<![CDATA[Why was this so critically derided?]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Mission

degree7 — 9 years ago(April 30, 2016 06:54 PM)

Has a 65% on RT, and I think Siskel and Ebert gave it a thumbs down. Yet the audience score on RT is 87%, has a 7.5 on IMDB, as well as winning the PalmD'or and getting a best picture NOM. So what gives, were these critics just following standard protocol of praising a director's previously acclaimed work, and then lambasting their next picture no matter the quality?
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/202895/why-was-this-so-critically-deridedRSS for NodeWed, 13 May 2026 07:40:39 GMTThu, 30 Apr 2026 14:55:24 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Why was this so critically derided? on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:55:26 GMT]]>degree7 — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 04:23 AM)

Well personally I think this film is brilliant, if a little self-consciously "artsy" at times, which no doubt turned a lot of people off. But it has great music, acting, and cinematography. The story I think shows the real meaning of love and sacrifice. It's a damn good film.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1709530https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1709530Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:55:26 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Why was this so critically derided? on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:55:25 GMT]]>BobLoblawLawBlog437 — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 07:58 PM)

Pretty sure 65% isn't bad whatsoever, although it definitely isn't great like
The Killing Fields
' reception. Still, I'd like a solid answer as to whether or not this film is worth watching, since it sounds like it could be magnificent at its full potential and ideally would get a percentage at least in the late 80s.
"Why would anyone do drugs when they could just mow a lawn?"

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1709529https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1709529Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:55:25 GMT