3) Those whose weaknesses become overpowering.
4) Oops, my bad. This film is great.
The fourth category --"oops my bad!"-- is rare. It sometimes involves masterpieces in disguise like, say, Showgirls which I originally thought of as unintentionally funny/bad and which I now accept fully as intentionally satiric and deliriously purposefully awful. But most films in this category are things I saw when I was not old enough to fully "get" them --films like Vertigo, Breaking the Waves,Blue Velvet. You have to be ready.
The third category, nosediving affection, is as common as the second (unfortunately). Crash and King Kong = Yep. third category. I liked but didn't come close to loving the former on first viewing. I loved the latter but had issues with the length and some setpieces. On second viewings of both I just wanted to throw things at the screen. Hurt them. Watching them again I was channelling Sandra Bullock (sorta) in the former "I'm angry all the time and I
Crash is, as I always knew, just too 'surface'. It's so facile that it's easy to understand the contempt some feel for it. I still feel like it works as a whole in spite of itself. But here's the thing: Films about the evils of prejudice that play into the audience prejudices in a big way are off-putting. Philadelphia(1993) with its intense focus/audience surrogate use of Denzel Washington's homophobia was the same way. Blech! Plus Crash simply borrows too much from other films, like the far superior Magnolia, from which it doesn't borrow so much as outright rob. Replace "Wise Up" with "In the Deep" and frogs with snow and you'll see why.
King Kong is an even sadder example. I want to love this picture. I have been a fan of Peter Jackson for 11 years. I think Heavenly Creatures is one of the five best films of the 1990s. I think The Lord of the Rings will live on forever like, say, The Wizard of Oz. But I think Kong is a mess. I hate feeling this but I do. I just don't care when I'm watching it about anything other than Kong and Ann Darrow. Which would be fine if the film didn't stir so many other ingredients into its pot. Jackson feels the need to pad everything. It's almost as if the narrative needs and success of adapting Tolkien's multi-volume fantasy epic have robbed Jackson and team of the ability to discern and prune. Kong isn't large enough to support such grandiosity. Tolkien's epic outright required it to function.
King Kong is an adventure tale and in its current incarnation its so bloated that it just won't rampage like it should. There are breathtaking moments and there is magical chemistry in the Kong/Darrow relationship. But there is SO much else clogging the viewing experience. I want to run at the movie with scissors --removing entire sequences, pruning all action sequences by 1/2, combining characters, etc... until it's as scary/wondrous as I know it should be. I see the greatness in it but I have to squint and constantly shove obstructions from my view in order to do so. As a movie it's like that novel in Wonder Boys, 1000s of pages long because the author just couldn't stop writing and lost his ability to edit. I fear for what this means for Peter Jackson's next movies...