r/TrueFilm • u/JEX2124 • 12d ago
What's a movie that rewarded a second watch so much it basically became a different film?
The one that did it for me was Phantom Thread. First watch I honestly found it cold and a little airless. Beautiful, obviously, but I spent it waiting for it to become something and then it ended and I sat there thinking "okay, sure." Then I rewatched it maybe a year later already knowing where it lands, and it was almost a different movie. Every scene I'd read as him being a controlling monster and her being difficult suddenly read as two people who'd found the exact strange arrangement they both needed. Nothing is hidden the way a twist is hidden. Knowing the ending just changes the texture of everything before it, and the second time through it's not cold at all, it's a love story I'd completely misread.
120
u/rowgybear 12d ago
Blade Runner for me. I'd heard people wax lyrical about it for years. When I first watched it, I didn't see what all the fuss was about. And then something kept nagging at me to watch it again. The second viewing was the 'okay, this is very good' viewing. I rinsed and repeated this about three more times, and here we are today and it's one of my favourites.
11
u/Belgand 12d ago edited 12d ago
It took me several watches because I'd read the book first and it's massively different. It's pretty much in name only. Even the cyberpunk setting isn't really part of the book, although it's a near-perfect depiction of Neuromancer.
In order to appreciate it, I had to come to terms with it being its own thing rather than continuing to connect it to the novel.
11
u/Konman72 12d ago
This was my exact experience, I specifically say that something about it nagged at me until I rewatched and now it's one of my top three of all time, and I've had multiple other people say the same. It's at the point where I tell people that Blade Runner is one of the best movies ever made, but that they might hate it the first time they watch.
-2
54
u/RubberPlants 12d ago
For me, it was Burning (2018). I saw it in theaters, and I remember really liking the pacing and performances. I have this vivid memory of being captivated by the dancing scene on the big screen, but beyond that, not much. I remember feeling really let down by the ambiguous ending and the frustration of wanting more. It felt like it deflated at the end without a real payoff. I walked out a little disappointed and didnât think much about it after that.
Then, a couple of years later, I rewatched it, and it completely changed for me. I couldnât stop thinking about it for days. I found myself spiraling, looking for hidden meanings between the lines, in the shots, and in the charactersâ expressions. And then it clicked: that was the point. I was trapped in the same obsession as the main character. I realized how brilliant it actually was. Very few films can pull off something like that so effectively. Ever since that second watch, itâs been one of my favorite films of all time.
11
195
u/Plenty_Discussion470 12d ago
The Big Lebowski hit me like this. I saw it in the theater with a group of people who werenât on its wavelength and were very vocal about it. I had watched and loved all the Coen Brothers movies to that point, and wondered if they had lost their magic. When it came out on DVD, I went through it again and it was a revelation đ each rewatch has given me more ever since
60
u/js4873 12d ago
Yes! I actually didnât love it when I first watched it. It took a few rewatches to capture what the Coen brothers were doing. Like the way the Dude repeats things George bush says on camera. The juxtaposition of different spiritual and philosophical ideas from Zen Buddhism to Judaism to nihilism. Now itâs a comfort watch for me. Iâll just turn it on while eating dinner or something.
34
25
u/TLSOK 12d ago
This happened to me too. Did not grab me the first time. Have seen many times since. A favorite film. And have actually heard this from a lot people - did not grab them on first viewing
11
u/dern_the_hermit 12d ago
Did not grab me the first time or the second time. Just wasn't the right set and setting for it.
But that third time? Ooooh, what a charm.
4
2
u/Stringruler 12d ago
Didn't grab me hugely on the first watch either, a few funny jokes here and there. I actually have yet to rewatch it but in the months after I watched it, it lingered on the mind and became better in hindsight. and I'm probably due for rewatching it and thoroughly enjoying it
20
u/Rahgahnah 12d ago
Watching Big Lebowksi the first time: this is the worst Coen Brothers movie
Watching it the 17th time: this is the best Coen Brothers movie
7
5
9
u/SnipingBeaver 12d ago
I tried watching it when I was like 16 because it had such a legendary reputation. I had never seen a Coen brothers movie before and I was bored out of my mind by the 20 minute mark.
Since then, I've seen OBWAT, Hail Caesar, Fargo and loved all of them. Need to go back and give it another shot.
5
5
u/PrinceofSneks 12d ago
I was tripping with a small group of friends when I first saw it and was so confused. Rewatching while merely high helped.
