Movies That Are Way Better Than You Remember

Your memory can play tricks on you, especially when it comes to movies. You probably watched a lot of movies back in the day and remembered them being good, only to rewatch them years later and think, "Really? That was terrible!" Frankly, there's a huge chunk of Oscar Best Picture winners and "all-time classics" that fall into this category. Turns out it works in reverse, too. There are so many movies you saw years ago that you probably think are terrible, but after a rewatch, you realize they're much better than you remember. 

And you're not alone. Years and even decades later, many critics are changing their tune on so-called "bad" movies. We once believed they were terrible. Now we know better. The movies on this list certainly qualify. Sure, many of these films aren't "good" in the traditional sense, but they all have qualities that merit a rewatch and maybe even a reappraisal. Some fall in the category of "so bad it's good," some were simply victims of bad timing, while others had their hearts in the right place but made a few too many mistakes along the way. We can still appreciate them and frankly, we'd rather rewatch any of these than many insomnia-curing "prestige pictures" from ages past. This list includes Razzie Award winners, Michael Bay's bombastic best, and creative misfires from otherwise brilliant filmmakers. Which so-called "bad" films deserve a rewatch? Here are some movies that are way better than you remember!

Baywatch was inexplicably "the most watched TV show in the world," with a weekly audience of 1.1 billion people in 148 countries. Some have even suggested that Baywatch helped change the world, as its all-American vision of bronzed bros and blonde bombshells saving the day without messing up their hair was imported around the globe. Despite being a pretty terrible TV show, there's no denying that Baywatch was super popular and influential. With cultural cachet like that, it was only natural that Hollywood would want to make a movie based on the prized TV property, especially during this IP-hungry era. So muscle-bound movie stars Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson and Zac Efron donned the board shorts and brought the slo-mo run to a whole new generation. 

Unfortunately, the whole new generation wasn't interested. Baywatch earned a disastrous 17 percent Tomatometer score, and not even the Rock's 180 million Instagram followers could save it at the box office. Baywatch earned $58 million domestically and $177 million worldwide, a mediocre total saved only by its modest $69 million price tag. So does it belong on this list about underappreciated movies? Well, while Baywatch isn't "good" per se, it's still a cheeky send-up of its genre, featuring super charismatic stars. The BBC even suggested it's "brilliant." That's a stretch, but it definitely deserved its 2017 Razzie for "So Rotten You Loved It." Naturally, the Rock accepted the prize gracefully.

Making a movie about Pearl Harbor — one of the most monumental events in human history — demands a filmmaker with grace, maturity, and skill. So naturally, the job went to Michael Bay. Bay's Armageddon came in second in 1998 to Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan (one of the greatest war movies ever), so Bay figured he'd mix the two and throw in a touch of Titanic too. But Pearl Harbor wages war against World War II, recreating this pivotal historical event not in the hyperrealistic, documentary style of Spielberg but the hyperkinetic, video game style of, well, Michael Bay. You don't feel like you're in Pearl Harbor so much as in the middle of a video game about Pearl Harbor. 

In other words, it's a lot, and while critics tried to sink it with a 24 percent Tomatometer score, audiences saluted it with a $198 million domestic, $449 million worldwide take, Bay's best behind the Transformers series and Armageddon. Nevertheless, its critical reputation never really recovered, but while Pearl Harbor isn't great, it deserves a rewatch (if you have three hours to kill). There have been great war films and bad war films, but there have been few that care so little about asking the cliche "big questions" and care so much about blowing stuff up real good. Pearl Harbor is like watching a man-child get to play with $140 million worth fireworks on the 4th of July. It's a nonsensical series of colorful explosions and paper-thin patriotism, but man, is it entertaining!

Seven Samurai. The Seventh Seal. The Bicycle Thief. Armageddon. Michael Bay's 1998 Golden Raspberry-nominated blockbuster about a group of ribald roughnecks saving the human race from asteroid annihilation is easily the most controversial film in the Criterion Collection. Critics vaporized it with a 38 percent Tomatometer score and even Michael Bay has apologized for it. However, the Criterion Collection has stood its ground, even if the ground is shaky, and we believe the folks at Criterion are absolutely right. Armageddon is much better than you remember. 

Seriously, Armageddon's entry into the hallowed halls of the Criterion Collection kinda' makes sense. It's not one of the greatest films ever, not even in the same solar system, but it is the purest example of one of our most original filmmaker's singular creative vision — a vision which, like it or not, has had a major, meteor-like impact on popular culture. Put another way, Armageddon is the most "Michael Bay-ish" of Michael Bay's movies. If you're looking for the childlike wonder of Steven Spielberg, the romantic imagination of James Cameron, or the epic majesty of Peter Jackson, look elsewhere. This is Bay doing what Bay does best and entertaining us for two-and-a-half hours. Just call it Michael Bay Presents: Bruce Willis vs. Evil Space Rock or Die Hard on an Asteroid. You'll see it's so much better than you remember.

