Your most profound film volte-face

[Jim Bob]

I wonder how Being John Malkovich (1999) stands up now. Loved it at the time.

I rewatched it the other week and it holds up very well.

[holyzombiejesus]

Anyone watched Morvern Callar recently? Has that still got it? Really loved it at the time but haven't watched back for over a decade.

[chveik]

Anyone watched Morvern Callar recently? Has that still got it? Really loved it at the time but haven't watched back for over a decade.

watched it for the first time this year, I thought it was great

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

I wonder how Being John Malkovich (1999) stands up now. Loved it at the time.

It seemed irritatingly whimsical even at the time, with the office being on the eleven-and-a halfth floor or whatever it was, and the slightly smug " Aaaaaaaah!"stunt  casting of Cameron Diaz as the frumpy wife, and homely Catherine Keener as the sexy vixen. It might seem even more annoying nowadays.

I reckon I could still sit back and watch " Magnolia" though, seen that film a fair old few times, top performances all round ( especially from Henry Gibson and  dependable ol' William H Macy, and that feller who was the library books detective in " Seinfeld"), marred only by Julianne Moore's overacting.

[Gulftastic]

Yeah, big fan of JFK even though it's largely nonsense. Pesci is especially well cast and does a great performance. The courtroom scenes are unparalleled, in my opinion.

Also, it's truly the greatest nexus if you're playing the Kevin Bacon game.

[Puce Moment]

Anyone watched Morvern Callar recently? Has that still got it? Really loved it at the time but haven't watched back for over a decade.

No, but I have been trying to. I have been looking out for a copy that has ENG subs as my (American) wife really struggled with the opening dialogue in the Scotch language. Anyone found any?

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

marred only by Julianne Moore's overacting.

You say that but I know several people uncannily similar

[phantom_power]

You say that but I know several people uncannily similar

Yeah she is playing a melodramatic character, not acting melodramatically

[dissolute ocelot]

Anyone watched Morvern Callar recently? Has that still got it? Really loved it at the time but haven't watched back for over a decade.

I actually hated Morvern Callar the first time I saw it, so that was the opposite kind of volte-face upon rewatching and noticing how great it is. I think having watched later Lynne Ramsay films makes it clearer what she's doing.

I'm curious about the Peter Greenaway films I loved as a student. His reputation seems to have plummeted since the days of Zed And Two Noughts, Belly of an Architect, The Cook, The Thief, etc. Some youthful obsessions can last (Hal Hartley's early films are still brilliant, Almodovar's earlier funnier films are still quite amusing, Wim Wenders pre-Until the End of the World - and I've heard revisionist accounts of UTEOTW not actually being a mess of Waterworld proportions) but equally I sat through a lot of either pretentious shit or grim realism.

[Ambient Sheep]

I rewatched [Being John Malkovich] the other week and it holds up very well.

By a strange coincidence I also rewatched it the other week and can confirm this.

I think that was the fourth time I'd seen it -- which in itself is pretty unusual for me -- and maybe the first time when I didn't spot something I'd never spotted before.  It rewards rewatching, IMHO.  (Either that, or I wasn't paying attention the first couple of times!)

...and homely Catherine Keener...

U Mad, Bro??

[Small Man Big Horse]

Robert Altman's Short Cuts impressed me as a pretentious youth, but having seen it again, it's just a really horrible film about unlikable people doing nasty things in an unbelievable way, with a stupid ending; a lot of the scenes are more like drama-school exercises than portrayals of real life. Altman has a real misanthropic side to him, although some of his films manage to have genuine affection for characters, and others like McCabe and Mrs Miller link their misanthropy to a wider message (there, about the corruption of the West/America). Other people have slated Naked and American Beauty for a worldview that seems profound to the young and simplistic to the slightly older, so it's probably the same thing (I still love Naked but more for performance and writing/direction and its stylisation than for authenticity - Katrin Cartlidge is hilarious; in contrast I like Secrets and Lies a lot more now than at the time, which is a more subtle and nuanced Leigh film).

