To like it. Do you need those first moments in what could be a 2.5 hour movie, do you need 1-5 minutes in beginning and it gets you?

Lately, I need first few or I’m either out or I’ll take my time and watch over period of days. I have to write a list of ones I’ve started, liked, not hooked in first few, but do want to finish.

It’s been happening. Not as much as I’d like, but In the Heights, Another Round, more and now CODA. First few and I knew. More later on that one.

But, do you need that hook in first few or can give longer?

Short answer: no

Long answer: no

No.

Generally no, but there are times when I’m not feeling a movie after a short period. Normally I’ll power through, but there are times where I might just shut something off or change the channel.

No. Some movies are slower burns. I know a number of people who watch movies like OldBoy in smaller chunks of time, and I can't help but think that can really hurt the movie's ability to be effective.

While a movie doesn't have to hook me early, movies can turn me off early. Some things I start to watch and they're actively annoying me (like a really obnoxious character or annoying film technique) and I'll stop watching and never return.

Unless the studio logo hooks me, I’m out!

I ain't no fish to be hooked.

No.

Recently, I wanted to shut off Megan Fox's Till Death a few times during the first 30 minutes but wound up enjoying it.

Nope.

Sort of.

I recently find that I have difficulty watching a movie that doesn't grab me at the start. I'm not sure if it's me that has changed, or if slow-burn first acts are just the current fad in film-making.

It took me a few tries to finally get through films like Tenet and Blade Runner 2049, which were both slow-burners. I did end up enjoying both, but it seems like they both took over a half an hour to really get to the meat of the story. Also experienced this with The Arrival and Annihilation.

I think a lot of it has to do with, if a movie -- especially a science fiction or genre movie -- meanders around too much, then I'm not sure I trust the filmmakers, no matter who they are, to deliver a good movie by the time the credits roll.

i feel the same way, i'm like un-diagnosed ADHD and so hard to stick to one if another isn't giving you the other isn't grabbing you. it's been like that for awhile now. it's like i only watch good movies. except Nomadland and WW1984. hated those from the start to the bitter finish and i only went to the finish bc in case of WW, i have a soft spot for first and had high hopes for this and loyal and Nomadland loyal to the craft, but this was shitty in a bucket. except Tenet and BR2049 were great and i loved those. especially Tenet.

Not to me, once I start a movie I always finish it and then at the end if I don't like it I know not to watch it again. But it's been along time since I've seen a movie I didn't like. I go into them liking something about them already so that helps

I usually give a movie about 20 minutes. If I can't see where it's going or I clearly don't like where it's going and see no upside to continuing, I bail on it if I'm watching at home. If I'm in a theater I stick with it but under protest. Sometimes I'll try to fall asleep.

Just yesterday, I found a movie so tiresome that I bailed on it after 20 minutes despite the fact that it was co-written by Lenny Bruce! It was THE ROCKET MAN (1954) on Fox Movie Channel and I'd had to rush through a soup-and-salad lunch to get in front of the TV at the appointed time and I had gas pains thereafter. The movie was about a bratty kid who is given a ray gun by a real spaceman and it has strange effects on the horrible grown-ups he points it at. I found the grown-up characters so obnoxious and annoying that I went back to my Japanese superhero shows on DVD that I'd been watching before lunch. Much better use of my time.

Later, at night, I wanted to watch something simple and black-and-white on TCM On Demand and chose STRANDED (1935) with Kay Francis and George Brent. It was only 73 min., so I could squeeze it in before bedtime. The two stars took great pains to remind me why I don't like them--they never mastered the art of playing believable human beings--so I bailed after 17 minutes and went back to reading "Rum Punch" by Elmore Leonard, following my screening two days ago of its film adaptation, JACKIE BROWN.

Kinda, yeah. It doesn’t have to fully engage the plot within the first few minutes but if nothing interesting at all is happening early on then I’m probably not going to like it.

Most of the time, no. However, that can depend on my state of mind. If I don't have the attention span at the time or have a few drinks and a meal, I'll wait until another time to watch anything that requires undivided attention.

It's pretty rare that I give up on a movie. If I start one, I'll finish it out.

As Dr. DVD, sometimes it is a state of mind. For example, it took me several tries before I could get past the first 10 minutes of The Big Lebowski but when I finally gave it another chance in the right state of mind, I thought it was hilarious. But part of that also is how much enthusiasm I have for watching the movie to begin with and/or how interested I am in the basic plot of the movie. If what I know about the film's plot (or, to a lesser extent, how much I like the actors who are in it already) already has me interested or intrigued, it would have to be pretty bad for me to shut it off.

If the film is a comedy, I am probably a more harsh judge. If the early jokes don't tickle my funny bone, I am more likely to shut it off also. To give one example, nothing in the first ten minutes of Meet the Parents made me so much as crack a smile so I shut it off and never finished it later. Even though it received largely positive reviews, it just didn't work for me. I also probably would have shut off The Heat as well, and only didn't because I was watching it with my wife. In that case, I am glad I didn't shut it off because it just kept getting better and better as it went along.

Of course, this is at home. I can only remember ever walking out of one movie in a theater and it was a long time ago.

I wish I could do that. I used to be able to do that. I’ve started and stopped too many now. I do know which abs do intend to go back. Sometimes I write a sticky note of time I stopped if no bookmarks. But I can stop and that sux!

I usually tough it out unless it’s just unwatchable. I still buy the majority of the movies I watch, so I want to make sure the movie is a piece of shit before I put it in the sell pile.
If I do watch streaming, I’m a little more willing to abandon it, but then it bothers me forever that it remains in my continue watching list.

I require 30 minutes or less to get me hooked.

Prime example of a failure - Ang Lee’s “Hulk” took 40 minutes for Hulk to appear!

Yeah, a movie has to be pretty offensive (or that boring) in the first five minutes to get me to stop watching it after that short amount of time. The only recent-ish movie I can remember doing that is I think the second or third Transformers movie.

It is one problem I see with the advent of streaming/VOD and less in-theater viewing, though. The barrier to people stopping a movie in the middle is higher if the movie is an actual event you went to with friends, as opposed to something you can watch anytime, for "free" with your streaming subscription.

Yeah, my answer to the question is no, but I see where the OP is coming from. In the streaming age we have tons of “free” titles to pick from, it’s easy to bail and watch something else, whereas if we’ve gone to the theater or paid a rental fee, we’re more committed to seeing it through.

Roger Ebert often quoted Chicago movie exhibitor Oscar Brotman's rule that "if nothing happens in the first reel, nothing is going to happen." That's a pretty reliable guideline, so I'll give a movie about 30 minutes to get going - if it doesn't grab me by then, it may get turned off (if I'm in the theater, it has to be pretty awful for me to walk out).

Way back when I was about 13 and we had our first VCR, my parents would sometimes rent movies that they chose and I was welcome to either watch with them or leave and watch sitcoms on the small TV in another room. I passed completely on movies I thought were "boring" and bailed on several (including Iron Eagle) that didn't grab me right away. I soon saw the error of my ways, as revisiting some of those movies I bailed on turned out to be good when all was said and done. Ever since, given the opportunity to watch ANY movie in suitable quality for free, I'll take it. I saw every movie for free during my 10-year theater career for example, and the worst of them I've forgotten about, a handful I involuntarily fell asleep and missed bits of.