Films you admire rather than actually enjoy.
- Thread starter Mel M
- Start date
Dark KnighTBladeS
New member
I'm going to say Watchmen.
I received and watched the directors cut Blu-ray over Xmas and while i can see why some people love it and can appreciate the attention to detail transfering the comic to the big screen I just felt a bit flat at the end.
While I feel a second or third viewing might help me 'get it' more I'm just not compelled at the moment.
I received and watched the directors cut Blu-ray over Xmas and while i can see why some people love it and can appreciate the attention to detail transfering the comic to the big screen I just felt a bit flat at the end.
While I feel a second or third viewing might help me 'get it' more I'm just not compelled at the moment.
Birttany A
New member
It worked for me. It came out in the early 1980s and I watched it many times on video over the next couple of decades. Admittedly I hadn't seen it recently, and don't feel the need to own a copy on DVD (or that new-fangled Blu-ray I keep hearing about), but that's because it had become over-familiar because I had rewatched it so many times.
As it happens, I did rewatch a recent broadcast the other night, so I have a few more comments. In some ways it was the Avatar of its day - a big, futuristic SF movie with great visuals. I think when you have a new world to assimilate, it takes up viewer attention and something has else to give. With Avatar it's the plot. Avatar has a simple story and characters, with no surprises. There's never much confusion about what people are doing or why. Because that aspect is easy, it can afford to be fast paced in the editing, with lots of cuts. That plus the visuals helps keep it interesting despite the plot.
Bladerunner has a relatively complex plot and characters. You have to pay attention. For example, when Pris meets J.S.Sebastian, it's the first time you've seen either character so you have to figure out who they are and what they are doing. When Roy turns up, it seems for a moment as if they might kill J.S.. It does all make sense, but you have to use part of your brain to follow it. That plus the world-building mean the editing neeRAB to be slow to give you time to assimilate. Hence slow pacing and long held shots, which can seem very slow or "sparse" to a modern audience.
I think it also makes a difference which version you see. I am familiar with the one that has the voice-over, and although it's much derided, I think that actually helps with the pacing by giving you something else to entertain you during the slow visuals. And it helps cover the plot, of course.
I don't agree with the previous comment about there being no memorable characters. Roy is very memorable to me. Some lines in the film will be with me forever, eg "Time to die", "If you could see what I've seen through your eyes", "Then we are stupid and will die" and of course Roy's death speech. There are several complex character moments that leave the viewer conflicted. For example, Deckard shooting Zhora in the back, or his love scene with Rachael.
Overall, for me it does stand up to rewatching even today, 28 years after it first came out. (I doubt the same will be true of Avatar.)
As it happens, I did rewatch a recent broadcast the other night, so I have a few more comments. In some ways it was the Avatar of its day - a big, futuristic SF movie with great visuals. I think when you have a new world to assimilate, it takes up viewer attention and something has else to give. With Avatar it's the plot. Avatar has a simple story and characters, with no surprises. There's never much confusion about what people are doing or why. Because that aspect is easy, it can afford to be fast paced in the editing, with lots of cuts. That plus the visuals helps keep it interesting despite the plot.
Bladerunner has a relatively complex plot and characters. You have to pay attention. For example, when Pris meets J.S.Sebastian, it's the first time you've seen either character so you have to figure out who they are and what they are doing. When Roy turns up, it seems for a moment as if they might kill J.S.. It does all make sense, but you have to use part of your brain to follow it. That plus the world-building mean the editing neeRAB to be slow to give you time to assimilate. Hence slow pacing and long held shots, which can seem very slow or "sparse" to a modern audience.
I think it also makes a difference which version you see. I am familiar with the one that has the voice-over, and although it's much derided, I think that actually helps with the pacing by giving you something else to entertain you during the slow visuals. And it helps cover the plot, of course.
I don't agree with the previous comment about there being no memorable characters. Roy is very memorable to me. Some lines in the film will be with me forever, eg "Time to die", "If you could see what I've seen through your eyes", "Then we are stupid and will die" and of course Roy's death speech. There are several complex character moments that leave the viewer conflicted. For example, Deckard shooting Zhora in the back, or his love scene with Rachael.
Overall, for me it does stand up to rewatching even today, 28 years after it first came out. (I doubt the same will be true of Avatar.)
100% Scorpio
New member
There Will Be Blood
I appreciate the message behind it, I really do. Just had a boring way of telling it IMO.
I appreciate the message behind it, I really do. Just had a boring way of telling it IMO.
babin_pogi05
New member
The Magdalene Sisters - I watched it and thought it was an incredible film, but I can't say I enjoyed it, or that I would watch it again. It was too disturbing.
No way!! Two of my favourite films. I've seen both on the big screen (twice for "The Seventh Seal"). I don't mind if the pace of a film is slow as long as it's well done and there's a point to it, like a good slow piece of music. Of course I do have to be in the right sort of mood for it. Anyway, the film that immediately sprung to mind when I saw this thread title was "Eraserhead".