Question:
The big screen. You sit back and relax and the lights go down..the movie starts and 2 or 3 hours later you stagger into the real world convinced that you've just watched a classic.
Years later you watch the movie on video, TV or DVD and think "Huh? Did I really love this..its not that great!" or after multiple viewings "Ah can't be bothered watching this anymore, sick of it".
Well this thread is devoted to those kind of movies.
Heat Loved this in the cinema, lived up to all expectations and then some. A few years later i watched it on video. Hmm didn't enjoy it as much. Then on TV I didn't enjoy it at all. Then I bought it on DVD, convinced the correct 2.35:1 aspect ratio would enable me to enjoy it as much as I did in the cinema..nope. :(
Batman I adored this in the cinema. Ever since I've caught it on TV or on video it just went down in my opinions. The DVD doesn't help, and I wouldn't be bothered with any Special Edition..it just seems very stagey to me now or something.
Flatliners Loved this in the cinema, blew me away in my adolescence. Now I think its a flashy trashy flick.
Antz Thought it was the bees knees on the big screen. Now even projected at home, it lacks a certain something. A Bug's Life is better on repeated viewings.
The Rock thought this was amazing back in 1996. Blew me away in The Odean cinema. But after I bought it on DVD..nah. Watched it recently on the 72" restored some of the former glory but it's no Die Hard.
Pulp Fiction This is a perfect example of a film I have simply grown tired of, and would find it very hard to sit through again, ever.
Jerry Maguire Really liked this in the cinema but..now I think its fairly manipulative chick-flick crap.
I'm with you on Pulp Fiction. Those first few years after it came out it became a cliche. It was ubiquitous. Everyone bought the soundtrack and quoted the dialogue like a bad Monty Python sketch wherever I went. I must have seen it about 10 times between '94 and '96.
But I haven't seen it now for a good five years or so and hopefully I'll be getting the collectors edition for Christmas. I'm looking forward to seeing it again. Sometimes a break is all it takes to give a film new life.
Oh, and wasn't it Ashley Judd in Heat not Charlize Theron?
I think it was Ashley Judd playing a character called 'Charlene', probably how I made the connection..
Oh, and wasn't it Ashley Judd in Heat not Charlize Theron?
indeed, and if that was the most interesting thing in the film...
as is often the case with the best of america genre cinema, heat is arguably best appreciated by those who do not habitually like american genre cinema (certainly myself and most people i know who liked it fell into that category).
pulp fiction is a fun movie if it is appreciated as just that - a knowing fusion of various pulp influences with a witty script and a few good performances - if you revisited it following the insanely hyperbolic 'one of the best movies ever!11!!' type praise which was flung around at the time, it was bound to disappoint.
Originally posted by Dan Druff
Heat Loved this in the cinema, lived up to all expectations and then some. A few years later i watched it on video. Hmm didn't enjoy it as much. Then on TV I didn't enjoy it at all. Then I bought it on DVD, convinced the correct 2.35:1 aspect ratio would enable me to enjoy it as much as I did in the cinema..nope. :(
As it happens, I've enjoyed this more since first seeing it. My first impressions were that it was good though heavily flawed - particularly overcooking Waingro (did we really need that serial killer sub-plot?) and Miss Portman (did we really need that suicide attempt?).
However, I've since been able to gloss over that to appreciate it as one of the finest cinematic achievements of recent years. And I'm not even a huge Mann fan (Mohicans is horribly overrated, Manhunter is fun but no masterpiece, The Insider is a shocking imbalance of style over substance and Ali could have been the work of any old hack with a hard-on for Rocky IV!)
Originally posted by xtrmntr
as is often the case with the best of america genre cinema, heat is arguably best appreciated by those who do not habitually like american genre cinema (certainly myself and most people i know who liked it fell into that category).
I still think that Heat is a good film, and also probably the most defended film on the forums. Its certianly one of those films that if anyone states that its not a masterpiece, people leap to its defence, which is fair enough. Its good that a movie can inspire this response in a discussion, shows the true character of cinemaphiles.
