The Hot Blog

Good article and will be easily misinterpreted by people I think. Turan isn't saying he's always *right*, he's just saying the way he feels about a film is always right. There's a fallacy there because how many times do we return to films we weren't wild about to see if we still didn't like it? Especially critics who are constantly wading through new releases and older films they "should have seen by now."

Whenever I see a movie, I try to decompress from whatever I'm feeling before starting my review. EXCEPT for when I'm at a film fest...then it's just a clusterfuck which I think speaks for the decline in buying buzz films at big fests. After the indie explosion (post Reservoir Dogs/Clerks/etc) people were scooping up films based on their initial buzzed reactions and they paid for it. Hell, I can name like 5 films I LOVED at Sundance and thought they were the greatest thing ever only to catch them on cable or DVD later and realize something else was at work in my initial assessment.

Turan has a way of aggravating me roughly 98% of the time. Your most important point was where you point out that instead of offering a film that he returned to and found his opinion had changed, he instead turned it into "Turan Against Groupthink," with this years-old example of his courageous stand against "Amores Perros."

Though he might as well have thrown in his more recent contrarian "Kill Bill" column, which, much like his after-the-fact "Pearl Harbor" "essay" seemed extremely self-serving and somewhat disrespectful of/condescending toward his peers (Dargis and Thomas, to be specific.) Kind of like, "Those two hacks softballed this shit, but now let KING TURN drop the knowledge."

Others have frequently mentioned that Kael didn't see movies twice. I have no idea if Turan does or not, but the fact that his entire column sidestepped the issue of second viewings ENTIRELY (the assignment put before him and other Times critics, as described), I'd have to assume that THE OLD MAN isn't one to give Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, Amores Perros, Apocalypto, or now Hancock a second spin either on big screen or small.

As with so much of Turan, that stubbornness just smacks of pomposity and stuffiness... why, how could HE, the KING OF LOS ANGELES FILM CRITICISM, ever be wrong? And why waste ANOTHER of his precious two hours on -- gasp! -- the very thing you'd expect a critic to love... the movies.

See, aside from his glowing but dry reviews of the most etched-in-bronze Oscar bait and prestige pics, I never get that geekish, fanatical, completist, rollicking LOVE OF MOVIES from Turan. He has little time, appreciation or patience for the SLOPPINESS of film, the messiness of content and emotion that is PASSIONATELY rendered; He likes it very stiff, measured and removed. He's like the anti-Tarantino, the anti-Harry Knowles.

Now, obviously he's an intelligent writer and we don't need every voice in film criticism to be spastic or easily amused, but with Turan it's like he's NEVER amused. Fuck, even ***HANCOCK*** is apparently too graphically violent for this ancient grump, who makes moviegoing sound like a chore instead of a passion.

While there are many films good and bad that I've never felt a need to return to, some of the very best films reveal their brilliance after multiple viewings -- most of Kubrick, Altman, "Apocalypse Now," "Fight Club," etc.

Turan reminds me of, say, Leonard Maltin, or at least that movie guide he edits... dashing off a quickie ONE-AND-A-HALF-STAR REVIEW of "Blade Runner" or "Scarface" back in the day, then never giving it a second appraisal in all the years since, while the whole world has changed.

Yeah, it's a good piece, but I agree he doesn't quite get to the real guts of the matter. For me, one of the most important things that I've learned about thinking and writing about films is (a) always trust your gut, but then (b) try as hard as possible to figure out what your gut is saying, because it might not really be clear. Turan's gut told him that he didn't love Amores Perros, but it didn't tell him why or how, and I think that's the real work of the critic, to parse your own reaction and figure out what did or didn't work and all the whys and wherefores, and once you've figured that out you're actually ready to engage in conversation about the film. Of course most 'critics' working on a deadline just go with whatever the easiest knee-jerk response must be, along the lines of "everybody says it's great but I didn't get it so I'll just write something really bland but positive and maybe nobody will notice" and so on.

The two universal truths seem to be forgotten, or endless words are spent trying to explain them.

1. Film is art (at least it should aspire to be), and art is subjective. There are no rights and wrongs, only opinions.

2. Anyone who says their opinion never changes on a film is dumb. Your opinion might no change on all films, but who can say there isn't one film they revisited that changed their take on it? Saying your opinion never changes, or your perspective never changes shows a lack of creative maturity.

