![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
threemonkeysOver the last couple of days I have watched a few films for the second time. There are times when the first watching of a film just does not do it justice. The subsequent viewing helps me to get an idea of whether it will pass the test of time. You get a more complete picture as it were.
The first time I watched the Hitchhikers Guide movie, I gave it a marginal pass grade. Sure there was lots of favourite stuff lost, but you could see Adams' influence and understand the need to create a proper movie structure. Watching it a second time a couple of nights ago, I found it difficult to find any merit in the changes. Seeing it on the small screen rather than the big screen means a lot of the spectacle was lost. It seems that the spectacle was holding a lot of the weaknesses up. This time around it just seemed pathetic. The added story and the acting just did not stack up and the hack job on so many of the jokes rankled more.
Batman Begins also has a lot of spectacle. But first time around the story seemed cluttered - there was just too much origin myth being crammed in together with the need to tell an action story. Second time around, the story didn't seem so cluttered. The opening seemed like a proper narrative and helped set up the action much more coherently. Of course the story is still pretty silly if looked at in detail, but this is a comic superhero - what do you expect.
Van Helsing was silly the first time and silly the second time too. Silly to the point of being truly awful. But it is a visually spectacular film. I mean really beautifully done. Second time around, you can enjoy that - you know that the story/acting etc is so terrible that you just ignore it and you can just enjoy how good it looks.
So should I watch every movie twice. Hell no. But it can yield interesting results in a quiet moment.
The first time I watched the Hitchhikers Guide movie, I gave it a marginal pass grade. Sure there was lots of favourite stuff lost, but you could see Adams' influence and understand the need to create a proper movie structure. Watching it a second time a couple of nights ago, I found it difficult to find any merit in the changes. Seeing it on the small screen rather than the big screen means a lot of the spectacle was lost. It seems that the spectacle was holding a lot of the weaknesses up. This time around it just seemed pathetic. The added story and the acting just did not stack up and the hack job on so many of the jokes rankled more.
Batman Begins also has a lot of spectacle. But first time around the story seemed cluttered - there was just too much origin myth being crammed in together with the need to tell an action story. Second time around, the story didn't seem so cluttered. The opening seemed like a proper narrative and helped set up the action much more coherently. Of course the story is still pretty silly if looked at in detail, but this is a comic superhero - what do you expect.
Van Helsing was silly the first time and silly the second time too. Silly to the point of being truly awful. But it is a visually spectacular film. I mean really beautifully done. Second time around, you can enjoy that - you know that the story/acting etc is so terrible that you just ignore it and you can just enjoy how good it looks.
So should I watch every movie twice. Hell no. But it can yield interesting results in a quiet moment.