Perfectly fine movies you only need to see once...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

You know, the one time is an enjoyable and impressive [viewing] experience, but you don't need to [see it] again.
A companion thread to this:
Perfectly fine albums you only need to hear once...

The first thing I thought of was the Charlie Kaufman scripted films. I like them a lot but don't ever feel compelled to rewatch them. I even own DVDs of Malkovich and Adaptation, but have only put them on when friends wanted to see them.

― Marmot (marmotwolof), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 05:16 (nineteen years ago)

I think a film you only need to see once isn't perfectly fine. Is that wrong?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 05:20 (nineteen years ago)

Most movies like this for me are the really-well-made-but-way-too-depressing ones. I loved Dancer In The Dark and Grave of the Fireflies, but it is highly unlikely I will ever desire to see them again.

― a naked Kraken annoying Times Square tourists with an acoustic guitar (nickalici, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 12:39 (nineteen years ago)

almost all films fall into this category; and that's no bad thing. it was when cinemas changed their programmes twice a week that the cinema had its real mass audience. maybe in an ideal world there some films i'd have time to see again, but as with rereading books, there's never time!

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 12:42 (nineteen years ago)

Shawshank Redemption
Joe Black
Mississipi Burning
Generals Daughter
Hunt For Red October
that film about the couple who go diving and get left behind in the ocean

― Ste (Fuzzy), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 12:57 (nineteen years ago)

'hunt for red october' repays endless repeat viewings.

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 12:58 (nineteen years ago)

hmm, perhaps its just because I've noticed its been on tv about four times this year.

― Ste (Fuzzy), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:06 (nineteen years ago)

I think a film you only need to see once isn't perfectly fine. Is that wrong?

Pauline Kael to thread.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

she was a lazy oaf, though.

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

there is kind of an enormous difference between being a critic doing longish reviews for the new yorker, and... not. and while critics often only get the one chance to see a film, to elevate this into something important, to demand that critics should *only* see a film once, is perverse.

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:10 (nineteen years ago)

she was a lazy oaf, though.

Her powers of recollection were amazing.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:15 (nineteen years ago)

that's true.

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

i think thomson says she took lotta notes.

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

She admitted this herself, though.

But her devotion to the efficacy of only seeing movies once wasn't exactly honest either. Several times in the essays she wrote in the mid-sixties she alluded to catching older films on the TV (specifically The Maltese Falcon and Joseph L. Mankiewicz pictures).

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:20 (nineteen years ago)

I hate rewatching films, there are very few which I believe deserve rewatching. I guess my scant DVD library will attest to that. What I like a bout film is the thrill of the new (which is also why I don't like a lot of films!)

Certainly up until quite recently they were designed as single time cultural phenoms (which is possibly why certain bad habits of storytelling shorthand became so ingrained in the system).

Which is why this question is both a really good one, and perhaps should be thought of as "what are the really good films".

F'rexample. Why would anyone want to watch Taxi Drive rmore than once?

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:21 (nineteen years ago)

(it's not that great a film)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:46 (nineteen years ago)

Pulp Fiction. Saw it once in the theater back in 1994, really enjoyed it, have never once felt the impulse to see it again (and somehow I've even got the DVD).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

maybe in an ideal world there some films i'd have time to see again, but as with rereading books, there's never time!

OTM.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 14:06 (nineteen years ago)

Fight Club

― wogan lenin (dog latin), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 14:11 (nineteen years ago)

Salo, but that's more because I can't face watching it again.

― Matt #2 (Matt #2), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

Almost anything with a trick ending. I'd say most M. Night films.

― vingt regards (vignt_regards), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

Snakes on a Plane

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 15:52 (nineteen years ago)

I saw Funny Games last night. I think that certainly qualifies.

― peter in montreal (spaces are allowed), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

I agree with he last two posts.

― chap who would dare to contain two ingredients. Tea and bags. (chap), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

sidenote to enrique - Tartan are putting out a boxset of early Haneke films in december.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 16:15 (nineteen years ago)

Jackass: Number Two. I don't think I could take horse-cum-guzzling again.

― milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 16:21 (nineteen years ago)

I think the majority of movies I re-watch are comedies where either A) I was drunk the first time I watched & forgot everything, or B) was so busy laughing at some jokes that I missed others.

There are also those movies that are so elaborate that I miss a great many details through the first time, or maybe had such a complex concept that a re-watch might be necessary to fully "get" (Primer comes to mind here).

