10 Really Scathing Reviews Of Movie Masterpeices

What do critics know anyway? When it comes to the general consensus on what makes a masterpiece, the experts don’t always agree: you might consider these ten cinematic classics to be universally loved, but there was always one critic ready with a harsh word…

'Psycho’ (1960) - "Hitchcock bears down too heavily in this one.”

The consensus: The master of the macabre at the top of his game. A movie so scary it came with a warning, featuring scenes of violence so vivid even the censors were powerless to cut them. ‘Psycho’ is peak Hitchcock: unpredictable (Janet Leigh’s early exit was unheard of back then), progressive (it’s the first movie to ever feature a toilet flushing) and shocking right the way through to its killer climax… Right?

The critic: “The experienced Hitchcock fan might reasonably expect the unreasonable… What is offered instead is merely gruesome.” It’s fair to say that Time Magazine were not a fan of Hitch’s opus. “The nightmare that follows is expertly gothic but the nausea never disappears,” continues the reviewer. “Hitchcock bears down too heavily in this one, and the delicate illusion of reality necessary for a creak-and-shriek movie becomes, instead, a spectacle of stomach-churning horror.” Wait, is that supposed to be a bad thing?

'Star Wars’ (1977) - “A set of giant baubles manipulated by an infant mind.”

The consensus: The first episode of the 'Star Wars’ saga is generally considered tone one of the most important and influential films ever made. It ushered in an era of sci-fi fantasy and inspired the creation of an entire universe, but even at a basic level it was fun and thrilling and enjoyable throughout. Even back in '77, anyone could see that 'Star Wars’ was going to be a game-changer… Right?

The critic: John Simon of New York Magazine was not a fan. He called the 1977 phenomenon “a set of giant baubles manipulated by an infant mind” and claimed it was “as exciting as last year’s weather reports”. Simon thought the old tropes that George Lucas had polished and repackaged were tired, but admitted that lesser minds might still enjoy it: “'Star Wars’ will do very nicely for those lucky enough to be children or unlucky enough never to have grown up.” God knows what he made of the Ewoks.

'The Godfather: Part II’ (1974) - "A Frankenstein’s monster stitched together from leftover parts.“

The consensus: Just one of the best movies ever made, that’s all. Francis Ford Coppola’s sequel/prequel to his adaptation of Mario Puzo’s mafia novel was dark, structurally daring, and home to some of the all-time great performances from some of the all-time great actors: Pacino and De Niro had never and would never be better. It’s as close to perfection as you could reasonably expect a movie to be… Right?

The critic: "The only remarkable thing about Francis Ford Coppola’s 'The Godfather: Part II’ is the insistent manner in which it recalls how much better his original film was,” said Vincent Canby of The New York Times. Part II, he said, was “not a sequel in any engaging way” and labelled it “a Frankenstein’s monster stitched together from leftover parts”. Canby just didn’t get on board with the themes of escalation and revenge: “Even if 'Part II’ were a lot more cohesive, revealing and exciting than it is, it probably would have run the risk of appearing to be the self-parody it now seems.” Best steer clear of 'Part III’, Vince.

'Raging Bull’ (1980) - “…one of the most repugnant and unlikeable screen protagonists in some time.”

The consensus: A beautiful movie about ugly brutality, 'Raging Bull’ is arguably Martin Scorsese’s finest hour. A knockout combination of fearsome performances (De Niro and Pesci) and jaw-dropping cinematography (the opening credits, featuring De Niro bouncing in slow-motion to the Sugar Plum Fairy), 'Raging Bull’ is one of the most powerful pieces of filmmaking ever… Right?

The critic: Wrong, so said Joseph McBride of Variety. “The La Motta character played by Robert De Niro is one of the most repugnant and unlikeable screen protagonists in some time,” wrote the critic. “De Niro’s antisocial violence is channeled into the socially accepted role of the prizefighter, but in the end he has ruined his body and alienated everyone who ever cared about him, including the audience.” Swing and a miss.

'The Master’ (2012) - “When I reach for it, my hand closes on air.“

The consensus: A masterpiece by a master filmmaker. Complex and challenging, 'The Master’ represented director Paul Thomas Anderson at his very best. Joaquín Phoenix put in a career-best turn as the tragic lump of clay moulded by manipulative cult leader Philip Seymour Hoffman in his last great performance. 'The Master’ is a stunning film that lays bare the human condition in all its flawed glory… Right?

The critic: Chicago Sun-Times columnist Roger Ebert was a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, but said of 'The Master’: "when I reach for it, my hand closes on air”. Ebert admitted the movie had fine performances from Phoenix and Hoffman but thought it didn’t delve as deeply as it could into its subject matter: “All around the film’s edges are possibilities that Anderson doesn’t explore… It is often spellbinding. But what does it intend to communicate?” He gave it two and a half stars, which is half a star less than he gave 'Taken 2’ and 'Tomb Raider 2’.

