When critics get it wrong

Everyone's a critic', they say. 'Not true' say film critics, who like to think their film knowledge and writing prowess make their opinion worth more than the rest of us.

But these people are only human and aren't always right (with the exception of Yahoo! Movies, of course!). Whether its down to snobbishness, bias against an actor or director, or from simply being out of touch with the everyday cinema-goer, plenty of critics get it wrong.

Here are our favourite knee-jerk criticisms of classic movies that have no doubt caused embarrassment to the reviewer ever since.

Fight Club
"By the end, it has unravelled catastrophically into a strident,
shallow, pretentious bore with a "twist" ending that doesn't work. It
never has the balls really to take responsibility for the nihilism, rage
and despair it appears to be gesturing towards." [Guardian — Nov 1999]

Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw was out on a bit of a limb here. While the film was heavily criticised on its release, it was mainly for its violence and questionable values, rather than its quality. Since then it's been recognised as a classic, with Total Film naming it their 'Greatest Film of our Lifetime' in 2007.

[See also: Check out our summer movie guide]

Lawrence of Arabia
"Just a huge, thundering camel-opera that tends to run down rather badly
as it rolls on into its third hour" [New York Times - Dec 1962]

David Lean's epic is considered one of the greatest stories ever filmed. Unless The New York Times has a problem with camels, it's hard to see their point. The film went on to win around 12,000 Academy Awards, after all.

The Godfather: Part II
"The only remarkable thing is the insistent manner in which it recalls
how much better the original film was..." [New York Times - Dec 1974]

This is a doozy. No one criticises this film anymore, but it was a bit different back in 1974. 'Not engaging in any way' said the NY Times' film man Vincent Canby, a man unafraid to take on popular opinion. He also slated, amongst others: Rocky, Star Wars, Jaws, The Exorcist, Alien... Just imagine what he made of the 'The Godfather: Part III'!

Apocalypse Now
"While much of the footage is breathtaking, it is emotionally obtuse and
intellectually empty. An especially upsetting letdown, which is not so
much an epic account of a grueling war as an incongruous, extravagant
monument to artistic self-defeat. [Time, Aug 1979]

What was seen by some at the time as a confused, over-long and odd film has gone on to be regarded as the quintessential Vietnam movie, a cast-iron classic and topped Sight & Sound magazine's Critic's Best Movies of the Last 25 Years list in 2002.

The Shining
"With everything to work with, they've destroyed all that was so
terrifying about the Stephen King bestseller it's based on." [Variety,
May 1980]

As with many Stanley Kubrick films, initial critical and public response was poor. And just like the others, people soon realised they were wrong about 'The Shining'. Jack Nicholson's acting was seen as over-the-top at the time, but that's exactly what Kubrick had in mind. Watch it back now and you realise that his virtuoso performance is perfectly pitched.

[Gallery: Where do I know him from?]

Bonnie and Clyde
"Squalid shoot-'em-up-up for the moron trade." [Newsweek, Aug 1967]

Newsweek's Joe Morgenstern provided the most quotable line from the wave of negative early reviews (he changed his mind and wrote a glowing piece in the very next issue, though). However the bewildering critical response was responsible for a good few hirings and firings at publications across the US. The New York Times sacked their eminent critic Bosley Crowther for being 'out of touch' with the public after slating the film (and even campaigning against its 'brutality'). Legendary reviewer Pauline Kael got her gig at The New Yorker after being one of the only writers at the time to appreciate Arther Penn's bullet-ridden classic.

Casablanca
"Pretty tolerable." [The New Yorker, Nov 1942]

Safe to say The New Yorker got it wrong when they labelled the most-loved film ever as 'pretty tolerable'.  They weren't the only ones though to put the boot in - the great philosopher and writer Umberto Eco said it was 'a very mediocre film'. These days it features in more top movies lists than anyone except Citizen Kane.

Psycho
"Merely one of those schlocky horror television shows padded out to two hours." [Esquire, June 1960]

'Psycho' was not without its detractors on its release. Time magazine claimed director Alfred Hitchcock 'bears down on the film too heavily', while C. A. Lejeune was so outraged by the shocking content she immediately quit her job as film critic for The Observer, a post she'd held for over three decades. Perhaps critics of the time were resistant to change. The film's unique style and daring plot — which saw the star killed off half-way through - were progressive and innovative, but seen as gimmicky at the time.

[Gallery: Underrated Hollywood actors]

Taxi Driver
"Too heavy with easy sociologizing to be truly moving. Yawningly predictable." [Time, Feb 1976]

Time magazine were pretty much alone in their critique of Martin Scorsese's urban alienation masterpiece. Movie review website Rotten Tomatoes has its critical approval at 98%, it was nominated for four Oscars and voted best Palme d'Or winner of all time at the Cannes film Festival. Time later revised their opinion as well, going on to name the De Niro picture in its 'All-time 100 Movies' list.

Bringing Up Baby
"Mechanical, forced and full of overly obvious and off-key jokes." [Film Weekly, Aug 1938]

What's not funny about a leopard in a pram? Tch! Some people...

Can you think of any film 'experts' who got it wrong? Let's criticise some critical critics...

- Follow us on Twitter