― a naked Kraken annoying Times Square tourists with an acoustic guitar (nickalici, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 16:37 (nineteen years ago)

Snakes On A Plane seconded. Trememndously entertaining, no desire to ever see it again.

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Tuesday, 26 September 2006 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

'fight club' is one of the few films worth seeing more than once!

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 07:34 (nineteen years ago)

taxi driver is almost unrecognizable to me now as the same movie i saw when i was 16!

i don't watch a lot of films more than once or twice, mainly because i have a freakishly good memory.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 07:44 (nineteen years ago)

miltonpinski hates movies.

And, in the new issue of Film Comment, Paul Schrader agrees with gabbneb.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

What would Paul Schrader know about Taxi Driver?

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 18:24 (nineteen years ago)

hah, I didn't even see that TD dis (it figures). I meant "I think a film you only need to see once isn't perfectly fine." Schrader sets "Repeatability" as a must for a canon-worthy film.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 18:27 (nineteen years ago)

Paul Schrader has more time to watch movies than most of us.

But as a criterion for his canon, it works. There are dozens of pretty good, even great movies that one viewing is enough, but the 20 Greatest Evar should indeed be those you can find new things in with every viewing. (Bonus: he takes Rosenbaum to task for pronouncing every other movie that comes out a masterpiece and a classic.)

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

Scharader's been dissing Taxi Driver for years.

(X-post)

― Orgy of Pragmatism (Charles McCain), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 18:35 (nineteen years ago)

the intro to the Schrader piece. is Film Comment widely available?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 18:55 (nineteen years ago)

I've seen Taxi Driver and Pulp Fiction over 10 times each (the latter mostly because it's my wife's favorite film). Does it need to be mentioned that Schrader's crazy as a shithouse rat?

There are certain directors whose films are so multi-layered that I find it daft to say you only need to see them once; Kubrick, Bergman, Scorsese. Similar to what J.D. said about Taxi Driver, I've watched Raging Bull once every decade since it came out and each experience was unique; certain themes became more pronounced or meant something entirely different to me. Then again, some directors' films seem to lose their impact the second time around; Godard, Herzog.

There are a lot of films I think I don't want to see again, but once I sit down and watch them I get more out of them - Repulsion comes to mind. I should watch Fight Club again since I didn't think much of it the first time around. But Panic Room is on my list of films I don't need to see again, and I discovered I didn't really need to see Se7en again, so maybe I shouldn't bother.

Off the top of my head, some movies I liked but don't need to see again:
Quiz Show
Bowling for Columbine
About Schmidt
Fellowhip of the Ring
The Two Towers
Lost In Translation

What's next, books you don't need to read again?

― Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 19:19 (nineteen years ago)

Requiem For A Dream, FTW.

― Guy Fawkes (kittenbucket), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 19:23 (nineteen years ago)

About Schmidt

I was just about to bring this up! As far as Alexander Payne goes, I've watched Election and Citizen Ruth multiple times, but could care less whether I ever see Schmidt or Sideways again.

Also yeah, Requiem For A Dream seconded. I just tried to watch that for the first time in four years and barely got halfway through it.

is Film Comment widely available?

Any Borders/large bookstore should have it. I used to read every issue, but haven't bought one in a couple of years. How's it been recently, Morbius?

― Marmot (marmotwolof), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 23:36 (nineteen years ago)

Schraeder's article is a piece of something, not sure whether it's "work" or "crap."

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2006 02:28 (nineteen years ago)

it's great

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 28 September 2006 02:46 (nineteen years ago)

finally, perhaps, i have a movie guy

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 28 September 2006 02:47 (nineteen years ago)

most depressing films are like this i think
requim for a dream,magnolia,stuff like that

― robin (robin), Thursday, 28 September 2006 03:33 (nineteen years ago)

xpost, i really disagree. When I'm depressed, I often put on movies like Magnolia. That film in particular seems to get better with each viewing.

― Tape Store (Tape Store), Thursday, 28 September 2006 03:55 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I agree with some of Schraeder's conclusions (if for no other reason than his exclusivistic approach still results in an alternate canon filled with the sort of trash I'm enthusiastic about), just not his humorlessness.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2006 04:07 (nineteen years ago)

I probably read less than half of FC, I usually put off reading articles til I've seen the related films, then forget to go back and read it.

Canonwise I'm totally on board with Schrader's "Fuck pop / fuck trash / Kael had it wrong" criteria, as you may have guessed. (I was gonna start a sep thread on the piece, but as only the intro is online, perhaps not.)

