by: lily at February 8, 2012 1:57 AM

ehm, you serious? I'll explain it to you in one single word: Marketing.

This does not only entail the trailer and built-up hype, but also the names connected to the project, when it's released, if it's relevant to the current state of affairs, etc.

In particular the opening weekend has nothing to do with what the public will think, as they don't know what they're going to.

That is why a movie like Napoleon Dynamite, that had basically no budget at all for marketing, will take some time to find its audience, while Pirates of the Crapabeen will make money no matter what.

Posted by: Tiger at February 9, 2012 6:45 PM

Has anyone consider that the movie credit are just wrong and the audience is right.

Posted by: John at February 11, 2012 2:07 AM

Great article! I loved the knowledge and the advice given . Further, your writing style is very pleasing to read. If you have enough time kindly make sure you visit my brand new website and tell me what you think.

Posted by: Credit Keeper at March 21, 2012 6:29 AM