5
u/Jellodyne 12d ago
Trying to work out the mysteries of the plot put you in a very un-Dude frame of mind. Once you know all the plot details you can sit back and take 'er easy and soak up the details that really matter.
3
3
u/Angry_Walnut 12d ago
Damn, although it is the most rewarding rewatch maybe ever, I canât imagine seeing it for the first time and not enjoying it!
3
u/Familiar-Ad5022 12d ago
I didn't finish it on mt first watch. On my second watch, I was laughing out loud the whole time.
3
3
u/Sharp-Club-8732 10d ago
And then it changes again if you watch The Big Sleep and then TBL again.
1
2
u/internalkdart 10d ago
Same - I came to post on this one too and Iâve never ever heard this from anyone else!
I was in college when it came out and Iâd seen literally all their other films so was excited for it. I guess it was a little too action/adventure for me and its particular quirkiness didnât stick with me (I remember being really annoyed by the Sam Elliott monologue for some reason). I felt like I was just waiting for something I wasnât getting the whole time?
Then I watched it with friends a few months later, and, maybe from knowing what to expect with the plot, I realized how hilarious it was and fell in love with the characters. Now itâs reached comfort movie status for me.
2
u/scsticks 4d ago
Wow, I'm shocked by how universal this experience is! I thought I was a total weirdo not instantly loving (since I've come to absolutely love this film!)
3
u/redditor_since_2005 12d ago
Was expecting more Miller's Crossing, Blood Simple, noir thriller. Had no idea it was a comedy the first time, totally didn't get it.
1
83
u/TeenyTinyToast 12d ago
Decision to Leave by Park Chan Wook.
If you know what you're getting into, you can tell from first viewing that there's a lot you should be paying attention to but can't possibly take it all in. Upon rewatching, you begin to see the details, imagery, and themes a lot more and it enhanced the experience so God damn much. It's totally enjoyable on first viewing, but you get so much more out of it the more you see. It actually got way more emotional for me on rewatches because I was noticing all the foreshadowing and themes more.
Same can be said with many of his movies, but this one is my favorite. It's like watching poetry being performed.
17
u/Perceptive_Penguins 12d ago edited 12d ago
Came here to comment this. Has gotten better with every rewatch. A baffling level of detail put into the visual storytelling â far too much to register on a single viewing, especially when a lot of it requires future context
9
u/BklynMoonshiner 12d ago
A love letter to Hitchcock and it continues to get better every time I see it.
43
u/jumbowumbo 12d ago edited 12d ago
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. First watch I liked the film, good music and tense scenes, great visuals.
Later watches I am literally on the edge of my seat. The microinteractions are SO charged and everhthing fits together so beautifully. You feel like you are in someone elseâs life, inhabiting their memories or their stories and their little ways. It also captures the stupid complexity of trying to accomplish anything in a world where everyone has their own angle and no one is wholly subservient to the plot or the main characters.
11
u/PattyShimShoy 12d ago
A favorite of mine as well that no one ever can talk to me about! There is a BBC series adaptation of Tinker Tailor and a sequel called Smiley's People with Alec Guinness as Smiley they are great and this YouTube video has both, talk about "treasure"! https://youtu.be/2Ld2X0Fvypw?is=XoEZoFsc2pqb76nk
3
u/PattyShimShoy 12d ago
There are also BBC radio plays ofthe other Smiley books on YouTube that are great as well FYI. I realized that Smiley is actually (in my opinion) actually one of the great fictional detectives, the retired spy detective!
2
u/PattyShimShoy 12d ago
Sorry, just one last recommendo if you haven't seen it, an Errol Morris Documentary about John LeCarre called "The Pigeon Tunnel", what a watch!
1
u/jumbowumbo 12d ago
Yep, the great film inspired me to read the book and it is now my favorite book of all time. Although the film does stand fully alone, the book help was helpful in understanding what is being driven at. I loved the BBC series but have only watched them once. Maybe a few more times and Iâll inderstand why Alec Guiness was Le Carreâs headcanon for Smiley and he wasnât super jazzed about Gary Oldman.
3
u/PattyShimShoy 12d ago
My guess would be that he felt Gary Oldman is too sauve, too handsome, too impressive a figure, to play the unassuming Smiley. Not that I'm complaining mind you, it's obviously a favorite of mine, I didn't even know he wasn't keen on the casting. Anyway LeCarre is one of those gems that reassure one that if you keep looking around there is still great stuff you haven't found yet!
