The Revisitations of Doctor Kermode
There are some films, like Heath Ledger's last movie The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (also starring Jude Law, Colin Farrell, Johnny Depp and directed by Python genius Terry Gilliam), that definitely warrant a second viewing to solidify or adjust a critic's first appraisal. Others just go to show that seeing them once was more than enough...
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
For me it had to be Evil Dead.
I watched it for the first time when it was re-released back in the early 90s with BBFC cuts, and I really couldn't get in to it, because the scenes and the music kept jumping all over the place, which was mainly due to the BBFC cuts, which totally ruined the film, and in the end I thought what a load of crap.
Several years later, I gave the film a second chance and bought it on region 1 DVD, and seeing it uncut for the first time, I absolutely loved it. With each viewing depending on your mood, you either wince
at a particular scene (pencil in the ankle), or you laugh.
The Exorcist is another example. The only way I was able to watch the film was on pirate video, so when it was shown on the cinema, it was a whole new experience, and I noticed things I couldn’t really see on a 100th generation pirate copy.
Complain about this comment
Whenever I watch a Kubrick-film for the first time I get bored with it within the first 20 minutes (Best example: 2001) and turn it off.
But when I re-watch it, sometimes years, later - I regret not watching it all the way through the first time.
I loved the Evil Dead the first time I saw it sometime in the 90's, but I always had a problem with Army of Darkness, but I recently watched it again and, even though it's not a great movie, I laughed all the way through.
Complain about this comment
Without a doubt - Brokeback Mountain. When I saw it the first time I absolutely loved it - perfectly constructed, sensitively directed, brilliantly acted. However the second showing unveiled whole new layers and nuances which you just don’t have the chance to appreciate first time around. For me, the underlying tensions grow with every subsequent viewing and I keep discovering more and more intricacies and details which continue to embellish the film with greater depth.
Also - There Will Be Blood. Hated it when I saw it in the cinema, but it seemed to become coherent with the second viewing. It makes you wonder whether some films (for better or for worse) require you to know what happens in them so you can properly appreciate them.
Complain about this comment
My most recent experience of this is Pan's Labyrinth, which I liked, though with reservations, when it was shown at FrightFest: it felt rather too much like two completely different films spliced together at almost random intervals. Some months later, when it turned up at my local, I caught it again and this time I loved it.
The other one that always leaps to my mind is Aliens. When it came out in 1986 I didn't like it at all but seeing it again, on a midnight double bill with Ridley Scott's Alien a couple of years later, I literally staggered away in delight. This time I was thrilled when I really hadn't been thrilled the first time. Maybe it was just to do with the context of having the first one shown immediately before, but Aliens is now one of my all-time favourites.
Meanwhile, Police Academy 7: Mission To Moscow was tripe fifteen years ago, and is anyone about to waste 79 minutes and £4.99 to see if it's somehow improved?
Complain about this comment
It seems to be a Terry Gillam thing - the first time I saw Brazil I found it entertaining but not overwhelming but repeated viewing reveals the genius of the film.
On the good Dr's advice I saw Mamma Mia & despite having a strong dislike of musicals I found it incredibly entertaining. I needed to see it again to see if this was just a gut reaction at Pierce Brosnan's over the top singing blinding me to shortcomings in the rest of the film, but no second time around i found it just as enjoyable.
On the other side of the coin, the first time I saw Scarface I enjoyed it but attempting to view it again recently I found the style of filming doesn't fit with the tone of the film (ie. very precise cinematography & choreographed set-pieces clash with a film about violence, corruption & betrayal).
Finally the Transporter series - watch them as pure action films & they're pretty dire, but revisit them looking as pieces of high camp (as the Dr recommends) & you see them in a whole new light.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that Pan's Labyrinth is mentioned - I've seen once and didn't much like it, so must watch it again. Could say the same about Tideland, hope it does improve.
The film that I really saw in a different light the second time was Funny Games.
Going from German to English helped, but seeing the English version for the second time I saw a whole different film, if for the rather scary reason that I could see where the villains were coming from. Their actions made sense when it was clear all they wanted was to confuse the family (and therefore us). This didn't change how I felt about the film, but it was interesting how two apparently randomly acting characters suddenly had a clear motive.
Lastly, Falling Down and Unforgiven are films I've seen over the years, and have gotten a different experience of each time. Falling Down definitely reflected how I was as a person (very young, Douglas was very cool, bit older, Douglas was a reckless man, bit older again and it very much stopped being a black and white film).
Unforgiven, one way trajectory, I just get more and more out of it each time. Top film that.
Complain about this comment
The first time I watched Bladerunner on TV back in the 80's, I was quite underwhelmed by it all. It seemed slow and dull.
Years later I revisited it when the Directors cut appeared on DVD and I was mesmerized by it all - the density of the plot and characters, the stunning visuals and superb soundtrack all combined to make it one of the best movie experiences I'd seen.
I don't know if I had just been "a bit slow" the first time round or maybe it was because I was a few years older and more mature on the second viewing, but it remains the movie I changed my opinion on the most on repeat viewing.
Complain about this comment
I think I needed to see a lot of the Bergman canon twice for them to really sink in. Perhaps it could be put down to my lack of knowledge at the time but I certainly didn't appreciate Persona on the first viewing. I do normally try and see everything at least twice, even with the worst movies there's usually something that I missed the first time.
However on the flip side there's also been a few films that I've thought were fantastic but have never wanted to see again as long as I live. Dancer in the Dark for one and the first time I saw Inland Empire it scared the crap out of me so much I didn't sleep for a month. That image of Laura Dern's twisted face still creeps into my nightmares sometimes.
Complain about this comment
For me, the latest film I saw that I couldn't judge the first time was Lars Von Trier's Antichrist. Part of it was to do with the influence Lars Von Trier has had on me in the past (and not in a good way).
As you said, I hated Breaking the Waves, The Idiots, Dancer in the Dark and The Boss of it All. However, when it came to seeing it the first time, I felt like snooting at the film. The second time, I started to admire the film a lot more and that my judgement of Lars Von Trier was the only thing keeping me from liking it the first time.
Another film that demanded a second viewing was The Piano, because I fell asleep half way through the first time. The second time, I was awake long enough to laugh at the scene where she gets dragged by the piano
Complain about this comment
I have a similar relationship with Francis Ford Coppola's film version of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I first saw this film at the cinema on its original release back in 1992 and absolutely hated it. I remember loving the visuals but just finding it all terribly boring which, obviously, isn't quite what you would want from a film about Dracula. After about 6 months or so the film eventually came out onto video and I thought I'd go for a second viewing. I hired the film from my local rental shop and found to my amazement that it was even worse. Great visuals but just bum numbingly boring with some terrible acting to boot. A few years passed and eventually Dracula made its way onto TV and I thought I'd try again as I really did love the visuals and found myself strangely keen to like the film if I possibly could. Once again I found myself hating it and gave up on the experience. Inevitably I thought that was the end of my relationship with that particular film. I'd tried everything but it never worked. I figured it was time to give up and go our separate ways. Then something odd happened. A few years later I began to think about certain images from that film and how good they were. I actually loved the fact that the film had the look of an old Hammer horror movie as opposed to the look of other horror movies of the time. This being the case I bought the film on DVD and to my surprise absolutely loved it. The horror, the drama, the romance, even Keanu's crappy english accent. I loved every single second. It had taken me the best part of 10 years but, at last, I had found the love for this movie. After this my relationship with the movie went from strength to strength. Weekly viewing, special occasions, you name it and I had the excuse for watching it. After a while though Dracula slipped to the back of my DVD collection once more as you can't have too much of a good thing. Anyway the other week I decided to revisit Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. It had been a while since my last viewing and it was high time to revisit this modern classic. What a load of rubbish! Terrible acting and soooo boring! Great visuals though....
Complain about this comment
"The Big Lebowski" seems to be a movie that leaves a lot of people cold after a first viewing but which improves for many after a second viewing; I had that experience myself and I've heard lots of other people say the same thing.
Complain about this comment
Anything with a proper twist in the tail should be re-seen (reviewed?) in the light of that twist.
Therefore (Spoiler Alerts!):
Watching Bladerunner with the knowledge that Deckard was probably "switched on" (by Gaff) just before the film started, and that the other cops are watching his behaviour as much as his progressing investigation.
Planet of the Apes (original), Usual Suspects, Prestige would also fall into this (though I admit haven't yet reseen that one - can't face the Bowie!). Even sixth sense where watching how cleverly Shamalamalama constructs some of the conversations Dr Crowe thinks he is participating in.
Then there are the "cult" classics that (lets be honest) aren't all that riveting (in terms of structure, pacing or tension) as you sit though them the first time. But then, when you've warmed to them and you can indulge them, they just make you smile with every line. Almost anything by Christopher Guest for instance.
Finally a special mention from me (a parent) to thank Pixar for mostly making films that I still don't detest... even 100 viewings in.
Complain about this comment
'Heat'. Saw it in the cinema upon release and was bored to tears. Gave it a second go at home and absolutely loved it.
Complain about this comment
When I saw 'Lost in Translation' at the cinema I found it very dull and underwhelming. It took me until the 3rd viewing of this film to fall in love with it and it now would appear on a list of my top ten films of all time.
Complain about this comment
I love Terry Gilliam's film , but this one seems like a bit of a rip-off. Has he never heard of Troy McClure's classic , 'The Contrabulous Fabtraption of Professor Horatio Hufnagel' ?
Complain about this comment
Odd as it may sound, I had to watch Seven a second time to really appreciate it. I also think just about every Lynch film requires repeat viewings, not only because they are works of genius, but especially with INLAND EMPIRE, it takes a few viewings to just take it all in. I remember watching Fire Walk With Me for the first time and hating it, just not getting it at all. Subsequent viewings have convinced me it is one of his greatest achievements.
Some others that needed repeat viewings for me were 2001, Heat, and Coppola's The Conversation, which I still maintain is one of his most underrated films.
Complain about this comment
For me it was "twelve monkeys"..first time i saw it i really liked it but i had to watch it multiple times after to fully understand and appreciate it.
That and "a guide to recognizing your saints".Brilliant movie!
Complain about this comment
I've seen Inland Empire mentioned a few times on here, but not Mulholland Drive, which really threw me when I first saw it when I was about 13, and I really hated it. But there was something about it that made me want to watch it again, something I can't remember feeling in regards to any other film. Each time I watch it now, I come up with a different theory about what's really going on, and the truth is that I've still not convinced myself of one explanation or another after about 5/6 viewings over the past few years. I'm not sure whether it's because of, or in spite of this, that it is one of my favourite films.