Heat best film ever!!!:thumbs:
Heat is a great film, but it's either too short (the Natalie Portman sub-plot being especially underdeveloped) or too long (interestingly the Natalie Portman sub-plot could be dumped completely without losing anything from the film).
From the IMDb ...
"Television version aired by NBC on January 3rd, 1999 was disowned by director Michael Mann and credited to Alan Smithee because, though Mann offered to reinstate 17 minutes of deleted footage in the film to make it fit a four hour timeslot, NBC decided to excise over 40 minutes of footage from the theatrical release in order to make it fit a three hour slot (including commercials)."
It would certainly be interesting to see if the extra footage that Mann proposed would have any bearing on my views above.
When I watched Heat and Casino at the cinema I felt Casino was loads better but as time passes Heat has become kinda magical particularly for its soul searching night time Los Angeles scenes.
Spiderman - loved it at the cinema, now think its not that good at all
I love the ending of Heat it's very tense and kept me on the edge of my seat.Also I didnt know who to root for as I liked both characters
Originally posted by arkham
Spiderman - loved it at the cinema, now think its not that good at all
I'm a huge Spider-man fan(I collect the comics etc..) but it doesnt hold up to repeat viewings.Also the the Peter,Mj scene in the hospital is cringe worthy IMO worse than any of the love scenes in AOTC.
Also the extra's on the DVD are not to great either
Kandahar. Now I own the film on DVD I hate it! :confused:
I think it should be fair to say that mood plays a part, that's why I usually give a movie a couple of goes before pronouncing it brilliant or crap.
Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead is one of those films which I loved on the big screen because I was in the mood for it, yet only mildly enjoy now on DVD.
Most blockbusters to be honest - <b>Air Force One, The Rock, Batman, Speed, X-Men</b> and so on.
There are some key exceptions - <b>Mission Impossible</b> is a witty, knowing film which is beautifully directed, <b>The Perfect Storm</b> gets better every time I watch it, particularly that first section which depicts an economically ravaged blue colar community with surprising warmth and realism and <b>Con Air</b> which is one of the funniest films of the nineties and a fine showcase for enjoyable hamming from Malkovich, Cage, Rhames and Buscemi.
Originally posted by arkham
Spiderman - loved it at the cinema, now think its not that good at all
I definately agree with this - I watched it at the cinema and thought it was great, then watched it on a plane and struggled to get through it. Now I've got it at home on dvd and can't be bothered to watch it at all :(
Fellowship of the Ring - when I saw it in the cinema, I thought it was good, but not great. The next time I watched it (on DVD), I only got through about 20 minutes and then switched off - just got bored! To be honest, I wouldn't actually say I dislike the film, just never found it engaging enough.
I'll also admit (and I know I'm in the minority when I say this) I didn't enjoy the books either, and still remain a bit baffled at how highly they are praised.
Antz -- at the cinema I preferred it to A Bug's Life, but on DVD, it's the other way round.
Jeepers Creepers -- really enjoyed it at the cinema, but on DVD I find it quite tedious, especially the second half.
Final Fantasy -- at the cinema, I thought it was reasonably good, but on DVD, I've come to despise it more and more with each screening. Now I view it as a waste of good technology.
The Mummy Returns -- more or less the same as Final Fantasy.
Titanic :eek:
Actually thought this was good at the cinema, then when I saw it again on the box I thought it was a pile of poop (bar Kate's breasts :norty: :D ).
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
Titanic :eek:
Actually thought this was good at the cinema, then when I saw it again on the box I thought it was a pile of poop (bar Kate's breasts :norty: :D ).
I can watch the sinking again, but find the rest of the story boring. With you on Kate's breasts though (I'll have the left, no right, iam easy):nuts:
Liked Gladiator when I saw it on the cinema. Saw it again on DVD and was bored silly. Same with Braveheart. Both films were practically identical anyway (2-Dimensional good guy gets his revenge on 2-Dimensional Bad Guy/s for crime committed against missus. Dies at end to add emotional weight to what is basically a 2-hour WWF scrap.
