Movies You Changed Your Mind About (1 Viewer)

[ChrisOC]

1969. I'm 19. College sophomore/junior. Counterculture. Easy Rider. Wow. Those gun-totin' bastards killing those freedom-loving long-haired riders. What a gut punch!
I'm 70. Find the movie unwatchable and overrated. My 19 year-old ideas from college haven't changed though.

I didn't see Easy Rider until about 10 years ago (I'm 66 now) and it came across as pretentious BS. I didn't care about the characters or what happened to them.

 

[CRW]

Not a movie but rather the Adam West "Batman" series. Loved it as a kid. When it resurfaced years later on Nick I watched it. Or tried to. Ye Gods, it was stupid. Not even the charms of Yvonne Craig or Julie Newmar helped. After five minutes I wondered: did I have brain damage as a child?

 

[Thomas T]

I saw Vertigo on TV when I was a kid, and although I had trouble following all elements (kid's brain) it was spooky and memorable. I revisited it about 10 years ago on TCM, and...nothing. I actually found it boring, not because of the movie's age and time period, but it just didn't do anything for me, as other Hitchcock films.

It's the opposite for me. With each new viewing I seem to find some little nugget that I hadn't noticed before. It's the movie that keeps on giving ..... for me anyway.

 

[Thomas T]

I know my opinion isn't a popular one, but I find this movie boring. The cinematography and other technical elements are brilliant, but the story is too slight to fill up all that time, and it comes across as a radio play. Except for Rosebud, you don't need to see the images to know what's going on. I find The Battle Over Citizen Kane much more interesting.

It's okay to find the movie boring or even not like it. There isn't a masterpiece in existence that isn't disliked by someone somewhere. Similarly, there's not a lousy movie that isn't loved by someone somewhere. I had a dear friend (alas, now deceased) and we both frequented a movie site on the internet. When she announced she thought Citizen Kane was a bad movie, the wrath of cineastes descended on her viciously and it got personal. When she asked me why everyone suddenly got nasty to her, I told it would have been better if she simply said she didn't like the movie which was legitimate but to call Citizen Kane a stinker to film lovers would be like calling the Mona Lisa garbage to art lovers.

 

[jayembee]

I have two to mention, going in opposite directions.

(1) My first Bergman film was Cries and Whispers back during its initial US run. I was 19 or thereabouts at the time. Couldn't for the life of me figure out what the fuss was all about. Put me off Bergman until seeing Woody Allen's A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, made me curious about Smiles of a Summer Night and I picked up the Criterion laserdisc. Loved it, and other Bergman Criteria. Eventually caught up with their LD of Cries and Whispers, and I loved it.

(2) The day E.T. was released, I drove into downtown Boston to see it. I was completely pulled into it, and it practically had me weeping by the end. A couple of weeks later, a friend from out of town was visiting, and she hadn't seen it yet, so I dragged her to it, singing its praises. As the movie played out, I started thinking, "Why did I think this was at all amazing?" I confessed to my friend when it was over that I'd done a complete 180 on the film, and she said, "I thought it was just me."

Oh...one other...

(3) Back when it was released, my mother wanted to go see The Odd Couple, and I agreed to go with. We saw it on a double-bill with a James Coburn western, Waterhole #3. For whatever reason, we were in stitches throughout Waterhole #3, and enjoyed it more than The Odd Couple. Several years later, Waterhole #3 premiered on broadcast TV, and we made an event out of it: chips and dip, fudge, the works. Didn't take long for us to wonder why we thought it was so funny the first time. Second time around it was a dud. When it came out on DVD, I had to buy a copy to see which of our prior experiences was right. It's now 15 years later, and I still haven't watched the DVD. I'm afraid to find out it really was a dud after all.

 

[jayembee]

I know my opinion isn't a popular one, but I find this movie boring. The cinematography and other technical elements are brilliant, but the story is too slight to fill up all that time, and it comes across as a radio play. Except for Rosebud, you don't need to see the images to know what's going on. I find The Battle Over Citizen Kane much more interesting.

