You haven't seen a film until you've seen it twice(?)
 

I went to see the much-anticipated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them back in November, and as I walked home from the theatre, I couldn't help but feel it was a glaringly mediocre expansion of the universe I and millions of others extensively cherish. Yesterday I got in on a repeat viewing, and, I'm glad to say, it felt like I'd watched a different film - a better film.

So I ask: How true do you find the statement in the title? Do you think it takes two, or even multiple, viewings before you can say you've truly seen a film? Does it depend on the film? Could it have a negative impact, rather than a positive?

Re: You haven't seen a film until you've seen it twice(?)
 

I think it depends on the viewer. My husband is happy to watch a movie or show once whereas I'm a chronic rewatcher and very entertained by watching film on different planes or with different PoVs. Babadook for example I watched 4 times back to back, each time from a different perspective. It gave me 4 different movies to watch for the price of one. Bonus.

Re: You haven't seen a film until you've seen it twice(?)
 

It depends on the film, and I think it's best to space the viewings pretty far apart. If I rewatch a movie too soon it can often bore me to tears because it's too fresh in my mind. That said there are plenty of movies I disliked on first watch and then grew on me later, but typically it's a film that while I didn't enjoy it, the movie stuck with me and kept bugging me. When you can't stop thinking about a movie that's a sign you need to watch it again.

Re: You haven't seen a film until you've seen it twice(?)
 

I say it is very true if talking about certain David Lynch movies.

I think how much a viewer enjoys a movie can depend very much on their mood, setting, or how much sleep they've had. A second viewing can often end up being very different, at least for me.

Very true.

Also true.

True for me too.


I'll add this: if I watch a movie too many times in a short span (say like less than a year apart), I usually end up thinking less of the movie, no matter how much I initially liked it on the first viewing.

"There Will be Blood" I saw in theaters and despised it. On home video I enjoyed it much more and appreciate it now.

I don't like every Lynch's movie. I wouldn't repeat "Mullhollan drive" for instant. "The straight story"? Be my guest. So answering thread question, I would say I depends very much on movie. Some films I could watch every time, there is such a opportunity (for instant "Sex Mission" - polish comedy). But on the other hand, there is a mass movies I haven't seen yet, so I'm trying not waste my time for watched films. There is a lot of new one to see. :licklips:

I think it's true of some films, but not all.

Re: You haven't seen a film until you've seen it twice(?)
 

Oh,and one more thing... There are movies, which I couldn't watch to the end only ones :sick:

Re: You haven't seen a film until you've seen it twice(?)
 

True. Though in some cases that can be a bad thing. Skyfall, for instance, I enjoyed at the cinema; when I saw it again at home about two years later I was so bored that by halfway through I was amusing myself more by yelling "Bring back Roger Moore!" at the screen than by watching the film. :D

Re: You haven't seen a film until you've seen it twice(?)
 

Yes, a second or third viewing of a movie can make a big difference in my appreciation of a movie. In an ideal world I'd watch every movie more than once. I find it funny those who give warnings about repeat viewings. There are lots of movies I've seen at least three times in a short span of time, anywhere from a week to a few months, and I have never thought less of a movie for those repeat viewings. I might not turn back to the movie after that for a few years, but only because there's so many other films I want to see. Sometimes I'll watch the same movie twice in one day, or even in some rare cases I've put the DVD basically on repeat for the entire day.

Now with that said, Magnolia is a rare case of liking it significantly less every time I've watched it, where I now think it's terrible, but those were viewings spread out over many years.

That's true. Sometimes particular movie isn't opportune, but in other moment could be eyeopener. I would add to Your list age. Every once in a while, when I rewatched movies, which I've seen long time ago, I perceive them totally different (positive or negative).

This quote really stood out for me, but not about Harry Potter:

a glaringly mediocre expansion of the universe I and millions of others extensively cherish

I feel your pain :cool:.

It's a very good question. There are definitely films that I keep going back to where I will notice fresh things each time. A surprising example for me was Manhunter; maybe it's a result of getting older but I was picking up on so many more things about the plot than I ever did before. Graham's epiphany about the killer was something that just went past me until now, where I absorbed every detail. And it only took twenty years :D;).

You don't have to watch a movie several times, but I do think you should if you want to truly get a hold of it and how you personally feel about it.

Rewatching films is essential, but you shouldn't waste your time on something you don't think deserves it. But a lot of movies benefit from second viewings or more. I always feel more confident in how I feel about a film after I've watched two times.

Re: You haven't seen a film until you've seen it twice(?)
 

This being said, my brother and I once observed a "Second time syndrome", where a movie you loved the first time seems disappointing the second time. Often - though not always - this phenomenon seems to lift with a third viewing. It may be a case of enjoying something so much the first time that you 'overegg' it in your own mind, thus resulting in disappointment on sophomore viewing.
If you REALLY love a film the first time but are disappointed the second, it's probably worth a third look to get a more "balanced" appreciation (or lack of).

Of course -- why else would we ever buy DVDs?

I don't think it's possible to catch every nuance of a movie in one sitting. Even one good joke could make you (and/or fellow viewers) laugh hard enough to miss several moments to follow, and the same could apply to any moment that causes a strong audience reaction. (How many viewings of "Airplane!" before you were sure you'd caught all the jokes?)

Any thought-provoking movie, by definition, requires time to mull it over later, after which I'm generally up for a rewatch to continue the discussion in my head (if that makes any sense). During subsequent viewings, I'm probably analyzing the writing, admiring the performances, or whatever, as opposed to just watching for the story. I guess I'm just too slow on the uptake to appreciate the entire movie all at once.

Holiday movies, of course, lend themselves to traditional annual viewings, e.g., "Die Hard" or "My Bloody Valentine".

Then again, some movies just suck the first time around and don't get any better.

Perfect sense, BoP. I will watch a movie the first time just for the overall view, then rewatch just for visuals or score or dialogue and to catch the one liners.

Re: You haven't seen a film until you've seen it twice(?)
 

Theirs many movies I love that I've only seen once. I just don't have time to rewatch alot

Certain movies require multiple views for full appreciation or depreciation. Just like wine.

For example: I appreciate Batman Begins & Fight Club more after multiple views. In contrast, Up & Blade Runner are not as good as before.

Having said that, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is neither. It is just overrated by its fan base.