Should Reviewers Watch Movies Multiple Times Before Reviewing

[MadVillainy]

Im not against critics. I don't want it to be a "screw the critics what do they know blah blah blah" thread.

Anyway I was just thinking: have you ever watched a movie...or even eaten a food, listened to a song and you disliked it the first time but then revisit again later and you like it?
The first movies that come to mind for me are Hitch and The Watch. Hated them the first time, but the 2nd time I loved Hitch and it's my favorite romantic comedy and The Watch isn't awful to me like it was the first viewing.

Or even the opposite have you really liked a movie the first time, only to like it less in subsequent viewings. That happened to me with First Class, Days of Future Past, and Avengers

And even in addition to that, there are some movies that are hard to decipher in one viewing.

To my knowledge most critics only watch a movie one time before giving a review (unless maybe they see it first at a festival and even then they might just repost their festival review)

Do you think that's fair/right?

TL;DR: Should critics(or even casual viewers) watch a movie a couple times before giving a review?

I think everyone should at least give a movie 2 tries. But then again sometimes it's glaringly obvious that you aren't gonna like it on one viewing. I mean it wont take me 2 viewing to know I wont like Grown Ups...

 

[choskins]

I understand your point, but I think they should only watch once prior to writing their review. To me, the purpose of a review is to help me decide if I want to pay to watch a movie. I'd like to know their thoughts before I put down my money to buy that one ticket. As such, I want their impression after their one viewing.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

No. They don't have time for that.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I agree with choskins that reviews should continue to be based on "first viewing" due to that is the theater experience a viewer will have.

However, I think awards voters should have to watch a movie multiple times before voting for it. That way, if a movie is so damn boring that they can't even sit through it twice, they will be less likely to say it's the best movie of the year. That is probably the only way more "fun" movies will ever be recognized in major awards shows.

 

[Pink Ranger]

There's a difference between a reviewer and a film scholar. A reviewer who needs to watch a movie twice or more is basically telling the audience that they need to see this film twice before they like it.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

There's a difference between a reviewer and a film scholar. A reviewer who needs to watch a movie twice or more is basically telling the audience that they need to see this film twice before they like it.

That too.

 

[Octoberist]

I personally think that, during film festivals like Sundance, where critics are watching movie after movie after movie for days and writing reviews galore, that it's much harder to gauge each movie respectfully, you know? Because now, they have to rush too, to post the reviews, and I feel nothing is getting absorbed. Especially when critics have admitted of being super tired and fatigue when watching certain movies, depending on the day and hour.