Ö÷²¥´óÐã

The video doesn't work once again.

...and the culture show video doesn't seem to be working either.

Works OK for me.

I love films that have subtle symbolism on screen that is easy to miss the first time, that as Mark said, you have to watch again to notice and understand it.

As I aforementioned, Paprika's one of those among many.

I love foreshadowing in films, like The Beguiled.

And just why are you sitting next to a prop of elvis' head. You seem to be taking more and more time in preparing these videos for us, i guess i should say thanks, but instead ill just compliment you on your sweater...

your right about rewatching some films. on the show alot of people said why not rewatch pirates movies over again for example.its not just about watching a film you hated. in the case of the assasination of jesse james i found it really slow and a bit of a slog first time. however over the next day the film and certain scenes stuck in my mind and i couldnt stop thinking about the film and why i didnt like it. this therefore justified a rewatch. with hindsight it was probably the fact that the western genre is so rare that it took some adjustment to a genre i had never watched before and it was well worth a 2nd visit. obviously rubbish films dont tend to leave this rememberance and thats the difference between one which deserves a 2nd chance for me and one that doesnt.

I've seen Millions (the Danny Boyle film) at least a dozen times, and each time, I notice a magical element that I hadn't seen (or registered) before.

It's such a simple film, but continues to delight.

I'm a HE Dr. K.

Just for future reference

Watching a second time because there was so much going on or there was some nice foreshadowing that you only see then is one thing, but I think what's really interesting is films which, after watching a second time, change your opinion of it. One case of this for me was Finding Neverland. First time round, it was an enchanting little tearjerker, but the second time round, you know the story and you see how incredibly flawed the whole thing is. So, sometimes it's better NOT to watch a movie a second time.

You can add me to the Blade Runner crowd. Didn't really "get" the film the first time round and it has since become one of my top three movies of all time.

Also, I did laugh at luhspeak's comment. Let's let the poor woman alone - she's taken enough of a beating. :P

I saw Blade Runner when it first came out, loved it, 'got it' (more or less I think), saw it again, still loved it, seen the same edit again on TV when it came on and so on. But I've always resisted seeing the newer, longer 'Directors Cut' in case it detracts from the memory of the original. (Same with the newer 'director's edit' of Apocalypse Now.)

So, is it really worth seeing the newer version; is it really incomparably better?

And come to that Dr K, a question for you. Are 'director's edit' versions really the best ones?

I too have probably seen Anchorman countless times, it's usually a standard 'background' film and people never seem to get bored of it! It's shallow but lovable. Don't fight it Mark.

On a similar note to the Anchorman comment (although personally I find most of Will Ferrel's comedy to be lowest common denominator crap), I think that Spinal Tap is a film that regardless how many times its watched, always gives you something new to chuckle about. There really is depth and breadth to it, and little nuances that aren't quite so obvious the first twenty times jump out later!

On a TV related slant...Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is similarly funny, and worth a look, again for replay value. It really has some amazing touches, and insane levels of production research (some of which only became clear to me after reading a few H.P Lovecraft stories)

As a parent I am a somewhat captive audience for my child's favorite films as is my Mother. A film we all enjoy every time we watch it is Spirited Away by Hayao Miyazaki. We must have watched it at least 50 times and I can still find tiny details in the artwork I missed the previous 49 times.
A film I have just seen and will have to see again before forming my final opinion is Where the Wild Things are. I asked my daughter what she thought because she didn't jump up at the end and say,"that was awesome", as she did for Up. My daughter replied very quietly and thoughtfully with two thumbs up. Then she started wiggling her thumbs around and I asked her what on earth that meant. "It was so good my thumbs are dancing Mommy," she said.

Oh wow, that's amazing about Blade Runner, that's the exact film I had in mind right before you mentioned it(!) But what's really uncanny is that (btw, not having read all the comments on the other video) I similarly came to love BR as my favourite film having originally played and loved the VIDEOGAME (with all it's intricate details, and multiple endings - way ahead of it's time!) and by watching Dr. K's excellent documentary ("On the edge of Blade Runner" -back in 1999 I think?). So thanks, Dr. K!!