A nephew of mine (an adult nephew) had a similar reaction to it, and wondered why I thought it was brilliant. I said that there are movies that are better directed than CK, movies that are better written than CK, movies that are better edited than CK, movies that are better photographed than CK, movies that are better acted than CK, and so on and so on. But I didn't think there were any films that were as good as CK in all of those things.

It also has, for me, the single greatest montage in cinema: the breakfast table sequence. It encapsulates the breakdown of a marriage across a span of 20 years in just a handful of minutes.

But I don't get upset if people say they don't like CK. Not every film will appeal to everyone. There are highly praised films I don't care for. It happens.

 

[Thomas T]

The day E.T. was released, I drove into downtown Boston to see it. I was completely pulled into it, and it practically had me weeping by the end. A couple of weeks later, a friend from out of town was visiting, and she hadn't seen it yet, so I dragged her to it, singing its praises. As the movie played out, I started thinking, "Why did I think this was at all amazing?" I confessed to my friend when it was over that I'd done a complete 180 on the film, and she said, "I thought it was just me."

Ah, E.T. The Extraterrestrial! If asked what Spielberg's best film is, I'm always torn between E.T. or Close Encounters Of The Third Kind.

 

[bujaki]

The Bridge on the River Kwai
No, I did not see it when it came out (I was 7), but much later when I was probably around 15. I had a migraine and hated the film. Every single, agonizing minute of it. I couldn't understand how such a lauded film could be so awful (well, I'd already seen a gorgeous 35mm print of The Greatest Show on Earth...).
Not quite understanding my negative reaction, I went to see Kwai the next day, sans migraine. A masterpiece! And still a masterpiece of filmmaking.
Conclusion: sometimes your physical wellbeing can affect your perception of a film. Try laughing during a migraine!

 

[TravisR]

(2) The day E.T. was released, I drove into downtown Boston to see it. I was completely pulled into it, and it practically had me weeping by the end. A couple of weeks later, a friend from out of town was visiting, and she hadn't seen it yet, so I dragged her to it, singing its praises. As the movie played out, I started thinking, "Why did I think this was at all amazing?" I confessed to my friend when it was over that I'd done a complete 180 on the film, and she said, "I thought it was just me."

My experience with E.T. was the opposite. I saw it as a kid and probably expected to see lightsabers so I didn't really care for it but seeing it as an adult (starting with DVD), I absolutely fell in love with it. I've grown soft in my old age.

 

[Bert Greene]

As my tastes/worldview have remained almost maniacally consistent through the years, I don't really have too many instances of 'flipping' my opinion on a movie. But one stark example is perhaps "Lost Horizon" (1937). As I always loved tales of explorers and 'lost civilizations,' I did rather enjoy my debut viewing of the film when I was in my teens. Quite a bit. Watching it maybe ten years later, and a time or two since, I found I just couldn't stomach Ronald Colman's wide-eyed idealism nor the starchy Shangri-La and its social order as anything remotely appealing. In fact, the whole 'utopianism' track of the narrative just sort of repelled me. I found myself far more closely identifying with Colman's brother (John Howard) in just wanting to get the hell out of there.

Also, switching to genres, back when I was young I was pretty keen on those old screwball comedies. I still like a lot of them! But as the years wore on, I found myself having less and less patience with the sort of free-spirit/nonconformist characters (think "Holiday"), which were obviously written to be perceived as fun and delightful. They seem to strike more of a sour-note with me these days, coming across rather selfish and pretentious. I think I'm most apt to blame the changes in our modern culture for affecting my view, as it now seems everybody and their brother is shouting from the rooftops "look at me! look at me! I'm such a wild and wacky individualist!" All the selfies, all the strained expressions of self-identified uniqueness. It's so wearying, and if anything, starts making me feel more sympathetic to the stodgy old conformist types just minding their own business and comporting themselves as adults according to convention! Hence, it's rather undercut the original appeal of the screwball comedy genre for me. But yeah, I still like most of them. Just to a lesser degree.

