They're an odd bunch, movie reviewers. Those who do it for a living. I sometimes wonder if we've watched the same movie when I read their reviews. More often than not, we are not on the same page. I wonder too sometimes if they have an axe to grind. They find fault with so many things that I would never consider important in a million years. I guess they're trained that way. Or perhaps they've seen so many subpar movies that they have a hard time identifying a good one.
Cases in point. I recently watched the 2017 remake of Papillon with Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek, and the 2025 film The Alto Knights with Robert De Niro. I liked them both and gave them good ratings on IMDB. Other viewers seem to have liked them as well, since Papillon has a 7.2 rating and The Alto Knights comes in at 5.9. But the critics? They were not impressed with either film. Brian Tallerico of RogerEbert.com wrote about Papillon: “You know something has gone wrong when you want the hero to escape simply so that the movie can be over (quoting Roger Ebert's comments about the original directly). At least that aspect of the original (from 1973) and the remake remains intact." He gave the film 2/4 stars. His is just one of several negative reviews. The Alto Knights doesn't fare much better. Robert Daniels of RogerEbert.com gave the film 2/4 stars and wrote: "But as a gangster film, “The Alto Knights” does little more than putter along, taking in very few new or interesting sights along the way."
I don't agree with either reviewer. Both films are based on true stories, although I would add, probably loosely-based, at least with Papillon. Papillon is the story of a Frenchman framed for a murder he didn't commit and sent to a horrible prison in French Guiana from which he (and a few fellow prisoners) tries to escape twice, both unsuccessfully, and then finally to Devil's Island from which he does manage to escape. He forms a tight bond with a fellow prisoner, and that aspect lends the film some kindness in the midst of the brutality all around them. They help each other all the way. I found the story touching despite the misery and seediness of prison life. I rooted for both to escape. I didn't find the film too long, and I thought the acting was very good. The film told a good story, was entertaining, and well-acted, hence my liking it and giving it a good rating (4/5 stars).
Ditto for The Alto Knights. Robert De Niro did a very good job playing two roles--mafia bosses Frank Costello and Vito Genovese (Costello overtook the boss role from Genovese, who escaped to Italy to avoid prison for years before returning to the States wanting to resume his former boss role). Debra Messing did a very good job as Costello's wife Bobbie. The reviewers focused mostly on the dual role aspect; they weren't fans of it. It was sometimes a bit confusing to tell the two men apart, but I got used to their different looks so that ultimately it didn't bother me. The movie had enough action to keep me interested, and the story was engaging. The rivalry between two men of very different temperaments, friends from childhood, was well-presented. I don't think that the movie 'puttered along'. I'm not sure what the reviewers were hoping for--more blood and guts? More insane behavior a la The Sopranos? More sex? It's hard to know nowadays.
It's a good thing that movie writers and directors don't make films for reviewers and don't let themselves be stopped or stifled by negative reviews. It's a good thing that they continue in the face of daunting odds. What a dull world it would be without movies.
