Can you base a film review without watching the whole film?

[CitizenSnips]

I remember reading an article on AVClub.com about some Anne Hathaway thriller, can't remember what it was called. But it was explaining how the whole film was basically a set up for the twist - which was itself not too bad, but didn't make up for the awfulness of the film before it.

It makes me wonder though, there might be a film that's kinda boring but whose ending is such a revelation that it rewards a second viewing and sheds new light on everything you see. Theoretically possible, but I don't think such a film exists atm.

[morris]

Originally Posted by CitizenSnips

I remember reading an article on AVClub.com about some Anne Hathaway thriller, can't remember what it was called. But it was explaining how the whole film was basically a set up for the twist - which was itself not too bad, but didn't make up for the awfulness of the film before it.

Ironic choice. I tried to watch that film and switched it off about 20 mins in because it was crap. I can't remember what it was called either.
I get sent a lot of crubbish from Loveshite, because there aren't enough good films to fill out a rental list.

[fortunesfool]

I'd be wary of casting judgement on a film if I hadn't seen it all the way through. Although, a few have made me just switch them off and walk away. Cabin Fever springs to mind, and Cowboys and Aliens.

Originally Posted by CitizenSnips

It makes me wonder though, there might be a film that's kinda boring but whose ending is such a revelation that it rewards a second viewing and sheds new light on everything you see. Theoretically possible, but I don't think such a film exists atm.

Blair Witch. The ending of that made me want to go back and watch it again, despite finding it pretty dull for the most part.

[morris]

Originally Posted by fortunesfool

I'd be wary of casting judgement on a film if I hadn't seen it all the way through.

Reiterating what I said earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by morris

You can't judge an entire movie without seeing the entire movie, sure.
But I can judge, within a relatively short time, whether I consider a movie to be worth my time in watching it, in its entirety.

If a few have made you switch them off and walk away, that's the judgement you made that they're not worth your time. So you can do it.

Blair Witch. The ending of that made me want to go back and watch it again, despite finding it pretty dull for the most part.

I find that remarkable. If a film bored you for the majority of its running time, as Blair Witch did, the ending makes it worthwhile?? Really? Blair Witch is one of the worst films ever made and the influence it's had on the horror genre is deplorable.

[Jeffbiscuits]

True. The fact that Blair Witch chucks in a decent scary idea in the very last shot does not make what came before any more enjoyable. It's still crap.

[morris]

Not to mention that I was asleep in my chair by the time it came, from boredom. My gf at the time forced herself awake to watch the end and concluded it was a load of rot.

[Jeffbiscuits]

I'm not going to talk about Blair Witch any more. Think we wasted enough time over it a couple of years ago. It's just a bad film.

[fortunesfool]

I didn't say it was any better, just that it made me want to watch it again.

[IsotopeBill]

Finally. My philosophy degree will come into some use.

I'm incredibly hesitant to say that you can pass a judgement on a film after not watching the whole film. I mean, you could and you might even be right (insofar as aesthetic judgements can be "right"), but without having seen the whole film, your comment won't have any meaning, it doesn't pass the criteria of you having actually experienced the film in its entirety i.e. Saying "X-film is bad" has no meaning if you don't even know X, and you can't know X without experiencing all of X.

Comparing different artforms can be tricky because they're so different so the following analogy will understandably be questionable at first sight but think of it as an aid: You can't review a painting by looking at a third of the painting, you can't judge a song just by hearing its intro, you can't judge a book just by reading a chapter (or by its cover if you like!). This doesn't mean you can't comment or judge about what you thought about what you saw/heard/read, it just means that any comments you make about the "work-of-art" as a whole will be completely meaningless because there's no way it can apply to the work-of-art as a whole, it'll only apply to the short section you saw/heard/read.

A previous poster I believe hit the nail on the head when he said that you can judge whether the film is worth your time. Anything else isn't an actual aesthetic judgement about the film.