r/moviecritic • u/phantom_avenger • Dec 29 '24

What movie was critically acclaimed when it first released, but is hated now?

Post image

The Blind Side (2009) with Sandra Bullock is the first to come to mind for me!

28.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

7.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

409

u/Azriial Dec 29 '24

Films that stand the test of time.

242

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '24

[deleted]

41

u/mgonza54 Dec 30 '24

It directly undermines their skill in assessing the quality of the movie

Ah yes giving the Oscar to the highest bidder is a quite a skill

25

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '24

I’m gonna give that commenter the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant “self perceived” skill.

1

u/AttitudeAndEffort3 Dec 30 '24

You are both correct

-2

u/Francis_Tumblety Dec 30 '24

Highest bidder? How do you think it works? Because clearly it’s not just money. If it was Apple and Amazon would win every category every year.

10

u/JoeIA84 Dec 30 '24

Winning the awards takes a lot of lobbying, politics, etc to the point some awards have been bought

17

u/killerkoala343 Dec 30 '24

Being a person in the industry, it’s directly this. It’s a lot of lobbying, coordinated efforts and other methods/ means to try to secure awards. I think the commenter was trying to say that the award show committee is extremely egotistical, inherently political, and not necessarily merit based.

6

u/Francis_Tumblety Dec 30 '24

The committee isn’t some shadowy bunch of guys in suits. It’s a bunch of directors and probably actors and others in the industry. Kevin Smith is in the committee. I remember him talking about getting a film that was up for an Oscar. Just came in a blank case on dvd. I imagine it had a checklist to score against.

2

u/SmashLampjaw87 Dec 30 '24

You’re correct. It’s made up of directors, producers, actors, and others within the industry. They’re the ones who get the screener copies of whatever films are nominated, then they watch them and cast their votes, though I imagine some or many of them don’t even bother to watch every single nominated film or at least all of them through to their endings. Same goes for the Emmy’s — I doubt many of the voters (made up of much of the same people IIRC) are watching entire seasons of ten-hour-long shows to best judge which is most deserving of the award it’s been nominated for or to best judge the actors who’ve been nominated for their performances. If they had, then I think shows like Fargo and Better Call Saul (when it was still on the air at least) would’ve won FAR more awards, such as Best Limited Series (for which Fargo’s been nominated multiple times but has only won once for its first season), Best Drama Series (for BCS, which never won that award despite being arguably better than Breaking Bad, which won multiple), Best Lead Actor in a Drama Series (Bob Odenkirk for BCS), Best Supporting Actress in a Drama Series (Rhea Seehorn for BCS — her snubbing should’ve been criminal), Best Leading Actress in a Limited Series (Juno Temple for season five of Fargo), etc.

In addition to Rhea Seehorn being snubbed over and over again with BCS, I’m still a bit miffed that Jodie Foster won out for a good-yet-nothing-too-special performance in True Detective: Night Country over Juno Temple’s utterly transformative performance in Fargo’s fifth season. It’s literally her defining and most fully realized role and easily the best out of everyone else nominated in her category, yet of course she was passed over so some Hollywood legend could run one more victory lap that simply wasn’t deserved this time.

1

u/killerkoala343 Dec 30 '24

Yeah, I’ll be honest I find it a little disgusting. There is one production designer I know who somehow always has his movie being pushed to have a book made featured on his production, despite the movie he worked on sucked ass and looked that way too. After enduring two strikes in solidarity for the writers and actors who could give two shits for people below the line, I’ll say I’m rather disillusioned with the film industry at the moment.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

There are nearly 10k people on the voting committee. There’s no requirement of those members to have seen all movies let alone use some kind of common scale. It’s nowhere near a rigorous or academic process, it’s a popularity contest with a veneer of quality

1

u/GoldFerret6796 Dec 30 '24

Skill ain't got nothing to do with it

1

u/mrk1224 Dec 30 '24

That and they wouldn’t be bribed with gifts because the best choice would become very obvious

1

u/CrossSoul Dec 31 '24

What skill?

3

u/alienfreaks04 Dec 30 '24

Does it make a movie “bad” in its release year if it doesn’t hold up?

6

u/Eptalin Dec 30 '24

It doesn't take anything away from the popular movies of the year. Like, ticket sales, and the reception of Bohemian Rhapsody wouldn't change.

So it's not that a movie becomes bad for not holding up.

But when deciding the awards, the hype would have less influence. Currently, movies that come out in November, which is right before the cutoff date, win the most.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '24

I really loved bohemian rhapsody but it’s just one of those movies I really only need to see once.

3

u/latortillablanca Dec 30 '24

And have Cher’s old ass come out and play “If I Could Turn Back Time” live every time the category comes on

2

u/Radbrad90s Dec 30 '24

good films that stand the test of time

2

u/EverythingsEfficient Dec 31 '24

Makes it like a Hall of Fame rather than a movie-of-the-moment.

1

u/theonecalledfingaz Dec 30 '24

Shawshank Redemption.

I couldn't see those words in sequence and not type it.

1

u/Power0fTheTribe Dec 30 '24

I have been thinking about this today actually. There are just so many movies out there. And so many acclaimed… but it’s arguably very easy to lose the diamonds in everything

0

u/Greasy_Boglim Jan 02 '25

Thank you Mr.Obvious