Complain about this comment
I agree with QuaterPitandtheMass's point about Kubrick - there's so much going on in a Kubrick film that you simply can't spot everything first time round, and hence it can seem overwhelming. The first time I watched The Shining I thought it was scary but not really interesting. But saw it for a second time recently and really liked it, one of the most open-ended and ambiguous horror films I've ever seen, and one of the scariest (though Mark will disagree).
Personally though, the one film I've completely changed my mind about was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I wasn't hugely devoted to the original and I'm a huge Tim Burton fan, but when I first saw it in the cinema I disliked the creepiness of it, and I really HATED the happy ending. It was so jarring the first time round that it reminded me of AI: two thirds of a really dark, interesting film and then a mawkishly sentimental cop-out ending a la Spielberg. But saw it again recently, and I really like it. The creepiness is much closer to the tone of Dahl's story, the dentist backstory works, the creepiness is in keeping with the character of Wonka as essentially Howard Hughes with chocolate instead of planes, and the ending just about fits.
One other passing mention for Alien 3 - disliked it the first time, but then found out about how David Fincher's 'vision' had been torn apart and recut by the studio. Caught some of the director's cut on TV recently and though it's still problematic it's a very underrated film, much better than Alien: Ressurection and you can see hints throughout of the grimy, nihilistic visuals and atmosphere that made Se7en such a joy.
Complain about this comment
Again, it does seem to be a Gilliam thing, all of his films (the excellent ones and the not quite so excellent ones) are improved with more than one viewing.
Maybe it is any film that crams so many ideas in that it is impossible to wrap you brain around them in one sitting (sci-fi, fantasy and anything a bit odd seem to be common candidates). Or maybe it is a film that doesn't serve up what you were expecting and you need a repeat viewing to enjoy the film on it's own terms.
Non-Gilliam wise, both The Fifth Element and Alien Resurrection were far more enjoyable when watched again some time after first seeing them.
Complain about this comment
Three fairly recent movies that I HAD to watch again were, There Will Be Blood, Inland Empire and Calvaire. The first viewings of these movies just left me completely overwhelmed and unsure of what just happened. Each time I have seen them again they start to reveal more.
Complain about this comment
For me it has to be the Rian Johnson noir thriller film 'Brick', couldn't make my mind up whether i loved it or hated it on the first watch due to its unique high school hard boiled detective story. It certainly took a while to get used to the 30's style slang speech as well but on the second watch, something clicked and i instantly got it, i could appreciate the decent story, the good acting, the well written script and its now in my top 5 films of all time.
Complain about this comment
Basically every movie by Christopher Guest. The first time I saw Best in Show for example I enjoyed it but wasn't really sure if I loved it. Now it gets funnier and funnier each time I watch.
Complain about this comment
Donnie Darko was a film I didn't fully understand the first time I saw it, but after watching it a few times for writing an essay, it became clearer.
Can't think of many more off the top of my head for now, infact I only thought of Donnie Darko because I didn't bother to change my calender to October.
Complain about this comment
There's the flipside to this, of course, in rewatching something you loved first time. I wish I hadn't watched Eternal Sunshine again, not because it suddenly became a bad film, but the experience of watching it at home didn't match up to that first time on the big screen. And have you tried watching the original Matrix again? The first 40 minutes are so slow they practically go into reverse.
Complain about this comment
Most Kubrick films but definitely "Eyes Wide Shut".
Complain about this comment
Funnily enough: The Departed.
I'm a devotee of Martin Scorsese and found Gangs of New York to be very problematic. Ever since then he began this collaboration with Dicaprio who seemed to be trying to replicate what Deniro had done in the 1970s onwards with the director.
This was a turn off and I approached The Departed with caution. First time I saw it I could see certain similarities to the Scorsese back catalogue (even using some of the same tracks in Goodfellas). I found the ending to be almost humorous in the way every main character got blown to hell bang, bang, bang! I felt this to be slightly immature for such an experienced filmmaker.
I put it to one side, then about 2 years later I watched it again on Film4 and fell in love with it! While I still have some issues with the movie I found myself drawn in by the characters as I loved the cast and one cannot fault the acting ability on screen. I found that once I just relaxed into the film it was incredibly funny and while it was full of Scorsese self-references it didn't seem so Oscar demanding in the way The Aviator was - and then it goes on to win Best Picture!
I stopped trying to compare Dicaprio to Deniro and enjoyed his unhinged performance, Damon's shark-like bent copper, Sheen's wholesome goodness, Walberg's in-your-face taunts, Baldwin's melodramatic boss man, Winstone's cuddly psycho and of course Nicholson's lovable Devil which he does all the time nowadays but I don't get bored of it one bit.
Being a film student I had to take off the purist, film fanatic hat and just appreciate what is a very competent cop thriller that is very funny and entertaining (precisely what a film of this kind should be)! It made me realise how much Infernal Affairs lacked in terms of fleshing out characters in the story. Also, the original was slightly too eager in terms of pace. I found The Departed to be wonderfully paced even though it shifts gears a few times it never looses you.
At the end of the day, when you have a film with so many great actors that can make you care about their characters and a script that is pretty tight, the result is great entertainment. I give plenty of credit to Scorsese for pulling off a great film. I look forward to love/hating Shutter Island!
Complain about this comment
I had this experience with Barton Fink, the first time I quite enjoyed it but much of it went straight over my head. With repeated viewings it has become one of my favourite films.
Complain about this comment
There Will Be Blood is the first one that came to mind, and I can see that sentiment echoed here. I actually liked it the first time round, I think, I just wasn't sure exactly what I thought, but the second time cemented it as one of my favourite films. It helped to know where the story was headed I think.
The Conversation is another one, surprised to see someone else mention that. The first time around it just seemed like an incredibly slow and weirdly structured film, but the second time round it made much more sense. What's more, this was years later when I'd totally forgotten what happened in the last third of the film, so I don't think it had anything to do with having more of an idea of where the story was going, as is often the case.
Intacto is an interesting one, didn't grab me the first time round although I liked the concept. Later I watched it again and it was like a different film. I don't know why...
Primer was much better second time round. The film is so dense and so far removed from what I expected that the first time just left me confused. The second time I had at least some idea of what was going on, and in fact I'd read a bit about the timeline of the film, so it was more engaging. You could probably watch that film a hundred times and still not completely follow it though.
Complain about this comment
Without a doubt, a guranteed repeat-viewing of (is it a film?) is Das Boot.
The first time I saw it I was bored beyond belief through about four-fifths of the way of thinking, 'Well what's so special and viscerial about this tedious nonsense?'
And then it came out on DVD a few years later, and I thought I'd buy it for old times' sake: it's now one of my favourite films of all time.
I was completely blown away by how intense a movie it was. Even though they sit around doing little for most of the film, hunched up in an iron set, it's the fact that *something* could happen, as it did several times in the film, that raises the spectre of the film.
It's also a perfect analogy of what war is about: long periods of numbing boredom punctured every now and then by adrenaline-filled moments of sheer excitement and terror, leading to a tragic but satisfactory denouement.
Does the Good Doctor agree with this analogy, or not?
Complain about this comment
I'm not quite sure why, but the first time I saw Pulp Fiction I hated it. The opening scene in the diner, the dialogue about Royale with cheese, and especially the date John travolta goes on with Uma Thurmans character bored me out of my mind. It picked up towards the end, but my final verdict on the film was poor.
Then, after a few years of watching the likes of Guy Ritchie attempt to make crime and gangster endevours interesting, I revisited Mr. Tarantino's work and found that it was not the film i remembered it to be. Like I said I can't explain it, but it was somehow, strangely, magnificant.
Complain about this comment
This is true with Kubrick cause i remember a story Woody Allen told once on TCM about how Manhattan Theatres would always show "2001 A Space Odyssey" even ten years after release. In those ten years Woody Allen was always dragged to a showing by his latest squeeze, but he only ever dreaded having to sit through it the second time cause after that it just kept getting better. "Kubrick was way ahead of us" he said.
More recently id go with "Zodiac", maybe cause i was expected a dark thriller like Fincher's "Seven" and instead got a boring movie with no real ending.
Watched it for the third time a few months ago and cant believe a brillantly detailed , suberbly acted fim it is.
Complain about this comment
Matchstick Men was a film that for me I really loved the second time around knowing the twist and seeing how everything was really cleverly put together.
To be honest, anything that has Nicolas Cage in needs a second viewing. Dr. Kermode mocked him when "Knowing" came out earlier in the year, laughing off the claim that he was one of the versitile actors of all time. Films like Adaptation, Leaving Las Vegas, Wild at Heart, Raising Arizona, heck even Con Air and Face Off all just get better and better after the second viewing.
Complain about this comment
I see its already been mentioned but i'd have to go with 'Brick' as well. I went to see it knowing virtually nothing about it and the film-noirish slang threw me, so I felt I lost some of the story.
But for me the second viewing really cemented my feelings for it and I really think its a terrific, intelligent film.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Alien 3 being one that benefits from a second viewing. I once went to a marathon Alien movie day at an arty cinema in York and saw all four Alien movies back to back, so had a chance then to see Fincher's take on it for a second time (and for the first time on the big screen). It is flawed for sure, but there is something menacing and understated about it that harked back to the original in a way, and was so much better than the bloated, ridiculous - and frankly disturbing (in a bad way) - Alien: Resurrection.
Complain about this comment
You have to see Blade Runner more than once if you want to have an intelligent discussion about that film. It wasn't really until the third viewing that the movie really clicked with me and now it's my all-time favourite movie.
That is the reason the movie was a hit on home video, I think, because it allowed people the chance to watch the movie over and over, pause it, rewind it, fast-forward it, manipulating the movie much like Rick Deckard manipulates the photo on the ESPER device.
On another note, sometimes I watch a movie a second time, to verify if it was as good as I thought the first time. For example when I first saw Magnolia, I absolutely loved it, and subsequent viewings made me love it even more.
However when I first saw The Boondock Saints, I thought it was silly and derivative, but with a certain b-movie charm, on second viewing I didn't think there was anything charming about it at all, it was just stupid, infantile and full of itself. God, I hate that movie.
But let's not dwell on the negative...
I have found with Terry Gilliam's movies, that it always helps to watch them more than once because they are so visually dense that you are simply bound to miss something the first time around.
In my opinion we should watch the movies we love as often as possible, because watching great movies is simply heaven.
Complain about this comment
I had a problem with wild at heart, david lynch has been recommended by the DR on more than one occasion and wild at heart was being shown tv so I recorded it, watched it and hated it was too long and was to wierd.
But over the next coulpe of days the imgaery of the film stayed with me and I began thinking about it more and more in particular the image of Diane Ladd with bright red lipstick smeard over her face.
I decided to go back and face the image and on the scond viewing of the film I became more absorbed by the film I found it alot more interesting and noticed something that I had'nt on the first viewing
I noticed the wizard of oz nodds.