Having read 13 years' worth of Turan's bullshit, I'm sure his gut was telling him he didn't like "Amores Perros" because...

a) it wasn't directed by Eastwood.

b) it didn't star Gwyneth Paltrow.

c) it contained violence and adult content above what was accepted in 1939.

d) it wasn't written by Steve Zallian.

HAH! Classic, Lex.

We were thinking of doing a weekly column over at Film Threat where we rewatch a movie we panned (or gushed about) like, 5 years later and seeing how we felt about it now. Do you guys think that would be remotely interesting?

Actually, Don, I was about to post a comment here asking people to name examples of just that. Movies you loved that everyone hated or vice-versa, and then sharing your thoughts on them today. Or films that you've completed changed your tune on.

A couple examples to start out -

Hated Spider-Man 2 four years ago, still dislike it, but mainly because the descent of Alfred Molina into cartoonish madness deprived the film of the solid adult anchor that Willem Dafoe provided the first Spider-Man (although I still think the whole premise of Peter's suffering is doomed because most of his problems have easy solutions and he and MJ have no chemistry). Every time I happen to watch that movie, I hope that this time, I might actually enjoy it.

Conversely, Demolition Man is a much better film when I was thirteen. It's still fun, but I no longer feel that Wesley Snipes gives a performance worthy of Nicholson's Joker.

They are both deeply flawed, but I now prefer Star Trek V to Star Trek III. At least Star Trek V is trying to be ambitious and interesting, while Search For Spock is a feature-length 'dig our way out of a hole' that feels more like a cheap western than a science-fiction film (Star Trek: Nemesis is still the series low mark).

I feel the same way about Superman IV vs Superman III. Superman IV is cheap and lousy, but at least it's trying to be about something. Superman III is just long, boring, and insulting.

This is why I always bemoan that DVD has moved a lot of film geeks away from catching/re-catching movies on cable and pay TV. The DVD era seemed to bring with it a watch-it-once and discard it mindset.

Think of us when we were kids, though - whole summers spent doing little more movie-wise than rewatching "Fletch" and "Real Genius" "Weird Science" on HBO ad nauseam. So many formative classics that today would be seen once or twice and then put out of mind.

More recently, Ted Demme's "Monument Ave.", to pick something totally out of a hat, is a movie I didn't think much of on first viewing. But six or seven years later, catching it on cable at 1am, I found myself pretty riveted to it - Demme and Leary nicely capturing that drunken, blustery, ball-busting lower-class vibe. Most critics wrote it off as a "Mean Streets" knockoff, but given a second chance, it stands pretty well on its own.

The first time I watched Meet Me in St. Louis it rubbed me the wrong way - cutesy, plotless, cloying. I saw it again after seeing Armond White praise it and whattaya know, it's pretty damn good.

On the other side, when Mars Attacks came out in '96 I was all over it, and then rewatching it again lately I have to agree that it's not just a mess but it's also a labored, only-sporadically-funny mess.

I'm often surprised by how often my first impression sticks, even when I consciously try to give a movie another chance (or suspect myself of overrating it).

When I finally saw L.A. Confidential, I got pretty bored/drowsy, but it really sounded like something I'd love, so I gave it another shot on video at a completely different time, completely different setting... similar drowsiness set in. I was so confused by my lack of love for Fellowship of the Ring that I saw it a second time in the theaters, convinced I must've missed something... but it was still just a reasonably entertaining, well-made fantasy film that went on too long.

So when I wasn't blown away by The Live of Others or Capote or Volver I thought, hmm, I should give this another shot someday... and I may still... but I don't know that they'll change much in my estimation.

Similarly, I'll read or hear a bunch of stuff about how much people hate the Star Wars prequels and I'll start to think "hm, maybe I was just blinded by the hype." But if/when I actually re-watch them, I find myself going "... nope! This is still highly enjoyable."

More often I find that the adjustments are in shades. Seeing There Will Be Blood a few times, for example, raised it in my estimation from a very good movie to maybe a great one.

That's not to say I've never thoroughly re-evaluated and re-thought a film -- just that my gut and I get along pretty well. Though I'm sure if I did a marathon of every movie I loved when I was eleven, at least a few of them would reveal themselves as less perfect than I remember. But I'm happy to leave My Blue Heaven on its pedestal for now.

Mendolson, SUPERMAN III OWNS YOUR ASS.