Years later you watch the movie on video, TV or DVD and think "Huh? Did I really love this..its not that great!" or after multiple viewings "Ah can't be bothered watching this anymore, sick of it".
Well this thread is devoted to those kind of movies.
Heat Loved this in the cinema, lived up to all expectations and then some. A few years later i watched it on video. Hmm didn't enjoy it as much. Then on TV I didn't enjoy it at all. Then I bought it on DVD, convinced the correct 2.35:1 aspect ratio would enable me to enjoy it as much as I did in the cinema..nope. :(
Batman I adored this in the cinema. Ever since I've caught it on TV or on video it just went down in my opinions. The DVD doesn't help, and I wouldn't be bothered with any Special Edition..it just seems very stagey to me now or something.
Flatliners Loved this in the cinema, blew me away in my adolescence. Now I think its a flashy trashy flick.
Antz Thought it was the bees knees on the big screen. Now even projected at home, it lacks a certain something. A Bug's Life is better on repeated viewings.
The Rock thought this was amazing back in 1996. Blew me away in The Odean cinema. But after I bought it on DVD..nah. Watched it recently on the 72" restored some of the former glory but it's no Die Hard.
Pulp Fiction This is a perfect example of a film I have simply grown tired of, and would find it very hard to sit through again, ever.
Jerry Maguire Really liked this in the cinema but..now I think its fairly manipulative chick-flick crap.
Answers:
I'm with you on Pulp Fiction. Those first few years after it came out it became a cliche. It was ubiquitous. Everyone bought the soundtrack and quoted the dialogue like a bad Monty Python sketch wherever I went. I must have seen it about 10 times between '94 and '96.
But I haven't seen it now for a good five years or so and hopefully I'll be getting the collectors edition for Christmas. I'm looking forward to seeing it again. Sometimes a break is all it takes to give a film new life.
Oh, and wasn't it Ashley Judd in Heat not Charlize Theron?
Answers:
I think it was Ashley Judd playing a character called 'Charlene', probably how I made the connection..
Answers:
Oh, and wasn't it Ashley Judd in Heat not Charlize Theron?
indeed, and if that was the most interesting thing in the film...
as is often the case with the best of america genre cinema, heat is arguably best appreciated by those who do not habitually like american genre cinema (certainly myself and most people i know who liked it fell into that category).
pulp fiction is a fun movie if it is appreciated as just that - a knowing fusion of various pulp influences with a witty script and a few good performances - if you revisited it following the insanely hyperbolic 'one of the best movies ever!11!!' type praise which was flung around at the time, it was bound to disappoint.
Answers:
Originally posted by Dan Druff
Heat Loved this in the cinema, lived up to all expectations and then some. A few years later i watched it on video. Hmm didn't enjoy it as much. Then on TV I didn't enjoy it at all. Then I bought it on DVD, convinced the correct 2.35:1 aspect ratio would enable me to enjoy it as much as I did in the cinema..nope. :(
As it happens, I've enjoyed this more since first seeing it. My first impressions were that it was good though heavily flawed - particularly overcooking Waingro (did we really need that serial killer sub-plot?) and Miss Portman (did we really need that suicide attempt?).
However, I've since been able to gloss over that to appreciate it as one of the finest cinematic achievements of recent years. And I'm not even a huge Mann fan (Mohicans is horribly overrated, Manhunter is fun but no masterpiece, The Insider is a shocking imbalance of style over substance and Ali could have been the work of any old hack with a hard-on for Rocky IV!)
Answers:
Originally posted by xtrmntr
as is often the case with the best of america genre cinema, heat is arguably best appreciated by those who do not habitually like american genre cinema (certainly myself and most people i know who liked it fell into that category).
I still think that Heat is a good film, and also probably the most defended film on the forums. Its certianly one of those films that if anyone states that its not a masterpiece, people leap to its defence, which is fair enough. Its good that a movie can inspire this response in a discussion, shows the true character of cinemaphiles.
Answers:
Heat best film ever!!!:thumbs:
Answers:
Heat is a great film, but it's either too short (the Natalie Portman sub-plot being especially underdeveloped) or too long (interestingly the Natalie Portman sub-plot could be dumped completely without losing anything from the film).