I have now seen BR hundreds of times, as I have done for many of my other favourites like Chinatown, GoodFellas, Pulp Fiction and The Matrix, etc; I think simply because great films are films you really can watch multiple times and still enjoy and of course, as Dr. K. rightly notes, you spot all the different levels of the movie once you have knowledge of the 'surface stuff' from the initial watching. Some movies are just pure surface - like Transformers! The same could be said of when you contrast a great piece of classical music with a pop song - you might listen to a pop song multiple times because you enjoy the anticipation of those same expected chords, the same cannot be said of, say, Rachmaninov's third where there is no repeated and expected melody but one long, winding, complex multi-layered narrative. And of course the same goes for great novels vs. pulp. The fact that in some ways we are forced to listen to pop songs millions of times by radio and evetually become tired of and loath them proves the difference I am trying to outline. It's really a debate about sensationalism. I was even introduced to the awesomeness of Philip K. Dick through Blade Runner, although admittedly, PKD's "DADOES" isn't anywhere near as good as BR..

My own favourite version of BR I would have to say is the "Final Cut" of 2007 (with the 1992 re-release in close second) - which, I know, will be anathema to many BR fanatics, but having watched all the different versions, I have to say that actually they really aren't all that different. I could certainly do without the voice-overs of the original cinematic release - all VO is bad I think - I guess the only guy who makes it vaguely interesting is Scorsese. Much to my surprise I even enjoyed the so-called "Workprint" cut, which was very rough and contained an entirely different soundtrack, surprising in that I always believed that my real attraction to BR was that haunting, mesmerising Vangelis soundtrack, which I didn't find myself missing quite as much as I'd thought - showing just how many levels BR works on! I guess it's really no surprise that so many people watch BR many times over and over - remember that the whole reason the studio felt it necessary to butcher the movie the way they did is because so many people came out of it when it was released thinking - eh? what was that all about then?!

Memento is an obvious movie that literally requires multiple viewings. Apparently not a lot of people fully grasped the original de Palma Mission:Impossible movie because it was too complicated - anyone else find that? I thought it was relatively straight-forward by, say, Mulholland drive's standards! Practically every movie fan I know says they enjoyed Seven Samurai more on second viewing, but didn't enjoy any movie where everything relies on 'the big twist' (e.g. The Usual Suspetcs) on second viewing as much.

Just a small addendum - wasn't it Andy Lane who said that film critics should review a movie within a few hours of watching it for the first time? Hmmm...

I think I am privileged in that I never had to watch the 1982 cinematic release of BR (before watching the director's cut) so I can attest to the fact that it can still be one of your favourite movies without having to compare it to the dreaded voice-over version.

What about movies that after first time viewing you consider a true masterpiece and you don't want to watch it again to spoil the first impression?

Most of my favourites movies of all time I've watched many, many times: Godfather, Goodfellas, Blade Runner, Pulp Fiction, Chinatown etc., but there's one of my top-list which I've never re-watched since it first came out: "Memento". At the time I judged it as a masterpiece and followed further Christopher Nolan's work (one of the few movie directors who never let me down). But I've never went back to 'Memento' since I'm really afraid I will not like it so much anymore. Maybe because not so great reviews? Maybe because some friends of mine consider this a mediocre movie and in some points they can me right? Don't know, I will watch it again someday, but not soon.

@jayfurneaux: Are you referring to the marketed "Director's Cut" from 1992, or the "Final Cut" that was released with the anniversary CD? The Final Cut is my favourite version of the film, the director's cut the second favourite (long my absolute favourite, as it's far superior to the other versions).

I like your question about whether or not director's cuts are really the best ones. Personally, I do tend to prefer them. For example, the director's cuts of both Alien and Aliens are more complete films, in my view.

I can't think of any off-hand that I disliked more than the original. If I went through the DVD collection, I could probably find one or two that were simply extended to add something new in order to sell the DVD. Actually, Star Wars (not the prequels) comes to mind here: pretty to look at, but did it really add much? No.