That's interesting to hear about Short Cuts, I loved it in my late teens and travelled to London one evening just to see it (where a friend's boyfriend who I didn't really like insisted on joining me, and to him it was such an odd film he never did that again thankfully), but I've never had the urge to rewatch it. I might have to now to see how I get on, but I struggle with new films that are three hours long, let alone ones I've already seen.

[Mister Six]

I've been all over the place with the Indiana Jones films. I loved the flicks as a kid, and by my teens had accepted the general agreement that Raiders is the best, followed by Crusade, and that Temple is a rough misstep in the franchise due to the annoying kid, broad comedy and whiny heroine.

In my twenties, just before Crystal Skull came out, some pals and I picked up a boxed set of the DVDs and had a big marathon session. Suddenly I found Raiders to be the weakest: the action scenes were poorly blocked and confusing (especially the gunfight in the mountain bar), the climactic road chase dull, and the portentious gloom hanging over a lot of it felt out of place. We almost didn't continue, but Temple of Doom picked us right back up, and Crusade wrapped up everything with what felt like the platonic Indy film: a perfect mix of humour, action, imaginative stunts and heart.

New ranking: Crusade, Temple, Raiders.

(We all agreed that Crystal Skull was a travesty, and I've mentally edited it out of the Indy canon in my brain.)

Then just this month I introduced Mrs Six to the Indy films and it all flipped again. This time Raiders entranced me, and the moments of dourness felt like a much-needed counterbalance to the silliness of the general conceit (an archaeologist stopping Nazis from stealing a Jewish relic to take over the world? C'mon!). Temple was a joyous romp from start to finish; Mrs Six (who is Chinese) heartily enjoyed seeing Short Round kicking the shit out of nasty baddies,[nb]She also couldn't decide exactly how racist the infamous meal scene was, given that some of the stuff, like insects and monkey brains, are actually eaten in some parts of China, so them being eaten in India didn't seem too unbelievable, although a snake stuffed with live eels definitely seemed a bit much. We settled on "quite racist" because of the intent of the scene.[/nb] Willie seemed less shrill than I remembered, the stunts and SFX were genuinely impressive, with only the occasional bit of blue-screen visible, and the pace of the thing is impressive - it basically only lets up between Indy and crew landing in India and the assassins[nb]Shout-out to the shot of the fella seemingly emerging from the painting in Indy's room.[/nb] coming after them following the meal, and most of the movie is a total thrill ride.

After that thrill-ride Crusade seemed oddly sedate, with an awkward lull between Venice and the zeppelin sequence[nb]Although the fireplace scene is fun.[/nb] as Indy meanders about looking for his dad and the film desperately contrives to reunite its disparate characters, unnecessarily dumbing down Marcus for cheap laughs, and a plot that doesn't really make much sense.[nb]is Indy immortal now? How exactly is this going to help the Nazis? Are they going to ship the grail around various battlefields to resurrect dead soldiers and hope the grail-bearer doesn't get shot himself?  Does the immortality only work when you're in the temple? If so, why does it need a geriatric knight to stand watch over it? Why not just give it to the Vatican to look after, or something? Or just bury it in that big chasm and not leave loads of clues on how to get there.[/nb] Also the cute origin stuff - how Indy got his hat, how he first used a whip, where he got the scar on his chin, "Indiana was the dog!" - feels like overkill, and a franchise eating itself. I think it devalues the character to learn that he took his iconic look (including the leather jacket) from some nameless guy he met as a kid[nb]Just so they can do a crap fake-out, too.[/nb], and that his name comes from the family dog.  You can do one of those things, but not both. Especially in a film that's also revealing his whole motivation is parental neglect. It demystifies the character too much.

Present ranking: Temple, Raiders, Crusade.

I'll go back in a few decades once the senility has set in and realise Crystal Skull was the masterpiece all along, no doubt.

[SavageHedgehog]

Don't take this as a recommendation, but I gave Crystal Skull another shot a couple of years ago, really quite enjoyed it and wasn't sure why I disliked it so much back in 2008. I get why a lot of other people dislike it, but most of the stuff people hate in it isn't anything that bothers me tremendously.

[Jim Bob]

I think it devalues the character to learn that he took his iconic look (including the leather jacket) from some nameless guy he met as a kid...

