re: Name 5 movies that were better the second time you watched them

You are being way to critical about the meaning of this thread

quote:

---

most films do not and should not REQUIRE successive viewings to "get" or "understand" them.

---

When did I ever say this thread was about "getting" or "understanding" a movie the second time? All I said was better the second time.

quote:

---

You are being way to critical about the meaning of this thread

---

Well you happened to post this on a night when a pretty big discussion about "successive viewings" and someone mentioned me, so it seemed directly targeted at that discussion. If not, my mistake.

quote:

---

When did I ever say this thread was about "getting" or "understanding" a movie the second time?

---

MAJOR coincidence. Strange.

quote:

---

You have to keep in mind that most people don't absorb information at the same level as others. Things click for other people at different times. Sometimes successive viewings are needed for slower (when it comes to movies ) and more analytical viewers such as myself.

---

You don't want me to Sobchak this thread, so we'll keep it light.

I'll give one answer:

Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Thought it was brilliant the first time. After a few more watches, it might just be a masterpiece.

(Note: I don't think the film "gets better," I think I am better able to judge it against similar films. I enjoy the heck out of it every time I watch it)

Moneyball


Its now one of my favorite movies

quote:

---

(Note: I don't think the film "gets better," I think I am better able to judge it against similar films. I enjoy the heck out of it every time I watch it)

---

I can agree with the fact that a film is the same thing the first time as it is the fifth time. However, you notice things after different viewings. It's all perception and personal opinion. I'll leave it at that.

quote:

---

why are multiple people saying moneyball? that one doesnt seem like the type of movie that is better the second time around. what's the deal?

---

For me, the first time I saw it I was so wrapped up in the baseball aspect and his formula because of my love for the sport. I found myself not paying much attention to the way the actors played off of each other and the emotional aspect of Billy and his daughter. Second time really helped me merge the two aspects which made it a great movie to watch for me.

All Quentin Tarantino

Especially Inglorious Basterdz (which I did not care for first watch and now love)

I didn't like Harold n Kumar first time in theaters, now I love it.

Harold and kumar 2 is the ultimate one for this.

I thought it was terrible when i first watched it( and i liked the first one) and it got better every time i watched it. It might be better than the first one and its atleast close.

Rob Coddry (sp?) kills it in that movie.

Donnie Darko
Pulp Fiction
The Assassination of Jesse James
2001
Road House

quote:

---

I never said movies "can't get better on successive viewings" or "you can't enjoy successive viewings of a movie" or "you can't find 'anything new' in a successive viewing." None of that is true.

The short answer is that, most films do not and should not REQUIRE successive viewings to "get" or "understand" them. Those phrases are flexible to the genre of the film. For instance, in a horror film, successive viewings often get worse because tension release is known after you see the movie once.

Longform: I start from this:

1. The director and his intent are more important than the viewer
2. You can never have the same experience twice
3. But you are always watching the same thing

In most cases, directors are making films specifically for ONE viewing, unless explicitly stated by the director or by the rules of the film. Obviously, they cannot control the fan who wants to consume content over and over again. But the idea of a film is tell the journey of a protagonist who meets obstacles, overcomes them and changes over time. That's one path. Therefore, a competent and successful director, will create a film that has all necessary parts of the story, the character, and the overall theme in its film front and center. If he or she is not successful at that, the film will fail to connect with the intended audience.

A film that REQUIRES successive viewings to understand the film, unless explicitly defined as such, is a failure.

Films that support successive viewings and films that support one singular experience should be celebrated.

---

far too complex. some movies you just enjoy upon more a second time around. it's not about "understanding" or "getting" and just like anything you can also acquire a taste. and yes you can have a different experience. everyone is different.

quote:

---

directors are making films specifically for ONE viewing

---

really? even comedy?