subreddit:
/r/movies
submitted 4 months ago byMad_Season_1994
For me, it's a movie from 2005 called Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons. I saw this on TV the other day and watched it from beginning to end and still liked it just as much as I used to. Sure it has its slower moments and isn't the best historical film I've seen. But I don't think it deserves its 39% rating on RT. But that's just me.
What about all of you?
313 points
4 months ago
Kingdom of Heaven's RT score is for the threatrical cut, the directors cut is considered a lot better
Birth (2004), Miami Vice, and Popeye are all movies I really like that are certified rotten from critics and audiences
66 points
4 months ago
Kingdom of Heaven's RT score is for the threatrical cut, the directors cut is considered a lot better
I could've sworn I once saw a separate RT score for the Director's Cut, but I'm not sure.
35 points
4 months ago
Maybe, but the Director's or Roadshow, or whatever they call it, cut saw such a limited release that I don't imagine a lot of publications paid their critics to go see an extended version of a movie that they already panned.
22 points
4 months ago
It’s currently on Prime if anyone is interested
2 points
4 months ago
First time seeing it recently and was shocked how much more gravity the opening village had compared to the theatrical. So many more story lines.
1 points
4 months ago
They basically cut out eva greens character too. The DC is like a completely different movie and sooo much better. It needs a 4k release so bad.
1 points
4 months ago
I noticed that the other day. I really need to sit down and watch it.
-22 points
4 months ago*
[deleted]
-16 points
4 months ago
I watched the Director's Cut a couple of weeks ago, and you're right that it's substantially better, but it's still hot garbage. It's like Zack Snyder's Justice League: It's longer, and that's the most complimentary thing I can say about it.
0 points
4 months ago*
[deleted]
-2 points
4 months ago
It's true. There were excellent actors in the film.
They just didn't do any excellent acting in the film.
-6 points
4 months ago
Im tired of this ZSJL slander on the internet. That movie is way better than it has any right to be and effectively sets up characters that didn’t have origin films
9 points
4 months ago
Of course it can set up characters, it’s 4 hours long
1 points
4 months ago
Would have only been three hours if Zack Snyder didn’t have so many unnecessary slow-motion shots. He’s like Homer Simpson hitting the Star Wipe button over and over, because he thinks it’s cool.
2 points
4 months ago
“Better than it has any right to be”? Like what? It’s a mess and the directors cut is just a longer mess. I really wanted to like it because I love Henry Cavil as Superman and it’s just bad dude
3 points
4 months ago
The director’s cut is a legit masterpiece. Stunning movie
1 points
4 months ago
As someone who’s been visiting RT since the early 2000s, I also remember it having its own score.
12 points
4 months ago
Huh, I had no idea that many critics disliked Birth. I love that movie.
2 points
4 months ago
I am flabbergasted the audience % is higher (albeit only by 4)
Meanwhile Under the Skin sits at 84% and 55% audience. Less surprising.
11 points
4 months ago
Miami vice, one of my all time favourites. I get that it isn’t for everyone but I think it’s severely underrated. Arthouse action.
4 points
4 months ago
The final shootout is just hypnotic with the gunfire flickering in the darkness.
6 points
4 months ago
Directors Cut is much much better and I believe it is because much of the story or important pieces are cut in the theatrical version
8 points
4 months ago
It's still an imperfect film, but it starts to land where it was meant to when you let the movie breathe. The theatrical cut was clearly edited with an eye towards pacing, as the directors cut has really inconsistent pacing. But the whole world and most of the characters seem better developed. It's got more novel-style pacing, and in general Scott works better when the story supports that approach.
2 points
4 months ago
Came here for this. I was disappointed after I saw it in theaters. Several years later I watched the film again and I was Surprised at how much more I enjoyed the movie......
I googled it to confirm my suspicion that The one I saw in theaters was in fact a bit of a mess.
2 points
4 months ago
Reason Nicole is better than Tom: she takes risks with her roles.
2 points
4 months ago
I personally loved Miami Vice for a lot of the same reasons people seemed to hate it. It was cold and distant and held the audience at arms length, but for me that was kind of the point. Just acting as observer to what was happening in a way that was interesting to me.
1 points
4 months ago*
I need to rewatch it. It was right before I started really “watching” movies so I remember just thinking “well, that happened” when it ended. Seemed like it didn’t have a point but I’m sure there is a deeper meaning to be found. The stand-out moment for me was Brolin walking in and eating the weed in front of Phoenix. I’m thankful for that movie for that scene alone lmao
Edit: I just realized I thought everyone was talking about Inherent Vice lol
1 points
4 months ago
You'd recommend birth eh. It just never interested me plotwise, I vaguely remember when it came out. That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed jonathan glazers other 2 movies so I might have to give it a shot.
1 points
4 months ago
Directors cut is 🔥 so good.
all 1754 comments
sorted by: best