That's a good topic actually, films that got considered greats after their original run, like Shawshank. Any others?

It's a Wonderful Life was only appreciated years after release.

Was The Thing a late bloomer?

Tremors. Performed well under expectation at the cinema.

2001 got quite mixed reviews on release and only later became universally well thought of.

I think it did. I also found it ‘boring’ in the cinema. Only appreciated it later on home viewing.

EWS is a good shout, I saw it on release (as a 16yo) and thought it fine but was disappointed. Rewatching over the years with more mature eyes it's up there in the top 5 or so Kubrick's for me.

Blade Runner was deservedly a flop tbf

Dark Soldier wrote:

Blade Runner was deservedly a flop tbf

…but…I loved you…how could you be this person?

Opinion is right lads, sorry. Its an average film.

Waterworld (1995) - Kevin Costner plays a decidedly non-woke mariner in this expensive water-based action spin on Mad Max.

Oodles of money are on-screen, to the film’s real-life downfall. The sets are spectacular and the water-based combat impressive but particularly when it comes to the early water village and later massive ship, you can’t help but wonder if the film could have been executed more economically but just as entertainingly.

The lore is quite elaborate but not always well-explained (perhaps in the vain hope of being further expanded in a sequel?) and even the shortest theatrical cut is flabby and lacking in meaningful plot content. My understanding is alternate cuts handle the lore differently and diddle with the plot. I thought the villain was a bit weird, never portrayed as genuinely threatening and actually humiliated early in the film. Again, was he intended to be merely the starter villain for an eventual franchise? We’ll never know.

Overall, it’s fun but wonky. It’s not any worse than a bunch of other commercially viable stuff and if they’d kept a tighter grip on the purse strings this could easily have been a franchise still running today. ★★★☆☆

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) - Confusingly titled but more sure-footed sequel to Rise of the Planet of the Apes. In the ten years since the previous film, the genetically modified virus that granted the apes their improved intelligence has now almost annihilated humanity except for the tiny percentage with natural immunity. First contact between the San Franciscan survivors and the nascent intelligent ape colony goes poorly when a rogue human shoots an ape child. While some in both factions wish for peace, others want war and soon sparks begin to fly.

This is much more what you’d want from a Planet of the Apes prequel and is much better than the previous film on both the action and cerebral front. The HDR is much better on this one while the surround is again good. The film is not anything particularly revelatory but it’s another solid instalment in the usually reliable Apes franchise. ★★★★☆

I thought the second Apes movie was quite good when I saw it back in the day. Felt like it had more going on in it than the average blockbuster. Haven't seen it since though.

I seem to remember liking the first of this run, the Franco one. (I'm sure that was pitched as the same universe as the Burton one, something long binned off).

The others haven't really gripped me.

They do big CG blockbuster well and "makes you think" drama well. I just never find myself wanting both at the same time in the same movie.

I thought the modern day Planet of the Apes trilogy was really good with each successive film better than the last one - rare that in a trilogy.

Mixed feelings about Kingdom of the Apes, the trailer makes it look good, but do we really need a new one? (possibly leading to a new trilogy where a CGI Charlton Heston returns to Earth to deliver that line). Apparently the new film(s) could bring us back to that point in the timeline....

They are all fine but I think the first one was the best for me. Had a nice emotional heart. Serkis was excellent throughout.