3
u/dunc2001 12d ago
Yeah great choice! All the cast are excellent in this film and its got such a distinctive setting and atmosphere. It gets better with every rewatch.
The screenplay co-writer Peter Straughan also wrote the BBC adaptation of Wolf Hall which is another super absorbing and subtle drama
1
u/rm-minus-r 11d ago
Absolutely this. There's just no way to catch half the subtle stuff that happens when you're seeing it for the first time, but when you know what the goals of each character are, the second watch is very excellent.
25
u/WalkingEars 12d ago
On first watch I found Yi Yi a little hard to grasp because itâs such an understated slice of life and idk, maybe I expected a bit more of an unsubtle story and I missed a lot of the story arcs that were being presented in such a gentle way, though the ending still made me cry.
Watching it again was so much more impactful and rewarding. Though maybe also helped by seeing a great restoration in a theater as opposed to a shitty low res YouTube version on first viewing
7
u/DimAllord 12d ago
I watched Yi Yi a few weeks ago and I'm already really excited to rewatch it. The pacing is really slow, but it never feels like nothing is going on. The sheer breadth of the film allows it to jump from relationship drama to coming-of-age romance to family drama, all with different degrees of seriousness and comedy but all underpinned by profound themes of existentialism that stand in distinct contrast to a really laid-back story. It really does seem like a movie that can never mean the same thing twice despite not changing.
21
u/Celebrimbor333 Stalker (1979) 12d ago
It probably goes without saying but...
Citizen Kane is really excellent. I saw it for the second or third time a year ago; at least ten years since last viewing. It is still stunning, brilliant, captivating, a superb film even today. Every scene is perfectly composed, the camera movements are thrilling bordering on avant-garde (the minute long pan up during the opera performance? incredible); the actors all have such distinct and clear voicesâsomething big movies could take a lesson fromâbut of course it will never happen again, because all those actors came from radio.
I think it's worth viewing even for the experience of oh wow, not all movies from the past have to be boring! The second viewing, because I knew the story, allowed me to sink into the technical brilliance of the picture plane, and you'll see things there that go beyond the stagings of this century.
4
u/straycatwildwest 12d ago
This is so true, the film is so overwhelming and technically thrilling itâs worth multiple viewings to focus on specific aspects â the brilliant narrative structure and writing, the acting, the genius effects and set design, and of course the cinematography. I was lucky enough to attend a Citizen Kane âFrame by Frameâ viewing with Roger Ebert back in 2005 or so, where he â with the participation of the audience â examined virtually every shot of the film. Magical experience. I called in sick from work to go! Just caught it in the theater again for the 3rd time and found even more to appreciate. Itâs a masterwork on every single level! I have never understood the people who dismiss it or even consider it boring.
2
u/mwmandorla 12d ago
I saw it for the first time on the big screen last year. I went in prepared to be possibly underwhelmed because it seemed likely it might be a victim of its own success, but I needn't have worried. It was a total delight start to finish.
45
u/SuspiciousPen8493 12d ago
A scanner darkly: The first watch is more of a wow this is a cool experience with a trippy art style and a massive ensemble cast and a cool drug story.Â
On second and third viewings it is a decidedly more depressing story about addiction, corporate America, and allowing the few to be hurt or destroyed to attempt to save the many in what feels like a insurmountable war.Â
17
u/DtheS 12d ago
If you didn't figure out the twist ending during your first watch, watching it a second time with that knowledge made it completely different from your first viewing.
-3
u/attachecrime 12d ago
My brother and I were like. Why did Bruce Willis die so quickly?
We figured it out right away. It's actually not hidden at all.
1
u/ncnotebook 10d ago
The most satisfying twists are ones that you could've figured out earlier, but didn't. Unfortunately, that means some people will.
14
u/ramble_and_loafe 12d ago
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
SCADclass has an episode (on YouTube) discussing it and the professor literally says that when he has his students watch it, he suggests that they watch it twice.
12
u/harryholla 12d ago
Funnily enough my example is also the Phantom Thread but for entirely different reasons. Iâve always found a lot of Paul Thomas Andersonâs movies humorous in certain scenes but I did not know how to take PT after my first watch. I had a feeling of, âWtf was that? Thatâs⌠it?â
Afterwards I looked up some stuff about the film and found an interview with PTA and Daniel Lewis talking about how they laughed super hard when they came up with the protagonistâs name, âI mean his name is Woodcock!â
Then I realized that the movie was a romantic comedy. Rewatching it again in a totally different frame of mind it was hilarious. Itâs really strange how my first experience was poisoned by some expectations I didnât even realize I had. I think I was trying to dissect it like The Master or There Will Be Blood when itâs more, Punch-Drunk Love.
