Reviews Film / Unstoppable

I didn't watch most of this movie, but I heard it was bad.

Gist of the review.

Sorry, what? I didn't "hear it was bad" from anywhere - in fact, both my dad and Rotten Tomatoes say it's good.

My issue was that 13 minutes in, I already knew what was going to happen for the rest of the movie. That's why I decided to stop watching early. Even the other guy who reviewed this said "there are no big surprises to be had," and he liked it well enough.

Sorry, I have a thing against reviewers who don't watch/read/play/whatever the thing they're reviewing to completion. I make an exception for long, serialized works, but only then. I guess I jumped to conclusions there.

I understand what you mean, but I believe my review is still valuable. It can serve as a warning for people who like interesting, non-predictable plots.

Though I'm prone to doing the same sort of thing (reviewing series or games I didn't play/watch all the way to completion), even I'm bothered by how uncommitted this review is. If you had a compelling reason for not watching a 90 minute movie all the way through, and at least explained it properly in detail, then we might have an easier time accepting your opinion on a movie you barely watched.

Then again, "Armageddon with trains"? In what way are those two movies anyway alike? Because the only things I can think of are the vaguest of similarities (blue collar protagonists, time spent in a vehicle, trying to prevent a disaster.)

Yeah I've defended people before who've not watched a series to the end, or not watched all the series or something, I'm not going to do that for you. As maninahat said if there was something so awful about it you couldn't continue, that might have been interesting. But this just seems like your were restless and not in the mood to watch something. I mean I've sat in waiting rooms longer than that.

If you did this in Alien, you wouldn't have actually ever scene the alien. It's fine that you didn't feel interested in watching this film, but I don't think the review is really very helpful to anyone. The experience of watching a film and reading it's plot is very different, many of the great films are pretty predictable, and if we're all honest, this film was never meant to be about having a tight intricate plot. There is a train, it's out of control. They have to stop it. It was meant to be about the thrill of the experience that we need to judge it by. I don't think if I read a plot summary of Indianna Jones I'd be recommending the films to anyone either

I'm not saying I'm able to accurately represent the acting quality or the dialogue writing or anything else in my review. All I was ever trying to say is that the plot is extremely predictable, and if that bothers you like it does me, you might not want to watch it. That is my opinion, and that is all I need for a review.

"Armageddon with trains" was a half-formed metaphor that I should've put more time into or explained better. I've removed it from the review to keep from misleading people.

The "thrill of the experience" alone isn't sufficient for me. I want a plot worth watching.

Goodness, by all means, don't start cutting content from your review. It is scant enough as it is. I recommend you expand on your complaint about it being predictable. Perhaps you could give examples of the deleterious, predictable scenes that helped you form that opinion. Stating your opinions without qualifying them is bad practice in reviewing.