Post by mslo79 on Feb 11, 2018 6:58:07 GMT
moviemouth
Technically yes, but not much difference.
but with that said... while those two are technically different, as you say, they are very similar in the sense that they have one thing in common in that they are ultimately forgettable because if a movie does not hold up on a re-watch, at least to a certain level, then you won't want to re-watch it anymore and in the other example of 'not having a urge to re-watch a movie' pretty much means the movie is not good enough to re-watch (as it does not spark your interest in it enough to see it again) which also makes that forgettable basically.
I can relate to that first viewing stuff as usually when a movie comes up that I used to praise but no longer do ill mention that on my first viewing (or maybe even some viewings past this) it as great etc but then fell off.
also, I never really understood that whole 'changed my life' comment even though I have heard it here and there. I never had a movie 'change my life' as they are simply general entertainment at the end of the day. I never really seen a movie that changed my outlook on life etc, at least nothing major. you might see a movie that reminds you to appreciate things a bit more here and there but nothing that was profound.
I always re-watch movies because of general all around enjoyment of them and rate accordingly. some might be your typical blockbuster type and some are not but a interesting movie is a interesting movie.
that's one thing I might be a bit different on... some people seem to put the word 'entertainment' as only simple blockbuster movies and excludes more serious dramas etc. but I don't see things that way as movies ultimately come back to ones all around enjoyment of watching them and the more it does that the higher the score and the less it does that the lower the score. sometimes the blockbusters really work and sometimes dramas work. off the top of my head 'Crime | Drama' (and variations) tend to be one of the safer genres for me to output a quality movie.
There is one flaw with that equation... 'objective'. I don't really think anyone can be truly objective on movies as it's more or less a 'guess' as to what things are supposed to be like. movies are ultimately subjective on what's good and what's not.
but to play along with your Batman vs The Godfather type of thing... I can see the term 'fun' might be applied more to some movies than others. but at the end of the day... whichever movie is more interesting for the viewer to watch is the better/more enjoyable movie for them.
p.s. but I do admit I have seen people say that stuff in your example there around here.
Toasted Cheese
Of course... that character, and not to mention movie, is memorable unlike the other two. it's the reason why Cuba Gooding Jr will be remembered for that role.
Primal Fear is pretty much forgotten already and I think if it was not for IMDb's Top 250 with Fargo, or it tied to the Coen Bro's, it would be at least semi-forgotten.
another thing... it's funny how Cuba Gooding Jr's career took a hit as he seemed to be solid for a while and then pretty much vanished.
That movie just has solid emotional punch at times. not many movies like that out there basically.
it's the movie ill remember Zellweger for and Cuba Gooding Jr. also, Zellweger worked good with Cruise on screen to which further helped sell the movie.
There is a difference between movies not holding up on re-watch and just not having an urge to re-watch the movie.
Technically yes, but not much difference.
but with that said... while those two are technically different, as you say, they are very similar in the sense that they have one thing in common in that they are ultimately forgettable because if a movie does not hold up on a re-watch, at least to a certain level, then you won't want to re-watch it anymore and in the other example of 'not having a urge to re-watch a movie' pretty much means the movie is not good enough to re-watch (as it does not spark your interest in it enough to see it again) which also makes that forgettable basically.
For me the true worth of a movie doesn't depend on wanting to re-watch it but in how it effected me when I watched it the first time. There might not be any need to re-watch certain movies I love because I carry those movies with me in my mind at all times, they speak to me on a deep personal level and have changed my life in ways.
I can relate to that first viewing stuff as usually when a movie comes up that I used to praise but no longer do ill mention that on my first viewing (or maybe even some viewings past this) it as great etc but then fell off.
also, I never really understood that whole 'changed my life' comment even though I have heard it here and there. I never had a movie 'change my life' as they are simply general entertainment at the end of the day. I never really seen a movie that changed my outlook on life etc, at least nothing major. you might see a movie that reminds you to appreciate things a bit more here and there but nothing that was profound.
Movies I re-watch the most tend to be for entertainment most of the time, but movies that are mostly fun type movies aren't movies that leave a lasting impression on me even if I tend to re-watch them more than movies I consider great artistic and thematic achievments.
I always re-watch movies because of general all around enjoyment of them and rate accordingly. some might be your typical blockbuster type and some are not but a interesting movie is a interesting movie.
that's one thing I might be a bit different on... some people seem to put the word 'entertainment' as only simple blockbuster movies and excludes more serious dramas etc. but I don't see things that way as movies ultimately come back to ones all around enjoyment of watching them and the more it does that the higher the score and the less it does that the lower the score. sometimes the blockbusters really work and sometimes dramas work. off the top of my head 'Crime | Drama' (and variations) tend to be one of the safer genres for me to output a quality movie.
Then there are the many people who judge movies on an objective level. Some people may find Batman & Robin more fun to re-watch than The Godfather for example, but they consider The Godfather the better movie. Even you have to admit that this is a pretty common way of thinking.
There is one flaw with that equation... 'objective'. I don't really think anyone can be truly objective on movies as it's more or less a 'guess' as to what things are supposed to be like. movies are ultimately subjective on what's good and what's not.
but to play along with your Batman vs The Godfather type of thing... I can see the term 'fun' might be applied more to some movies than others. but at the end of the day... whichever movie is more interesting for the viewer to watch is the better/more enjoyable movie for them.
p.s. but I do admit I have seen people say that stuff in your example there around here.
Toasted Cheese
Cuba won an Oscar for JM and why, is anybodies guess. Was he really more deserving than Edward Norton in Primal Fear, or William H. Macy in Fargo? I don't think so. Both these actors went on to do more notable fare. It was a hype thing and a colored thing I would say.
Of course... that character, and not to mention movie, is memorable unlike the other two. it's the reason why Cuba Gooding Jr will be remembered for that role.
Primal Fear is pretty much forgotten already and I think if it was not for IMDb's Top 250 with Fargo, or it tied to the Coen Bro's, it would be at least semi-forgotten.
another thing... it's funny how Cuba Gooding Jr's career took a hit as he seemed to be solid for a while and then pretty much vanished.
I saw Jerry Maguire twice when it was first released, to try and get what all the fuss was about. I still didn't and don't get it. "You complete me"
That movie just has solid emotional punch at times. not many movies like that out there basically.
it's the movie ill remember Zellweger for and Cuba Gooding Jr. also, Zellweger worked good with Cruise on screen to which further helped sell the movie.