Films you admire rather than actually enjoy.
Sometimes you come across movies that are either critically lauded, showered with oscars, or recieve great word-of-mouth recommendations...and you watch them and think ok, I can appreciate the movie, I can admire various aspects of it, you can hardly call it a bad movie - but gut feeling simply says you don't actually enjoy it.
Essentially, you admire it, but you don't really like it. The acid test for me in this regard is would you ever consider watching it again?
A couple of examples for me -
Schindlers List. No denying it's a very well made and powerful movie. I can appreciate it and admire it, but it was not an enjoyable viewing experience. Yes, I know it was not supposed to be, but when a movie has an impact you normally at some point want to watch it again, and I could never imagine doing it with that movie. Perhaps that was the point, maybe it was too well made, maybe it made you feel so uncomfortable that the prospect of sitting through it again is not an appealing one. Part of me can admire that achievement, I guess.
Lord Of The Rings trilogy - I enjoyed all three movies first time round, I really did. Great movies, fantastic realisation of the books, great effects, wonderful acting. But they are 3 hour plus movies, and I just could not consider going back and watching them again.
However, one curious exception is the Godfather trilogy (well, the first two anyway). Despite being old fashioned, long, relatively uneventful, dialogue driven epics I still find myself able to watch them every few years.
I guess it's a difficult one to explain - what makes us want to watch some movies a second, third etc time, and others we know may be equally as deserving of our attention we just have no compunction to see them again?
Essentially, you admire it, but you don't really like it. The acid test for me in this regard is would you ever consider watching it again?
A couple of examples for me -
Schindlers List. No denying it's a very well made and powerful movie. I can appreciate it and admire it, but it was not an enjoyable viewing experience. Yes, I know it was not supposed to be, but when a movie has an impact you normally at some point want to watch it again, and I could never imagine doing it with that movie. Perhaps that was the point, maybe it was too well made, maybe it made you feel so uncomfortable that the prospect of sitting through it again is not an appealing one. Part of me can admire that achievement, I guess.
Lord Of The Rings trilogy - I enjoyed all three movies first time round, I really did. Great movies, fantastic realisation of the books, great effects, wonderful acting. But they are 3 hour plus movies, and I just could not consider going back and watching them again.
However, one curious exception is the Godfather trilogy (well, the first two anyway). Despite being old fashioned, long, relatively uneventful, dialogue driven epics I still find myself able to watch them every few years.
I guess it's a difficult one to explain - what makes us want to watch some movies a second, third etc time, and others we know may be equally as deserving of our attention we just have no compunction to see them again?
0
Comments
But, God it was dull.
I never saw Reds when it was first released, and I finally got to see it about a year ago for the first time.
Though you could admire the epic nature of the film, and Warren Beatty's vision, I have to agree...dull as ditchwater.
Making it so painfully slow was a risky move on Stanley Kubrick's part but he did it because it suited the story, and that's admirable. It's got a great theme and an eerie atmosphere but it's tedious to actually sit down and watch it.
I think everybody admires the creativity,excellent set designs and ambiguity.Nobody doubts it's influence either.
However,I find the script too muddled and the story perhaps too ambiguous.Not really a truly memorable or likeable character around either,which is surprising because the performances are very good.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Funny,disturbing,relentless and highly influential.However,the plot is too basic and the lowbudget feel makes it's inaccessible,after the first viewing (which I absolutely loved).Perhaps too draining to watch more than once.
I'm in awe of every aspect of the production but the narrative is weak and sparse.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103767/
I'm not the kind of film fan who only likes explosions, boobies and Jason Statham, but this series of impressive images and scenes, after about 10 minues, left me rather bored.
Which is odd, as broadcasts like The Blue Planet, etc, leave me breathless. I think it's as it has no context.
Also, I was expecting a film about my favourite Mortal Kombat character, and was frankly disappointed.
It's almost impossible to see it mentioned without the ubiquitous "one of the greatest movies of all time" quote - and it's not for want of trying, I've sat through it three times....but no, I just don't get it. At all.
Visually wonderful and dares to try something unusual. There's nothing to engage me though. I've watched it twice, which is honestly quite enough.
I know they're 'visually stunning masterpieces' and all that ... but they bore me.
It's a good film, but the subject matter and the graphic depictions of violence and rape mean that i'll never watch it again. The 10 minute rape scene is probably one of the nastiest things to watch ever in a film.
yeah , I agree , it's a very powerful film but that rape scene is something I never want to see again .
It is the sort of movie I would only watch once. But after reading up on it at various websites after it made the top ten, last week, in the Guardian films of the decade, I am intrigued and intend to re-visit it.
Irreversible
Dead Mans Shoes
Anti-Christ
Hunger
all superb films,excellent stories etc etc but none of them an enjoyable viewing experience
I think the broad slapstick simply doesn't work with the scenes of Jews being beaten up. However it's almost impossible to criticize given the circumstances of it's production.
Oh and Irreversible is a god awful piece of shit that gave me a headache.
I'm sure I read that on the consumer advice line of a film poster:
"Contains moderate explosions, boobies and Jason Statham"
On serious note, I admired Nil by Mouth as piece of film-making but I don't think I could sit through it again.
I'm with you. Great music and atmosphere but I don't know if I actually enjoyed the film and it was hard to say what it was about
It was good though.
I received and watched the directors cut Blu-ray over Xmas and while i can see why some people love it and can appreciate the attention to detail transfering the comic to the big screen I just felt a bit flat at the end.
While I feel a second or third viewing might help me 'get it' more I'm just not compelled at the moment.
As it happens, I did rewatch a recent broadcast the other night, so I have a few more comments. In some ways it was the Avatar of its day - a big, futuristic SF movie with great visuals. I think when you have a new world to assimilate, it takes up viewer attention and something has else to give. With Avatar it's the plot. Avatar has a simple story and characters, with no surprises. There's never much confusion about what people are doing or why. Because that aspect is easy, it can afford to be fast paced in the editing, with lots of cuts. That plus the visuals helps keep it interesting despite the plot.
Bladerunner has a relatively complex plot and characters. You have to pay attention. For example, when Pris meets J.S.Sebastian, it's the first time you've seen either character so you have to figure out who they are and what they are doing. When Roy turns up, it seems for a moment as if they might kill J.S.. It does all make sense, but you have to use part of your brain to follow it. That plus the world-building mean the editing needs to be slow to give you time to assimilate. Hence slow pacing and long held shots, which can seem very slow or "sparse" to a modern audience.
I think it also makes a difference which version you see. I am familiar with the one that has the voice-over, and although it's much derided, I think that actually helps with the pacing by giving you something else to entertain you during the slow visuals. And it helps cover the plot, of course.
I don't agree with the previous comment about there being no memorable characters. Roy is very memorable to me. Some lines in the film will be with me forever, eg "Time to die", "If you could see what I've seen through your eyes", "Then we are stupid and will die" and of course Roy's death speech. There are several complex character moments that leave the viewer conflicted. For example, Deckard shooting Zhora in the back, or his love scene with Rachael.
Overall, for me it does stand up to rewatching even today, 28 years after it first came out. (I doubt the same will be true of Avatar.)
I appreciate the message behind it, I really do. Just had a boring way of telling it IMO.
:eek::eek::eek: No way!! Two of my favourite films. I've seen both on the big screen (twice for "The Seventh Seal"). I don't mind if the pace of a film is slow as long as it's well done and there's a point to it, like a good slow piece of music. Of course I do have to be in the right sort of mood for it.
Anyway, the film that immediately sprung to mind when I saw this thread title was "Eraserhead".