What are some films that feel mediocre upon first viewing but get better and better with each subsequent viewing until it hits 10/10?
First time: ehh..
Second: hmm..
Third: Now we're DOing BISiness
Inherent Vice
2001
>>71875297
Donnie Darko / Fight Club / Momento / The Machinist
Strange to watch these the first time, but the second time you are able to understand a lot better.
The first time you see it, the dominant theme that you latch on to is that of illusion versus reality, the simulated nature of late capitalism, etc. But with subsequent viewings the film's real interest emerges: how is it possible to believe in something when the world you believed in was already revealed to be fraudulent? That is when it becomes 10/10.
>>71875462
oh I agree with this one too
>>71875505
Congrats on perfectly pinpointing the Holy Fedora Quartet
>>71875546
>Holy Fedora Quartet
>not Boondocks Saints, Fight Club, American History X, and The Dark Knight
close though
>>71875462
this! i don't even know why.
>>71875546
Those movies are definitely better watching a second time, fuck off hipster
>>71875297
The Prestige
natural born killers
napoleon dynamite
>>71875462
I knew it! fucking Mann
time to watch this
thank /tv/
>>71875462
The digital photography makes this film unwatchable, especially considering the setting. A movie that takes place in the thirties and you're not going to use film? Fucking retarded
this
blade runner, for many people
>>71877492
The only retarded thing here is your opinion.
>>71877618
It's immersion-breaking. If you're going to make a period piece set in a time when they only used film, then the appropriate choice is to use film. With digital it just doesn't look or feel like the 1930's, every shot seems incongruous
>>71878073
This is a baseless criticism that denies the filmmaker his right to make choices for artistic effect. There is no absolute way a certain time period should be portrayed. Mann pays the price now for being ahead of his time.
>>71878466
okay then, how about this: digital photography is just fucking ugly, plain and simple.
>>71875505
wow so deep and mystical anon
>>71878073
I think there can be an argument made that we'd be better off moving away from what's "expected" when viewing certain historical periods. Does Band of Brothers filter feel appropriate? Yes. Does it also in a way lie about the time period by forcing a nostalgic lens onto it to make it look as though we're viewing it through photos and film of old? One could argue that it does.
People living in the 40s didn't see the world through a filter. They viewed it with as much color as we view our world. The biggest offender of this is probably modern medieval films where there can just be no room for color, when in reality it should look like the The adventures of Robin Hood from 1938 or something more akin to that if you're going for full realism.
The first time through I thought people forced themselves to like this movie, a few other viewings convinced me otherwise, I fucking love this film
1: I think I liked it but not sure what just happened, I need to go back and rewatch this knowing what I know now
2: Holy shit this is fantastic
3: Modern classic
>>71879028
What's good about it? I'm wondering if I should watch it
>>71878524
>>71879118
Speaking of Bane-posting and films which got better with time I liked Dark Knight Rises alright
>>71879056
Without giving away what it builds up to, it's the most uncomfortable, tense and generally unnerving thing I've seen in years. Nice dollop of violence thrown in for good measure. It might be a bit hard to understand their accents at times if you aren't British, so maybe get subs.
Generally speaking, all of Wheatley's films are worth watching, this is just my favourite.
>>71878887
>I think there can be an argument made that we'd be better off moving away from what's "expected" when viewing certain historical periods. Does Band of Brothers filter feel appropriate? Yes. Does it also in a way lie about the time period by forcing a nostalgic lens onto it to make it look as though we're viewing it through photos and film of old? One could argue that it does.
This is what I like though. As someone who loves movies from Hollywood's Golden Age above everything else and watches them often, If I'm watching a movie set in that time period I need that classic, grainy film quality. When digital is used, I find it extremely distracting.
In fact I find digital cinematography ugly and distracting in any film unless it's a documentary. I'm used to film and I don't want any part of this new digital craze.
>The adventures of Robin Hood from 1938
Fucking love that movie, all-time top 10 easily
>>71879442
Right, right. I think most have that preference, myself included in most cases. But I think one could argue that we're conditioned to view it that way and that we fool ourselves in some sense when watching another time period and us having the need to view it through some kind of filter or what have you.
>>71879524
I think it's an interesting way to set atmosphere
>>71879524
I think we do fool ourselves in a sense, and maybe we are conditioned to prefer 35mm movies filmed at 24 frames-per-second. But knowing this and getting over it are two different things, and I doubt I ever will. I grew up with these kinds of movies, fell in love with the way they look and I don't want anything different, regardless of what merits other techniques might have.
As for it being a filter, that's easy to get over knowing that people from that time period saw through the same filter when they went to the movies. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
>>71875624
Maybe if you're 18
I used to hate films with really juxtaposed characters but not anymore really
>>71877523
you're calling the master mediocre on first watch?
>>71879056
It's about a hitman
but it's eery af
>>71875297
Is this true? I was incredibly underwhelmed on my first viewing of Vertigo, maybe I'll try again.