Wild At Heart is now amoung my favourite films and have begun to track down many of david lynch's other works, recently I added eraserhead to my list of favourites.
I advise anyone to go back and rewatch a film that they hated first time round with the exception of the pirates of the carribean trilogy which isnt worth the film its printed on!
Complain about this comment
We can all name 'Must View After Twist' films like The Sixth Sense or Fight Club, but I'm not a particularly sophisticated fiilmgoer. For me, the meaning's either accessible on first viewing, or its operating at the level of an abstract artwork that I know within the first 10 minutes I'll never be able to get a hold on. That's not necessarily saying the meaning's not there - just that I'm not up to joining the dots in the way a PhD-sporting film critic would.
This was confirmed to me after revisiting a short film after many years called Solid Geometry (2002) with Ewan McGregor, adapted from an Ian McEwan story. And like the first time, a string of things happened that made me feel things, and I could certainly pick out throughlines and motifs like intimacy, mathematics, obsession, sex, and the fetal position kept popping up now and again. But do I know what the accumulative weight of that seemingly random grab-bag was in the way I could with a McEwan adaptation like Atonement, where I could comfortably see one event in the narrative having a thematically logical progression to the next, thus telling me broadly what the messages were? Well, no! As you would put it, "a bunch of stuff happens and then it ends".
That's not to say I'm completely adverse to ambiguity - I love Blade Runner, There Will be Blood and Pan's Labyrinth for example, none of which strike me as obvious films. The Crying Game is a good example of a film that isn't obvious to me at all, as the reasons for mixing a political thriller about the IRA with a screwed up relationship love triangle will never be fully apparent to me. But the unfolding of the story and characters is so good that I enjoy coming back to it and simmering over its meaning. And so the acceptable condition for returning to ambiguous works might be the same as any "regular film" - a rudimentary understanding of a good story or characters. But in general some people find that abstract, obscured style inviting on its own terms, whereas if the basics aren't obvious, I don't.
But then maybe that's a failing in me as a "Western moviegoer" that I'm too preconditioned in A-to-B narrative filmmaking with one scene directly tying into the next. It seems clear that the more artful moviegoing cultures like Europe don't have such a problem taking meaning away from that kind of 'montage filmmaking', so it might simply be a case of watching more world cinema and learning to appreciate difficult films, or conversely to not credit the simplicity of Hollywood so often.
I'll end this post by listing a few films I didn't understand or enjoy on first viewing, but feel I owe it to you to come back to, since you love them :
A History of Violence - didn't enjoy the story enough to care about what it meant;
Hidden - its density was way out of my league but I feel if I read up on the politics at the heart of the film, I might take away a bit more;
and Magnolia - a film I saw when I was quite young and something as reasonable as raining frogs would really irk me (but I'd like to think I'm more open minded today).
Complain about this comment
Taxi Driver
Just didn't get the hype when I first watched it. I now think it's one of the best films made with fantastic performances.
Complain about this comment
The movie 'Awake' was one that enjoyed immensely the first time i saw it. But i watched it again a few months later and it really wasn't as spectacular and i thought it was the first time around. This is the same with films like Pans Labyrinth, Donnie Darko etc.
A film that i really enjoyed from a second viewing was American Gangster. I really didn't like that movie at all the first time round but watching it a second time really made me like it a lot.
The Blair Witch Project; now thats a film that loses any worth once watched again. I remember seeing it without any knowledge as to what it was about and thought it was real - forgive me, i was young - but i tried to rewatch that as it was on Film4 the other night and i had to turn it off. LOAD OF RUBBISH.
Lady Vengeance, enjoyed it the first time but didn't really like it all that much. Rewatched it a few weeks later in a nice relaxed mood and absolutely loved it. Same with Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, i didnt like that first time around but loved it second time.
The Wrestler - enjoyed it first time round, thought it was quite sad and moving; second time round, was still good but i think it lost something that it had on its first viewing.
the list goes on...
Complain about this comment
A Slightly different take on the theme here: films you LIKED the first time you saw them, then subsequently HATED on further viewings.
1. Mac & Me (i.e. the dreadful ET clone) - Enjoyed it the first time around as a child - saw it relatively shortly afterwards and realised how crass and commericial it really was (particularly the big advert for a popular Fast food franchise).
2. Moonwalker - Again saw it as a child, at a time when I was listening to virtually nothing but 'Bad', and loved every minute - I particularly remember chiding my Dad for falling asleep halfway through and insisting that he stay awake for the remainder (poor Dad!). I saw it again about 10 years ago and... jings... isn't it just about the creepiest film ever made? 1/2 unabashedly self-regarding pop promo, 1/2...erm...weird wacko-as-superhero mini-fantasy, featuring Danny DeVito as the villain (well seeing he doesn't promote *that* on his CV).
I would actually recommend seeing Moonwalker just for curiosity's sake!
p.s. the innuendo and double entendre in 'Young Frankenstein' went way over my 5 year old head!
Complain about this comment
After the run of Sydney, Boogie nights and Magnolia I was a huge fan of PT Anderson and compared to these epics, Punch drunk Love felt like a pretty empty experience. Having been told how good the film was by others and with Magnolia firmly in my all time top 5 I kept going back to it to see if there was something I missed and on the 5TH!!! viewing it finally clicked and i got its crazy clasustrophobic comedy. Now I feel it can go toe to toe with any of PTA's work
Complain about this comment
Well for me it would have to be Memento (Loved it the first time and my fav film of all time).
It's a film that for me changes (in terms of charachter and their motivations) everytime I watch it.
It's one of those films that I spot something new everytime I watch it, due to the brilliant use of Non-Linear story telling by Christopher Nolan.
Complain about this comment
For myself, though i was not born until a year after it was released, it has to be David Lynch's 1984 production of Frank Herbert's Dune. I was given it on video one Christmas, as my Dad and I are both ardent Sci-fi fans.
Having sat down to watch it, i was left thinking " What on earth was all that about? Kwisatz Haderach, for goodness sake, what's he playing at?" However, having upon watching it again, i found I began to see and understand things that i had missed in the first viewing, as the groundbreaking visuals and effects had drawn me away from some of the more nuanced dialogue and subtle points of the story. Maybe this is something of a David Lynch phenomenon as much as anything else, as many of the comments have posted on his films.
Complain about this comment
Moulin Rouge. Like a lot of the films mentioned here, it was just too fast, too frantically edited, and I couldn't keep track of it in one viewing.
But it's part of an issue that's a bit of an offshoot from this one; that of musicals and the need for several viewings. I guess most of us acknowledge that MOST good songs don't seem amazing at first, they have to settle into your synapses and become part of your history before you can love them. So when seeing a film whose plot is based primarily on music and lyrics, of course there's a lack of connection in the first viewing.
I think the trick is to create songs that USE this progressive apprecation thing. Alan Menken's good at this. In Enchanted, he employs some lovely little melodic quirks to keep one's attention (such as the ah-ah-ah-ah-aahs out of the window). These are short and funny enough to sustain you through the film. It's only when going BACK and watching again, that you start to appreciate his lovely swooping choruses and staggeringly clever arrangement. In short, you like it first, you love it later.
Of course, you can just go the Tarantino route and pile stuff in from your bedroom jukebox. That way you don't have to faddle around borrowing your audience's ears, they were handed over in the previous decade. (This is my long-winded way of saying that scores are better things than soundtracks, at least in general)
Complain about this comment
Surely the classic example is David Fincher's Fight Club. Never has my perception of a film been so drastically altered when it came to the second viewing.
Complain about this comment
I can think of only 2 examples in which this has happened to me. Miike Takashi's Audition and David Lynch's Mulholland Dr. Both times I ashamedly turned the film off as I found it too boring. Maybe I was too young. I watched them again a few years later, and now they're both included in my top 3 films of all time.
Complain about this comment
Well with Terry Gilliam in mind, Twelve Monkeys comes instantly to mind. As you might imagine, most of us don't find ourselves visiting the same movie more than once very often. We are unlikely to choose to watch a movie again that we didn't like the first time around. That said, many of us will have experienced the phenomena of tuning in to a television channel to find a movie is showing which, though we've seen it before, suddenly seems to possess a quality we failed to recognise first time around. I tuned in to see the scene where Bruce Willis first has Madeleine Stowe held hostage in his car. Willis' character manages to be both menacing and innocent at the same time when he demands at gunpoint that the radio be turned back on only to return to a childlike fascination with what he hears playing. When originally watching this movie, the precededing scenes had been quite action-packed and this felt like an over-long break in the action rather than a fascinating interaction between these two characters.
Similar things can be said about Jackie Brown, in which I think Tarantino himself notes that the second viewing makes you feel like you are 'hanging out' with the characters. Perhaps it's because on the second viewing you can relax more because the way the movie ties together is more obvious.
Having mentioned a Tarantino film now, I feel compelled to mention Pulp Fiction. This is one I really CAN'T explain. Originally I considered Reservoir Dogs to be the better of the two movies, but I still liked Pulp Fiction quite a bit. However, upon showing Pulp Fiction to a friend I realised that on a second watch the film felt completely different. I've felt this pretty much every time I've seen the film. It always feels different somehow.
Something that's been mentioned already by one or two people here though is 'expectations'. There are some movies which are 'guilty pleasures' for me. I know that they are horrendously bad movies. It's not that I think they are underrated, but that I think they deserve every criticism and yet I still enjoy them. One of the worst examples of this is Kurt Wimmer's "Ultraviolet". It's got some imaginative imagery, but the dialogue is horrendous and the plot is non-existent. However, on one of those rare occasions I randomly decided to put the DVD back in the machine and give it a second try. This time, fully recognising that there would be no plot, that many lines of dialogue would be plain daft and that it would require no cerebral effort on my part, I sat down to watch it. Somehow I loved it this time. And it wasn't just me. My girlfriend wandered into the room and she started getting into it too. (She saw it with me the first time around.) I think it helps that while the film is horrendous, it's not boring like recent stinkers such as Terminator Salvation. While this was a matter of me perhaps expecting too MUCH from the movie the first time around, I think having the wrong KIND of expectation can affect our judgement of higher quality movies.
Complain about this comment
I was very disappointed with A History of Violence when I saw it at the cinema, it just didn't grab me at all and I felt it was overly simplistic. Revisited it on DVD and loved it and Cronenberg's commentary only heightened my appreciation of the film. I think the problem was that it's a very subtle film where you have to pay very close attention to the details, especially in Mortensen's performance. These aspects only became apparent to me on the second viewing.
I feel the same will happen with Crash when I finally get round to watching it again. I hated it the first time I saw at due to its repetitive plotting and simplistic plot. However I feel compelled to see it again and I'm sure my opinion will change.
