Couldn't disagree more. Surely this is the exact same thing you attacked mainstream critics for doing to Flags? Ignoring glaring faults?

The film has no structure, Robbins character doesn't work and the whole thing is shoddy craftmanship (random titles are film school filming at its worst).

Once this nukes at the box office it'll be finished, and that's about all it deserves (which is unfortunate, because the story could've made a great film).

Actually I think you're wrong. The film has a rather clear structure to me. Robbins' characte works very well (I suggest a second viewing...it's about manipulation) and the tech work has always been fine in my view (since my first review).

I also think you're incredibly off base about the awards hopes. You're not seeing the same lavish of praise from the industry I and others are seeing, nor do you witness the amount of money Focus is cranking into the campaign. That's just my assumption, however, given your comments...

Valid point about the campaign. However I think you proved yourself that being in Hollywood is not necessarily any sort of advantage. This film is going to do very badly at the box office, and it can't count on much critical support either.

As for the structure, I'll have to disagree. True I've only seen it once, but I doubt my concerns would be alleviated. If anything the environment I saw it in (and Chamusso's presence) would have helped the film. Instead it's slipped totally from my mind. The final two scenes are particularly ill-conceived, and the last monologue terribly contrived and trite. If you actually need to flat-out state the moral of the story then something has gone wrong.

I shared all of your concerns after one viewing. That's all I'm saying.

How did your first and second viewing differ from each other as for location and situation?

I explained that it the piece above. Small screening room first time, big SAG screening second time. But my reaction is my own, not necessarily the result of environment.

No, not necessarily. But it does have an impact, certainly. I know having Chamusso there is a very...powerful thing. It's also different as you sound like you had a more enjoyable time there and that evening. Perhaps you were just in a more forgiving mood?

No, the environment had nothing to do with my perception of the film the second time. And I didn't know Chamusso was there until after the screening, FYI.

Is there a particular reason you can't understand that minds change and I liked the film the second time better than the first time?

Also, couldn't one just as easily say that I was in a more UNforgiving mood the first time?

Anyway, whatever you're chasing with this line of questioning, it's not there. I liked the film the second time based on its own merits and my view of things after another look. I'd wholeheartedly suggest (especially with your wrong assessment of Robbins's character...a viewpoint I once shared, mind you) that you take it in once more and see how it sits with you before assuming such a vast amount. Maybe your mind will change. Maybe it won't.