Movies That Need To Be Viewed Twice

[Penelope]

The Life of David Gale - brilliant movie that didn't get much publicity. Laura Linney terrific and Kevin Spacey. Spooky, with interesting twists and turns. I loved it.

[Phillip]

only twice????

look, any movie worth its salt is worth viewing numerous times. great cinematic masterpieces, or films that are just meant to entertain (that are well done) are worth viewing again and again.

i have a few hundred films in my collection and i've seen all of them numerous times (that's why i purchased them!).

especially in the realm of cinema as work of art, they are always looking at again. lots of people have mentioned mulholland drive, there is a movie that has multiple layers and must be viewed a few times just to sort it all out. you could also cite just about any hitchcock film. as an artist, i want to learn from other great artist how their work WORKS. and i discover so much about pacing and details with multiple viewings.

a while back someone posted a "comfort films" thread. i posted a lot of films there that i could (and have) watch again and again.

[Call me Random]

Only know a handful of movies, but here's what I remember the most

How To Train Your Dragon- the best evar (In my opinion, probably different in someone else's mind)
The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything- I know it's kid-ish, but I'm young at heart. Seen it at least once in theaters, and twice? on DVD. ROCK LOBSTAR!
The Incredibles-Interesting plot, awesome powers and robots :)
Monster's INC.-Kitty! that's all I have to say. Randell's my favorite monster.

...That's all I got on my mind now. Who Knows? they're probably is more, but they're just hiding XD

[Tyrone]

There is an awful lot of snobbery on the film related forums on this site. I love all types of movies and some of the 'best' movies i have seen i would be hard pressed to watch again becuase of the level of art used in conveying the subject, the difficult subject matter, or becuse it did something to me emotionally which was cathartic but not necessarily something you would want to repeat.
Alternatively there are many films which are not as well made, well conceived or worthy but are great entertainment which i can watch over and over again.

[[deleted user]]

a walk to remember and the proposal also serendipity which ive watched over and over again and never bored of it

[Tyrone]

Vanessa wrote: "I would echo several already posted by Cliff and Alison, but would also add "V For Vendetta" - not because it was confusing, but because it was very rich."

Very underated film and harshly done to by the critics. I think the fact that Alan Moore was so scathing about the project gave them carte blanche to be worse...

[Cindy]

Phillip wrote: "only twice???? look, any movie worth its salt is worth viewing numerous times.

I know people who never watch a film more than once. I don't get that AT ALL. Some films have such an effect on me that I want to experience that over and over again.

i have a few hundred films in my collection and i've seen all of them numerous times (that's why i purchased them!)...

I almost NEVER purchase a film I haven't already seen at least once. I consider it a waste of money if I'm not sure I'm going to watch it again. My brother and sister-in-law will buy films, watch them once, and then stick them in their next garage sale.

[Phillip]

i just don't have that kind of disposable income.

[St[♥]r Pr!nc:$$ N[♥]wsheen pictures, pictures, pictures]

ummm...sorry about that Phillip!! :)

Definitely Lord of the Rings, its canvas is so humongous it takes two or more viewings to actally connect all the dots, strange names don't help!!! What a movie though, I couldn't take my eyes off of the screen.

[Chris]

I've gotta say, I agree with just about everyone on here. I would add just about every movie by Joel and Ethan Coen...in fact I think it should be a pre-requisite for one to watch their movies twice before even being able to comment on them. ;)

Others I can think of that I've seen numerous times in recent years (and haven't gotten tired of):
-Office Space
-Borat
-Extract
-The Big Labowski
-Burn After Reading
-The Devil's Rejects
-Exit Through the Gift Shop
-Toy Story 2&3
-Despicable Me
-Old School
-The Hangover

There're a ton more, but I'll save the space. Of course another list would be movies you need to watch every few years:
-Star Wars (iV & V)
-Godfather 1 & 2
-Lord of the Rings
-Schindler's List
...and on, and on...