Lex, would you kindly refrain from the caps?

If Turan was posting here, he'd probably opine that "this thread isn't nearly successful as it wants to be."

Then he'd like, complain about violence and shit.

That guy is like L.A.'s very own Michael Medved, even though he'd be appalled by that comparison.

I'm going to get murdered for this, but I actually prefer The Phantom Menace to A New Hope. I recently watched A New Hope for the first time in awhile and it's every bit as slow, ponderous, and goofy as Phantom Menace. It actually has similar dramatic structure and quantity of action. The difference is that Phantom Menace has a few good actors (Liam Neeson, Ian McDiarmid, Pernilla August) and better action scenes.

As for the original, take away the fact that it was first and groundbreaking (and yes, I know that's taking away a lot), and it's awfully slow and ponderous. Alec Guinness is fun, but you can tell he thinks he's above it all. James Earl Jones is much better in the next two pictures, and Peter Cushing doesn't have enough to do.

Phantom Menace isn't a masterpiece, but I'll take the light saber fight in Ep 1 over Ep 4 any day. And I'll take Liam Neeson over Alec Guinness as well. Really, the only reason that Ep 4 holds up as more than just a goofy B-space opera is the 'first of a saga' importance, the groundbreaking special effects, and Harrison Ford's smart-ass 'look how dumb this all is' performance that allows the audience to guiltlessly enjoy the goofiness, but even he's pretty bad in hindsight (he's terrific in the sequels).

But, acting-wise, everyone (Ford, Jones, Hammill, Fisher) improved in the later chapters and it really isn't any better than Phantom Menace on a purely objective scale. Empire and Sith are masterpieces, and Jedi is pretty terrific, but Phantom Menace, New Hope, and Attack Of The Clones are merely very fun, rather good pictures that help make up an overall fantastic six-part saga. I don't dislike Star Wars, but I think the bashing of Phantom Menace was and is a little silly.

My order (best to worst) -
Episodes 3, 5, 6, 1, 4, 2

If I had had to turn around a review of There Will be Blood overnight, I'm fairly sure it would have read as a pan -- my reaction was mixed, to say the least, and I spent the whole movie wondering whether or not Eli had a split-personality disorder.

When I got the awards screener, I watched it again, in preparation for writing what I thought would be much more of a pan, in reaction to all the raves. I was totally surprised to find myself enjoying it and appreciating it a great deal more.

Thing is, when you're working on a deadline, and especially with a big studio movie, seeing it twice just isn't an option. David gets better access than most of us, who have the all-media screening and nothing else, usually just a few days before the thing opens. Reviewers who are also junketeers might get to see the movie twice.

Things I used to enjoy but am slightly embarrassed by now: anything starring Pauly Shore or Mike Myers.

Kenneth Turan, if I'm not mistaken, was a book critic first, wasn't he?

There was a period of, oh, about 10 or so years during my stint at the now-defunct Houston Post when I had to work under a really brutal deadline situation: Because the Friday entertainment section was pre-printed very, very early Thursday morning -- like, about 1 am -- I would have, at most, two hours to write reviews of movies that were screened on Wednesday nights. Unfortunately, this occurred almost on a weekly basis. Meaning that, over a period of time, I reviewed literally dozens, probably more like hundreds of movies -- everything from Crimes and Misdemeanors to My Boyfriend's Back -- under these circumstances. I'm not bragging because, frankly, I seriously doubt my situation was at all unique for a daily newspaper film critic during the 1980s and '90s. But this is why I have to laugh whenever David or anyone else makes rude comments about trade reviewers and/or bloggers who rush to get reviews posted on line very quickly after film festival screenings. The fact is, I used to have to write reviews just as fast, if not faster, for my Old Media outlet. The only difference was, back then, it took much longer for what I wrote to actually reach a reader.

And as for going back and taking a second look: I'm not a full-time critic for a daily newspaper anymore, but I doubt things have changed so very much in regard to the work flow. That is, once you get one movie covered, it's kinda-sorta hard to find time for a re-review -- because there are five more coming through the in door every time one goes out the out door.

Joe -

I don't mind people rushing to post a review. But there is something particularly odd about a paper that is established running a review breathlessly to be "first." And the more established the outlet, the more definitive they think they are, the more caution that seems appropriate.

I sympathize with the writers for weeklies. Studios have actually been gaming them, having screenings after deadline for movies they really don't want reviewed, for years now.