Also really didn’t like Brazil on the first couple of viewings but as with A History of Violence I felt I had to watch it again due to the amount of praise the film got and now I love it. The visuals are stunning and once you get used to the tone and style of the film it much easier to watch.
Other films like this would be Fargo, not funny the first viewing but hilarious on the second, King Kong (2005), Blade Runner, The Wild Bunch, Seven Samurai and 2001.
Eyes Wide Shut is still rubbish though, no matter how many times you watch it.
Complain about this comment
Eyes Wide Shut. While everybody else in my class was drinking cheap cider in a damp ditch somewhere down by the canal, i decided to celebrate my Junior Certificate Exam results by taking in Stanley Kubrick's latest film. I was shocked, frightened and made to feel quite edgy afterwards. I had not seen a film quite like that or as intense in my cinema going lifetime until i had seen The Exorcist a year or so later.
I went back two weeks later to see it again with my brother-in-law who described it as "horrendous, boring and a complete waste of time". I on the other hand came out thinking that it is not only one of Kubrick's best, but the greatest film of the 1990's along with Michael Mann's Heat.
Throw in Halloween 3: Season of The Witch and Sunset Boulevard along with Eyes Wide Shut, Heat and The Exorcist and you have the five greatest films of all time...possibly.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark, interesting video.
One film that I thought was awful on first viewing was "Brick". I watched it for the first time on DVD and for some reason, there were no subtitles and due to the time of day (it was late night) the volume had to be kept relatively low.
As a result I couldn't really follow it, and thought it was pretty awful. I also hated the fact that it was a detective/film noir-ish type film combined with being set in a (high) school.
However, a few months later it was on Film Four and I decided to give it another chance. Thankfully, this time the subtitles were working and it was much easier to follow and understand the story/characters/atmosphere etc. (This actually brings up another point, how important are subtitles to films of this nature? And no foreign films don't count).
Complain about this comment
"There will be Blood": definitely needs to be seen twice.
Complain about this comment
You saw "Synechdoche, New York" twice? ARE YOU MAD?? I couldn't make it to the end the first time. It felt like it was sucking the life out of me.
When I was a kid it used to puzzle me how people would talk about Casablanca as if it was a very good film. It was a boring black and white film starring someone who didn't seem to have a big acting range and had a boring song that kept getting played. I must have been in my late teens when I figured out it was a good film. Now when I watch it, it still seems to get better and better.
The first time I watched Citizen Kane (in my twenties) it was extremely boring. Sledge? Oh, yeah. Who cares? What was all that about? The next time I saw it it was entirely different. By now it probably is not going to improve any more, though.
I had to watch JFK several times before I felt I had got all the details and nuances although it was enjoyable each time (apart from Sissy Spacek). The first time I watched Syriana it seemed a bit confused but on the second attempt it made perfect sense and was worth it.
I try to avoid watching films on planes but if I do and watch the film again later it can seem very different, presumably because of all the editing and cutting. When I saw "When Harry Met Sally" for the first time on British Airways, somebody had completely cut out the "I'll have what she's having" scene. I am convinced that the person that did that is going to go straight to Hell.
Despite what I might have said about "Of Time and The City", I went to see it three times because it was mesmerizing. But I still think Terence Davies is a miserable old scrote.
Complain about this comment
No Country for Old Men definitely deserves at least two views, even if just to discover how funny it is.
Complain about this comment
For me the film that required two viewings to fully appreciate was Serenity. I wasn't aware of the epic yet short lived series that was Firefly, so i did not quite grasp certain key elements to the story. However, after watching firefly and then going to watch serenity for the second time i was anxious, i ahd bad memories of this film, however, i was glad to be proven wrong., the film was completely different i understood everything, knew who the crew of the ship were. And now serenity is right up there in terms of great sci fi films such as the new Star Trek and The Empire Strikes Back. I just love this film to pieces.
Complain about this comment
Doc,
Most recently, Public Enemies. Still a frustratingly flawed piece, yet well worth a second trial.
The French Connection - on first inspection I thought it was merely okay. I wrongly compared and contrasted it to Dirty Harry and Bullitt, proclaiming that it couldn't touch either of those two. I revisted it a couple of years later and was absolutely blown away by it. Couldn't believe how wrong I had initially been about it.
I think my prime example is Blade Runner. However, this is more of a maturity issue. I saw it - and it was the Director's Cut - in my early teens and thought it was really, really dull. Didn't get it at all. Then in my late teens, I revisited it at university. Guess what...I completely fell in love with it. Actually, that was the version with the horrible voice-over and Shining outtakes ending!! Of course, I ended up favouring the Director's Cut. In fact, this was around the time the good doc did that documentary On the Edge of Blade Runner. I was Blade Runner mad. I loved what Scott did with the Final Cut and the latter is my overall favourite version. Blade Runner will ALWAYS be in my top 10.
Complain about this comment
The first time I saw Bride Wars, I thought it was one of the worst films of all time. The second time, though...
I liked Titanic the first time around, but when I caught it again on TV, I attributed that to the giant screen for the effects and the fact that it was a Date Movie for me and my company made it better.
The first time I saw Seven Samurai, however, I was bored. Maybe I wasn't ready for it, because when I saw it again years later, I loved every second.
Complain about this comment
in keeping with J_O_E_L_-_C's theme, i saw Spielbergs "Gremlins" and remained baffled with sporadic instances of mirth (chiefly the granny on the turbo-charged stairlift) throughout the film. second viewing it really grabbed me as a completely two-faced story. the mischief of the Gremlins can be seen as quite innocent and in the end an innocous family film; alternitively, it can be truly disturbing frankly eerie
Complain about this comment
Great video, Dr K, and a thoroughly interesting topic.
The two biggest films for me, in this regard, are Citizen Kane, which has already been mentioned but I'll talk about anyway, and Brad Bird's The Iron Giant.
As others have mentioned, expectations about a film can cloud our judgement when watching a film for the first time, and that was definitely the case when I first watched Citizen Kane. If anything, I approached it with an antagonistic attitude, a snotty, adolescent contratiness that had nothing to do with the film; I began watching it thinking "Go on then, impress me!" and left thinking "Pfft, what's all the fuss about?"
Several years later, I went back and rewatched it, having watched a great deal more films and with a greater sense of the language of films and the influence that Citizen Kane had, and I was completely spellbound by it. I realised that there was so much more depth to the story and so much richness in its visuals that I had completely missed the first time around. Every time I watch it, I find something new to like in it and it is truly a gift that keeps on giving.
The Iron Giant was a film which I barely gave a first chance to in the first place. I had spent my formative years enraptured by the Disney Renaissance of the '90s, as well as their many classics, and was a huge Pixar fan (still am, in fact) and animation was my preferred form of film-making. By the time that The Iron Giant came out, though, I was in my early teens and had decided that cartoons weren't cool any more, except for South Park. Consequently, I sat through The Iron Giant with a sneer and derided it as boring and dull and complained that "it didn't even have any good songs in it".
After Brad Bird joined Pixar and made The Incredibles and Ratatouille, both of which I am very fond of, I rewatched The Iron Giant and could not have enjoyed it more. I found it to be an hilarious, provocative and heartbreaking film that never fails to put a skip in my step or bring a tear to my eye. Just thinking about the giant's final utterance of "Superman" is making me well up as I type.
Complain about this comment
The Exorcist for me... shamefully. The first time I saw it I was about 13 and I was sat downstairs with the TV turned right down, and I got very bored very fast, I watched it a few years later and allowed the atmosphere to take hold and loved every second of it.
Conversely, I can't stand Toy Story anymore, I think Family Guy highlighting Randy Newman's terrible score has killed it for me, luckily that won't happen again... South Park have equally ruined Family Guy. Once you notice these things it's difficult to ignore them.
Maybe Outlaw warrants a second look... maybe not.
Complain about this comment
All of Gilliam's films warrant second viewings, and I say that as a huge fan as well. I hated Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas the first time around. Second time I liked it a little more, third time I realized it was one of my favorite films.
A big one for me was Mike Leigh's Naked. I despised the central character so much that I could barely get through it. Some time later, I was drawn back to it -- mainly because of David Thewlis' brilliant performance -- and realized I was 100% wrong. Naked is a masterpiece. But you need to be in the right mood to appreciate Johnny's acidic tongue.
Complain about this comment
Wow! Lotta replies this time around. Have fun sorting through them all, Doctor (when you're well, that is).
My pick - and a movie that I think deserves a second viewing by every critic that rubbished it at release - is Speed Racer. I saw it in the cinema after much anticipation and enjoyed it, despite picking up on some obvious pacing problems. I rented it out again to make sure I wasn't being delusional, and ... well, I wasn't. For all of its flaws - some pointless scenes and dialogue, an over-long running time, the way it takes itself a little too seriously - I love it. It takes a proud place in my DVD collection.
I think everyone who hated the movie should watch it again on a smaller screen, so that they're not completely thrown by the daring visuals. That way, they might be able to see that the movie comes amazingly close to being a live-action cartoon, with delightfully over-the-top acting and fighting scenes (on and off the track). In my opinion, it's the closest we've come to a modern-day Tron, i.e. a movie that dares to tread where few have before in terms of CGI-dependent filmmaking and has enough retro appeal to earn itself a cult following.
I can't tell you how pleased I was to hear you trumpet the movie on your own show. After being so let-down by the terrible Rotten Tomatoes score, it was a relief to know that someone in the movie-reviewing community was on my side.
Complain about this comment
For me it has to be little known classic Chuck and Buck. Watching it for the second time, when I knew that Mike White's character Chuck wasn't simply imagining his childhood relationship with Buck, made me realise that it was he who was the victim.
Complain about this comment
For me it has to be Pulp Fiction, which is a film I have a very strange relationship when it comes to return visits. First time I watched it I was in my mid-teens and I loved it, returned to it a year later and I thought it was somewhat over-rated, several months later I loved it again and two years ago, watched it twice and thought it was over-rated.
Complain about this comment
Can I ask you something Mark? Some time ago I left a message on your IMDB board answering someone who wanted to know what the whole HARVEY KEITEL STORY was about. At the end of my response I left a P.S asking you to watch Eyes Wide Shut again, because, as you have mentioned in regards to Blue Velvet, you can't always judge a film upon first viewing. A little while after posting this you did a Culture Show segment about the La Charrette cinema in Gorseinon, and when you where going through a book of some of the films it had shown you singled out, yes, you guessed it, EYES WIDE SHUT, declaring it Kubrick's worst film; a shocker. Was this intentional?? Did you read that post. Where you mocking me???
Complain about this comment
Darren Aaronovsky's The Fountain. Liked the first time, loved it the second, which just happens to be tonight. A wonderfully challenging piece of work with real heart which is a difficult balance. Ranks with yes, Synedoche, New York (which I think is also a classic) as one of a number of films attempt to reproduce the weird experimental excitement of 70s cineaste titans like Tarkovsky and Alain Resnais.
