The MoFo Top 100 of the Nineties Countdown

That sounds high for you.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

@Guap:
Point taken. I sometimes underestimate the difference in tastes of people. I should stop doing that.
I myself am not a person who can stop watching a film just like that (except if it's REALLY bad or if I'm really tired). I'm always too curious to see how it ends.

I still think a rating should be about the whole film and not only 2/3.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Well, if you had cut out the first two thirds of Reservoir Dogs and joined it with the whole My Neighbor Totoro, then it would be one of my favorite films, I would just have to fast forward until the Totoro part every time I watch it.

However, most films do not show great variation in quality, especially films made by great directors such as Tarantino. As Miyazaki said, a well made film is such that each of it's parts reflect the whole, so if you don't like most of a film you will not probably like the whole. Miyazaki gave as example that he watched half of Tarkovsky's Stalker on TV one day and loved it without even watching the other half.

Well, from a rigorous point of view you are right. But anyway, you can always watch a film with various degrees of attention and a rigorous person would try to watch a film several times if he/she doesn't fully understand it the first time. For instance, a reviewer of a science fiction reviews website said the he watched Ghost in the Shell 4 times before reviewing it.

It's not that I enjoy the last 1/3 of something, it's that the last 1/3 may help me grasp everything else, which would require reflection and a rewatch. Some films are dense, it happens. I don't care if I'm in the minority, story of my life.

That doesn't even make sense.

In any case if you did that, then the ratio of parts you didn't enjoy to parts you did enjoy would signifcantly smaller than 2/3.

__________________

Man Of Steel was like that... first half was a bit crap, second half was a proper comic book film.

__________________

What can I say? I was feeling generous that day.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

City on Fire.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Both halves were crap.

Well, I didn't actually dislike the first 2/3, but I didn't like it enough to finish the film even though I was really tired that day. I rate as 5/10 the first two thirds of it.

Quiet you.

I enjoyed the last hour of MOS.

I get the point of liking half or a third of a film... there's a few like that for myself too. I don't get the big thing as to why, well, it's a big thing to only like part but not all of a film.

Having to like the whole thing, or none of it at all, is a bit completest if you ask me.

That's true. For instance, PMMM the film version, actually makes sense only in the exact last 80 minutes of it's 240 minutes duration. Most of the plot and the reasoning for everything that is shown earlier in the film is given in the last 1/3 of it, the film becomes 10 times better in the last 80 minutes and the dramatic level reaches the stars.

But I would still rate the first 160 minutes of PMMM as , because I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed Pulp Fiction, which is one of the weakest films that I would give a full rating. I cannot recall any films that I though was crap in the beginning and it proved to be a masterpiece in the end.

Well, it's easy to understand why someone would find 2001 boring, even though I found it extremely entertaining.

I don't think it's at all unfair to say "I liked this part of ________, but overall I thought it was poor/mediocre/average."

And I don't think you necessarily need to enjoy ALL of a film to like the film itself, but I need to enjoy at least most of a movie for me to like it overall.

I hate the fact that Young Guns as a whole is as inaccurate as it is... yet it still made 11th in my Top 100... and was in my Top 10 for ages at one point, and was my #1 for years before that too.

Also The Taking Of Pelham One, Two, Three

Yeah, see, it's easy to understand why I found it boring.

I didn't like 2001 either. Found it boring as well.
I traipsed through it and at the end I thought "Yeah, ok, at least I can say I've seen it now"

I hated In Time and found it disgustingly boring, but Surrogates was so much fun, haven't seen either since I watched them in the cinema though

__________________

And was on your television playing for 24 hours today, yesterday, the day before yesterday, etc.

2001 is a film that is interesting mostly to people who like geeky science fiction concepts and people who like art films. It is a thin film in terms of conventional plot elements that attract the attention of most film goers, such as character development and action scenes, so it should be boring to most people today.

It was fun for most people 45 years ago because special effects like those were mind blowing at the time.