FUN FACT: In the original script, that character was Abner Ravenwood (Marion's Father and Indy's mentor, as established in Raiders of the Lost Ark).  In my mind, he still is.

[Egyptian Feast]

Great post, Mister Six. Re: Footnote 4, perhaps I'm remembering it wrong, but I think Indy doesn't become immortal at the end of Crusade because he leaves the tomb. Same with his dad, who dies between films. The catch in the immortality deal is that you have to stay there forever guarding the grail, which is why the gaff collapses when Alison Doody tries to make off with it.

I originally thought Crusade was the second-best and I'll always have fond memories of seeing it at the pictures with my dad (the audience stood up and clapped at the end), but it didn't really click for me when I last watched the series pre-Crystal Skull. Temple is often a shrill pain in the arse but when it gets going, it's a blast. It was the first one I saw, aged seven, and I must have annoyed the audience more than Kate Capshaw when I absolutely freaked out during the bit where Indy is possessed and screamed my head off.

Raiders is absolutely perfect though. The sequels are all enjoyable with diminishing returns (I didn't mind Crystal Skull so much but when it's shit, it's really shit), but none of them come close to the perfection of the original.

[colacentral]

I've been all over the place with the Indiana Jones films. I loved the flicks as a kid, and by my teens had accepted the general agreement that Raiders is the best, followed by Crusade, and that Temple is a rough misstep in the franchise due to the annoying kid, broad comedy and whiny heroine.

In my twenties, just before Crystal Skull came out, some pals and I picked up a boxed set of the DVDs and had a big marathon session. Suddenly I found Raiders to be the weakest: the action scenes were poorly blocked and confusing (especially the gunfight in the mountain bar), the climactic road chase dull, and the portentious gloom hanging over a lot of it felt out of place. We almost didn't continue, but Temple of Doom picked us right back up, and Crusade wrapped up everything with what felt like the platonic Indy film: a perfect mix of humour, action, imaginative stunts and heart.

New ranking: Crusade, Temple, Raiders.

(We all agreed that Crystal Skull was a travesty, and I've mentally edited it out of the Indy canon in my brain.)

Then just this month I introduced Mrs Six to the Indy films and it all flipped again. This time Raiders entranced me, and the moments of dourness felt like a much-needed counterbalance to the silliness of the general conceit (an archaeologist stopping Nazis from stealing a Jewish relic to take over the world? C'mon!). Temple was a joyous romp from start to finish; Mrs Six (who is Chinese) heartily enjoyed seeing Short Round kicking the shit out of nasty baddies,[nb]She also couldn't decide exactly how racist the infamous meal scene was, given that some of the stuff, like insects and monkey brains, are actually eaten in some parts of China, so them being eaten in India didn't seem too unbelievable, although a snake stuffed with live eels definitely seemed a bit much. We settled on "quite racist" because of the intent of the scene.[/nb] Willie seemed less shrill than I remembered, the stunts and SFX were genuinely impressive, with only the occasional bit of blue-screen visible, and the pace of the thing is impressive - it basically only lets up between Indy and crew landing in India and the assassins[nb]Shout-out to the shot of the fella seemingly emerging from the painting in Indy's room.[/nb] coming after them following the meal, and most of the movie is a total thrill ride.

After that thrill-ride Crusade seemed oddly sedate, with an awkward lull between Venice and the zeppelin sequence[nb]Although the fireplace scene is fun.[/nb] as Indy meanders about looking for his dad and the film desperately contrives to reunite its disparate characters, unnecessarily dumbing down Marcus for cheap laughs, and a plot that doesn't really make much sense.[nb]is Indy immortal now? How exactly is this going to help the Nazis? Are they going to ship the grail around various battlefields to resurrect dead soldiers and hope the grail-bearer doesn't get shot himself?  Does the immortality only work when you're in the temple? If so, why does it need a geriatric knight to stand watch over it? Why not just give it to the Vatican to look after, or something? Or just bury it in that big chasm and not leave loads of clues on how to get there.[/nb] Also the cute origin stuff - how Indy got his hat, how he first used a whip, where he got the scar on his chin, "Indiana was the dog!" - feels like overkill, and a franchise eating itself. I think it devalues the character to learn that he took his iconic look (including the leather jacket) from some nameless guy he met as a kid[nb]Just so they can do a crap fake-out, too.[/nb], and that his name comes from the family dog.  You can do one of those things, but not both. Especially in a film that's also revealing his whole motivation is parental neglect. It demystifies the character too much.