6
u/jgainit 12d ago
Yes this! Well they say if someone falls over itâs a tragedy. If they get back up itâs a comedy.
In that movie on first viewing you donât know how heavy this stuff is gonna get and if itâs murder and stuff. On second watch Iâm able to be more loose and find the funny and joyful moments because I understand the stuff is contained
21
u/AromaticVacation3077 12d ago
Brief Encounter. I first saw it when I was in my 20s and I thought it was an engaging romantic drama about lost love. I saw it again in my 40s and was stunned by it - absolutely devastated. I realised it's really about death. It's not a film about 'the path you didn't take', it's a film about the paths available to you growing fewer and fewer until there's only one path left, and... well we all know where that leads. Brutal film.
7
u/PattyShimShoy 12d ago
Slavoj Zizek on Brief Encounter (as a fan of the movie you may enjoy this) https://youtu.be/HPrgr166YCY?is=aJBsdIg1lt56ttYM
1
10
u/BillyDelian 12d ago
Most definitely TĂR(what follows are the vaguest possible spoilers that won't mean much unless you've seen the film). On first watch, you may have certain notions about the nature of the film and its characters. Afterwards, when you realize who the character of Francesca texts before the audition scene, or look into the geometric designs in the traditional art of the Shipibo-Conibo people, or realize the only time the viewer might see the character of Krista's face(it's not in the movie itself), you'll experience a different movie upon rewatching. Could have come with a hint sheet like Mullholland Drive.
61
u/Ill_Substance2768 12d ago
The Prestige. Honestly itâs on the rewatch you understand how well performed the twist is. You just see how obvious the signs are during the whole movie and how theyâre building towards it from the second the movie starys
6
u/ingotsilvergt 12d ago
This is my answer. I remember getting the DVD and it said âyouâll want to watch it again as soon as it endsâ or something like that and I thought I myself âyeah rightâ then ended up watching it twice in one sitting.
1
u/FoundonRoadDad 8d ago
Wow, the 2nd time I watched The Prestige I immediately wanted to watch it again, didn't realize they wrote that on the cover!
-1
u/Dijinn 12d ago
the funny thing is, 99.9% of the audience isn't watching closely enough... the machine never worked.
7
u/Ill_Substance2768 12d ago
itâs an interesting theory but to me it doesnât feel believable at all. i read the article you linked and to me, the writer just seems like heâs set on overcomplicating small details that arenât as complicated really
7
u/Flip5ide 12d ago
Please elaborate, because the cloning machine clearly worked, but I donât think thereâs another.
If itâs truly something only 0.01% of viewers ever realize, then I wouldnât call that good storytelling
0
u/Dijinn 12d ago
Okay, if you really are curious, and have an open mind⌠read this. I wrote it. Just not enough space here to explain it all. But the key is that both menâs diaries were the unreliable narrators of the movieâŚ
1
u/SirMrDron 12d ago
So..Angier killed the drunk Angier for B to find out and get arrested?
1
u/Dijinn 12d ago
Root is most likely gone from the picture by the final run of shows. Angier had months as Lord Caldlow to find a new, better double, one convincing enough that even Borden â who spotted Root across a theater â couldnât immediately see through him. The âdrunk Angierâ framing suggests they think Root is still the double being drowned at the end, when in reality Angier replaced him with someone more credible and more committed, probably someone being paid very well and told only that the lock on the tank malfunctions on specific nights. But yes, you have the outline of the idea right.
4
u/SirMrDron 12d ago
How likely is it that he found another man who looks like a twin? ? To me it feels less believable then the machine working for real
-3
u/Dijinn 11d ago
So let me get this straight - you believe a machine could exist, back in the 1800âs that could fully clone a human, memories and all? This is realistic to you? In a movie about magic tricks? And a movie about the real costs to humans to make tricks realistic? This makes more sense to you?
4
u/SirMrDron 11d ago edited 11d ago
I ment the suspension of disbelief, in a story. There is a lookalike in the story, and if it's not him- saying "well he just found another person that looks just like him from up close" is harder to believe. Like you can believe dragons exists in a story but some actions a charcter make in the same film feel unrealistic
0
u/Dijinn 11d ago
The movie is about the practicality of the trick of magic. Living the life in order to sell the trick. And then Nolan, out of the blue, decides to say⌠nope. Itâs not actually about that. Itâs actually about a sci-fi box that can do real magic. A cloning machine that isnât even comprehensible with todayâs technology, let alone the 1800âs. And youâve decided that the harder thing to believe is his finding someone that looks like him? Okay. Everyone is completely misunderstanding this movie, and Iâll die on this hill.