Films can be strange and fragile. Some, like My Blueberry Nights or Stranger Than Fiction, which I very much enjoyed, I'm afraid to return to in case their flaws become all too apparent, as though like really nice holiday places of our youth, they're best existing in the memory, or the version that's in our heads where everything is perfect.
Complain about this comment
I can't really think of any films that I've left loathing and then returned to and really loved but vice versa...
Traffic. I found it so-so the first time around, but a friend who loved it got me to watch it again on DVD. By the end I had convinced him it was a clunky, cliche-ridden, hammily acted pile of horse-manure. I hate everything about that film. I hate it. Hate it. Hate it.
Arggggh! The Michael Douglas bit just does my head in.
Give me Crash anytime.
Complain about this comment
The only thing that redeems the overblown arty pretensions of ' irreversible ' is Vincent cassels performance.Eraserhead took a few screenings to get.but I think its Oldboy for me or anything by Park chan wook.
Complain about this comment
2001, couldn't get into the first time so I turned it off, finally watched it all and really liked it, same goes for Reservoir Dogs
A film which I really like but couldn't get into at all and actually fell asleep (i didn't sleep the night before) to when I saw it first time was "Running Scared", the film by Wayne Kramer, really interesting thriller with some great lines like "JOHN WAYNE WAS A FAGGOT!" and the padophile is one of the great creepy scenes.
There is the obvious films that must be watched numerous times...
Donnie Darko
There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men
Southland Tales
Eraserhead
Blade Runner
etc.
All films I loved first time I saw them but there is lot to be seen on repeated viewings.
P.S Mark I loved loved Tideland from the first viewing, I saw it at the UK "premiere"/preview with a Q&A with Gilliam (who I met afterwards and we talked for like an hour), I was greatly angered by some reviews of that film that said Dickens was a "padophile", the reviewers just didn't understand he had a mental age younger than Eliza Rose and the release of that film was horrible, made half a million worldwide which is shameful.
Complain about this comment
Two words: Mulholland Drive
For me, Lynch's films all share a peculiar quality: the more films you've seen by the man, the better or more you can understand each single one of them individually.
I saw Mulholland Drive for the first time because everyone kept telling me how good it is: thought it really was good (and original), but nothing THAT special. Then I saw Twin Peaks (the series), Lost Highway, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart and Eraserhead and the rest (in that order). With each work, I came to understand all of the previous ones better. Finally, after some time, I watched Mulholland Drive AGAIN and was just completely blown away. The first time around, I wasn't familiar enough with his visual language to appreciate the poetry. I can now honestly say, I think Mulholland Drive is Lynch's best film. But only because I've seen the rest which I initially enjoyed more.
Complain about this comment
Blade Runner – The Reverse Reaction Cut Special Edition.
The first time I saw this film was on the original video release, and I absolutely loved it. Over the years, I didn't watch it again, but countless pub and film school discussions later, and the film had evolved in my memory to become the most significant piece of sci-fi-art ever made.
Then...I bought it on DVD, and watched it with my girlfriend, who (sacrilege) hadn't seen it.
30 mins in and the feeling of embarrassment at having chirped on about this film so much over the years was nearly too much to take. It is, like all Scott bros. films, an exercise in style over content. I found it dull, pretentious and nowhere near as intelligent and significant and crammed full of ideas as the cultists have made it out to be.
There...I said it. Let the stoning commence.
Complain about this comment
My favorites are the movies you watch as a child and then see again as an adult.
When I was a kid I would watch Monty Python's Meaning of Life, which I loved for its slapstick and general silliness (my mother, a midwife, would show the "Miracle of Birth" scene at antenatal class). By the time I was a teenager, I enjoyed the shock material and nudity. When I watch it now, its the social commentary, surrealism, Python intelligence and "The Crimson Permanent Assurance" have grown on me. Those old gits would have Orlando Bloom for breakfast. A truly great, messy, nonsense film.
On the other hand there are the movies I innocently enjoyed as a kid, and now I question how they managed to ever get made. The Labyrinth for example. It's incredibly imaginative, a great use of Jim Henson's talents, a good early performance by Jennifer Connolly, but David Bowie is really dodgy as Jareth. He's must be 30 years older than Sarah, at least! Very suspect casting. (Yes, he is just a figment of her imagination, but still...)
Complain about this comment
There are films which I didn't really "get" the first time, but grew to love on re-watching, like The Big Lebowski; films which I thought were great the first time, but needed to see a second time to understand them better, like Lost Highway; and then there are films I really enjoyed the first time and just found mind-deadeningly boring, dull and pointless the second time, like Spider-Man...
Complain about this comment
EstonianFilmFan, we are two peas in a lovely filmic pod.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that Blade Runner has come up a lot on this thread. Could it be that repeat viewings are enhanced by seeing the "proper version" of a film (usually a director's cut) rather than the version put out in the cinema. That's been the case with Alien 3 and Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, but especially relevant for Blade Runner.
In its original cinematic release, there's the horrible narration inserted by the producers because they thought American audiences wouldn't understand the plot(WTF?!). I've seen the original and it suffers from it, but the Final Cut version without the voiceover - the way the film was always meant to be - is my all-time favourite film.
Complain about this comment
thedeconstructionist -
Since its release I also considered Blade Runner a great film and for years put it in my all time top 10. I hadn't seen it for about 10 years and after recommending it to someone at work decided to give it another viewing. It still looked great and like Alien has stood up well stylistically.
Unfortunately I found the plot pretty flimsy and pretentious. Dull 6th form philosophy. Shame. Like a lot of Ridley and Tony Scott's films, cool and shallow.
As for films requiring a second chance....it'll be a while before I can sit once again through the overhyped (ahem,MK) rubbish that was There Will Be Blood.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark;
My favourite movies are often about mis-direction, so films like "The Usual Suspects" and the under-rated "Nine Queens" reveal volumes during the second or third viewing.
But what about comedy/cult classics like the Monty Python series and "Spinal Tap"? Regular repeat viewings of these are practically a staple requirement for genre fans.
Jeremy
Complain about this comment
Roeg’s The man who fell to earth. Hell, I even took notes the 2nd time, then saw it a third time; but no, not as deep as it seemed the first time. Great visual sense though.
Film I should probably watch again is the Exorcist. First time I giggled throughout – it is unintentionally funny; the puke scene in particular is really unconvincing. It has one good performance (Miller), otherwise it’s a routine spooky house build up and then a not terribly convincing ending. (The book on the other hand I thought very good and its writing did manage to scare me.)
I have a theory that people respond to the Exorcist according to how they’ve been brought up, the more Catholic your beliefs, the more you buy into the plot. It really is about time the crucifix was banished from horror stories.
Complain about this comment
KubrickandScott - 75
For me it was never the case that subsequent viewings of Blade Runner were improved by their being a "director's cut". In fact it's the reverse - I'm of the heretical persuasion that the Studio Executive's Cut is the better one and Ridley Scott's subsequent faffing about has weakened the film. The voiceover works, the flyaway ending works, the random insertion of unicorns doesn't work. When I saw the so-called DC of Blade Runner, the absence of a voiceover didn't reveal previously hidden depths through the film: it just felt like something was missing.
To me it's always been like a much loved friend who goes away and has cosmetic surgery and then returns without all the individual "flaws" that made her what she was, while trying to look more like what she thinks she's supposed to look like - but you loved her to start with.
Complain about this comment
I've experienced this quite a few times in the past, though no examples spring instantly to mind (I have a feeling, Dr, that you may experience it with Philip Ridley's Heartless.)
Isn't it mainly about having certain expectations of what the film should/will be on the first viewing then on second viewing being able to appreciate it for what it actually is?
Complain about this comment
I think any movie that's serves up a giant dollop of stylistic visuals needs a second helping. some films are too much for both eyes and ears to comprehend in one sitting. I watched Brazil for the first time, and loved what i was seeing, but thought the plot had let the movie down, mainly because i wasnt paying too much attention to it. On second viewing i found the plot to be the most astonishing element! Sometimes the director's 'visions' can distract your first experience of a film. I was so blown away by Eternal Sunshine the first time, that i needed to train myself to follow the beautifully gentle plot.
keep the faith in Gilliam, Dr Kermossus!
Tears_4Fears
Complain about this comment
I dismissed the David Cronenberg film Existenz on first viewing, but after rewatching Videodrome I went back for another look. Whilst not as dark as Videodrome it stands up well as a companion to its notorious predecessor.
Complain about this comment
Paul Verhoeven's Robocop for me was a totally different movie second time around. It could be that the first time I saw it I was 11 and the second time I was 18.
What was a big budget action film with a robot shooting guys in the crotch turned into a very clever satire on American culture with sharp images of urban decay.
Complain about this comment
Dear Dr. K!
I found Tarkovsky's 'Mirror' a visually beautiful film with a few great scenes, the first time I saw it. However, I needed to watch it a second time to fully appreciate this masterpiece. The experience wasn't only a lot better, but I was also able to understand more this complex film, which at first seemed very confusing.
Complain about this comment
I actually find it rare that 'director's cuts' are any better than the original and I include Blade Runner which Scott seems to be tinkering with until everyone knows Deckard is a replicant short of actually putting a great big flashing sign proclaiming such without realising that it would ruin the morality of Batty's sacrifice.
Then Aliens. A brilliant, lean, action-horror originally but bogged down with un-necessary back story in the director's cut. And yes, I understand that Ripley is maternal with Newt if we know her own daughter has died but Newt is a scared little girl on an alien infested planet. If Ripley's daughter hadn't died, would she not care about Newt anyway?
And T2. This is sort of a James Cameron rant since director's cuts have really overinflated his ego. It used to be an exhilerating action sci-fi movie. The added footage in the special and ultimate editions were interesting but didn't add much.
These may be a money-making gimmick and an ego-stroke but a lot of the time, they ruin a perfectly good movie. There is a place for all that extra footage and it's the deleted scenes section of the dvd.
Another example - one of my favourite films Battle Royale. The extra scenes in the director's cut were pretty pointless.
Complain about this comment
Let the good Doctor correct me if I'm wrong, but:
The new cuts of Blade Runner - the Director's Cut in the 1990s and The Final Cut in 2007 - were primarily designed to fix the errors of the original film, not pad it out with backstory or answer questions about the meaning. The original director's cut to my knowledge took the narration off and changed the dream sequence but did little else. With The Final Cut, they correctly some of the obvious special effects goofs - like the death of Zhora - but again very little changes which undermine the central ambiguity of the film. Just because Scott thinks Deckard is a replicant, doesn't mean that he is. Trust the film, not the person who made it.