[Amalie]

Black Swan gets my vote, but I agree with many of these here also.

[Robert]

Phillip wrote: "only twice????"

To be fair, I think you may be misreading the intent. Your post is about movies you WANT to view many times, and I'm totally on board with that. But the topic is movies that NEED to be viewed twice. Not because you love them (else I'd have every movie I've seen over fifty times here, about a dozen in all), but for, say, comprehension purposes, or because your view of the film substantially changes over time. I found Suspiria boring and unmemorable the first time I saw it; it took four or five viewings over the course of a decade before I fully appreciated it.

That said, off the top of my head:
Suspiria
Begotten
Dellamorte Dell'Amore (especially for those who didn't catch the last line the first time 'round)
Satantango
Outland (just wrote a review on that one about the differences in the way I view it as I get older, actually)
The Maltese Falcon ('41)
Tokyo Monogatari (Ozu is vastly different watched at the ages of each of the main characters)
Sullivan's Travels
The Blair Witch Project (another "in case you missed it" gig)
Anamorph

dozens more, but those are the first that come to mind.

[Robert]

Tyrone wrote: "Alternatively there are many films which are not as well made, well conceived or worthy but are great entertainment which i can watch over and over again. "

As one of the snobs, I fully agree with this sentiment (god knows how many times I've seen Tremors over the years). But I do have to stick in that the real sweet spot is a film that functions as both great art and great entertainment. The Fisher King is a prime example. Return of the Living Dead. Scanners. The Death of Mr. Lazarescu. I could go on all day.

[Tyrone]

Have to agree. Popocorn fare is fine but those films which both achieve something finer and manage also to be entertaing are worth buying (if you can secure a decent version of course) and keeping and watching many times.

[Phillip]

Robert wrote: "Phillip wrote: "only twice????"

To be fair, I think you may be misreading the intent. Your post is about movies you WANT to view many times, and I'm totally on board with that. But the topic is mo..."

not really ... my point is any movie that is worth viewing, in my highly-opinionated opinion, is a movie that has some depth to it and needs to be explored more fully than you are able to achieve in one sitting.

[Clyde]

Fight Club is one I notice more and more layers and catch more and more hints I missed previously. Black Swan I saw once and want to see it again due to how much was going on in it. Catfish is another I'd like to see again soon.

[Chris]

Clyde wrote: "Fight Club is one I notice more and more layers and catch more and more hints I missed previously. Black Swan I saw once and want to see it again due to how much was going on in it. Catfish is anot..."

Fight Club is a great example. I'm one of those that half misunderstood the topic. Other good examples:
Burn After Reading
Mullholand Drive
Inception?
Memento
Natural Born Killers

[Clyde]

I forgot about Inception. That one I think can be left to the viewer to decide whats what at the end. I think Natural Born Killers main point was pretty clear but may have been missed because of the violence and acid trip like way the movie was shot. American Psycho is another that took a couple times watching before it made sense.

[Cindy]

Phillip wrote: "i just don't have that kind of disposable income."

My brother and sis-in-law don't either. That's what makes it particularly stupid.

[Cindy]

What throws me sometimes is a director's style. Someone I'm not familiar with may keep me from getting a film the first time around. Case in point: L'ARGENT. The first time I saw it about a year ago, I went "huh?" Then recently I saw another film by the same director (Robert Bresson). It was more accessible and because I was already familiar with the story (Joan of Arc) I was able to get a hold on what the director was doing. I took that knowledge back to a reviewing of L'ARGENT and understood it much better.

[Phillip]

nice

[Robert]

Phillip wrote: "not really ... my point is any movie that is worth viewing, in my highly-opinionated opinion, is a movie that has some depth to it and needs to be explored more fully than you are able to achieve in one sitting. "

Nah, I'm with Tyrone on this one. I'll never get anything else out of Shriek of the Mutilated, Kingdom of the Spiders, Beware! the Blob, or Night of the Lepus. Not that there was much to get out of them in the first place. But I watch all of them on a fairly regular basis because they're so horrifically bad I can't help but enjoy them. Probably the four DVDs in my collection that get the most use, to my chagrin (but only because Begotten went OOP so fast on DVD and I still haven't picked one up... my VHS copy is on its last legs).