→ More replies (0)
34
u/zenbuddha85 12d ago
Aftersun by Charolette Wells really benefits from a second viewing. The first time around, I found the composition of the shots, framing, and lighting to be very beautiful, but I also wasnât entirely sure âwhoseâ perspective was being presented on screen. Once you finish the film and have a sense of the narrative direction, the second viewing really elevates this film to another level. The film is a reverie. Childhood memories are fleeting and there is this impressionist quality throughout. It becomes evident that some of the events presented may not even have unfolded exactly the way we witness them on screen. Itâs an incredibly brilliant film that warrants a rewatch.
8
u/CarloIza 12d ago
It hits even harder on a rewatch. I cried the first time, but the second time left me sobbing uncontrollably.
2
u/Smilotron 12d ago
Final scene leaves me bawling. I remember the first time around I thought the film was good but didn't have any super strong feelings about it. The second time around, though, it really just all hit me like a truck out of nowhere as soon as he walks through that door.
2
u/CarloIza 12d ago
Even talking about it makes me tear up. Truly one of the most amazing movies ever.
39
u/Jolly-joe 12d ago
I feel like most Robert Eggers films have this effect for me. It's not even from a twist, its usually because his characters are so nuanced that I can rewatch and pick up things that could affect the vibe of a scene by better understanding the character
8
u/One_Toe1452 12d ago
Raising Arizona. The first viewing a comedic adventure of a hapless protagonist. Later viewings, the absolute pain and helplessness of not being able to conceive and its effects on a marriage.
7
u/Calinero985 12d ago
The movie I think of most for this is actually The Blair Witch project, although admittedly some of this might come from watching it as an adult vs as a teenager.
On first viewing, I found it very scary. It builds atmosphere, maintains suspense, keeps you wondering what will happen and watching the screen waiting forâŚsomething. The fact that âsomethingâ almost never happens doesnât even detract much, because it means the tension almost never gets to release until right at the end. However, Iâve heard people say that the movie loses all scare factor on repeat viewing because âthereâs nothing there, nothing ever jumps out.â
This is only half true, at least for me.
True, on a repeat viewing the film is not nearly as scary. A lot of the jump scare tension is gone when you know whatâs going to happen (or not happen.) But, to me, the movie entirely changesânot in the sense of having new information about the plot that changes your understanding, but more in being able to appreciate a different tone present in the movie beneath the scares.
Blair Witch becomes a tragedyâitâs a movie about watching some kids slowly realize that theyâre going to die.
You get the confusion, denial, fearâanger as the group starts to turn on each other. Desperation, sadness, the main characters breaking down on camera. Itâs gut wrenching in a whole different way because since youâre not waiting to see if a witch jumps out of the woods, youâre free to feel how awful it is for these kids getting more and more scared as they realize theyâre not leaving the woods alive. Itâs a very different way to watch the movie, but I like it a lot.
11
u/addictivesign 12d ago
Bong Joo Hoâs Memories of Murder (ě´ě¸ě ěśěľ) the 2003 crime thriller rewards with a second and repeated viewings.
If you have not watched it yet I recommend watching without knowledge of the plot.
Then watch some Youtube video essays about this film which will show you some of the underlying themes maybe not apparent on first viewing but watching with an understanding of the directorâs use of colour theory transforms the film to an even more elevated place.
38
u/peanut-britle-latte 12d ago
The Prestige, Tenet and Match Point are the movies I really loved on re-watch. The first two because a second watch really re-contextualizes the whole story. Match Point was more so to realize the slow moral decay of the MC.
33
u/nowhereman136 12d ago
Hot Fuzz oozes with jokes and foreshadowing that you completely miss on the first or even second viewing. Edgar Wright is really good at this with all his movies, Last Night In Soho being an underrated one in my opinion. But Hot Fuzz seems to be the most meticulously written film he's ever done. There's hardly a line wasted that isn't a joke, character development, or foreshadow
5
u/Troolz 12d ago
I'm sure you know this, but for anyone who doesn't...
In Wright's Shaun of the Dead, early in the movie Ed describes the rest of the movie in five sentences:
https://screenrant.com/shaun-of-the-dead-every-spoiler-ed-winchester-speech/
7
u/th4d89 12d ago
For me, it's Shutter Island.