Waterworld is pretty much synonymous with "box office bomb." It took the ignominious title from Gates of Heaven and Ishtar (Waterworld was even dubbed "Kevin's Gate" and "Fishtar" before it was released) despite not being nearly as bad or as big a bomb as history remembers. The bad buzz from Waterworld's trouble-plagued shoot, combined with poor critical reviews, killed whatever chances it had of scoring big with audiences. Waterworld underwhelmed with $88 million domestic and $264 million worldwide, not bad for an original sci-fi, but thanks to its absurd $175 million price tag, the movie needed to be rescued from drowning with home video and cable sales. 

A high-concept, apocalyptic, sci-fi fantasy like Waterworld needed all of the pieces in place to work, and unfortunately for the film, none of them did. The result is an ambitious, creative misfire with a critical and financial reputation much worse than it deserves. Years after its release, critics and fans are rediscovering the film, and finally acknowledging it wasn't really a box office bomb and not a bad movie either. Thanks to the nerve-racking recession of the polar ice caps, it might even be scarily prescient as well. Waterworld is much better than you remember, and it should be taken off the top of the list of "Worst Kevin Costner Bombs" so more attention can be paid to the truly atrocious mega-bomb The Postman.

There are franchises like the MCU and Star Wars that must maintain a brand tone, lest they enrage fans. Then there's Rocky, a franchise whose tone fluctuated based on whatever Sylvester Stallone felt at the time. Rocky Balboa started as an over-the-hill, "coulda' been a contender" boxer going the distance, who became the champion, who then became an Olympic-caliber celebrity athlete pushing 40 who needed to get his "eye of the tiger" back to beat Mr. T. By 1985, there was only one thing left for Rocky to do — win the Cold War. 

In Rocky IV, the Italian Stallion was no longer a meat-pounding, underdog pugilist but a star-spangled superhero sent to take down the Soviet Union's Frankenstein monster, Ivan Drago. Rocky IV's almost not even a Rocky movie, especially without Bill Conti's iconic "Gonna Fly Now." In fact, it belongs in the same category as The Karate Kid and The Breakfast Club as one of the "Most '80s Movies Ever." Play "take a drink" during every inspirational montage, and you'll be wasted 40 minutes in. Sure, Critics KO'd it with savage reviews, while the Razzies nominated it for "Worst Picture." But who cares? Audiences loved it, with a $127 million domestic and $300 million worldwide take, and it basically feels like an over the top superhero movie, with two musclebound titans clobbering one another over and over again. Rocky IV isn't a movie, it's a time capsule, and a darn awesome one at that!

Mars Attacks is a movie not meant for this world because it deserved better. Warner Brothers gave Tim Burton an $80 million budget and an all-star cast (Jack Nicholson, Glenn Close, Pierce Brosnan, Danny DeVito, Annette Bening, Sarah Jessica Parker, we could go on ...) to make a spoof of the 1950s sci-fi schlock cinema Burton adored as a child. Critics were underwhelmed, and audiences were even less impressed, as Mars Attacks crash-landed with $37 million domestic and $101 million worldwide, making it probably Burton's biggest bomb. 

What happened? The Christmas season release date was a failed attempt at counter-programming, plus it also had the misfortune of opening six months after 1996's biggest hit, Independence Day. Just one year later, another alien-invasion comedy, Men In Black, became the biggest hit of the summer, though it had the advantage of ID4 star Will Smith. However, while ID4 and MIB took the extraterrestrial subject matter somewhat seriously, Mars Attacks made fun of it. So really, Mars Attacks just got buried between two much bigger, more popular alien movies. But to a certain viewer (those of us with a twisted sense of humor), Mars Attacks is actually kind of brilliant, with its madcap humor and mischievous (and slightly upsetting) sense of fun. Wherever you think Mars Attacks ranks in sci-fi canon, it certainly deserves kudos for being the only alien invasion film clever enough to not kill the aliens with nukes, bombs, or bacteria but Slim Whitman records.

Who watches the Watchmen? Not many people apparently. After Zack Snyder spent a modest $60 million sum on 300 and paid Warner Brothers back with a $454 million worldwide gross, the studio confidently cut him a $130 million check to film their most challenging property: Watchmen. Ever since it changed the face of comics in 1986, many filmmakers had yearned to bring Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' masterpiece to the big screen, only to declare the dense tome "unfilmable." Watchmen's journey through three decades of development hell is like walking through a graveyard of great directors: Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky, and Paul Greengrass. Given that critically acclaimed crew, it's surprising the one guy who finally figured Watchmen out was Zack Snyder. And despite what the history books say, he actually did a pretty good job. 

Watchmen earned respectable Rotten Tomatoes scores from critics and fans, but it bombed at the box office, earning $107 million domestically and $186 million worldwide, a steep 60 percent drop from the less prestigious property 300, while costing twice as much. Nobody likes a loser, and Watchmen's bad box office has earned it unfair criticism, with some fans even saying it hewed too closely to the beloved source material. While Watchmen is nowhere near as good as the groundbreaking graphic novel (how could it be?), it's still a pretty solid adaptation, with some great superhero costumes, impressive fight scenes, and pitch-perfect performances from the likes of Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Billy Crudup. In the wake of HBO's critically acclaimed Watchmen TV sequel, Snyder's film (as well as his Director's Cut and Ultimate Cut) has received a much-deserved reappraisal.