What's the point of writing about it, though?
Just want to be consistent. I've made a post about almost every other movie I've started so far.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Even what you did write about that first five minutes doesn't tell me anything apart from the fact that you've got such a major personal conviction against organised religion that you're disappointed when an action movie starts with a church not getting shot up
It is an action movie about two guys taking the law into their own hands and I like when an action movie jumps right into it, so yeah, that's about what I would hope for regardless of the setting.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
otherwise you're just halfheartedly describing the opening scene.
Yep.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Even knowing that you didn't finish it doesn't mean that we should have to work to infer exactly why you didn't finish it - you practically had to say why anyway when people challenged you over it. It becomes a question of who you're writing these posts for - yourself or others.
Obviously myself first and others second, I imagine your own reviews aren't purely an act of being charitably informative either.
I also thought what I typed was kinda funny, so if no one gets the joke, then no one gets the joke. Whatever.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
In any case, it is rather obtuse to act like watching a few minutes of a feature-length film counts as "watching it".
I obviously only disagree using the most literal sense of the term. I don't much care for people delegating that I should have watched X amount of a movie for me to be justified in saying X amount of words about it.
There are numerous threads on this very board about the merits and lack thereof of movies that haven't even come out yet and even I agree that opinions should be tethered to the limits of our understanding of the topic.
No, I didn't watch all of Boondock Saints and what few clips of it I've seen on Youtube do little to convince me that it wouldn't sting of the time I had wasted having seen it when I could be watching something else. And even then, I put some degree of stock into explaining why I didn't finish the movie, which I thought was the apparent conclusion given that I've done this several times in the thread already and the people confronting me on this have read my thread before.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
You can technically have an opinion about a film on the basis of the first five minutes, but only watching five minutes does limit your ability to discuss and criticise the film as a whole since you're coming from a place of very literal ignorance.
That's completely true.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Your Boondock Saints write-up tells us nothing about why you dislike the film except that a scene where two guys peacefully attend church bothers you simply because you hate religion on principle (and if that's not the correct interpretation, then maybe your point isn't that well-conveyed).
Apparently not. The main reason I forfeited the movie was because the setup left something to be desired and the most immediate attempt at humor completely fell apart for me.
I understand that the first joke in the new
Ghostbusters is a queef joke. I would be similarly put off.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
This may be your style of writing, but to the rest of us it begs the question as to why we should bother reading what you write.
Fair enough.
Considering that I don't intend to finish every movie I start (as much as I would
like to say I'm comfortable spending that amount of time on suffering past bad first impressions when I have many other more important things I'm hopelessly procrastinating on) and that I like to give reasons for why I didn't finish a particular movie, especially when someone
might actually want to know what I think of it, what do you suggest?
I'm quite aware that this conflicts pretty heavily with your much more professional approach.