Complain about this comment
I binged on Woody Allen movies in my early teens and viewing them now that I'm in my early twenties, I understand more of the jokes and references and with some of his films there's an emotional resonance I couldn't have experienced as a teenager. There's definitely a case for re-evaluating films once you're older and (hopefully) wiser as long as the film, on some level, is a mature piece of work.
I'd also second the mention of Tarkovsky's Mirror. His work and that of directors like Herzog, Cronenberg, Lynch, Gilliam and especially Nic Roeg and Pen-ek Ratanaruang can sometimes be like puzzles if that doesn't sound too pretentious.
Finally, I'd recommend re-watching Wayne Wang's earlier movies as a reminder that he used to be brilliant and not just the guy responsible for Maid In Manhattan.
Chris.
Complain about this comment
KubrickandScott is right about the Blade Runner director's cut, in fact Ridley Scott is always pretty minimal with the changes he makes in movies (like the Alien director's cut, literally taking bits out of the movie).
However, one director's cut I really did not like compared to the original was that of Donnie Darko. For me it completely ruined the film, served the story up to you on a plate and destroyed any sense of mystery and ambiguity about what was going on. It was much better when you were left baffled by it.
Complain about this comment
The Coen Brother's 'Fargo'...the first time I saw it I thought it was one of the worst films I had ever seen, formless and flat and yet (after watching 'the Big Lebowski') I watched it again and loved it. I really can't explain it.
Complain about this comment
It took a second viewing for me to really appreciate the majesty of The Big Country; it's now one of my favourite westerns. Countless films have benefited from a second viewing by being unburdened by expectations (Clockwork Orange springs to mind). Orthogonal to the question, but I don't think I'll be able to watch Downfall until the various internet memes have faded from memory.
Complain about this comment
Over the years I have grown to like The Cohen Brothers films more but came out of the cinema after seeing "No Country for Old Men" feeling very disappointed. I thought it wasn't the film it had been hyped up to be. Months later, watching it again on DVD, everything clicked second time round. Thinking about it, the brothers films like "Fargo" and "Miller's Crossing" have a lot going on and requires more than one viewing to absorb. Still yet to see "Burn after Reading" a second time and see if l was wrong about it being messy and chaotic.
Saw "The Village" at the cinema, thought it was OK. Saw it second time, thought it was very very dull.
Complain about this comment
On the subject of Director's cut the one that stands out for me is Daredevil. The theatrical cut was a dreadfully flat empty mess whereas the director cut actually introduced a plot.
A subplot involving the framing of a character played by Coolio helps to give the villain the kingpin a real menace and sense of power which was completely lacking in the original cut.
The removal of the love scene also makes Daredevil/Matt Murdock more of the selfless hero that he needed to be.
The Original cut seemed to be designed around building up the Elektra character for an even worse spin off movie rather than making the best Daredevil movie they could make.
Money drives the cut not plot
Complain about this comment
The Big Lebowski. The first time I watched it, I absolutely hated it, thought it was boring, senseless drivel. My sister loved it and encouraged me to give it another go, which I did about a month ago. This time it was much better, I just let the strangeness wash over me without worrying about whether I was enjoying it or not.
I find that I tend to enjoy critically acclaimed films less than films I've heard nothing about. All the hype and praise that these films get builds them up so much that they can't possibly live up to the expectations, and often leave the viewer feeling disappointed with the final product. Trailers also annoy me, they tend to reveal the entire plot of the film as well as the best scenes/lines in it. A good trailer should leave the audience wanting more, not make them feel like they've just seen the whole movie.
Complain about this comment
the first film that came to mind was a bout de souffle, which i remember watching at school and feeling like it was boring and everything took too long and the music was repetitive etc. etc., and then when i went back to it i loved it, and thinking about it has made me want to dig out the dvd and watch it again.
what i find is that i tend to overhype the negatives of a film that i didn't like, and so when i revisit it, they're not so bad, and that allows me to pay closer attention to what's actually happening.
i also felt the same about diary of the dead, where the first time round i was so distracted by the american youths and the guy with a bow and arrow, that i totally missed out on all the wit and bleakness of it.
Complain about this comment
Capote. I also thought it was a different film the second time.
Unforgiven is a movie that made a lot more sense the second time I saw it.
Complain about this comment
For me it' s Linklater's Waking Life.
A visually stunning film, but one so packed with ideas that I think it's impossible to digest them all in one sitting.
Upon repeated viewings, I always manage to take away something new, which makes it one of my favourite films.
Complain about this comment
Van Sant's Gerry. It's not really about how many viewings it's taken to warm me up to the film. Honestly, it's all about what mood I'm in.
Sometimes I'm in the mood for breathtaking vista shots and a comatose inducing pace. Sometimes I want breathless pacing with the latest and greatest gadgets cinema has to offer.
Complain about this comment
This is the typical movie you want to love, but you fail to. This is just a new - and beautiful - dream of a director with a great imagination. But not a good story.
Complain about this comment
I found that another one of Gilliam's films, 12 Monkeys, seemed to be better after rewatching. If not better after rewatching, more understandable. Even though it was only directed by him(instead of being both written and directed by), it still had his distinct style.
Complain about this comment
I've always found it preferable to watch Dawn of the Dead maybe 50 or 60 times...
Complain about this comment
I'd just like to respond to the_stupid_man-suit. (Do people respond to each other's comments here?)
Gremlins isn't sometimes funny and sometimes creepy depending on which time you watch it. It's both every time. If anyone doesn't find the gremlin chainsaw attack terrifying, they are made of stronger stuff than I.
I suppose what you were saying is that sometimes the comedy can be lost on the viewer. It's fair enough that you won't be inclined towards laughing hysterically when you're creeped out.
I suppose I'd say that Gremlins shares this in common with Sam Raimi's comedy-horror movies like Evil Dead 2 and Drag Me To Hell.....
Complain about this comment
Ooooh I must second the choice of "The Big Lebowski". It's such a mish mash of different characters, scenes and styles (the musical numbers, in particular, catch you by surprise). Also, on a second watch you also notice just how many white russians (his drink of choice) the dude makes for himself over the course of the film.
Complain about this comment
AndrewRobot81
"Still yet to see "Burn after Reading" a second time and see if l was wrong about it being messy and chaotic."
Sometimes the quality of a movie can depend on how you see it with. We've heard Mark Kermode's story about how he watched Hudson's Hawk next to someone else who also recognised the comedy. (I could actually tell a similar story about "Rush Hour 2". Two of us at the back of cinema and seemingly the only people there enjoying ourselves - in absolute hysterics.)
Anyway, in the case of "Burn After Reading" when it reached the final scene the entire cinema was in hysterics. There hadn't been hysterical laughter for the majority of the movie, but that last scene had us cracking up. I think the funniest thing is that it is in that last scene where you finally realise what the whole film has been about. You already knew that it wasn't really about spies or national security or even love affairs and relationships. So what was the movie about?
*SPOILERS. THIS IS A SPOILER FOR BURN AFTER READING. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED*
It's about Frances McDormand's character finally getting plastic surgery. It's been the main thing on her mind for most of the movie and while her closest friends have both been murdered by the end, we are informed in that final scene that, off-screen, she has finally found someone willing to pay for it. Um... happy ending? Lol!
*THE WRITING ABOVE IS A SPOILER. DON'T READ THIS UNLESS YOU WANT BURN AFTER READING SPOILED FOR YOU. THIS SECTION ABOVE IS A SPOILER.*
Complain about this comment
For me it was Michelangelo Antonioni's 'Blow-Up'.
I hated it on the first viewing, I found it slow, misleading and irrelevant, but when I re-visited it a few years later I watched a completely different picture.
I found the narrative immersive and entertaining, I loved the casting, cinematography and the art direction; every opinion I ever had of that film was erased and now it's one of my favourite films of all time.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with the earlier comment; as a younger person I thought that Robocop was just an awesomely violent action film (just what you want at 14). When seeing it again many years later I realized it just how funny and satirical it was.
I guess I'm saying it’s not just about seeing a film more than once but also when you see it.
Complain about this comment
For me it has to be Barry Lyndon.
For years I considered Barry Lyndon on a par to one of those poorly lit boring BBC 70s period dramas. How wrong I was. I really don't know what possessed me to think that the cinematography was really bad, devoid of colour and completely subdued. It is one of the most beautiful and amazing films ever made. Every shot is like an oil painting. I'll never stop watching that film.
Vertigo
Mullholland Drive
The Royal Tenenbaums
The Big Liebowski
Millers Crossing
were all films I thought were good but not great first time around, but after a second viewing, I now consider them to be some of greatest films ever
Brazil is another film I didn't get the first time around at all, but now I think it's pretty superb.
And then there's Zoolander. A friend had recommended Zoolander to myself and another friend of mine. We rented it out and didn't laugh once through the entire film. I was pretty disappointed but my friend was livid, and actually threatened to punch the guy for reccommending it. A couple months later someone else had rented out the film. This time we laughed heartily thoughout the entire film. Bizarre
Complain about this comment
To me, it seems strange that this many people can go from hating a film to absolutely loving it, or vice versa. My first impression of a film is usually the one that sticks. I've seen Mulholland Drive, Donnie Darko, There Will Be Blood, Eraserhead, Irreversible, and Mirror many times and I've enjoyed them just as much on repeated viewings as I had on my first viewing on them. Perhaps one day I will come across a film (again) and realise my love/hate for it.
Complain about this comment
I definetly agree with you a few video blogs ago about There will be Blood, first time i hated that movie. I thought it was egocentric shite about a complete psycho and i found it boring. I watched it the second time and i don't know what it is but you start to come around. It's the same with another oscar winner that year, No Country For Old Men, I remember coming out of the cinema, angry, the ending was all over the place but when I had it bought for me on DVD, I watched it and I loved it. Weird
Complain about this comment
In the spirit of Dr K's blog, I don't think you can count movies which you saw when you were a wide-eyed naive child fascinated by bright colours (Disney's The Fox and the Hound is one of my favourite films because it was the first film I saw on the big screen) and when you saw it again as an older more cine-literate adult (actually Disney's The Fox and the Hound isn't that great).
Bearing that in mind, I can't think of any film in which I don't trust my initial gut instinct and no amount of persuasion (bar Derren Brown) would make me revisit them:-
To wit,
The English Patient - so dull I envied those who left the cinema halfway through.
Titanic - Life is too short.
Indiana Jones 4 - Aliens! seriously?
Layer Cake - expected a decent Brit gangster movie like Sexy Beast or Gangster No 1 but it was just as vacuous, stylistically bankrupt, badly scripted and annoying as the films Matthew Vaughn produced.
Death Proof - I get it, I still hated it.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - and add Planet of the Apes as well. Tim Burton needs to take a long hard look at his career.
Red Dragon - I saw loads of interviews with the cast and crew denying having seen Manhunter. Shame because if they did, they'd've realised how rubbish their version is.
