I have occasionally revised, or completely rewritten, my review of a film simply because it took more than one viewing before I could see it clearly enough, and understand it deeply enough, to make a fair assessment.

If I could take back the way I rated Spider-man 3 and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe at ChristianityTodayMovies.com, believe me, I would. (Instead of 3.5/4 stars, they’d each get 2.5-star ratings.)

Peter Suderman wrote passionately about his problems with Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of Men when it first came out. (And I remember taking heavy flack for defending that film upon its release. I love it even more now, after four or five viewings, and would only expand upon the appreciation I expressed in my original review.)

Well, Suderman has just published a thoughtful reconsideration of the movie. (Thanks to Peter Chattaway for the link.)

And I applaud him. Not because he came around to agreeing with me on the film… but because he set an example for other critics and readers that demonstrates how much time and thought and attention it takes to assess a work of art.

I wish more reviewers would keep us posted on how their understanding of a movie changes over time. I wonder if Roger Ebert will still feel so indifferent towards There Will Be Blood after a second viewing (which was for me quite revelatory), or if he would still write off The Coen Brothers’ Raising Arizona because “people don’t talk that way.”

Just yesterday I substantially updated my review of a recent comedy, because I felt very differently about it after three viewings than I did after the first viewing. And as I (very, very slowly) begin moving my review archive to a new format, I’m making all kinds of changes to the reviews..

If you’ve ever completely changed your mind about a movie, tell us about it.

Privacy Preference Center