I had pondered two different ideas for a Feature this month; one focusing on reviews I've written that I would change having seen the films in question again, and another looking at films that I've needed a second or third viewing to properly form an opinion on. But I've decided to blend these two themes together into something a bit more general.

It is of course impossible to say when watching a film for the first time whether you'll like or dislike it as much if you see it a second time. Some films take a while to grow on you, and can even be affected by the mood you're in when you watch them. I was far too young when I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I went many years without seeing it again because it just didn't impress me at all. Some years later I revisit the film, and it's now a personal favourite. 2001 is the sort of film which often requires a second viewing; an opinion shared by film-makers themselves. Woody Allen has admitted it took several viewings for him to appreciate and admire the film.

This also poses an interesting question for film reviewers and critics. Should we be made aware of how often critics have seen a particular film they are reviewing? Since most reviews are of new releases the chances are they've only seen it the once, but it's an interesting thought none the less. Is my review of Grand Hotel worth less because I've only seen it once? And what about my review of The Bridge on the River Kwai, which I've seen about eight or nine times?

The uncertainty regarding how you are going to feel upon watching a film again means that no critic can insert hypotheticals into their reviews. You'll never read a rave review for a film with a tacked on assumption that the critic probably won't like it as much the next time. If they do see it again and their opinion changes dramatically, most critics update their reviews. This actually makes sense, because when you read a review you want that person's opinion on a film; not what they used to think about it. However, some critics have been known to avoid ever seeing films twice on purpose. Pauline Kael, for example, was adamant she only needed to see a film once to form a concrete opinion.

So are there any reviews I would change dramatically? Looking back on 2006, there are a few reviews that I would probably tweak now I've seen the films again, though no substantial changes would occur. I wasn't so in love with The Departed the second time I saw it; I think it loses something once you know the outcome to all the twisting and turning, and the problems I had with it in the first place seemed to become a bit more noticeable. Another one I didn't find quite as captivating was Harsh Times; the thinness of the plot became more of a problem, and the acting seemed a bit over the top in places. Some films stayed the same, despite my own assumption that I wouldn't care for them as much. The Weather Man and Borat still work extremely well for me, while I am astonished at how rewatchable I find The Da Vinci Code to be. And then there are some which I think I was rather too cruel to when I originally reviewed them. Poseidon is nonsense, but it's also fun and generally well acted nonsense with some good action sequences. And I found Jarhead to be more memorable than I had originally thought, though it's still all over the place with its issues.

So there you have it. A bit about me, a bit about all of us, and a bit about reviews in general. But there has been a general point to all of this, and that is that I think watching films is an evolutionary process. First impressions die away, tastes change, and people discover new things. And in many ways that just makes the whole medium even more exciting.

© David Mercier
Discuss films and features on the FilmJudge Blog