Sometimes you wish you could write two reviews of a single movie.
The first you’d pen just after you leave the theater, while the film is still fresh in mind.
The second comes later, after the movie has thoroughly sunk in. Often, the two are quite a bit different.
Take my review of “Love Happens,” which combined elements of both. Not sure still if that was the best approach.
The film kept my attention, made me appreciate the gravitas of its star, Aaron Eckhart, and ended with the sort of flat romantic resolution I’ve grown to dread of late.
But the more I thought about the film, the less I liked it. Then, I made the mistake of reading other critics who tore it to pieces. And deservedly so.
Kyle Smith’s takedown was particularly brutal. And I couldn’t disagree with a word of it.
I ended up combining my tepid appreciation of the viewing experience with my realization that the film’s flaws run deeper than I first thought.
I hope that’s the best way to guide the public, but I confess I’m not sold in this instance.
Related posts:
on 
on 
on 
on 
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
This is so true. If I sit down and whip out a review minutes after seeing a movie, it will likely be quite different than if I allow myself to absorb the film before writing.
It’s interesting how I can grow to love a movie the longer I sit with it – though it’s often the other way around (for instance, the longer I put off writing my review of The Informant! the less and less I like it).
Interesting. I’m no movie critic, but from a layman’s perspective, that’s how I felt about “The kids are alright.”
While watching it I was interested and mildly entertained throughout. (The movie was alright…) But later, the more I thought about it, the more annoyed I felt about some of the really immoral behavior it presented as normal/understandable.
I rarely have time to go to the movies anymore, and within a couple days of watching it I really wanted my time and money back on that one!