Hero - Brilliant film but as morally objectionable as Triumph of the Will.
And finally, I want to mention one of Dr K's most hated films, Closer. Yes, I agree that all the characters are horrid and unpleasant but I found myself enjoying their horrid unpleasantness. Like a pig in s**t on a hot day!
Complain about this comment
On the subject of the Blade Runner Director's Cut - when it first came out, most of the critics slated it, only to see it become a hugely influential modern classic. The Director's Cut gave those critics a chance to say, "see, it really is a masterpiece, it was just the theatrical release that stopped us realising it at the time," but I'm really not sure there was that much wrong with the theatrical cut - it managed to become a modern classic on the strength of that cut, after all.
Complain about this comment
Holy Gambon, this topic has really taken off! I'm just writing to be a bit of a creep and wish Mark a speedy recovery (is it true it was the pig plague?) Anyway, best from me.
Complain about this comment
Dr K, a great post i must say, one of your best for a while. for me however, it is a film that no one else has (suprisingly) mentioned - leone's Once upon a time in america. The first time i watched it i liked it (ish) but really didnt get it, and thought that the ending was awful. so much so that i advised other people against watching it. however, upon giving it another go recently, i was enthralled. I think that knowing the storyline, considering the chronological mix up of the plot, helps you to understand the relationship between noodles and max, as you watch it the second time. the second time i felt completely satisfied a the end, and had a desire to watch it all over again.
Complain about this comment
I though Fight Club was a must see twice movie, the first time you (well I did, and I dont believe I'm that thick) went through to the end and then went 'Oh, clever'. And then watched it the second time and loved it as I understood and saw things I missed the first time round which make perfect sense once you knew the ending.
Complain about this comment
The Fountain is one of those films, that I needed to view a second time.
But then I had to ask myself: "am I watching this a second or third time because I am a fan of Aronofsky and Science-Fiction and thus simply WANT to like this movie, although I didn't enjoy it at all when I first saw it, or is there really something profound going on in this film, something beyond the pretty pictures, that struck me on some subconcious level?"
Complain about this comment
I watched the Swedish horror movie ‘Let The Right One In’ on DVD last night. It has certainly made me want to watch it again tonight. Best fantasy I’ve seen since Pan’s Labyrinth or The Ophanage and like those films with superb child performances. See the original as I understand the yanks intend doing a Hollywood remake soon.
The characters, the ‘heroine’ in particular, can be interpreted on many different levels, the ending can be read in several ways, it might or might not have a circular structure and so on.
I won't give away the finale (its best you know nothing about this film when you first see it), but it gave me a real 'What the /#!?' moment. (I had to watch that scene twice, I genuinely didn't expect it.) This film beats the crap outta Twilight etc.
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=135765
Complain about this comment
I have seen Dawn of the Dead way over a hundred times... still a masterpiece.
Maybe if your one of those people who liked Twilight and/or Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp version) you should watch the films again and again until you finally realize how materialistic and absolutely god awful they both truly are.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with Pancrazio, I also saw Capote a second time and it was indeed much better and it was called Infamous.
Complain about this comment
Starship Troopers - first time out I thought it not much more than pseudo-fascistic drivel that positively annoyed me; second time around it occurred to me that I had spectacularly missed the point, and as such thought it a much better, cleverer film.
There was a gap of around 10 years between my viewings - leaving aside allowances for the callow idiocy of youth, how we see films, and what we see in them, must change as we do, and usually not for the better - I'm sure most people would have to think hard to come up with films they liked more second time around, whereas those that fail to live up to one's rosy memories seem all too common.
Complain about this comment
I think a lot of Peckinpah's films come into this category - the first time I saw The Wild Bunch. it's difficult to get past the violence and the very hard edge - in fact it takes a few viewings to get past that, for those elements of it to fade into the background and for the real themes of the value of friendship and honour to come to the fore. When I first saw it, i thought it was breathlessly exciting, now I think of it as really very touching.
Complain about this comment
It seems Lordtangent is the only person to have mentioned Starship Troopers. Interestingly the Guardian ran a similar thread a few months ago and many contributors mentioned how when they first saw it they couldn't believe what a crass, hyperbolic, highconcept movie it was. However, on second and third viewings it become possible to see that the movie worked on many levels, most obviously as a political allegory of modern day America.
So, I went out and bought the DVD, and sure enough it just gets better every time, hilarious and thought provoking in equal measure.
On a more personal level Les Quatres Cents Coups for me just improves with each viewing, and having recently caught the BFI restored version on the big screen, and catching all the original detail I can happily say it is truly one of the greatest movies ever made, from the opening credits circling the Eiffel Tower to the final shot of Jean Pierre Leaud on the beach it is a wonderful experience that improves with each viewing.
Complain about this comment
@ Zombles:
Can't comment on Twilight, but I've seen Sweeney Todd three times - including twice in the cinema - and I think it's Burton's masterpiece (or at least tied with Ed Wood). It's the perfect blend of stunning visuals, great songs, dark and complex plot, and brilliant acting from all involved (yes, even the soppy one who falls for Joanna).
I also think it's the first of Burton's recent work in which he's managed to successfully marry his dark gothic roots with a warm, almost (but not quite) sentimental streak. As much as I love Big Fish and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this is still something unusual and out of place about the sentimental side which seems to have entered into his work since his engagement to HBC. Sweeney Todd has a great warmth going on in the centre of all the darkness and violence, which makes for a truly mesmerising experience.
Complain about this comment
I would just like to add that my favourite movie of 2009 so far, Clint Eastwood's masterful little side project "Gran Torino" is another film that is not only brilliant the first time around but also left me in no doubt that it absolutely demanded to be seen again. I wasted little time and my second viewing came soon afterwards. I have to say that watching it for a second time, particularly the final act of the movie, is arguably a better experience than having watched it first time round. What is already a terrifically engaging movie carries extra poignancy and emotional punch, and is a truly great testament to a master craftsman.
Complain about this comment
Mark, have you seen Paprika? It's a 2006 anime and I definately think that's a surreal sci-fi that has to be watched again and again to truly understand the complexity of the plot.
I doubt many would get it all in one viewing. I think it's brilliant and deserves a mention.
Complain about this comment
Also, The Beguiled became more clear as to what actually led the plot down the route it went when I watched it a second time. A really good film with a fantastic performance by Geraldine Page.
Complain about this comment
I feel that the films of Wes Anderson are films that require a second viewing.
I liked each his films (Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and The Darjeeling Limited) on their first viewing, but I found that I enjoyed each film substantially more on a second viewing and even more so on further screenings.
They have now become some of my all-time favourite films.
Complain about this comment
Leone's "Duck You Sucker"(1971) comes to mind.
I was very underwhelmed upon my first viewing but a second viewing made me realize that though it is a flawed, it is still one of the greatest films ever made.
Complain about this comment
I know you're not a fan Dr. K, but The Big Lebowski is not a movie to be watched only once. I had no idea what the concept of the movie was until giving it a repeat viewing.
Complain about this comment
It's nice to see The Wild Bunch getting a mention in this context; despite (or perhaps because of?) being a huge Western fan practically from birth, I initially found this film just plain nasty. But nowadays, would you believe that, having gotten over the ultra-macho bull-puckey aspect thereof, it is now one of the very few films that threatens to make me cry at the end? Chick-flick or what? (Then again, I'm not a chick, so maybe I'm missing something.) If you don't understand what I mean, check out Ride The High Country, notably the final scenes (which, again, I absolutely love, though in a slightly different way) - I won't give the plot away, but if you ask me, it helped that Randolph Scott was a genuine closet queen. How's that for an oblique way to praise a Sam Peckinpah movie?
Talking of which, several people have commented that perhaps their perception of challenging films depended on who they saw them with. May I just say that one of the funniest film-going experiences of my life was a certain screening of Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs way back in the days when it was quite difficult to see it in any format. The thing was, this particular film club included a pair of militant feminist lesbians who without wishing to be politically incorrect were - I swear! - straight out of the pages of Viz. The only conversation I ever tried to have with them foundered on my slowness in grasping that The Terminator is an intrinsically bad film because Sarah Connor's ultimate role is to become pregnant, and this represents the tyranny of men over women, because let's face it, how often do men get pregnant? (Sadly this was before Big Arnie made that film in which he did in fact become pregnant; that might have made for quite an interesting discussion.)
Anyway... Straw Dogs!!! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING OF??? Sitting in a cinema with people who were reacting to the film in this way actually turned it into a comedy (I think they liked the opening shot though - it kind of sums up the ultimate MIlitant Feminist position: Susan George with no bra and a steel man-trap: ow!). The odd thing is, subsequently watching it by myself without the benefit of ridiculous one-dimensional cardboard lesbians seething with predictable rage at practically every frame, I found myself pretty much agreeing with them that it's a horribly misogynistic movie and not funny at all. Go figure.
Like it or not, we're social creatures. Hudson Hawk is probably better written than Star Wars Episode One/Four/Whatever: The Phantom Menace, and certainly no worse, but it didn't have the benefit of an existing congregation who desperately wanted it to be good. Personally, I don't like either film (and by the way, it's interesting that the thing everybody remembers from Hudson Hawk is the running gag about Bruce Willis being unable to get a coffee; yes, that's quite funny - I remember it too, long after I've forgotten almost every other detail of the plot; but when the most memorable thing about a mega-budget blockbuster action movie is a no-budget action-free joke that would have worked equally well in one episode of a TV sitcom, I think we can safely say there's something wrong with the film). Maybe what it comes down to is that the ultimate reason you need to watch some films more than once to appreciate them is that sometimes peer pressure gets in the way of our understanding what we really feel about the movie?
That being said, the Coen brothers represent a unique challenge. I notice that a great many people didn't get Miller's Crossing or Fargo first time round. Personally, I got 'em both first time round: I love Fargo, and I regard Miller's Crossing as a basically repellent misfire from two blokes talented enough to include plenty of good bits despite themselves. And of course The Big Lebowski, which I also loved immediately (in which context, shouldn't somebody mention Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye? - there, I just have), but which a lot of people seem to have had a problem with. And yet they mostly come round to liking these films, even though the Coen brothers are just a little bit below that level of hipness whereat if the director in question squeezes out a pretentious and utterly misbegotten pile of donkey's involuntarily bowel movements, true movie buffs feel they ought to struggle to appreciate it somehow. I absolutely detested The Man Who Wasn't There when I saw its British premiere without knowing what to expect. And yet, when several weeks later I saw the film again more or less by accident, I thought it was superb - it was just a question of being in the right mood.
Personally, I find that films where the makers didn't compromise, even if it resulted in a rough ride for the audience, and consequently smaller box-office returns, are a lot more rewarding in the repeated-viewing department than anything about which one can use the phrase: "Actually it's not THAT bad..." Unless of course you just want a giggle. I think there are two different strands interwoven here, no?