OTOH, Schrader puts The Big Lebowski in his canon of 30, so he must still get high.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:29 (nineteen years ago)

Magnolia is depressing? Just infuriating, I thought.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:32 (nineteen years ago)

I suppose only a dutiful Calvinist could conceive of such twaddle:

I saw where this line of thinking was leading and followed it there. It led to the writings of Ray Kurzweil (The Singularity Is Near), Joel Garreau (Radical Evolution), and Jeff Hawkins (On Intelligence). Art, religion, psychology are subsets of a larger narrative—the story of Homo sapiens, which in turn is a subset of the narrative of planet life, a subset of the narrative of our planet, our universe. All with beginnings, middles, and ends—at an ever-accelerating pace.

I agree with Kurzweil that humankind is on an evolutionary cusp. We can foresee both the end of the 20,000-year reign of Homo sapiens and the beginnings of the life-forms that will replace it (something Kurzweil and Garreau predict will happen in the next hundred years). Art looks to the future; it is society’s harbinger. The demise of Art’s human narrative is not a sign of creative bankruptcy. It’s the twinkling of changes to come. Such thoughts fill me not with despair but envy: I wish I could be there to see the curtain rise.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:36 (nineteen years ago)

Morbs, if we were to write a list of Kael's best films we'd find that most of the selections would fit the fuck pop/fuck trash dictum.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:37 (nineteen years ago)

wow, at least 4 of us have read it. (I've only skimmed actually.)

Alfred, that's true, but it's the trash celebration she's now known for.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:39 (nineteen years ago)

She may have enjoyed a Big Lebowski, but she would hardly have put it on an all-time list; this is what distinguishes her from her followers.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:46 (nineteen years ago)

She mighta put The Fury on it (ducks).

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:56 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, or Spielberg.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2006 14:33 (nineteen years ago)

No, that would be Morb's list.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 28 September 2006 14:34 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, that crutch NEVAH gets old!

She was perhaps the only critic to recognize that Temple of Doom blew Raiders of the Lost Ark away, I'll give her that.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 September 2006 14:39 (nineteen years ago)

I never thought I'd have to use it, but you forced my hand, Morbs. Death to art.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2006 14:40 (nineteen years ago)

She was also dead-on about E.T..

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 28 September 2006 14:49 (nineteen years ago)

It doesn't have the same power of annoyance when used by someone who likes Spielberg, Eric!

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 September 2006 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

All I meant to really say was, while I drift in and out of having a refined taste for tony cin-ee-mah heavy hitters (with exceptions like Chris Marker and Robert Bresson), I can't imagine ever losing my taste(lessness) for trash, exploitation and artsploitation. That's all.

I know it's fatuously utilitarian to say so, but I still think the only canon mode that makes sense is the one mentioned (not endorsed, mind you) by Adrian Martin in "Light My Fire," about, basically, every film being worth canonization.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2006 15:11 (nineteen years ago)

(Marker and Bresson being exceptions because I'll always love watching their stuff, even in periods like the fuck-a-Dardennes one I'm going through these days)

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2006 15:13 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not sure I could ever be a canon maker. I used to make halfhearted attempts to catalog all the films I've seen, but that's fallen away.

Isn't "The Fatuous Utilitarian" a Gogol story or sumpin?

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 September 2006 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

I still want to do that -- make a list of every movie I've ever seen and maintain it, I mean, not write and illustrate the F.U. story.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2006 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

You better hurry before you get 4000 films behind.

I started doing it on INDEX CARDS __ years ago, which would never fit in a studio apartment...

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 September 2006 15:29 (nineteen years ago)

How Bogdanovich of you.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 28 September 2006 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

Well I keep trying to do it over at IMDB, but I keep only getting as far as some token favorite auteurs and user lists of favorites and then I give up -- currently stalled out at only 800 movies. I actually don't think I've updated it in years beyond a few titles.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

Since I jot down the title of every book I read, it shouldn't be that much more difficult to record the films I see. But the list is far longer; I'm averaging a movie a day. Netflix's renting archives helps.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 28 September 2006 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

Hmm... I see I didn't used to have any qualms over rating movies I hadn't seen but was excited to receive from Criterion (i.e. Testament of Dr. Mabuse, every pre-Gloria Cassavetes). I'll have to remember to clear those movies out next time I update. Or, y'know, watch the goddamned movies.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2006 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.