Overall, however, I prefer director's cuts simply because it's those rare occasions whereby the director (hopefully) has complete say over the film, without pesky people in suits thinking they know better. Bladerunner is a classic example, whereby the film got the voice over and had the "happy ending" thrown in because the financiers pushed for it.

As a side note, there are cases where directors do need oversight. I go back to George Lucas, who seems hell bent on ruining his own vision. Mike J. Nichols's "The Phantom Edit" remake of Lucas's "The Phantom Menace" is a far superior film to the original, and just goes to show how badly some directors really DO need a good editor.

It doesn't matter how many times Riddick comes on the freeview, I get sucked in. Sometimes 3 times a year! It is the ultimate guilty pleasure :-) I'll get me coat.

I don't think there is set rule for the film itself as it all depends on the person watching it. I once had a friend who would watch Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion repeatedly for god-knows what reason. I couldn't even manage it once!

I however love Revenge of the Sith, sure it is not the best Star Wars movie by any mile but Yoda has a ruck with the Emperor, Grievous goes psycho and Chewie makes an appearance.

When I don't fancy the heavy viewing of the original 3 movies I can just flick through Revenge of the Sith to pass an hour or so.

What's the harm?

Speaking of Christopher Nolan... the first time I saw The Prestige, I think I twigged what was going on at around the point you're meant to, but the second time, I realised that Michael Caine's character pretty much spells it out in the opening scene. And there are so many clues scattered around, I wondered how I didn't put it all together instantly the first time. Well played, sir!

Kind of reminiscent of Total Recall, where not once, but twice, we're told exactly what's going to happen in the remainder of the movie, but it's couched in such a way that we don't want to believe it.

On a related point - and still in Philip K Dick territory - one of the posters above suggested that Blade Runner is better than its source book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. In this age of Rings and Potter, there's a school of thought that says that film adaptations should be totally faithful to their source material. Well, The Prestige makes important changes to Christopher Priest's novel, and while the changes might not have made it a better book, they definitely make it a better film.

Thanks all, I’ll look out for the BR ‘Final Cut’ of 2007, failing that the earlier one.

Voice-overs aren’t always a bad thing; I love Chandler and films that riff off that type of style, so I didn’t find the BR voiceover objectionable just because it was there.

Anyone recommend (or condem) Apocalypse Now Redux?

I have a slight confession that the first time I watched The Exorcist I laughed at it.

I guess my young brain had been saturated with early John Carpenter films and the awful Amytiville horror series, so by the time I got round to watching it at sixteen years old (at the small theatre in Chichester) I just did not get all the fuss.

Flash forward quite a few years and it is now one of those films that disturbs me. Having not grown up with a religion a lot of the references and fears where totally lost on me. Of course the older I got and the more educated I became the more I saw in the film and the more I enjoyed the entire experience.
The sound design in that film is out of this world and is one of my personal bench marks for excellence.

When it comes to directors cuts of films the ones I have enjoyed have been the longer cuts of the Abyss and Kingdom of Heaven. Both of these films have benefitted in the re insertion of huge sub plots that flesh out the narrative and give the films time to make sense.

On The Prestige, I watched it for the second time last night, and something just clicked. It is now, officially one of the cleverest and most exciting films I've seen. It's not heart racing action that makes this film tense and effective, but the suspence and mystery. And the ending is both one of optomism (Bale reunited with his daughter) and deep disturbance (One hundred dead Jackmans floating in tanks!) The first time I watched it however, I was non-plussed, un-moved, and kinda bored!

PS Have just bought Brazil, so will be sure to watch it at least three times before finalising judgement!

@martian_pyramid: Glad someone else mentioned Total Recall, because that film really screws with your head when it gets to the end, and it fades to white, instead of to black, suggesting that it all really was his fantasy, rather than the real deal, and he gets lobotomised.

As for whether Blade Runner is better than the PKD book. They are two very different things, IMO. Scott confessed that he never actually read the book. I have an interview with PKD where he says that he thought the film is superior to what he wrote. I love them both, but must admit, the film has stayed with me a lot longer than the book!