But sadly, if the threat of "we won't review at all if we don't have reasonably early access" was used, most likely there would be a shrug and a smirk from all but art distributors.

didn't like the big lebowski the first time around. I think I was expecting Fargo.

Caught it years later in a hotel, and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Now it's in my top 20 for comedies and definitely one of the most quotable movies ever.

“But there is something particularly odd about a paper that is established running a review breathlessly to be ‘first.’” No, David, not odd at all. It’s called being of your time – evolve or die. There was a time (pre-1970s) when it was standard operational procedure for all newspapers (yes, even the New York Times) to run a review the day AFTER a movie opened. That changed when some papers started running opening-day reviews, and readers began to expect that. Now readers expect reviews ASAP, thanks in large measure to – well, websites like yours. You may not like this – I sure don’t like it – but that is the way the world is these days. As I said, evolve or die. The graveyard is full of publications that used to be “established.”

Actually, not.

The destruction of Mainstream Media will be by its own hand... trying to do the speed thing instead of trying to do the quality thing. Fool's errand.

If you really think a review of The Dark Knight a couple of days before everyone else starts publishing is going to make Variety viable, you are whistling by the graveyard.

If they really rethought how they delivered content, they would have a real chance.

Scott, I hear you on Phantom Menace; I may not prefer it to A New Hope, but at the time I made a lot of the same arguments -- that if you go back and watch the older movies, especially New Hope, they're only more adult insofar as they are slower and creakier, and that the newer movies are really about as good as the old ones (save maybe Empire). Since then -- and here's one of those shades-of-change I was talking about -- I've decided that the old trilogy is better for sheer novelty of storytelling, and somewhat better dialogue (in spots; there's bad stuff in there too) -- but the new one is still underappreciated and fits well with its predecessors. Basically, I've conceded the "not as good" point to better argue the "but pretty fucking awesome" point. Attack of the Clones is really the one I think gets the worst rap because the second hour of that movie kicks all kinds of ass and all anyone talks about is the Anakin-Padme romance stuff that, while cheesy, takes up all of, what, 20 minutes of screentime? No matter how many times I've given Lord of the Rings a shot, I don't like it as much as any Star Wars movie.

my initial gut reaction to a film never changes, though sometimes i find my loathing for a movie i happen to hate tends to soften over the years because i can't hold a grudge. conversely, sometimes i'll re-watch a movie i really like and something in it will piss me off that i don't remember having pissed me off originally, which i put down to simply growing and changing and gaining experience as a person.

for example, i watched 'gorky park' the other day after not having seen it for a long while - a movie i adore - but towards the end when ranko slaps irina and calls her a whore, and she just takes it like she deserves it, that irked me no end and i thought less highly of both characters after that, but especially renko, who showed his true colours. but i don't remember having had that reaction when i was younger, and it actually changed my perception of the movie a bit, which perhaps i was viewing through the rose-coloured glasses of fond memory. i still love 'gorky park' and view it as a prime example of film-making excellence, though. hope that makes sense.

David, one of us is wrong. My bet is, history will prove me right.

Ouch! The decades-long smackdown?!

Two that come readily to mind are "Ed Wood" and "Minority Report," both of which I enjoyed with reservations the first time around, but no reservations the second time. Or maybe I should say that whatever problems I had the first time were downgraded to nitpicks.

The closest I've come to a complete about-face is with Jean Cocteau's "Orpheus," which I couldn't even finish on the first attempt. I revisited it when Criterion released it and thought it was an absolute masterpiece.

Fun fact: LexG is one of the few people on the internet who knows the correct spelling of "ad nauseam." I'm sure the irony of that isn't lost on those of you who can't stand him. :)

Agreed with all of that, Jesse. I actually feel that the prequels have more interesting, layered stories. And while Attack Of The Clones is my least favorite Star Wars, that's faint criticism at worst. The political undertones are creepy (and so subtle that no one got them, hence the sledgehammer political symbolism in Revenge Of The Sith), and the last third is an incredible action spectacle. Still, the romantic subplot is weak, the dialogue is often terrible, and the film drags quite a bit in the first half. Again, it's still great entertainment, as are all six movies. Oh, and for the record, I love Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings.

yancy, either that or lex just uses the spell-check thingymabob

Three college degrees.

And still no satisfying career?