 

[DavidJ]

Haven't we all changed our mind about a movie upon revisiting it at one time or another? Perhaps a movie you loved as a kid but upon seeing it as an adult, you think "I can't believe I liked that!" or perhaps a film you saw in your youth that you disliked but when you saw it years later thought, "Ah! Now I get it". Here are two examples of mine and please feel free to post your own.

8 1/2 (1963): I saw this Fellini film in college and hated it. Boring and pretentious I thought. Many, many years later, encouraged to see it again, I did. And I loved it. No doubt my life experiences since my college years made me appreciate its artistry.

Gladiator (2000): I thought this was fantastic upon first seeing it opening week. A revisit several years later had me scratching my head. What was I thinking? What a dreadful ugly looking movie. My guess was that I got caught up in the hype the movie received as well as the excitement of seeing a major "epic" film. Don't even think of it in the same breath as Spartacus or Falll Of The Roman Empire!

Great idea for a thread, Thomas. I show my students 8 1/2 in our capstone filmmaking course and a lot of them (maybe most) have a similar reaction to 8 1/2 to yours during college. Every now and then I get an outlier who loves it, but that's rare. I hope some come back to it later as you did.

 

[Thomas T]

As my tastes/worldview have remained almost maniacally consistent through the years, I don't really have too many instances of 'flipping' my opinion on a movie. But one stark example is perhaps "Lost Horizon" (1937). As I always loved tales of explorers and 'lost civilizations,' I did rather enjoy my debut viewing of the film when I was in my teens. Quite a bit. Watching it maybe ten years later, and a time or two since, I found I just couldn't stomach Ronald Colman's wide-eyed idealism nor the starchy Shangri-La and its social order as anything remotely appealing. In fact, the whole 'utopianism' track of the narrative just sort of repelled me. I found myself far more closely identifying with Colman's brother (John Howard) in just wanting to get the hell out of there.

I never much cared for Capra's Lost Horizon. It all seemed so dour and silly. On the other hand, I adore the 1973 musical remake. If you're going to give us such nonsense, do it with singing and dancing.

 

[ChrisOC]

It's the opposite for me. With each new viewing I seem to find some little nugget that I hadn't noticed before. It's the movie that keeps on giving ..... for me anyway.

Oh, I get that. Even movies I've seen a dozen times or more can reveal new things to me. Sometimes it's a little something an actor does, or a camera move, or a clue or funny item in the background. It's more fun in a movie that isn't stylized, but even the extremes of style (e.g., De Palma's The Untouchables) will reveal something on subsequent viewings.

 

[ChrisOC]

Ah, E.T. The Extraterrestrial! If asked what Spielberg's best film is, I'm always torn between E.T. or Close Encounters Of The Third Kind.

Spielberg is enough of a chameleon that it's difficult to choose a best among his films. For me, it depends on my mood.

 

[ChrisOC]

The Bridge on the River Kwai
No, I did not see it when it came out (I was 7), but much later when I was probably around 15. I had a migraine and hated the film. Every single, agonizing minute of it. I couldn't understand how such a lauded film could be so awful (well, I'd already seen a gorgeous 35mm print of The Greatest Show on Earth...).
Not quite understanding my negative reaction, I went to see Kwai the next day, sans migraine. A masterpiece! And still a masterpiece of filmmaking.
Conclusion: sometimes your physical wellbeing can affect your perception of a film. Try laughing during a migraine!

Agreed. Try doing anything with a migraine, or any other condition that demands your attention. It's possible, but it never comes to any good.

 

[sleroi]

My dad was a big Marx Brothers fan so I had seen and loved their early films. One day my Dad was excited because A Night in Casablanca came on our PBS station. I remember really liking it, especially the scene where they kept running in circles through their hotel room. This was just before cable or VCRs.