Oh, and Martyn, Rings really is not that faithful to the source material at all. No Bombadill, no Woodmen near Gondor, no scouring of the Shire, Shelob's in the wrong film and the amy of the dead go all the way to Gondor and save the day, which doesn't happen in the book. In the book Arwen doesnt rescue the Hobbit's from the Ringwraiths, a guy called Glorfindel does, no elves turn up at Helm's Deep, Treebeard never decides that the Ents WON'T help out, Frodo never tells Sam to "go home"... the list is fairly endless really. So, actually, Rings follows The Prestige in terms of how faithful a film SHOULD be to the source material.

Blade Runner and Alien for me are my 2 most watched films in my collection. The first I saw when very young and was bored silly by it, Alien when it came to telly for the first time I was 10 or 11 and my Mum let me watch it. By the time of Brett's death (looking for Jones the cat) I had to go to bed as I was simply scared out of my mind.
Needless to say my Mother has lot to answer for....

Years passed, then Blade Runner appeared on my radar again and its now my fave film of all time. The art, story and characters all reveal new details upon repeat viewings for me. As for Alien, my 2nd fave, it never ceases to tie my stomach in knots during the crucial birthing scene. It still has tremendous intelligence and power that many current horror films would do well to take note of.

However, I hold little hope for Scott's follow up. I fear it will do little justice to the original.

Leave it alone Ridley...

'you can count on me' is one of my favourite films 'ferris buellers day off' should be watched beforehand

I recently watched "There Will Be Blood" for a second time and appreciated it a lot more.

Taxi Driver was another film that I loved more on second viewing. I think the two films are similar in many ways. Maybe there is something about films that focus on the development of a central character that I find the need to see again to appreciate the subtleties.

On the Topic of "There Will Be Blood", this month I have watched loads of horror films, but I found the development of the Daniel Plainview character scarier and more horrific than all of them. Strangely on the first watch I found the "milkshake" scene quite funny, but the second time round I found it terrifying.

Films that get better and better with repeat viewings...I'd add Zodiac and Casino to that list. They got more or less passed over when they first came out. The film editing in Casino exceptional and the use of the voice over adds structure to the story - the bit where Joe Pesci narrates his own demise is great.

Zodiac (director's cut)is a greatly crafted and performed piece of story telling with no waste and puts over the atmosphere of times perfectly. One of Fincher's best.

And what about Bong Joon-Ho's Memories of Murder, I've watched it over a dozen times and still engages me. Shame it's such an overlooked film.

And all these films are over two hours long.

One film that continues to defeat me, despite several repeat viewings, is Chinatown. As much as I love Polanski's films, Chinatown just defies me for some reason, and on paper, it shouldn't as it's all of the thing I usually like in my movies. I may have to set aside an evening and really sit with it and concentrate really hard.

On the subject of Director's Cuts - normally I prefer them to the originals. Aliens I thought added some interesting back story (admitedly, not really necessary); the aforementioned Final Cut of Blade Runner is by far the best. I saw it in my local art house cinema and it was amazing on the big screen.

The only director's cut that I thought wasn't so great was Donnie Darko - it ruined the mystery and ambiguity and literally explained the strange goings on to you with those stupid inserted book pages.

Glad to see The Prestige mentioned a couple of times here - it's a clever film that gets cleverer each time I see it

Apropos L'Affaire Jen: it is not her face. or her hair.
It is the fact that after having done TV for many many years she always knows EXACTLY from which angle she will look her best, how the hat has to be worn to look EXACTLY right, how the highlights in her hair have to be like this and not like that, the hair tousled by wind in a way to make her look even more cute...
Her face is always lit in the best possible way,her nose is always accuratly powdered, the team of hairdressers and make up and costume and light people are instructed by her because she KNOWS, having done 500 billion episodes, how she wants to look: and she looks fake like a TV commercial.

In cinema movies, actors show off their faults. You see a movie with superhumanly faboulous Cate Blanchette and she has lines around her mouth and eyes, or even Nicole Kidman (NICOLE KIDMAN!) sometimes looks human, with bags under her eyes.

Not Jen, EVER. She has the look thing under control, always.
And this simply doesn't work in cinema movies, it gives away the TV provenance. This is what acting in Tv shows for many years does to you, it ruins your acting.