From the IMDb ...
"Television version aired by NBC on January 3rd, 1999 was disowned by director Michael Mann and credited to Alan Smithee because, though Mann offered to reinstate 17 minutes of deleted footage in the film to make it fit a four hour timeslot, NBC decided to excise over 40 minutes of footage from the theatrical release in order to make it fit a three hour slot (including commercials)."
It would certainly be interesting to see if the extra footage that Mann proposed would have any bearing on my views above.
Answers:
When I watched Heat and Casino at the cinema I felt Casino was loads better but as time passes Heat has become kinda magical particularly for its soul searching night time Los Angeles scenes.
Answers:
Spiderman - loved it at the cinema, now think its not that good at all
Answers:
I love the ending of Heat it's very tense and kept me on the edge of my seat.Also I didnt know who to root for as I liked both characters
Answers:
Originally posted by arkham
Spiderman - loved it at the cinema, now think its not that good at all
I'm a huge Spider-man fan(I collect the comics etc..) but it doesnt hold up to repeat viewings.Also the the Peter,Mj scene in the hospital is cringe worthy IMO worse than any of the love scenes in AOTC.
Also the extra's on the DVD are not to great either
Answers:
Kandahar. Now I own the film on DVD I hate it! :confused:
Answers:
I think it should be fair to say that mood plays a part, that's why I usually give a movie a couple of goes before pronouncing it brilliant or crap.
Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead is one of those films which I loved on the big screen because I was in the mood for it, yet only mildly enjoy now on DVD.
Answers:
Most blockbusters to be honest - <b>Air Force One, The Rock, Batman, Speed, X-Men</b> and so on.
There are some key exceptions - <b>Mission Impossible</b> is a witty, knowing film which is beautifully directed, <b>The Perfect Storm</b> gets better every time I watch it, particularly that first section which depicts an economically ravaged blue colar community with surprising warmth and realism and <b>Con Air</b> which is one of the funniest films of the nineties and a fine showcase for enjoyable hamming from Malkovich, Cage, Rhames and Buscemi.
Answers:
Originally posted by arkham
Spiderman - loved it at the cinema, now think its not that good at all
I definately agree with this - I watched it at the cinema and thought it was great, then watched it on a plane and struggled to get through it. Now I've got it at home on dvd and can't be bothered to watch it at all :(
Answers:
Fellowship of the Ring - when I saw it in the cinema, I thought it was good, but not great. The next time I watched it (on DVD), I only got through about 20 minutes and then switched off - just got bored! To be honest, I wouldn't actually say I dislike the film, just never found it engaging enough.
I'll also admit (and I know I'm in the minority when I say this) I didn't enjoy the books either, and still remain a bit baffled at how highly they are praised.
Answers:
Antz -- at the cinema I preferred it to A Bug's Life, but on DVD, it's the other way round.
Jeepers Creepers -- really enjoyed it at the cinema, but on DVD I find it quite tedious, especially the second half.
Final Fantasy -- at the cinema, I thought it was reasonably good, but on DVD, I've come to despise it more and more with each screening. Now I view it as a waste of good technology.
The Mummy Returns -- more or less the same as Final Fantasy.
Answers:
Titanic :eek:
Actually thought this was good at the cinema, then when I saw it again on the box I thought it was a pile of poop (bar Kate's breasts :norty: :D ).
Answers:
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
Titanic :eek:
Actually thought this was good at the cinema, then when I saw it again on the box I thought it was a pile of poop (bar Kate's breasts :norty: :D ).
I can watch the sinking again, but find the rest of the story boring. With you on Kate's breasts though (I'll have the left, no right, iam easy):nuts:
Answers:
Liked Gladiator when I saw it on the cinema. Saw it again on DVD and was bored silly. Same with Braveheart. Both films were practically identical anyway (2-Dimensional good guy gets his revenge on 2-Dimensional Bad Guy/s for crime committed against missus. Dies at end to add emotional weight to what is basically a 2-hour WWF scrap.
1 2