(Yes, that was cheap, sue me.)

If I had Bill Gates' career, I'd still be envious of whoever was 12th billed on ENTOURAGE that week.

Problem with Phantom Menace is it was directed by a man who hadn't been behind the camera in 20 years. And it showed.

It was uneven in tone, over-explained (metaclorians anyone?) and other than the light-saber fight between Maul and the jedi's came to a thud of an ending.

From Star Wars to Menace, The acting was a step down across the board. (for a star wars movie)

Cary Fisher to Natalie Portman?

Alec Guiness to Ewan Mcgregar? (Liam Neeson could be compared to Alec Guiness in this analogy as the mentor, but in my opinion, Liam still comes up way short.)

Marc Hamall to Jake Lloyd? (or Haden Christenson for that matter in the later movies)

Dath Vadar to Darth Maul?

Chewbacca to Jar Jar?

No Han Solo and no character to make up for the void.

And don't even get me started on the voice acting, which bordered on Charlie Chan like parody.

Phantom Menace was a disaster, attack of the clones was half a good movie, and sith gets it mostly right.

Still F*** up the Darth Vadar Reveal in my opinion, but that's for another time.

The other thing Star Wars has that Phantom Menace doesn't have is a clear narrative. SW moves cleanly and efficiently from place to place with tidy exposition and character development. Phantom Menace lurches around awkwardly as it tries to figure out how to justify the pod race and it's not really clear who the central protagonist is - Neeson? Portman? McGregor? Jake Lloyd? Chief? McCloud?

God, critical reappraisal of Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 already? I love the Internet, but damn does it encourage lunacy at the drop of the hat. The prequel trilogy are awful, awful pieces of film-making, and any attempt to suggest otherwise just seems like willful "Look at me and my kooky opinions!" posturing.

Yes, transmogrifier... I far prefer that bastion of comment-board film criticism: hyperbolic statements about how no one could've honestly enjoyed film x or film y. Far more insightful. Well-done.

LexG, let me guess:
Barber College
Clown College
Refrigerator Repair Correspondence Degree

And maybe it is my grumpy old man tendencies, but there is no goddamn movie called A New Hope.

And revisting those recently was very depressing. I bought the original trilogy when it came out on DVD and was excited to have it in letterbox but I have only watched them once since. The flaws of Star Wars and Jedi have finally overtaken my childhood enthusiam for these films.

I dunno, hcat, I find the flaws of the old trilogy sort of endearing, comforting even -- one more reason that the imperfect but hugely entertaining prequels feel of a piece with those to me. I find that with the best sci-fi/adventure/fantasy type movies, if they're imagnative and engaging enough, their flaws begin to seem almost indispensible. The Matrix certainly has that going on (some of the dialogue is just as cornball as something Lucas would write, but with the sheen of supposed coolness -- "buckle up Dorothy, because Kansas is going bye-bye"?! Good lord that's a terrible line).

I do wonder if I'd feel the same way about other movies I liked (liked more, even; I didn't rewatch the Star Wars movies heavily until high school) as a child would cast that same flaws-and-all spell. Besides the aforementioned My Blue Heaven, and just about any other Steve Martin-related comedy (especially All of Me and Parenthood), I was really into Clue, Spaceballs (moreso than Star Wars at the time), Funny Farm, and Dragnet, among others.

I do know that Who Framed Roger Rabbit holds up well, though.

jesse...

Don't get pissy at me because you like crap films. That's got nothing to do with me.

Transmog, are you British or do you just aspire to be?

I'll take "you like crap films" over "your opinion is just 'kooky' posturing" any day. I'm not surprised that you haven't said anything of substance; you don't even seem to understand the hows and whys of your own obnoxiousness.

The original trilogy has lost some of its luster as I've grown older, but I still find all three films highly enjoyable, even if Empire only stands out to me as a still-great film.

But the prequels are crap, every one of 'em. TPM has some nostalgic value for me because of where I was when it came out (senior in high school, loving life). AotC is unwatchable through and through - the second half is just as awful as the first, just with more stuff blowing up. Sith is better than both, but still crap, and hints at what might have been had Lucas still been a remotely competent filmmaker. The idea that it's any kind of return to form for the series was nonsense from the beginning.

You know, I can't think of any major film I've ever switched opine on. In fact, I would tend to not trust critics so easily swayed by time. Look at how many great films Ebert panned then came around to.

