Just to be clear, "not including the 36" only modifies the sentence in which it appears. The total at the time I wrote this was 501, of which I didn't finish 465. But the percentage is roughly the same, so it doesn't matter much.
Just to be clear, "not including the 36" only modifies the sentence in which it appears. The total at the time I wrote this was 501, of which I didn't finish 465. But the percentage is roughly the same, so it doesn't matter much.
I submit that the two are identical if criteria Y is simply "Am I enjoying it?"
Again, 204 2015 commercial releases. I've seen 300 films total so far this year.
Exactly.
204 is the number of theatrical releases I've seen so far this year, many of which I actually saw last year. (By the same token, many of the films I've seen this year won't be released until next year.) That doesn't take into account older movies, of which I watch a lot (some for review, some not), or films that don't…
I actually do maintain such a list, but I'm not masochistic enough to post a link to it here.
It's a tie between over 300 films. I watch 10 minutes and then either stop or keep going. So every film got at least 10 minutes.
Fair enough. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that others should do this, following the rather arbitrary "rules" I devised for myself. Just thought it'd be interesting to report on my experience watching the beginnings of so many films.
I just don't agree with the article's premise because I don't think a lot of your hard and fast rules for sampling films work.
I enjoy this show's pop-culture references, but having Hilary Swank's family from Million Dollar Baby guest-star is going too far.
I weep for them.
See, Audition is a terrible example. That movie switches gears halfway through, but it's terrific right from the jump.
For one thing, I think certain movies reveal themselves with time and patience, not drive-by viewing.
Haven't seen it.
Not sure why you think I'm bragging about this. Some people are just determined to be pissy, I guess.
Actually you're referring to walk-outs, which is a separate thing (mostly at festivals). I always watch a third of those, usually 30-40 minutes. But yes, anything I don't finish doesn't get reviewed, and anything I'm assigned to review I finish no matter how awful it is.
Already I'm seeing a recurring theme in the comments, so let me clarify something. I'm talking about films that, in previous years, I would simply not have watched at all. I would have seen zero minutes of each of them. Now I see at least 10, and sometimes I discover something I like, or at least that I'm glad to have…
Already I'm seeing a recurring theme in the comments, so let me clarify something. I'm talking about films that, in previous years, I would simply not have watched at all. I would have seen zero minutes of each of them. Now I see at least 10, and sometimes I discover something I like, or at least that I'm glad to have…
Film critics watch a lot of movies, but we can’t watch everything. With approximately seven weeks left in 2015, I’ve seen (as of the day I’m writing this) 204 features that have been commercially released this year. That’s kind of a staggering number, but it’s less than a quarter of the truly staggering 857 features…
I didn't like it. (C+) But I did finish it.