Present ranking: Temple, Raiders, Crusade.

I'll go back in a few decades once the senility has set in and realise Crystal Skull was the masterpiece all along, no doubt.

I'm exactly the same, weirdly, always thinking one or another is shite but never the same one from one viewing to the next. There are times when I find Last Crusade boring and badly paced, and other times where it seems like a perfect refinement of what made Raiders good.

I never change my mind about that bar room scene in Raiders you mentioned though - I think that's appallingly bad. There's a long stretch of it with no score too and it doesn't work at all, feeling like the scene was unfinished and the music was left out by mistake.

On the subject of the score in Raiders I also don't think outside of the main theme it's one of Williams' best - it's a bit too busy in some of the chase scenes, if I'm recalling it correctly, and I find it a distraction more than anything. It's one of the many reasons why I find the OT star wars films to be much better than Indy.

[QDRPHNC]

Have to agree on Last Crusade - definitely the weakest of the three. Cheesy, but in the wrong way, not joyously cheesy like Temple of Doom.

Incidentally, remember the silent black and white NIN-scored version of Raiders that Steven Soderbergh did a few years back? That was good.

[Egyptian Feast]

Incidentally, remember the silent black and white NIN-scored version of Raiders that Steven Soderbergh did a few years back? That was good.

Ha, I hadn't heard about that! Intriguing idea, but I'm not sure I could be bothered to watch the whole film that way. I'll definitely check out the melting Nazis though.

[DJ Bob Hoskins]

I've just this second found out that the infamous melting Nazi ringleader was also The Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath & Wells in Blackadder II. Well fuck my hat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Lacey

[greenman]

As far as Indy goes my opinion of Raiders as the best film hasn't really changed but yeah I'v flipped backwards and forwards on the next two. Remember loving Temple in the mid 80's but then as said coming to view it as a little too broad for me rather more self important teenage tastes relative to the other two. These days though I actually enjoy the Indy/Willie stuff more than any of it, just a very well done screwball romance IMHO.

Crystal Skull even at the time I felt the section in the US was pretty decent even with some overly cartoonish moments but if anything I think that made my reaction to the rest of it dropping off of a cliff more extreme, the prequels never really hinted at being anything more than they were by comparison.

[samadriel]

These days though I actually enjoy the Indy/Willie stuff more than any of it, just a very well done screwball romance IMHO.

Yeah, I've always liked the Indy/Willie combo, probably because I hadn't seen Raiders as a child so I didn't know any different, but even so, I like Indy having an uncooperative, prissy girl as a companion he's stuck with, it feels the way I imagine the old serials must have sometimes felt (I have zero expertise to back that up).

Tomb is my favourite, then Raiders, then Last Crusade, although I like them all.

[Twit 2]

Temple is such a dark, dark film. It'll always hold a special place in my heart because it's the first film I saw as a young kid that really captured my imagination and made me take notice, but I found it quite nightmarish. Reading the production history as an adult, it does seem a lot of the people who made it feel the film's a bummer, with everyone's dark shit they were dealing with in their personal lives seeping into the film. Raiders is a masterpiece, Crusade is fun but the least substantial of the three.

[greenman]

Yeah, I've always liked the Indy/Willie combo, probably because I hadn't seen Raiders as a child so I didn't know any different, but even so, I like Indy having an uncooperative, prissy girl as a companion he's stuck with, it feels the way I imagine the old serials must have sometimes felt (I have zero expertise to back that up).

The "Nocturnal Activites" scene might be my favourite in the film but generally I think the tone of it shifts around more than the other two, it feels like a Sammo Hung film shifting from light comedy to horror/violence so quickly.