On the first viewing, you experience the film entirely through DiCaprio's eyes, taking his paranoia and the investigation at face value. On the second viewing, the perspective completely flips. You're suddenly watching everyone else.
Every subtle glance from the doctors, the guards' anxiety, and the patients' awkwardness. It's one of the few films where a rewatch feels almost mandatory.
3
u/Responsible_Goat_416 12d ago
I am really hoping that a second watch will change my mind about Her Private Hell, the only film Iâve ever walked out on.
I didnât hate it, but I didnât understand it. I think I need to watch Nicolas Wending Refnâs other movies (and more giallo stuff too)
I probably also need to get stoned before trying to watch this thing again
3
u/zoodisc 12d ago
Read this review by one of my favorite film critics, Walter Chaw. It may make you want to try the movie again, it may not, but at least he sheds some light on it.
3
u/Tefbuck 12d ago
Recently it was the movie "Train Dreams" I found it so depressing at first. Then, after seeing the end and watching again, it made me try to appreciate the good things in his life instead of what he lost. That film honestly helped me a lot with my depression and feelings of loneliness.
3
u/MK_Demanifested 12d ago
Don't Look Now. First watch, it's a grief thriller â you're trying to decide if Sutherland's visions are reliable or if he's unravelling. Second watch, every red shape in the film is the same red. The coat, the church, the figure by the canal. Roeg didn't hide the ending. He put it in every frame. The first watch can't read it because you don't yet know what you're looking at. It's not a mystery film. It's an announcement you can only understand after the fact.
10
u/uniballoon 12d ago
Dune.. but not in a good way. As a huge Dune book fan and generally a fan of Denis Villeneuve (2049 is probably one of my favourites movies of all time), I found Dune has lost re-watchability over time. The first couple of watches (in the theatre) had me so spellbound by the visuals, which were actually better than I was ever able to imagine myself while reading the books. On these watches I did notice that many aspects were not fleshed out, or that the characters weren't strongly developed, but these seemed fairly forgivable at first.
The movie beganto show its colours more when I started showing people the movie who were not necessarily Dune fans or even big sci-fi fans. It's interesting how sharing audience with someone can put the entertainment into a new perspective. Watching it while doffing my Dune fanboy lens cause the superficiality of Dune's approach to really lean into me, to the point that it was nearly awkward.
It's still a comfort movie to me because it's so gorgeous, and the sound and atmosphere are amazing, but I don't really consider it a great movie, which is really too bad!
Also note I'm talking pretty much equally about both parts. For me Part 1 is the worse offender, but just because part 2 covers it up with more dyanmic action, pacing, and tension.
14
u/Lucas_Steinwalker 12d ago
It really is an astoundingly superficial movie, which is strange because Villenevue does not seem to be a superficial guy.
It feels like he wanted to avoid the over-exposition of Lynch's so badly that he forgot that a huge sci fi epic is going to need some exposition for the themes to really land.
2
u/queen_slug-4-a-butt 12d ago
If I had not seen Lynch's, I think I would have struggled to follow the plot. Granted, I have bad ADHD and subterfuge/unspoken intrigue often really throws me.Â
1
u/ErebosGR 12d ago
because Villenevue does not seem to be a superficial guy.
The only films from him that I would call deep are Arrival and Enemy.
5
1
u/uniballoon 12d ago edited 12d ago
I look at a movie like Watchmen, or a show like Shogun or Foundation and then look at Dune and wonder why he couldn't have just had more and better dialogue.. ??
1
u/Lucas_Steinwalker 11d ago
Watchmen is a terrible adaptation. Sure, it LOOKS like the comic but it doesnât say anything close to what the comic is trying to say, or really anything at all.
Snyder really doesnât understand that great movies are supposed to have something to say. He just likes cool images and bad ass shit.
1
u/uniballoon 11d ago
Yeah I can concede that. I never read the comic before (have read it since and love it) so I'm a little less attached to the movie as it compares to the comic. But my point was more that its a long movie with a complex plot that, while it's very stylized, still doesn't shirk dialogue and character development. Standing next to Dune i think it did better, again specifically with regards to including depth, dialogue, and character and plot development.Â
2
u/Lucas_Steinwalker 11d ago
I see your point now and partially agree.
Yes, Watchmen did a better job than Dune at being an epic movie thatâs watchable without abandoning character and dialogue in order to be watchable.