'Home Alone’ (1990) - “[It should’ve] limited itself to the things that might possibly happen to a forgotten 8-year-old.“

The consensus: The closest thing our generation has to a Christmas classic. With one of John Hughes’ sparkiest scripts and all the manic energy of a Tom and Jerry cartoon – not to mention the then undiscovered talents of one Macaulay Culkin – 'Home Alone’ nailed the Christmas movie formula with just the right mix of chaos, charm and chuckles. Only a grinch could disagree… Right?

The critic: Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes has 'Home Alone’ listed with a 55% 'Rotten’ rating. What the actual hell? Not only are there people out there who don’t regularly enjoy the antics of Kevin and co every Christmas, but the majority of critics consider it to be a less than average film? Ebert piped up again to put the boot in: "If 'Home Alone’ had limited itself to the things that might possibly happen to a forgotten 8-year-old, I think I would have liked it more.” Yes Roger. More realism would have made this a better film.

'Fight Club’ (1999) - “[A] witless mishmash of whiny, infantile philosophising and bone-crunching violence.”

The consensus: The movie that drew a harsh line under manhood in the last millennium, 'Fight Club’ was subversive, blackly funny and as brutal as a sock to the jaw. It’s the movie that made Brad Pitt a megastar in the eyes of every man and woman around the world; a movie so achingly cool it even inspired men to thrash out their frustrations with the world in real underground fight clubs. It’s pure raw anarchy distilled on film… Right?

The critic: Kenneth Turan of the LA Times? Not a Fincher fan. “'Fight Club’, a film about men who like to fight, is an unsettling experience, but not the way anyone intended,” he wrote. “What’s most troubling about this witless mishmash of whiny, infantile philosophising and bone-crunching violence is the increasing realisation that it actually thinks it’s saying something of significance. That is a scary notion indeed.” No Kenneth, you’re whiny and infantile.

'The Shining’ (1980) - “The crazier Nicholson gets, the more idiotic he looks.“

The consensus: No ordinary horror film, Stanley Kubrick’s dabble with the Satanic was extraordinary in every way. The director’s measured and meticulous methods sent shivers down the spine, while Nicholson provided the quintessential 'Jack’ performance: manic, unhinged and charismatic to the nth degree. You couldn’t possibly fault 'The Shining’ as a piece of work. You just couldn’t… Right?

The critic: Variety begs to differ. It was short, sharp and to the point in dismissing Kubrick’s lean and mean adaptation of the Stephen King novel. "With everything to work with, director Stanley Kubrick has teamed with jumpy Jack Nicholson to destroy all that was so terrifying about Stephen King’s bestseller,” said the critic. “The crazier Nicholson gets, the more idiotic he looks.” Sorry Variety, we’re going to have to nix your critix pix on this occasion.

'It’s A Wonderful Life’ (1946) - “The weakness of this picture… is the sentimentality of it.”

The consensus: A feel-good movie so down-to-its-bones genuine that it’s capable of saving your life if you’re ever feeling low. Director Frank Capra and star James Stewart weaved wonder out of woe and made magic out of misery by showing us that no matter how hard life becomes, it is always its own reward. Only a human being completely devoid of emotion and feeling could possibly dislike it… Right?

The critic: Trust Bosley Crowther, writing for The New York Times, to bring us all down with a reality check: “The weakness of this picture, from this reviewer’s point of view, is the sentimentality of it – its illusory concept of life,” he wrote. “Mr. Capra’s nice people are charming, his small town is a quite beguiling place and his pattern for solving problems is most optimistic and facile. But somehow they all resemble theatrical attitudes rather than average realities.” JUST LET US HAVE THIS. Even the FBI issued a warning against the film and its apparent Communist message that all bankers are evil. Thankfully, the world saw sense in the '70s and 'It’s A Wonderful Life’ finally won the acclaim it so rightfully deserved.

'2001: A Space Odyssey’ (1968) - “Pretentious, abysmally slow, amateurishly acted…”

The consensus: A spectacle as far ahead of its time as '10,000 BC’ was behind. Another classic slice of Kubrick, monolithic sci-fi epic '2001: A Space Odyssey’ will still be studied in hundreds of years when future dwellers want to learn how real movies were made. Instantly iconic and palm-sweatingly captivating throughout, this is science fiction that unsettles and unnerves, tapping into a primal fear held true to this day. It’s flawless and peerless… Right?

The critic: The Washington Post’s Stephen Hunter was determined to rain on Stanley’s parade: he called '2001: A Space Odyssey’ "a crackpot Looney Tune, pretentious, abysmally slow, amateurishly acted and, above all, wrong”. Unbelievably, given the chance to correct his own wrong opinion in a revision filed in the year 2001, Hunter further piled on the criticism, digging his own grave even further: “Over time, has any film veered more toward kitsch than Stanley Kubrick’s '2001: A Space Odyssey’ of 1968?” Hunter asks. Yes, actually: 'Spice World: The Movie’. So stick that up your cardigan, you bore.