For some reason I feel this way about most Coen brothers movies, light-hearted or not.*
I’ve enjoyed most of them to varying degrees; however I’m not interested in repeat viewing with rare exceptions like “Blood Simple”.
*there is no power on earth that could get me to sit through “Barton Fink” again.
Reading through all of the posts on this thread one conclusion I’m beginning to form is that if you can’t watch a movie again, it must be great. If the writing, acting, directing, etc… is all at the top of their game, and they present their story so well that you don’t realize you’re just watching a movie, but that the harrowing events are really happening then it must be great.
I remember a docu that followed 4 heroin addicts over a period of time. It aired on HBO about 15 years ago or so. There were no happy endings. It was powerful, shocking, riveting, and I never want to see it again.
I think everyone but **Thudlow **seems to have misunderstood the original quote, which was more about *forgettable *movies than *re-watchable *movies. I saw both *Brooklyn *and The Big Short, and thought they were both good and enjoyable movies, but ones that I would not **bother **re-watching.
But then, I don’t know what makes a movie great, at all.
Two films that I’d suggest are great,
Unforgiven - endlessly watchable, Always engaging and entertaining will always watch it when it is on.
Tyrannosaur - Brilliant, stunning, gut-wrenching and I never want to see it again.
So…no, a great film doesn’t necessarily need to demand repeat viewing but certainly a second viewing shouldn’t diminish it.
I’m a little bit split on how to answer, but I think the best way to sum it up is this: on a scale of 1 to 10, re-watchability is worth +1. A film cannot get 10/10 unless I want to, and enjoy, watching it again. On the other hand, scoring 9/10 is not a bad thing.
This is one reason I like good sci-fi - it’s not just an enjoyable story at the time, but it should be a thought experiment about future technology, culture, psychology, the nature of the universe, etc.
I’m suddenly really wanting to sit down with Biggirl and take in some ID4!
For me Greatness does not equal rewatchability. I’m on board with the Schindler’s list example, and adding Requiem for a Dream, Traffic and Ordinary People. Loved them, but can’t watch them again.
For me, it takes me a bit to gauge a movie’s greatness. If I watch a movie and two hours later, I don’t remember it. Not good. If I watch a movie, and I don’t initially like it, but it is making me think and process it, then it challenges me I would consider that the mark of a great movie.
Leaving Las Vegas was a great film. I wouldn’t watch it again with a gun to my head.
What about movies that aren’t really worth watching a second time, as the secret’s out? I’m thinking ones like “The Usual Suspects”, or “The Sixth Sense” as good examples. Both were excellent movies, but I don’t have a big desire to watch either again.
As far as movies that I can’t be bothered to rewatch, I’d say that almost by definition, they’re not great movies. The really great movies that aren’t so intense that rewatching them is painful, are treasure troves of things you learn about the movies or characters only by seeing them a second (or third, fourth, etc…) time.
Actually movies like Sixth Sense or Usual Suspects can be enjoyed twice, the second time you’re in on the gag. (My nominees in this category are The Sting and No Way Out.)
Not at all. *Schindler’s List *is a great movie, but it’s so brutal I may never watch it again.
OTOH, Independence Day is a laughably bad movie, but for some reason I watch it over and over.
Not at all. Schindler’s List (the classic example right in the OP) and 12 Years a Slave are both great movies but I have no desire to watch either again.
In watching The Revenant, while enjoying it and thinking it a perfectly credible and worthy probable Best Picture winner, there was the bit of me thinking “hang on, isn’t this just this decade’s Dances With Wolves.” That justifiable winner that you just don’t ever have to ever really bother with ever again.
I should clarify that I’m not remotely suggesting that Dances With Wolves was 1990’s best film. Um, Goodfellas. But it is an example of a perfectly decentish large-scale picture that was perfectly sensible as a Best Picture nominee in that year and which happened to win. Without anyone ever wanting to watch it again.
I agree with these posts, that great movies are ones that can be revisited and more layers can be seen.
And also that great movies should inspire an emotional reaction. I remember Requiem for a Dream being a really good movie, but a rough movie to watch. I wouldn’t want to watch it again because it would be too difficult. But there are some other movies that try to be serious but miss the mark, and I could maybe watch those movies again and not be bothered since they didn’t affect me as emotionally. Something like The Butterfly Effect was trying to be a dark and serious movie with child abuse and time travel, but I could watch that again and laugh because it’s not a good movie and failed at what it was going for.
Right, if a movie is forgettable, it’s not probably a great movie. A great movie should stick with you, and spark discussion and further interest in it. A good movie is enjoyable while watching it, but might be a misty vapor when you think about it the week after.
I agree. Great movies with twists can still be enjoyed the second time, or even if you’re spoiled the first, because you can see how it all comes together, and enjoy the acting and writing and the overall movie. But there are plenty of not great movies that rely on the twist, so there’s not much point in watching it again.
Wanting to watch a second time and being re-watchable aren’t the same thing. If something is re-watchable, that means that you’re going to get much the same effect from the second watching as the first. So while one might not want to watch Schindler’s List again, unless you think that you’d find it trite, vapid, and lacking the punches it had the first time, it’s still a re-watchable film.
And yes, I would say that any great film must also be re-watchable. If it isn’t, then that would be indicative that the film didn’t have much depth or novelty. Maybe it had some gimmick that made it stand out, and while there is something to be said for being the first person to come up with a new gimmick, the first person who comes up with a gimmick is rarely the person who uses it to its finest level. The original may well show itself to be a rather poor example. So I don’t think that simply bringing something new to the screen is a marker of greatness. The film needs to stay impactful even after you know what it’s going to bring to the table.
Which brings up the point that any film today is built on the back of the movies that came yesterday. So even though you might never watch a great film a second time, the movies of tomorrow are going to steal from it. In a roundabout sense, you are going to end up re-watching those great films. The ability for today’s movies to outdo yesterday’s is thanks to their having inherited the greatest bits and dropped the worst. If a generation didn’t produce some great (i.e., rewatchable) films, the following generation would look just the same.
If I can’t gain something from watching a movie again, then no, I can’t consider it “great.”
There is the single category of films where most of their impact is from the emotional punch it imparts on the viewer. Many of the films of this type that are considered great only because the toll of watching is so great.
If all a movie does is sock you in the gut, is it actually great?
We watched Groundhog Day over, and over, and over … just rewinding and playing it over again.
It worked that way.
There is a stack of “Great” movies I wouldn’t want to watch even once. Tragedy makes me hurt inside.
I thought I would want to see There Will Be Blood again, but I caught it not too long ago and got sucked right back into it.
Oh, no. Not The Sixth Sense again.
A. There was no twist if you’re paying attention.
B. It was still an enjoyable movie.
I don’t think “twists” (real or imaginary) are a deal-breaker in many cases.
Most examples seem to based on the story following a very grim curve. If you know the terrible things that are going to happen to people, it gets hard to watch.