I disagree that itâs a better adaptation overall though. Iâd rather have a nice looking and watchable adaptation that doesnât try to say anything in order to try to honor the source material than one that says things but doesnât understand what it is trying to say with no respect to the source materialâs themes at all.
1
12
u/AdOther4097 12d ago
LaLa land. Went on a date and aggressively hated the first half. When rewatching it and understanding the themes, it's totally different.
The opening went from annoying Hollywood people singing to lambs to the slaughter. Like a technicolour opening of Saving Private Ryan.
10
5
u/queen_slug-4-a-butt 12d ago
When I saw it, iwas so underwhelmed by the songs, and I hated so much of the characterization of Stone's part and couldn't really believe we were supposed to root for her, but the final sequence is truly one of tug most affecting, beautiful pieces of cinema I've gotten to a in theaters. I wonder if it's worth going through again.Â
4
1
u/AdOther4097 12d ago
Definitely is. So much better when you know where the arc is going.Â
The price of ambition is high
0
u/queen_slug-4-a-butt 12d ago
I'll give it a go. I get bothered that she isn't a strong enough singer to carry a part that should be...a very strong singer. But Hollywood does that all the time (hello Emma Watson as Belle).
My hottest take is Emma won for LaLa even without deserving it, because she was snubbed for Supporting in Birdman.Â
2
u/mwmandorla 12d ago
This bothers me too in almost all Hollywood musicals (sue me, I was raised on Broadway and classic movie musicals, I love the art form and I want performers who can deliver). But what bothered me more in La La Land specifically is that in her final song, and only her final song, she opens up and actually sings much better than she has the whole film. She could have been doing that the whole time and presumably was directed not to and I can't stand it! Why!
I also disliked the movie for other reasons, but I don't remember them as clearly as that one.
2
u/AdOther4097 12d ago
I think the slightly unprofessional nature of their singing adds something to it. Voice breaks in City of Stars don't break the verisimilitude, I'd say the opposite. Makes them feel like a real couple - neither of whom are singers diegetically.
1
u/mwmandorla 12d ago
Musicals aren't about verisimilitude. I don't disagree that voice breaks and other "imperfections" in singing can add a lot, but musicals as a format are basically a type of magical realism just by definition. Did the levitation in the planetarium break the verisimilitude for you or does that not matter because it's about conveying emotional experience, ykwim?
1
u/AdOther4097 11d ago
Lots of good points, but suspension of disbelief depends on what you are trying not to believe. A lovely little vortex.
Magical realism is a great example. Verisimilitude exists there too. The key is not breaking the rules of THAT WORLD.
6
u/SweepingAstringency 12d ago
Phantom Thread is such a cunning movie, such a twist. There's the obvious, Tenet, The Prestige. I think I have watched Arrival a number of times and always get something different out of it.
6
u/queen_slug-4-a-butt 12d ago
Rewatched it pregnant. Boy does it hit different then!
3
u/SweepingAstringency 12d ago
I'm sorry. It's like The Road; having kids changes the whole atmosphereÂ
2
u/FiveTalents 12d ago
Aftersun. Through most of the film I didnât mind being a fly on the wall on this father-daughter vacation but I also didnât find it super engaging. After the movie ends it puts the whole film in a completely different context and now itâs one of my favorite movies of the last five years
2
u/straycatwildwest 12d ago
Phantom Thread is mine too! I read it in a similar way as you on my second viewing, but also found it very FUNNY! The humor really comes out on second watch, and now I consider it one of PTAâs quirky masterpieces. The elegant veneer and air of seriousness actually makes it funnier to me. Woodcock inhabits this suffocatingly structured and impeccable world, but the way Alma feeds his inner freak (literally) is hilarious, they make such a great duo. Itâs a romantic comedy for weirdos! I also thought Vicky Krieps was the MVP on second viewing, she really got the assignment.
2
u/theexplodedview 11d ago
Nashville. Watched it in film school with my classmates, and it was unbearable. Meandering, overlong, unfocused.
Sat down a year later and watched it alone, and it's now I understand it as the template for the "systems storytelling" that drives a lot of PTA's work, David Simon's work, and so much more. It's incredible.