Complain about this comment
I will never understand how people didn't get the point of Starship Troopers on first viewing
Wes Anderson films definitely need to be seen twice. However the last couple of films haven't been as good. As a director he seems to be veering away from reality and towards more abstract and inscrutable places, a bit too precious. Darjeeling was brilliant at capturing the brother dynamic, but the director didn't seem to be in a good place. I hope Fantast Mr. Fox finds him in a more generous spirit.
Complain about this comment
I guess this amazingly-long thread of movie-talk just goes to show that the effect of a film on us as human beings is never an objective thing.
Just kidding. Michael Bay is Damien and all that.
Complain about this comment
Interesting topic,
Here are a few films that, for me, really benefit from multiple viewings:
Vertigo: This is a film that just keeps getting better and better every time I see it. Unlike some of Hitch's other films, Vertigo doesn't lose any punch after the viewer knows what's going to happen.
Jacob's Ladder: The first time I saw this film, it made me extremely uncomfortable and on edge (which is what a good horror film should do). Second and third viewings revealed what a powerful and emotional film Jacob's Ladder is.
Inland Empire: Forget two viewings, this one needs fifty. I think this film's rewards multiply the farther down the rabbit hole the viewer is willing to go. Speaking of Lynch films, I think Fire Walk With Me should be seen again by most critics who reviewed it.
Complain about this comment
Hey Dr K,
There are two films that it took me two viewing to get a handle on. First was Memento as first time round you are unsure what is goigng on and I was confused and angry with it. However the second time round I began to fill in the puzzle, I began to enjoy it as a cinematic work. The second is yes I am afraid to say Christopher Gans attempt at a Silent Hill film. Now I have the opinion of games becoming movies that you do. However, in seeing it the first time I was not sure if it was like the Silent hill games. I bought some Silent Hill games and I think it was made for fans of the franchise. SO I know you did not like it at all. I ask is that you watch some of the walkthroughs online and see if your opinions change.
Complain about this comment
For me it sometimes works in the opposite way. Saw Braveheart and JFK at the cinema and thought they were incredible. Saw them both again recently and realised I had been hoodwinked. They are both just the worst kind of cinematic emotional manipulation known to man.
Then again, after dismissing Bug as total crap, watched it again after your good self pointed out its strengths. Now I love it. Of course, that could just be I am a weak fool who cannot formulate his own opinions without the help of others....
Complain about this comment
dr, et al
what an interesting thread!
this is going to sound like therapy but i think there's an aspect that's really important to this discussion which a few commentators have come close to touching on. many of us here saw these 1st and 2nd viewings many years apart. i think there's something quite important in how that affects our impressions.
12 monkeys and eyes wide shut come to mind. i loved both in a way i didn't on first viewing but i had had signficant life experience on each viewing thanks to the passage of time.
and so here's two i know i will experience differently if i ever watch them a second time...
i loved both tideland and synechdoche, ny but i am aware that i watched both at times when i connected deeply with them emotionally. i was in dark places when i saw each and both helped me.
with both there was no hope of me judging them in anything like an objective way - they were _very_ emotional experiences that rested largely on me rather than them. i found them cathartic. do i understand your criticism? sure. but i really benefited from those stories.
i know both contained something i really needed reminding of when i saw them.
folks have mentioned the importance of who you are with, i think often it's about where you are at.
it makes me think there are probably a lot of films that didn't go so much over my head, but they were telling a story that didn't emotionally resonate with me. and one day they might be just what i'm looking for.
just as i hope tideland and synechdoche, ny would be "less of" an experience 2nd time around because i hope (and know) i'll never be in the same place again as when i saw them first.
and in a small way, i owe something to each of them.
and whether days or years apart, we are always bringing something different to a film each time we see it. i think it's important to remember that. the film stays the same, but it's _us_ and our world that is different with time and experience.
Complain about this comment
The most surprising second viewing for me was Total Recall.
The first time I saw it I had amiably switched off my brain for a violent, special effect laden, Arnie movie - which it was.
But watching for the second time I realised it had been loaded with clues and suggestions which had the potential to completely change the film. I hadn't realised the first time that it paid to listen to the dialogue in an Arnie action fest.
Complain about this comment
There's an American independent film I stumbled across a couple years ago called 'A Home At The End of The World'. First time I watched it, I liked it but thought it was noticeably flawed, but the second time I realised what was wrong with the film completely paled into insignificance compared to the real tenderness and beauty that's in it, to the extent that I was literally pacing around my room for several hours into the early morning after watching it just thinking about the film. I've since watched it several times and think it still has the same subtle kind of impact. Although only a handful of people even watched it, I'd urge anyone who saw it once to see it again.
I also second Evil Dead. I 'got it' much more the second time (though that was after watching the second one)
Complain about this comment
Dear Dr K.
There are plenty of films that I've seen over my life that I've needed to watch more than once to fully appreciate and understand them.
First The Big Lebowski. First time around I really didn't get the film at all, didn't understand anything, thought it was a stupid pointless exercise of a movie. Then on the second time around I was a little older and wiser and loved it and saw what the Coens were trying to do with that movie. Now I think of it as pure genius.
Another film was one I recently discussed on this blog. Helen. The first time I watched it as you may remember I absolutely hated the film, didn't get it, thought it to be a pretentious piece of arthouse crap.
Then recently I saw it again and something in me stirred. I wouldn't say it is one of the best films of the year but there is something certainly about it that has stayed with me.
Complain about this comment
I tend to hate most films the first time around. Up until a couple of years ago I spent to much time analysing films in the way that sad film bods do. The second time around I generally enjoy the film much more. I think I have to higher expectations generally for new films coming out. A prime example was Starship Troopers which I didn't think was dark and political enough. But now I enjoy it. I also hated Final Fantasy the Spirit within. But now I quite enjoy the film. I think my biggest film sin is Tomb Raider which I hated in the cinema but now it has become my favourite brain dead experience(film I don't have to think about) because it has no plot and cardboard charectors.
Complain about this comment
Noted that I am only 15, and that it's likely that I'll have a totaly different outlook when I'm a decent age.
I agree that knowing the end result for Momento and Fight Club, makes them different films the second time round.
I find that all Terry Gilliam films need a second viewing, so that the ingenius details can be appreciated. He puts such care into setting that with just one viewing it is nearly impossible to absorb all that is presented to you.
I feel the same for Jeunet-Caro films. Such as DELICATESSEN and THE CITY OF THE LOST CHILDREN. Which have beautiful rich environments that need to be fully breathed in over the course of multiple viewings.
Complain about this comment
I completely agree, there are a number of films that seen to be seen multiple times, usually because they are so different, on first viewing you just get a handle on the story arc, and conventions of the film. It takes a second, third or even fourth viewing to notice the nuances, plot point, themes and sometimes who all the charcters are!
Examples I can think of would be:
*Anything by Stanley Kubrick (but particularly the Shining and Eyes Wide Shut)
*Mulholland Drive
*Strangely enough - Heat (its such a sprawling, yet brilliant, story)
Complain about this comment
Death in Venice, I thought it was the dullest film ever the first time, but on second viewing I saw it as the masterpiece it is.
Complain about this comment
I have seen Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Burgundy 37 times now and it just keeps getting better.
Oh, and I saw Drag Me To Hell twice, both times it was fantastic.
Complain about this comment
I don't think anyone can fully appreciate any film on first viewing, and that the very nature of the medium means that every subsequent viewing will change the film itself.
That's not necessarily true of all film (cheap bubblegum, for example, is what it is and is purely superficial), but does hold true for most serious cinema.
I think it was Mamoru Oshii, the director of Ghost in the Shell (although I could be wrong), that said a film does not exist independent of the viewer, and that when you watch a film again, it is a different film because the viewer is no longer the same person.
I suppose it's the modern equivalent of Heraclitus, but this certainly has held true for me over the years, and has proven to be invaluable in helping me appreciating film.
So, when I watch films from my childhood, I'm never disappointed that they are vastly different to how I remember. I appreciate them in a totally different way. The Dark Crystal springs to mind, which I recommend people watch again.
If I don't understand a film, or feel I didn't quite "get it", normally I'll wait for a long period of time before watching it again. The Fountain is sitting on my DVD shelf awaiting a second viewing. So is Joachim Trier's "Reprise", "The Science of Sleep" is another, both of which I really loved, but know I didn't fully grasp.
La Haine, City of Lost Children, Memento, Donnie Darko, Pulp Fiction, Requiem - hell, I would probably argue that good cinema always needs to be seen at least twice! My full appreciation of these films would be nothing with just one sitting.
Blade Runner may possibly be the only film that consistently changes for me with every viewing, if only on a subtle level. I suspect No Country For Old Men will be another.
Complain about this comment
Have to agree with many on this board and go with Blade Runner. It must have taken me at least 3 or 4 times before I actually watched it all the way through without giving up. Then I got given the old video game of it for the PC and absolutely loved it so went back and watched the movie again. That time I finally got it and now if a firm favorite. I had a little extra bonus last time because I had learnt passable Japanese in the meantime and could understand what the chef was saying at the beginning.
Complain about this comment
The film for me, was SUSPIRIA.
I decided to approach Dario Argento's work chronologically. I watched the Animal trilogy, loved it, moved on to Profondo Rosso, Absolutely adored it. Then, it had come to the great Suspiria, I was hyped beyond belief and sat down to watch it.
And how disappointed I was, everybody kind of acted in a way that seemed strange to me, almost expressionistic, and a lot of the dialogue just sounded like fairy tale nonsense. I didn't like it anywhere near as much as his earlier films and decided it was my least favorite out of his peak period.
But then something strange happened, over the next week I thought about the film constantly and realised in retrospect that the quibbles I had with it were minor when compared to the parts I liked. So I watched it again, and sure enough it became my favorite Argento film, I kind of felt as though I had betrayed my own opinions, but on second time round everything clicked. Of course it's fairytale like, of course the acting at times comes across reminiscent of the 1920s, because that was what was creating the atmosphere I was so impressed with.
It was my expectations that let me down first time, not so much because of how high the hype was, but because for a film that operates that way, you can't prepare yourself for it until you've seen it once.
Which I guess then leads on to the conversation of how expectations shapes your viewing of a film.
Complain about this comment
I think it took me three viewings of Ashes of Time to appreciate it. Something made me keep going back to it, perhaps if only to try and work out what was going on. It's just a shame that there are no decent prints of the original version left, I prefer it to the Redux version, I'll have to keep hold of my horrible Hong Kong DVD.
Complain about this comment
I saw Helen on mark's recommendation, unfortunately it turned out it had zero plot and extremely stale acting.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS