For whatever reason there was at the time, I was unable to force myself past the first ten minutes or so of these movies:
Go, Keys to Tulsa, Judge Dredd, Cabin Boy.
What do you folks say? Should I try again? Would it be worth the effort?
Yes, No, No, Depends on your tolerance for defiantly but knowingly stupid comedy.
Nah. There are too many good movies in the world to waste time with ones that don’t float your boat. My test is whether, while I’m watching a movie at home, I start wondering if I have any magazines in the house to read; if I’m at a theater, the test is whether I start thinking about checking my blackberry for email. Those tell me I’m not into the movie and shouldn’t waste my time.
By the way, of the four you list, I’ve only seen one. And while I managed to make it all the way through, it so wasn’t worth it.
IMO, Go is a great movie.
I have often gone back and given a rejected movie a second chance, especially since I discovered the value of *Showgirls * five years after hating it the first time I saw it. And because there are so many movies that I know have value–Ishtar, Last Action Hero, My Giant–that most people dutifully rejected when the critics told them to. Most recently, I was unable to get through Werner Herzog’s Wild Blue Yonder, but since Herzog is one of the greatest directors in movie history, I’ll probably give it another chance some day.
In other words, I know from experience that it’s very possible not to “get” a movie the first time around, and I don’t consider my initial response–to anything–as some kind of carven fiat. I think the discussions around here would be more interesting and less frustrating if more people were open to reconsidering their initial opinions to a given work.
Nah. Movies don’t really deserve a second chance. I enjoyed the Royal Tenenbaums more the second time, but you sure as hell are not going to get me to watch the life aquatic or rushmore again. I did not hate the royal tenenbaums the first time, I just didn’t get it. As for the others, I’m confident there’s nothing to get.
Go was mediocre at best. Judge Dredd doesn’t deserve a single viewing.
Would you agree that there are some works of literature–Joyce, Shakespeare, Pynchon–that benefit from more than cursory study, even repeated readings?
If that’s the case, you seem to be suggesting that it’s impossible for an artist of that stature to work in film; that film is, by definition, a lesser art form. See, this seems like snobbery to me: a book can be literature, worthy of closer study than just a cursory glance, but a film cannot be. I *so * don’t buy that. (Credit to **Cervaise ** for the meat of this argument.)
Thanks.
To be fair, of course, Go is pretty far from Shakespeare. But it’s also light-years better than two of the other three movies on the OP’s list.
Yeah, I suppose Shakespeare is kinda Godwinian in this context. Still, I was addressing GR’s general statement that *"*Movies ** don’t really deserve a second chance." If he’d said “**Go ** *doesn’t really * . . .” I might have invoked, oh, Jonathan Franzen.
I agree there are too many movies out there to rewatch crap, but I will give a “classic” film a second chance. I for some reason gave up 20 minutes into Touch of Evil, then rewatched it and its now one of my all time favs. Maybe something about Charlton Heston as a Mexican took some getting used to.
I used to sneak into movies all the time and sometimes during my second films, I would just get bored or tired and leave. Two movies that I walked out of but later became favorites of mine were Fight Club and Master and Commander The same thing happened with Eternal Sunshine, which everyone says is great but I just can’t bring myself to re-watch.
The Postman
double blech
Joyce, Shakespeare, and Pynchon certainly benefit from more than cursory study and repeated readings. The difference is that they are also captivating on the first read, or they come from a known genius whose other work might lead me to give this work that I don’t get/understand a second chance.
The four films mentioned–Go, Keys to Tulsa, Judge Dredd, Cabin Boy–were commercial ventures released by major studios (Keys to Tulsa is arguable; I’ve never seen it). As such, they aim for a different goal than the works of Thomas Pynchon or James Joyce (Shakespeare was commecially popular in his day, but I would argue that commercial pressures in the age of Elizabethan drama were nothing compared to the modern, cutthroat world of the motion picture studio). That doesn’t mean studio pictures are not complex or artistic, just that they ought to be judged by a different standard; and certainly an overriding standard in commercial film is that it be understood and enjoyed on a first viewing.
Battlefield Earth, enough said. :eek:
I’ve never actually met anyone that liked Joyce on their first exposure. He’s an author who absolutely demands careful, close, repeated reading to properly appreciate. I’ve never been particularly moved by reading Shakespeare: he’s a playwright. You’re supposed to watch him, not read him, and even then, your first exposure is going to be colored by the execution of the troupe performing him. I never saw anything of value in Titus Andronicus until Julie Taymor got her hands on it. I’ve only ever read the one Pynchon novel (The Crying of Lot 47) and got it immediatly, but I read it in the context of a college-level course on postmodernism. Had I come at it on my own (as I tried to do, unsuccessfully, with V) I don’t know that I would have connected with it on my first pass.
Well, it’s not like there’s really a lot of subtext to Judge Dredd (which sucked) or Cabin Boy (one of my favorite comedies), so if you’re arguing these specific examples, I would greatly disagree with you. But it sounds like you’re stating that as a general principle, not a commentary on these four films in particular. If that’s the case, I think the idea that modern commercial cinema by definition does not benefit from repeated analysis, or should be held to a different standard than other artforms, is manifestly untrue, and grossly unfair to the people who create them.
Not sure where your arbitrary qualification of studio/commercial film comes from; the original statement that’s being debated referred only to movies–i.e., all movies; film as an art form. The four films in the OP were examples, as far as I can tell; the question under discussion is larger than just those four titles.
Have your tastes changed, significantly? Do you find yourself ‘getting’ films that you used to not ‘get’? Is there some other major personality change that will affect your enjoyment of bad movies? Will you see them now in a better setting?
If not, why bother? The movie didn’t change. If you haven’t changed, chances are you still wouldn’t like the movie.
Even if you have changed, there’s a good chance your new self wouldn’t like the movie, for a different reason. I say no, don’t give them a second chance.
I certainly wouldn’t try to watch Species 2 or Vanilla Sky again.
Never even heard of the first two.
JD is kinda fun during the first few minutes.But it gets pretentious and dumber after.
Cabin Boy is just plain stupid. Some dudes like stupid comedies. I don’t.
I’m willing to give the first two in my OP another shot, but not the next two.
Just remembered another one that I couldn’t stick with: Hollywoodland.
Half of Hollywoodland is pretty good. The other half is predictable, obvious, and snoozeworthy. Unfortunately, the two halves are sort of, what do you call it, mixed together a bit.