The acting- for-the-camera thing becomes second nature and you can allways feel, subconsciuosly, that the person is acting with the camera in mind. Movie actors know their moves, but then they try to recreate the reality forgetting the camera.It is up to the crew to capture the emotion and to make it look good. In Tv it is the reverse: tight schedules and it's up to the actor to look good and to be good, because no one really cares, the standards are lower.

Jen should do a movie with Lars von Trier to cure her.

I'm becoming a bit obsessed with David Lynch's work at the moment and I watched Eraserhead and re-watched Dune recently. Obviously both films provide completely different experience's but while Eraserhead is obviously the better film I don't think I could ever bring myself to watch it again. For starters I barely made it through the first viewing as the constant crying of the deformed baby is so upsetting that I had to try really hard not to switch the film off. I made it through in the end but its seriously tough work.

However I love hearing people’s theories about the meaning of the film and as Lynch has said that no one has gotten close to his interpretation I was wondering what people’s thoughts on the film were about on here.

Dune on the other hand I hated the first time I saw it, the constant inner monologues, the bad special effects and the nonsensical plotting added up to a rotten film. However I found myself really enjoying it on a second viewing for some reason. All the flaws are still apparent but knowing what to expect you can appreciate some great visuals (and some pretty terrible one’s as well), a good cast, and some interesting ideas about natural fuels and their worth, religion and the proper use of power. While all of this gets kind of lost in the bad editing of the film it’s still fun to watch and to speculate what the filmmakers were trying to achieve.

A small erratum - that was Anthony Lane not Andy. My mistake...

Watched 'The Imaginarium...' last night. I don't think it requires a second viewing to really enjoy, the magic on screen speaks for itself. That said, unpacking the host of crazy symbols Gilliam presents you with will probably be time well spent. Can't wait for the DVD.

I loved 'Blue Velvet' first time round, but it did take a second viewing for me to really 'get' it. Same probably applies for all Lynch's films.

haha! this made my morning.

btw it's probably LUH [LUAH] as in THX1138- not that it's important=]

I must admit to being one of those people who enjoys the original version of Blade Runner (even with the out of place ending). The dead pan voice over, feels like it adds to the feel of the film giving it a more noir feel.

My only thing with the film, even though I think it is a work of genius, is that the pase of the film is mind numbingly slow. I can't watch it in one or some times two sittings cause I get so bored.

To be honest, I think some of Mark's favourites like 'Pan's Labyrinth' need more than one viewing. I've only watched it once since I bought it; I'm trying to find the energy to watch it again. In fact apart from Hellboy, its sequel, and Blade 2, I don't really have much time for Guillermo del Torro - sometimes he seems to be a bit too self-indulgent in his films, just like Spielberg. (Why are so many Spielberg films indirectly about him and his childhood; and why are so many Guillermo del Torro films indirectly about the Spanish civil war?).

"To be honest, I think some of Mark's favourites like 'Pan's Labyrinth' need more than one viewing. I've only watched it once since I bought it; I'm trying to find the energy to watch it again. In fact apart from Hellboy, its sequel, and Blade 2, I don't really have much time for Guillermo del Toro - sometimes he seems to be a bit too self-indulgent in his films, just like Spielberg. (Why are so many Spielberg films indirectly about him and his childhood; and why are so many Guillermo del Toro films indirectly about the Spanish civil war?)."

Why did John Ford have to make so many Westerns? Why do so many Woody Allen films deal with New York? Why are so many Akira Kurosawa films about feudal Japan? Guillermo probably draws inspiration from the period and the places.

With regards to films to rewatch, I think that part of it simply has to do with the passage of time. Sometimes, a movie can just be ahead of its time, and I need to catch up with it. At others, I think that a film deals with mature ideas or themes simply beyond my grasp. It's the same for many people. My friend was once the type who loved blow'em up blockbusters, but as he's gotten older, he's gotten more esoteric in his tastes just because he got bored with Michael Bay-land. I think that it's entirely possible to simply outgrow or grow into films.