comment #1

creepingmalaise says ...

In your first, rather gushing, post you never mentioned you did not see the last 30 minutes. Am I missing something?

comment #2

Nick X says ...

Yeah, that's a big "whoa" moment. You can't praise a film to the high heavens without seeing the last 30 minutes. I mean what if, say, the last 30 minutes are the weakest part?

comment #3

The InSneider says ...

So why didn't you stay for the last half-hour the first time, Jeff? What is this walking in and out of movies, catching the first 12 minutes of one thing to go catch the middle 65 minutes of another? Why can't you, oh I dunno, BE NORMAL?

comment #4

buckzollo says ...

Wells move the oscar balloon to hide this story. I can't believe you tossed out that rave and now you are admitting to doing so prematurely (...oh yea I skipped the last third...) and trying now to un-ring the bell? wtf? cya much. now write about the publicist that blew you for the post and all will be forgiven (provided it was a she)

comment #5

buckzollo says ...

btw who leaves a movie they are love love loving? ....unless there is a rendezvous?

comment #6

Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy says ...

I have to seriously ask - are there any other reviews from you on this site which were assembled after not watching the complete film?

If you say you can tell a film is not worth the effort and trash it after only 10 minutes in, what are we supposed to take away from your raving about a film you only stayed at for 60 minutes? [Especially if you change your tune after eventually seeing the final 30 minutes?]

See how that works?

comment #7

Irving Thalberg says ...

If one is basing a movie review--even if it's a capsule/off-the-cuff thing--having missed 24% of said movie's running time, doesn't that seem like the sort of thing that might warrant mentioning? A footnote maybe? And lest we forget, it was the last 24%.

Like watching a gymnastics routine and not hanging around for the landing. How could that possibly change one's impression? Brilliant.

comment #8

BurmaShave says ...

Wells, it's one thing to rep a film for Best Picture you didn't even see the last 30 minutes of, but why would you admit it. Now your opinion for yesterday is completely shot.

comment #9

loyal says ...

I don't know, I loved the opening credits to Spider-Man 3.

Unfortunately I was unable to stay for the other 136 minutes of the film but I stand by my rave.

comment #10

BurmaShave says ...

I mean is this why you kept having the duck back into THE HURT LOCKER? How many times before you saw all of it? See the questions this raises?

comment #11

boltbucket says ...

Wells: Please don't succumb to the Internet frenzy of being FIRST! You write a fucking rave of a movie one day, then the next you come back and admit "Oh, by the way, you know that rave I wrote yesterday? I didn't actually see the whole movie. And now that I did... well, never mind!"

Someone as experienced as you has to understand what this does to your credibility. WTF, dude?

comment #12

plastiqueelephant says ...

Love it.

Jeff totally tanks it with his premature rave and then owns up the next day. It's the combination of perceptive and erratic, egotistical and humble which makes HE particularly entertaining these days.

comment #13

kneelbeforezod says ...

I agree, this site is great entertainment for the neutral these days!

comment #14

bmcintire says ...

By ducking out of THE JONESES after the first 12 minutes, it sounds like you missed the boat on what that one was even about. Movieline's review was no rave, but it certainly did not describe the story I had thought was being offered.

And seriously, who hasn't sat through more than a few movies that started out strong and went completely off the rails in the third act before?
You should have known better, Jeff.

comment #15

Jeffrey Wells says ...

In my experience, a film that aces the first 70% almost never stumbles during the last 30%. I was close to astonished. That said, it's still a very strong film. All of the people who dissed me for jumping the gun last night are themselves jumping the gun.

comment #16

The InSneider says ...

How you can even defend that move is BEYOND me. In the words of the immortal David Spade, just take the hit. You owned up to it already. Your readers are glad you did. Don't backpedal now and get mad at us. "I was close to astonished." Yeah... so was I... when I read this post this morning. I honestly think it'd be one thing if you caught the last 70% and were let's say, 15-20 minutes late to the screening. Then, if what you saw was great, you MIGHT be safe to assume that the part you missed was equally great. But the last half-hour? Um, I could name literally hundreds of movies that stumbled at the end after a great first 75 minutes. Need we look further than No Country for Old Men? You made an amateur move and in your rush to be first, prematured all over the place. Now Mother and Child is tarred in my mind as that movie that Wells thought was great but really wasn't... But I will give you credit for manning up and admitting it in the first place. You know I love you Gruver, even if you don't like me, but I HAVE to call you out on this one. No backpeddling from either one of us.

comment #17

boltbucket says ...

"Need we look further than No Country for Old Men?"

InSneider, you just exposed yourself as a raging moron.

And Wells, no excuses. I'm mostly agog that a movie guy such as yourself would walk out of a film he was liking so much just to go to a fucking IFC party. And then you write a review that says "Trust me" in it! A critic's credibility is a precious, delicate thing and must be protected at all costs.

comment #18

YND says ...

Personally, I thought the last half-hour of NO COUNTRY was its strongest stretch. And the final monologue would've clinched TLJ as my Best Actor in any year that didn't feature Daniel Plainview.

And apparently this whole "reviewing the whole movie without acknowledging that you haven't seen the whole movie" thing is pretty commonplace among a certain section of the critical community. I have noticed, however, that the practice seems to fall strongly onto one side of the line that divides "film critics" from "entertainment journalists".

comment #19

bill weber says ...

The most incontrovertible evidence yet that Jeff's scribblings are not reviews.

comment #20

The InSneider says ...

Right Boltbucket, because I was the only person who was let down by the last 10 minutes of NCFOM. Get a grip... In 20 years time, movies like There Will Be Blood and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly will be remembered as the real best that 2007 had to offer, not NCFOM. Very good movie but that ending... I don't care what Oscar said. The wrong film won.

comment #21

Floyd Thursby says ...

"who leaves a movie they are love love loving? ....unless there is a rendezvous?"

JW to self: I'm watching a women's movie, and I'm digging it. Maybe I'm not the cranky bastard I thought I was. Maybe my newly discovered mellow sensitivity will make me more attractive to the ladies. I gotta find out. I'm outta here.

comment #22

Glenn Kenny says ...

I see I was being a little melodramatic above. I've got no right to go all Joseph Welch on you here. But still. Dude.

comment #23

Jonah says ...

" In 20 years time, movies like There Will Be Blood and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly will be remembered as the real best that 2007 had to offer, not NCFOM. Very good movie but that ending... I don't care what Oscar said. The wrong film won."

An easy prediction to make. In 20 years nobody will remember you or your prediction.

The best film won.

comment #24

boltbucket says ...

"An easy prediction to make. In 20 years nobody will remember you or your prediction.

The best film won."

Exactly. TWBB was a great movie, but imagine someone other than Daniel Day-Lewis in that role and suddenly it's a whole different animal.

No Country was a great movie, period. And it's the last half-hour that elevates it to all-time status. People who diss the ending of that film ANNOY ME TO NO FUCKING END.