[Randi]

1. Scott Pilgrim VS. The World
This moves so fast you must have caffiene to get it all in one viewing which I didn't.

2. Inception
Duh.

3. Certain Pixart movies.
This only works if you watched them when you were a kid.
There are so many things as a kid I didn't see or understand in Pizar's earlier movies. Go back and watch them and you'll see why they are the gold standard of animation.

[mark]

Ashes of Time

[VA Fernz]

How about
Inception
afterlife

[Phillip]

after seeing certified copy today, i would say for sure - one viewing isn't enough to marvel at the intricacies ...

[Nicolle]

The films that i could see, not only twice, but over and over (olds and news) :

Black Swan
Despicable Me
Boys don't cry
As melhores coisas do mundo (brazilian)
Tropa de elite (brazilian)
My best friend wedding
Moulin Rouge
Forest Gump

there are much more, but this is what i can think at the moment.

[Sue]

Matchpoint
Catch and Release
Remember Me

[Julie]

Paprika (Satoshi Kon): A very complex Japanese anime film. BUT! Don't be thrown off by the anime aspect - The animation is top notch. I would say this movie is a similar match to America's "Inception." It follows the same dream-within-a-dream plot and requires your full attention otherwise you'll get lost!

[Michèle]

donnie darko and inception are two that i appreciated more the second time around

southland tales ; i actually didn't figure it out even after seeing it twice

[Nicole]

Harry Potter movies...
there is always some random thing going on off to the side...

Shutter Island definitely

also Inception.... but I probably need to watch that 100 more times.

[Kristin]

I feel like I need to watch every movie at least twice to really absorb all the details. Even movies that I didn't especially like the first time. I try to give them a second chance. :)

[Phillip]

Robert wrote: "Phillip wrote: "only twice????"

To be fair, I think you may be misreading the intent. Your post is about movies you WANT to view many times, and I'm totally on board with that. But the topic is mo..."

i meant to respond to this some time ago, but didn't.

i don't think i'm mis-reading the intent. the original post said please post films that NEED to be viewed twice to "get" them.

all i was saying was that if a film is good, you probably need to see it more than once ... to see all there is to see.

i'm not sure if i was lodged in tyronne's "snobbery" comment or not - but there isn't anything snobby about saying a film is worth watching because it has layers and there is a lot to take in.

and, like you, robert - i don't think that films have to be "great" or however you want to describe them, to be worthy of multiple viewings - aren't you also straying from the original intent by listing films like the blob, etc. that don't NEED to be viewed twice, but are enjoyable, so why not see them more than once?

i'm confused at this point. obviously.

if i am to be placed in the snob category - all i can say is, well, you don't know me. i love trashy films, chick-flicks (an idiotic term, btw - f**k guys who can't appreciate anything but macho bravura bullshit), b-movies, rom-coms, or anything else that fits in the low-brow category. if i have come off as a film snob in these threads, you have my most sincere apology. i hate snobs in any and all formats and don't want to become one.

[Sue]

What about The Oyster Farmer? That was a good movie, Australian, I think.

[Robert]

M. L. - Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Phillip -
"aren't you also straying from the original intent by listing films like the blob, etc. that don't NEED to be viewed twice, but are enjoyable, so why not see them more than once?"

