Basically, movies that you saw merit in when they were released, thought they were pretty good for you, and would defend them to people who disliked them. However, as time went on, you came to see that these really weren't what you thought and decided to quit putting forth the effort of making an argument in their favor.

Examples:

-Van Helsing- thought it was fun, and owned the SE on DVD. However, as time went on , I saw it really was little more than a CGI mess. The third act really ruins what is a fun movie.

-Matrix Revolutions- I thought it was awesome when I attended the "zero hour" event watching a new release at 9:00 in the morning. Thought it was even better on IMAX. However, IMAX can lead to an over-appraisal of movies IMO. Viewed on its own, this is quite a mess. Only if you watch it as the last third of a saga does it make sense. I still think Reloaded is a good one.

-The Star Wars PT- I'll still say Revenge of the Sith was good, but only when compared to the first two. TPM was a case where I was so happy to have a new SW movie on the screen that I didn't care how crappy it seemed. However, once it hit video, the shortcomings really got amplified. AOTC just had a really strong ending that got me to leave the theater feeling excited and happy. After a point, I began to listen to my friends and realize there really was no way to make an argument in their defense that held water.

Lord of the Rings. Rage on, hobbits, it was good but it wasn't some kind of movie-altering experience the way Star Wars was. Master & Commander should have won best picture in '04, not RotK.

Avatar

I'm with you on this. I enjoyed Avatar when it first ran in the theaters, but after running it for weeks in an IMAX I'm basically cursing Cameron's name at this point.

And within one reply the original intent of the OP is lost and this becomes yet another "overrated" thread.

Are you really surprised?

The Boondock Saints

Oh yeah, that's a good one. I used to love that movie. Watched it again recently and realized it was nowhere near as good as I once thought.

I've actually found myself becoming more defensive of movies over the last few years. There was a time when I distinguished between "good" and "bad" movies, as well as movies I liked and those I didn't. For instance, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby would be a "bad" movie, but one I liked. In a lot of ways, I've become even more critical in my evaluation of a given film--I pay attention to little things that I once overlooked--but what I've found is that in the process I've become more accepting and forgiving.

Face/Off

the Bone Collector. I really enjoyed this the first few times I saw it. I always talked it up and eventually took it to a friends house to watch it.. then flat out didn't enjoy it that time. There have been others like this.. but this is perhaps the best example in this situation.

Gladiator -I saw it 3 times in the theater, cheered when it won Best Picture, and watched the DVD over and over. Now its just silly compared to brainier epics like TROY (Director's Cut) and Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut).

I agree with this one because I saw it once or twice, thought it was incredible and now when I see it I just see how flawed it is. Not that it's bad, it's just not that good.

But I never needed to defend it. Everyone I know loves it. Now when it comes up in conversation, I'm the only one that's knocking it.

That's my thought too. I've never found a reason to defend it since it's a cult classic in its own right.

Maybe you just need to see the director's cut.

Off-topic, but I was underwhelmed when I saw it during its theatrical release. It just felt...artificial, for lack of better word. It just felt like a studio production to me instead of the grand epic it aspired to be. It's been a decade since, though, so maybe I need to revisit it.

^hahaha

BTW I didn't know you could use the word 'brainier' while speaking about the movie 'Troy'. hehe


I would have to say I don't really have any films that I vigorously defended at one point, but now cannot support.

I have been pretty right on in my evaluations from the start.

I was under the impression that the director's cut of Daredevil was actually enjoyed and respected by all seventeen of us who've bothered to see it. It's the theatrical cut no one bothers to defend, except as an opportunity to use the phrase, "You should see the director's cut; it's actually good."

Yeah, the commentary track on it even indicate the producer from Marvel and the director despised the theatrical cut.

Having spent some time elsewhere online in the last half hour, I will say that I've grown very tired of all the Quantum of Solace haters. Their chief complaint seems to be that it wasn't Casino Royale.

I'm with you. I cannot fathom how that movie won best picture.

Quantum of Solace is one I do not defend simply out of not wanting to put forth the effort on people who won't listen. The statement you make is accurate in that they all say it's not enough like Royale. I have to say if you watch Casino Royale and Solace back to back, it makes for one very well done story.

wow...you must've been blinder than Daredevil to even think of defending this thing.