It is true that often some of the best films don't get awards. The reason for this is often that big budgets don't often go alongside big risks. Studios don't like to bet big unless there's a percieved guarantee of success at the box office. They don't take risks on films, directors or actors as much as they used to. This is the reason some films do better on dvd, because on dvd they are available to all, some who were curious when it was at the cinema but didn't go, or simply hadn't heard of it, and then eventually word gets around and suddenly everyone has it on DVD. Two films I know like this – The Shawshank Redemption and Grosse Point Blanke. Both superb films, but have done better on dvd than in the cinema.

The first Matrix film was a sleeper hit, no one expected it to do that well and in comparison to other films it had a smaller budget and so there was less hype and expectation, and the makers had more creative freedom and a smaller egos. It was also a very original idea and innovative in lots of ways. The sequels were massively hyped, had loads of money pumped into them, and huge expectations and pressure on the filmakers. They were both poor in relation to the original.

The Dark Knight, for me, is the best of both worlds. A massively hyped big-budget film following on from another big hit, but it actually delievered on the hype and in fact I think outstripped it in terms of critical and financial success. Indeed, it got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, but a well deserved one. Its a top film and didn't need its hype to make it great. Star Trek was the same to a degree, though not quite as good as The Dark Knight.

So there is truth in what you say, and I think there needs to be more support and recognition of innovators and pioneers, creative people who want to make something fresh and different, and take risks. But ultimately a good film is a good film no matter what the hype around it. I think the secret is not to look at hype, not to read newspaper reviews, but find a good film magazine (or website!) with reviewers whose opinion you trust and go with that, instead of looking at hype. Unfourtunately the way the world is, people are often going to go and see movies – and think they are good – based on hype, and there's little you can do to change it.

Now I like to watch those big fluffy action movies, New Moon, etc. purely out of entertainment purposes but I also thoroughly enjoy those smaller budget movies as well. Unfortunately I am in a city in which very rarely gets any of the movies originally with limited releases.

It's a bummer.

Ummm…really? Pretty sure that I, my sister, all of our female friends, etc. loved Transformers. It wasn't a “boys'” show. It was a fricken cartoon.

work values 2000 open variability cap seasonal…

Even for the “worst films of all time”, I have no doubt that the crew was sincere in their effort to make something fun. I'm sure that they had loads of fun themselves, despite the subsequent critical failure of their creations. I highly doubt that directors and crew members would waste over a year of their lives on something that they couldn't have a decent measure of fun with. So, with that in mind, the lively spirit of making a film is still very much alive, despite what some critics may have to say. Even some of the “worst films of all time” by critical consensus have a decent base of fans that may have seen something meaningful that the critics could not perceive.

Not every film has to be particularly deep or mentally challenging, though. I simply want to have a fun time. The Dark Knight is one of the most financially successful films of all time (not to mention a critical darling), and yet I wasn't particularly impressed by how Nolan tried to make the world of comics, which is escapism at its core, too forced with themes that he deemed intellectual.

I think that the definition of a “bad movie” has become too narrow. It's now anything that the critics trashed, despite the different story that is told by general audiences and less uptight moviegoers on other websites.

Don't let the critics always determine what you watch, since many of their criticisms sound like absolute nonsense. You may be surprised by the ability to form an independent opinion that isn't influenced by anything that Roger Ebert writes.

In my *opinion*, it's perfectly acceptable for films to serve as good entertainment that brings together an audience in the theater for a few hours. Not every movie has to be a profound cinematic experience with forced intellectualism that is positively dripping with Oscar-bait. A close friend of mine does independent film making, and his simple philosophy to entertain an audience first and foremost. Critics and their glorified opinions don't exactly dominate his thoughts, because too many of these “critics” that are counted on RottenTomatoes may have their own biases. One particular example: Armond White. Yuck.

Too many people seem to be afraid of dismissal from the “big boy” critics when they don't fake a smile and claim that The Godfather is one of their favorite films of all time. I greatly admire individuals that are able to list off movies that weren't exactly critical darlings, since they carried a specific meaning to *them*. Heck, I thought that the first Underworld movie was pretty great, but I don't mind if the majority of critics hiss whenever it is mentioned in their circles.

In my opinion, reviews from certain critics are simply glorified opinions that blur the line between objective critiquing and biased stuffiness. I thoroughly enjoyed New Moon and its gorgeous visual style, despite not being an avid fan of the books. Many reviews that I have read for New Moon were full of contempt for the fanbase, misunderstandings about the series, etc. Some of my favorite films since childhood weren't critical darlings, and I'm okay with that. This same viewpoint applies for films like New Moon.

Not every film has to be “intellectual” Oscar-bait that is adored by the masses. Some of my favorite films of all time have divided the “critics”. New Moon was a resounding success at the box office because of the fanbase. From what I have seen, the fanbase consensus is that New Moon was faithful to the book and a great film in its own right.

That's the issue for some critics: it was faithful to the book. Too many reviews for the movie seemed to be complaining about the book and its fanbase with horrendous generalizations.