I was trying to differentiate the two camps, as I didn't make nearly clear enough. (This is often a problem with me...) Things you WANT to see more than once but won't get any extra meaning out of and things you NEED to see more than once not only because they're enjoyable but because when you see them again, something different is illuminated, a facet of the story you hadn't previously thought of or a piece of the plot you didn't quite work out the first time or what have you. I just assume, for example, that as great as I think Ikiru and Tokyo Monogatari are now, I simply don't have the capacity for them to fully resonate with me at my age; I don't think that will happen until I'm into my sixties, at least, possibly seventies. No one in their right mind could ever say that about a movie like Night of the Lepus; there's just not enough substance there. In no way does this make Lepus any less enjoyable, but it's the difference between going to the same restaurant and getting the same exquisite dish every week or going someplace new where you already understand the cuisine they serve, but they have a slightly different spin on it than you're used to. Both are wonderful experiences. One just has... unexpected novelty, as it were.

[Betsy]

I need to see Black Swan again...I still have not decided if I really like or hate that movie. What have decided that was Natalie P. did to a fabulous acting job in this movie.

[Jeremiah]

I think a lot of the public got turned off by Black Swan because it's more of a character study of a someone going insane ... and that it's more in the vein of a thinky/feely/foreign type of film rather than your standard classical Hollywood narrative. I truly enjoyed Natalie's performance (she deserved every bit of the oscar IMO) and I thought the movie was quite good (B or B+) but not blow your mind great great or anything.

[Abhayan]

Few movies that I had to watch more than once to comprehend it (though not always successfully):
Copie Conforme (Certified Copy)
Last Year at Marienbad
Synecdoche, New York
Cache

[Phillip]

i'm still trying to figure out last year at marienbad

[Tom]

Phillip -- why?

[Phillip]

that's a good question - i'm not sure it's possible, or worth the time

[Beth]

what is Shutter Island about. it sounds like a thriller, and i love thriller/horror movies.
beth

[Lani]

I'm not a big Robert Altman fan but his films need more than one viewing to catch everything that is going on with the story and characters.

My 2 favorite of his films are The Player and Gosford Park. The Player is all about Hollywood and murder. Gosford Park is set in an old fashion English country house sort of a cross between Upstair/Downstairs and Agatha Christie. I spent so much time recognizing stars that I had to watch the movies a 2nd time to get all of the plot.

[Robert]

Beth: Shutter Island is most definitely a thriller. I have yet to see the movie (it's sitting here waiting for me), but I read the novel, written by Dennis Lehane, a few years ago, and it's fantastic. Synopsis: a couple of police detectives head for an asylum on an island to investigate the disappearance of one of the inmates.

[Beth]

that sounds really good! i will have to rent the movie, or get the book. thanks!!
beth

[Cindy]

Lani wrote: "I'm not a big Robert Altman fan but his films need more than one viewing to catch everything that is going on with the story and characters."

You might be right on about this one, Lani. I'm not an Altman fan either, but who knows? Maybe I'm just not giving him a real chance.

[Phillip]

altman is kind of 50 - 50 for me - half of his films i like a lot, half i don't like much at all. faves? how about:

gosford park
mc cabe and mrs miller
three women
nashville
short cuts (well, parts of it)

i remember liking the player when it came out, but i can hardly remember it - couldn't comment without seeing it again.

[Lani]

Phillip wrote: "altman is kind of 50 - 50 for me - half of his films i like a lot, half i don't like much at all. faves? how about:

gosford park
mc cabe and mrs miller
three women
nashville
short cuts (well, part..."

More like 25% for me. I saw mc cabe and mrs miller after hearing so many liked it. It was awful. And nashville, well, "i remember liking it when it came out, but i can hardly remember it - couldn't comment without seeing it again. "

I think Altman's process is to get a script and then throw it at the cast. Sort of let things happen organically. Which is why actors love him and audience find him unwatchable at times.

[Tom]

For me NASHVILLE is really the ultimate Altman film, with all of his strengths and less of his weaknesses. It repays repeat viewings like few movies do.

[Abhayan]

Phillip wrote: "i'm still trying to figure out last year at marienbad"

I am with you. I am still trying to decipher if there is any meaning in it at all. And I think it's wonderful. I love the way the used (or did not use) shadows in some scenes. Maybe I am analyzing it too much.