[Clownbaby]

I had the same thing with Idiocracy where I thought it was very funny the first time round and then I put it on for someone else saying "this is funny this give it a look" and we were both sitting huffing and bored through the whole thing and I felt a bit embarrassed that I'd talked it up so much. I've been a bit noncommittal ever since about recommending movies to people, just in case they turn out to be miraculously shit the second time round.

I had the same thing happen as well with Earth Girls Are Easy, which I loved the camp mess of the first time round so much that I couldn't wait to show my mam and it just collapsed on a second view. She just found it irritating and we put it off. But then I watched it drunk with some friends a few years later and it was funny again so it's all good.

My mam had that "crestfallen after showing someone a film you've discovered" thing herself not long ago when she first had Netflix and was looking for Mads Mikkelsen content. She watched Polar and was talking it up constantly so we watched it and I could not understand what she saw in it at all. It was fucking awful.

Also for some bizarre reason, when I was 12, I though Tim Burton's version of Alice In Wonderland was good. It obviously fucking isn't.  I don't know why I thought it was good. I liked a hell of a lot of really good films that I still like just as much now, I don't know why I slipped so badly with that film.

Obviously not a movie but I also remember finding Robot Chicken hilarious when I was the same age. It might have been me having just discovered Adult Swim in general and loving the adult weirdness of it all but it doesn't make me even smirk now.

[samadriel]

Edit bug

[phantom_power]

Being John Malkovich is coming to Netflix soon for those wanting a rewatch, who have Netflix

[Puce Moment]

I had the same thing with Idiocracy where I thought it was very funny the first time round and then I put it on for someone else saying "this is funny this give it a look" and we were both sitting huffing and bored through the whole thing and I felt a bit embarrassed that I'd talked it up so much.

I think we've all experienced that. My mind went to an impromtu screening of Withnail and I to my bruv's vegan and very-AR girlfriend and friend.

[Famous Mortimer]

I have a pretty good sense of what I enjoyed a lot the first time I watched it, but would probably hate if watched again, so I've avoided that rewatch of "Boondock Saints" or whatever and just try not to get involved if it's ever discussed in my presence.

I'll submit Midnight Run.

Loved it as a younger man, watched it a lot, but on a rewatch? I found the improvised dialogue between De Niro and Grodin irritating, like neither of them really wanted to do it but both wanted to prove what great actors they were. Grodin's entire character just made me feel annoyed, like if I was De Niro I'd have just smacked him in the mouth, tied him up, put him in the trunk of the car and driven in blissful silence to their destination.

It's been a couple of years and I'm struggling to put myself back in that mindset, but from how much I loved it when I was younger, to just being bored of it..eh, maybe it's me. There are still some great bits in it (mostly involving John Ashton) but never again.

[non capisco]

Temple is such a dark, dark film. It'll always hold a special place in my heart because it's the first film I saw as a young kid that really captured my imagination and made me take notice, but I found it quite nightmarish. Reading the production history as an adult, it does seem a lot of the people who made it feel the film's a bummer, with everyone's dark shit they were dealing with in their personal lives seeping into the film.

The human sacrifice scene where that terrified fucker gets his heart literally ripped out of his chest is ridiculously strong for a PG, even in the standard edited version. The Nazis faces melting off in Raiders is horrific but they're getting their just desserts, here we're watching some poor rando get ritualistically tortured and killed. Second film I ever saw in the cinema at age 5, "bloody loving it, he was" according to my mum.

An Indian mate of mine's opinion about Temple Of Doom is "it's all a bit too bud bud ding ding". Chilled monkey brains, that's what them lot love for pudding! Nom nom shiva, more like!!

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

I'll submit Midnight Run.

Loved it as a younger man, watched it a lot, but on a rewatch? I found the improvised dialogue between De Niro and Grodin irritating, like neither of them really wanted to do it but both wanted to prove what great actors they were. Grodin's entire character just made me feel annoyed, like if I was De Niro I'd have just smacked him in the mouth, tied him up, put him in the trunk of the car and driven in blissful silence to their destination.

That would be an interesting remake. After 10 minutes De Niro thinks " ah, fuck this" , does that smack in the mouth and bung in the boot thing, then the rest of the film is as described. They're both really old nowadays though, so I don't know how well this version of the film would work. Might look a bit odd.