"The destruction of Mainstream Media will be by its own hand... trying to do the speed thing instead of trying to do the quality thing. Fool's errand."

Speed kills and it's killing us all.

Jesse, that is preciesly what I was trying to say. Still like those movies but they don't hold a place at the top of the lists.

As far as rewatching comedies forget it. My Blue Heaven is a mirthless sloth, Spaceballs is equally as horrible. I have wanted to rent the Man with Two Brains recently but am afraid of what I would find. But not all of my childhood memories are dashed- The Naked Gun movies, Ghostbusters, and Caddyshack still hold up. Fletch seems to get a little better with time, and I dont think Midnight Run fits into the same catagory as those films but that was an immediate classic and always will be.

And I also used to watch Funny Farm everytime it was on HBO.

"cue the deer"

I even sought out the book it was based on. I forget the name of the author but he wrote these wafer thin books that always got optioned for movies, besides funny farm he also wrote the books that were the basis for Quick Change, Major League, and Let It Ride.

"Mirthless Sloth" sounds like an A.A. Milne character.

The Man with Two Brains holds up pretty well, primarily because it's incredibly silly and Martin and Turner were at their best. For me, The Naked Gun movies have been spoiled since June 1994.

jesse...

I'm well aware of my own obnoxiousness, but I can't help it when people try to paint the prequel trilogy with any semblance of worth.

All the more reason for you stragglers to get on board with THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA--the one movie that will never let you down, no matter how many times you watch it. I sleep now.

I tend to find myself being pretty consistent whenever I watch a film a second time. Sure, over time my feelings for certain films may slightly fluctuate either way (neg or pos), but nothing major. Although I remember not caring for Cabaret first time I saw that and now I absolutely cherish it. I keep meaning to get around to rewatching Annie Hall because I kind of just didn't care for it much at all. And everytime I try and think of why that is my mind goes back to that silly scene where Woody Allen sneezes and the cocaine goes everywhere or whatever it is that happens. I dunno. I'm weird like that. Also, it's not Manhattan so it has that going against it from the get go.

But two things that have been routinely brought up here bug me to know end:

1. Why would I want to rewatch a movie I disliked (or was merely indifferent to) in the first place? I know opinions can change, but if I had to choose between rewatching Breakfast at Tiffany's, which I sorta loathed when I watched it a few years back, or watching a film I've never seen before or rewatching a film I loved then I'd 99.9% of the time choose the latter.

2. Rewatching films is a luxury. There. It always rubs me the wrong way when people like Dave or Kris or whoever runs these sort of sites and say "it was only on the third screening [edit:free industry screening, most likely] that I noticed how amazing this movie is!" I don't have the money or the time or the patience to see a movie five, nine or twelve times just to dawn upon some stunning moment of clarity involving an actor and their eyelid. I would love to be able to sit down and reanalyse There Will Be Blood, but I can't and so I'm going to have to stick to my grade of B

And then there are movies like Mulholland Drive and Scream that I know like the back of my hand because I've watched them so many times. So....

I can only speak for myself, Kami, but I can sort of instinctively tell the difference between a piece of out-and-out crap and a movie that is obviously trying to achieve something and maybe, for whatever reason, I'm just not getting it. I loathed BARRY LYNDON when it first came out. Thirty years later, I gave it a second chance at the Academy. This time, I got what Kubrick was trying to do and adjusted my opinion accordingly, though I still think it's insanely overlong. Conversely, one of my favorite movies as a kid was TOPKAPI. I caught up with it again many years later and this time it seemed unbearably stiff. Reassessment is a natural part of life; even if the movies don't change, we do.

Funny, Cadavra, I had sort of an opposite experience with Topkapi. Was bored when I saw it on TV in my youth, but pleasantly entertained by a nice print shown at the New Beverly in 2002 (on a double bill with Rififi). Of course middling films such as Topkapi gain immeasurably from being seen theatrically. It has some great color location photography, and then there's the titular museum itself, both of which play better in the theater. I'm sure if I ever see it on TV again, I'll go back to being underwhelmed.

Cad, I totally get that. When I go back to movies I didn't care for originally it was because I figured I was too young for it the first time or something along those lines. But the fact still remains that I'd rather watch an old Bergman film I've never seen before than rewatch La Dolce Vita no matter how much of a "classic" people say it is.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: