The following is a blog (of sorts) where I discuss movie-related and site-related thoughts that I can't express within the confines of a normal review.  Some of them may be responses to e-mail I've received, trailers I've seen, or just an overall theme not specific to a movie.  Most of these writings are meant strictly for me, but I do consider them of potential interest to those of you that love movies or are just interested in the running of the site in general.  I welcome any feedback you might have on any of the subjects listed in this (or any other) section of my site.

2/5/2007  -- Whose opinion can you trust if you can't trust your own?

I've decided to re-review some movies that I initially reviewed about 5 to 10 years ago, not because I am uncomfortable with the reviews in terms of the rating, but because they need to be fleshed out more.  I've been doing this for some time now, but one thing that has been occurring with increasing fashion is that some movies I will either like or dislike more when I see them a second time several years later.  That's not typically uncommon for me, or for many viewers out there -- some movies don't become favorites until you see them enough times, while others you may love when you're young disappoint when you watch them as you get older. 

Generally speaking, I trust my own opinion when it comes to films.  If my rating of 3 stars or above is a "thumbs up" and lesser is thumbs down, there have only been two films that I've changed my opinion on with a second viewing in terms of whether or not I recommend them.  Brian De Palma's Snake Eyes went from 3 stars to 2.5, which is typical for De Palma films for me.  I always seem to enjoy his style-over-substance filmmaking technique when I haven't seen it in a while, only to watch it again not long after and see how flawed his plots really are.  I suspect that if I were to re-evaluate Mission to Mars, the 3-star rating that I currently have will have a hard time standing up.

The other film I've changed my recommendation to is more recent: Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, which went from 2.5 to 3.  This is an instance where I think that I hadn't been in tune with the nature of the film when it was initially released, but as I've watched the sequels and then revisited it, I now know what to expect and have learned to appreciate it for the kind of movie it is intended to be.  Besides, how can I award 3 stars to sequels of a film I give 2.5 stars to when I acknowledge that much of the humor in the sequels regurgitates those from the first entry?

 

2007 Vince Leo