In a galaxy far, far away?

Hehe.

What I mean is that the opinion of Return of the Jedi back then is not comparable to films these days. Jedi wasn't as liked as Empire or A New Hope, so it got worse reviews. But also, if the same people that reviewed Clones and Sith reviewed Jedi, the latter would probably come out on top. Just the sheer fact that Jedi is associated with the original trilogy means that it is viewed better than any film in the newer trilogy. If the same reviewers that reviewed Jedi back in '83 also reviewed Clones and Sith, they would receive scores of 20 or 30.

Well you would be wrong there. Back in the 80s people generally loved Jedi over Empire, much like how Temple of Doom was hated by critics and now has 85%. Over the years, the overall opinion has changed on the film.

Really? I thought that Jedi was considered the worst of the original trilogy. I admit this franchise isn't one I have much knowledge of.

The difference to Temple of Doom is that Doom is still considered the worst of the first three (though it is my favorite), whereas Empire is considered best.

Temple of Doom was the only one I saw when I was younger. Not watched it in YEARS, though. Just downloaded it recently to give it a refresher. My favourite is The Last Crusade. Never loved Raiders.

I think people are just disappointed looking back at how dark and complex Empire was and then you had Jedi which was almost a bit too light with the Ewoks and the decidedly predictable defeat of the Empire using the same plot device as The first (part of why I expect TFA's rep will wane in the years to come).

People hated the darker tone, the ending where basically Han and Luke both lose (a hand literally in his case),the major twist of the father. It took a long time for people call it the best of the series.

That wasn't the point I was making though. I know many people that love the film and for me honestly it's basically splitting hairs between 3 A+ films. Point was Temple of Doom's stock has risen quite a bit over the years, much like Empire, and while TOD hasn't gotten the overall consensus like most consider Empire, it's a pretty highly regarded film now vs. then.

I'm saying sites like RT and imdv often skews opinions of beloved films now vs when released. Bladerunner is a prime example. It's at 90% now, I'm sure back in 82 it would have been sub 30%

I've watched it many times now and analyzed it thoroughly, and I've come to a conclusion.

Pocahontas being Rotten is the worst bullshit on Rotten tomatoes. At the very least, it deserves a rating in the 70's, like Hunchback. It is at least a good film, even if its not the best of Disney. The only reason I can fathom as to why people think it is legitimately bad is the historical inaccuracy. Even Hercules is in the 80's, and I don't know many people who like that more than Pocahontas.

Hmm, never realized it was Rotten. I thought people loved it.

Good point on historical revisionism. You also see it forums like this - people who bad mouthed a movie they may not have have even seen when it was first released, finally see the light a decade later and suddenly become phony evangelists.

Well, yeah, but I never understood the appeal of Gump. The main character does nothing; stuff happens to him, and then the movie ends.

Among many other things, becomes a war hero. Which is the extent to what the main character does in American Sniper, but the appeal for that is fine. Sure.

James Woods's Hades. Pocahontas has the worst villain of the Disney renaissance, maybe of the their entire canon.|

Also, I remember a Kevin Smith movie taking a huge shot at Home Alone and its screenplay. Not that Kevin Smith is in any position to throw stones, but I think it was definitely not a film nerd favorite when it came out.

Im suprised at Pretty Woman's RT score, i thought it was an acclaimed film with critics.

Shan Yu and Clayton are far more forgettable.

Shan Yi doesn't have a lot in the way of characterization, but he's still sort of badass. Clayton is sort of cut from the same cloth as Radcliffe, but he's a little more disconcerting when angry, and points for a fucked up death scene.

A Disney villain (maybe a villain in general) should be at least one of three things, ideally more; Scary, charming, or funny. Radcliffe is bufoonish, kind of off-putting, and doesn't really have any funny lines. You don't get the sense people like him (Gaston) or are afraid of him (Frollo). He feels like the right hand man to a more impressive villain.

Dunno, I think he's funny and I love Mine, Mine, Mine.

You've given me an idea for my next list.

Frollo is the most underrated Disney villain.

How is Turbo fresh on Rotten Tomatoes? I don't see how it's better than something like Home or Hotel Transylvania.

Because it's a fun little movie.

I don't see how it's more fun than those other ones.

Because it's better than them, then.