How Long Does it Take You to Decide if a Film is BAD?

I was thinking about this last night whilst watching Luc Besson's "Lockout" starring Guy Pearce. I'm not sure what it was in particular but I decided very quickly that this film was going to majorly SUCK. Probably within 5 minutes. The fact the Guy Pearce (an actor who chooses him films quite wisely imo) was starring gave me a glimpse of hope, and I knew the film had quite poor reviews but I thought I would give it a shot.

Perhaps it was because I quickly realised that the film had been made on quite a small budget, given the crappy action and effects, also the big "tell" of actors that I have never seen before playing big parts, a little bit like a Kung Fu movie where you have crappy actors playing the English/American guys.

Then at the opposite end of the scale I recently watched "Red Lights" starring De Niro, Sigourney Weaver and Cillian Murphy which I was quite enjoying until the end, and because the ending sucked in such a MAJOR TERRIBAD way the whole movie was let down.

Also sometimes if I see a movie trailer and it has "American Voiceover Guy", yeah you know the one I mean, I simply KNOW that the film will suck.

So how long does it take you to decide that a film is bad?

Probably some will say, "when I see who is directing", like Micheal Bay for example.

I can't say. Sometimes I know the movie is bad after 10 minutes, but some films tend to get better after some time, so I always try to watch the whole film before judging it.

Intresting thread idea! For most cases I can tell the drift the film about 2/3 in. So I voted for 1/2. But no matter how bad it is I usually finish it. Of I can't get half way through its awful, I only rate movies I get about 1/2 way through and usually try to finish it. Like The Garbage Pal Kids Movie I tried watching yesterday, I got 20 mins and had to shut it down. But there a movies that have substantially changed my opinions at the concluding scene.

__________________

I did consider giving "Lockdown" a pre 5 minute shutdown, but I paid £5 for that **** so I might aswell finish it.

lol the above is a completely unintentional short poem.

Sure a director can be a giveaway, just as equally as a writer (or given recent trends the number of writers), but I can think of a few situations that establish some sort of polar thread.

First, the film Dolls, by Kitano. Within the entirety of the first viewing I experienced the gamut of opinions; it's super slow, artsy, poignant, etc etc, and depending on the scene that either hurt it or helped it. I've never seen another film that made me feel both "this is bad" and "this is amazing" within ten minutes of each other. So, with films that are more experiences, I cannot tell until I reflect on it. Certified Copy is another perfect example, except with that one I didn't find it boring, I just found it underwhelming...until I thought about it for a few days, which led me upwards to the "this is amazing" level. On the opposite side of this spectrum would be the film Inland Empire, though not "this is bad" but more "this is ridiculous."

Second, the film Inception. When I saw it, which happened to be (luckily) before it was declared by everyone and their momma to be some intelligence goldmine, I thought it was a somewhat well-done popcorn, slightly above average crime flick. But I unfortunately saw it a second time and found it to be pretty much useless, not nearly as enjoyable as the first time, but, most importantly to me, squandering.

So, I guess to answer your question, sometimes a bit of thought will lead you to the answer, sometimes a second viewing will, and it's less about "how long."

Unless, thirdly, it's a film like Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters, Passion of the Christ, or most american war movies, where I can tell without seeing it that it will be, to put it nicely, rather poor, hilariously heavy-handed, and to be loved by the masses. So, in this circumstance, the answer is zero seconds.

Thirty minutes max for the definitive answer. You can tell by 10-15 minutes in, though.

If a movie is going to be bad, I can usually tell almost instantaneously from the mediocre cinematography or the way that it's shot, however, for several cases, if it's a movie with a strong director and good quality acting, it takes me at least until the ending of the movie to decide, and might even take a little bit of letting it sulk in before I made my concluding opinion.

Only after I watch the whole movie I can say if it is really bad or not. Unless it is terribly bad and you can notice it in a matter of minutes.

i say till the end because i can like a movie that had a bad start but ended great. but i cant say i can like a movie that had an amazing start but ending in the worst way

I'll give it 15 minutes, if the feel and mood hasn't grabbed me by then, chances are it won't from that point on. I'm not a fan of "wait for it...."

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

Usually the title/cast/plot. So, long before it's actually been made, usually.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

This is often true.

But if I've managed to be lured in to actually watching a movie, I usually know pretty quickly whether or not I'm going to like it.

__________________

If I start watching a movie that somebody was watching before me, it usually takes me approximately 10 minutes to decide, sometimes even less. It happens sometimes that I start watching a movie that another member of the family was already watching, and after a few minutes I decide to get up and say "that looks like a rubbish movie" while walking away from the room. Some films are so bad that it's very easy to notice.

Same about the opposite, I went downstairs to the living room where my brother was watching Shooter one day and I was like "Hey, what are you watching"? The film got me curious immediately. It was the beginning of the movie and after watching it for only five minutes I sat down and decided to watch it. I thought "Wow, this looks good, I'm going to have to see it." And I did, and I'm glad I did because I really liked it. It was a similar situation to what Di Caprio's character says in Django. It got me curious first, then it got my attention.

But if I decide to watch a movie myself, I'll make sure to watch at least half of it before I decide to turn the TV off. This has happened to me only once when I watched half of Natural Born Killers. I found it so bizarre and I really disliked it from what I saw, so I decided not to finish it. I thought "If I disliked half of the movie, then watching the other half won't be worth it." I had a similar experience with Looper the other day, I didn't really like the first 20-30 minutes of the movie but I could see that the film had quality so I decided to watch it until the end. And it got better, so I'm glad I did.

I voted 10 minutes.

I go by the trailer and the first few minutes of play.

But I tend to wait till the very end to make a full on judgement...

__________________

Voted for watching the whole film. I have in the past given up on films partway through however there have been films i've persisted with and been glad i did.

I voted Halfway through, generally then, I can find out if its a film that will be bad or not. Usually I'll generally finish it regardless, but that's when I usually will deem it bad or not.

If it hasn't caught my interest by the 30 minute mark then I generally will just turn it off, save it to try to watch another day.

__________________
You are no Vader. You are just a child in a mask.

I think it's either within the first 10 minutes or in the very end.Some movies have a very good introduction but fail later and some are bad right from the start.

usually about within 5 minutes. The way the camera moves, to how the scene is lit, it all screams bad movie. I try to stick it out if I can, but usually I know its' going to be a poor film pretty quickly and lose most interest.

__________________
Director
Heroic Images

I can usually tell within 10 minutes.

The instant give aways are camera movement, an array of dodgy teenagers, and a far fetched storyline without a decent cast.

I pick my movies to watch based on the back packaging screenshots, the front picture, and the description. A long description typically means they're trying to hit on something you might like (which means they have nothing), the shorter the description, the more confident the makers are about the movie.

A great example not to go off the cast (in my opinion) is "Knowing (2009)" with Nicolas Cage. What they showed in the trailers were great (trailers are very misleading), cast was decent, and a prediction story was fantastic. I didn't know till 2/3 in to the movie that it was based on aliens wanting their particular children for reproduction...

Read the cover, look at the pictures, and judge overall effort put in to the production (this is far greater than just the cost of making the film).

I don't agree that you can tell just by the actor, director, and cast. I've seen some great movies with people I hadn't heard of, and I'm the only person I know to not like "Avatar". Movies need to be given a chance.