Years later, as an adult, I watched it on TCM. I dont think I laughed once. Ive tried to watch it since then and it still doesnt work for me. I guess I just enjoyed the bonding with my dad more than anything.

 

[Thomas T]

My dad was a big Marx Brothers fan so I had seen and loved their early films. One day my Dad was excited because A Night in Casablanca came on our PBS station. I remember really liking it, especially the scene where they kept running in circles through their hotel room. This was just before cable or VCRs.

Years later, as an adult, I watched it on TCM. I dont think I laughed once. Ive tried to watch it since then and it still doesnt work for me. I guess I just enjoyed the bonding with my dad more than anything.

Humor is subjective and subject to change as we mature. As a kid, I laughed at the Three Stooges. As an adult, they appall me.

 

[filmnoirguy]

Good thread!

I saw Vertigo on TV when I was a kid, and although I had trouble following all elements (kid's brain) it was spooky and memorable. I revisited it about 10 years ago on TCM, and...nothing. I actually found it boring, not because of the movie's age and time period, but it just didn't do anything for me, as other Hitchcock films.

I liked elements of Tomorrowland when I first saw it, but it seemed overlong. When I watched it a second time, it felt entirely different. I have ADD and sometimes small elements will go in one eye and out the other, so that may have something to do with it. Now it doesn't feel long at all, and I like its message.

The first time I saw Buckaroo Banzai, I was bored. I remember watching it with an old friend, and about halfway through he said "is it just me, or is this boring?" We watched it all the way through and then forgot about it. These days, I can watch it anytime and love every minute.

I had the opposite reaction to Vertigo. When I first saw it in a movie theater, I thought it was okay, but not nearly as good as my favorite Hitchcock film Rear Window. Today, Rear Window is still my favorite, but Vertigo is right up there along with North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train and Rebecca.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, my biggest confession here would be that from the time I was a kid until I was in my 20s, I did not like Alfred Hitchcock films much. I just felt the films looked phony and were loaded down with artifice. Everything to me looked so carefully staged and doll house. It just did not work. As a kid growing up in the 1970s I was in love with the pictures of that time and those pictures took great pains to look and feel much more realistic and gritty. They shot on real locations and it gave the films such grand authenticity. Hitchcock cared about none of that, he was reveling in the idea that we are watching a movie. Things were allowed to look fake because it was a movie and he was not hiding from you any of the seams. Once I got used to that...well...I fell in love with his pictures. It took a long time for me to get there though.

Now this idea that yes, you are watching a movie and movies being about movies is central to so many films. Quentin Tarantino's whole career is about "Hey, look at me I'm making a movie!" and yes, it tends to be a lot of fun. Now being self referential seems a requirement.

Oddly, I latched on to De Palma before Hitchcock and it was basically just about the settings in his pictures looking less phony. De Palma though was just embracing that Hitchcock idea that it was alright to be winking at your audience and not caring how outrageous things get because...well...it is supposed to because it's a movie.

 

[TravisR]

Well, my biggest confession here would be that from the time I was a kid until I was in my 20s, I did not like Alfred Hitchcock films much. I just felt the films looked phony and were loaded down with artifice. Everything to me looked so carefully staged and doll house. It just did not work. As a kid growing up in the 1970s I was in love with the pictures of that time and those pictures took great pains to look and feel much more realistic and gritty. They shot on real locations and it gave the films such grand authenticity. Hitchcock cared about none of that, he was reveling in the idea that we are watching a movie. Things were allowed to look fake because it was a movie and he was not hiding from you any of the seams. Once I got used to that...well...I fell in love with his pictures. It took a long time for me to get there though.

I wonder if the fakeness of sets or rear projection in older movies was even a concern to viewers back then. I think it was probably like when there's bad CG in movies today. The audience knows it's fake but they accept it because that's just what you see in a movie.