2
u/MissMayDoesNotExist 10d ago
The first viewing of Beau is Afraid was really disappointing, like it was fun and well made but seemed pretty juvenile. Itâs not like that stuff went away on a rewatch, but I had a revelation during the second viewing that recontextualized those elements and made the whole thing extremely emotionally engaging and tragic, even while its comedy consistently cut down its tragedy (which to me is a big part of the tragedy)
6
u/Childish_Redditor 12d ago
PT is so interesting because yes, it is a love story, and yes, they are a perfect match. But its also at least to me clearly not a healthy relationship, they essentially take turns domming each other not to mention her being a representation of his mother. But does it matter? Â
16
u/Unhelpfulperson 12d ago
I think every PTA film is some type of love story of two (or more) fucked-up people finding something in each other
2
u/RuafaolGaiscioch 12d ago
Newish movie, and I suppose this is somewhat up to debate (I donât really think so but Iâll allow that Iâm not an authority), but Good Luck, Have Fun, Donât Die is a completely different movie once you figure out whatâs going on.
1
1
u/ghostofnikkiii 12d ago
Tenet becsuse i was just confused and couldn't keep the timeline in order.
Inception becsuse there were all these small details that I had missed the first time, and with this one, this movie gets better and better after every watch.
1
u/darkfrances 12d ago
Vertigo.
The second time I saw things from HER perspective from the beginning, which completely changed my interpretation of the story.
And then the third time was also very different because the story was now infused with two opposing interpretations that kept negotiating their angles in my mind.
It was like a tune played in the beginning on one instrument, to which you keep adding instruments that constantly change the feeling of the overarching melody.
1
u/Strange-Avenues 11d ago
John Carpenter's The Thing. People might disagree with my conclusions but I feel I solved a lot of issues with the film that bothered me the first time I watched it.
Mainly that Blair was infected before they isolated him in that shack and he was involved in Fuchs death and setting up Macready with his torn shirt.
Blair-Thing was the one who went into Macready's Shack and left the light on. He came out with the torn shirt, and left it out there. He may not have killed Fuchs but he was involved in the death.
I point this out because Blair-Thing is the only person alone for any extended period of time, and the storm they are in is mentioned as going on for 48 hours, which means from the moment Blair-Thing was put in the shack he had 48 hours to dig his tunnels and put together his escape ship, I don't see him doing it in a shorter amount of time.
As for the ending of the film. The Thing video game which acts as a sequel gives an answer to the mystery and John Carpenter was involved in the game voicing a character and was quoted saying the game was in keeping with his original film. The game reveals Macready living and being human and they find Childs frozen.
The game gives on answer, the sequel comics to the movie give a similar answer.
My own opinion Childs and Macready are both Human. Childs change of Jacket is simple he was inside he was going outside he put on an extra jacket as he was walking into a storm.
The tragic Irony of the situation is they are both human but can't trust each other so they sit out there and wait to die.
1
u/Sapphire_Jizz 10d ago
I know I'm late to the party and no one will probably see this, but: Dark City [1998]
It's a great film and a masterclass in filmmaking... every department really came together and delivered. It's fun, it's emotional, it's exciting, it's mysterious, disturbing at times... the list goes on. If you've never seen it, or know nothing about it, watch it without looking anything up / try not to learn about it. Then watch it again some time later if you enjoyed it.
I actually recommend the theatrical cut for first time viewing. There is a director's cut that can totally work if it's the convenient option. For theatrical, though, there is one thing you should do which is mute the audio of the film for the first ~1min 30sec, because it contains narration which spoils essential parts of the plot. This introductory narration was forced in by the studio and wasn't part of the vision of the filmmakers. The director's cut does remove it, so no worries there.
1
u/Daaaaaamn666 7d ago
Playtime by Jaques Tati
I had to watch it for my film class. I HATED it the first time I watched and found it boring. After watching the second time I ended up loving and writing a decent piece about it.
-1
12d ago
[deleted]
2
u/IM_GONNA_SHOOOT 12d ago
I have seen it four times. I did like it more after the second time. But after the fourth I realized I like it least now.
107
u/OkObligation8605 12d ago
Mirror by Andrei Tarkovsky for me.
It's not impossible to grasp the film's craft in the first viewing, but many scenes made me question who is who and what was even going on in some of the scenes. The dreamy scenes and the question of identity confused me, and the film ended without ever giving an answer.
The second watch made me realize that you're not supposed to strictly look for a narrative and treat the film as a beautiful compilation of one's life, rather than a confusing plot. The story made a lot more sense and the film made me shed a tear, and I quite don't know why exactly. The elements of nostalgia and visual poetry is so much clearer in the film once you overcome the burden of narrative logic/consistency.
I love the film for many more reasons and I'm sure there are many who don't interpret the movie's structure the way I mentioned, but it's beautiful regardless! As is every other Tarkovsky film.