Put American Werewolf in Paris on the queue too. Cheese, but fun. Plus, Delpy.

I can't decide whether to describe it as "stylized" or "stilted" or some combination of both.

If Mamet has written and directed it, then yes, it's always like that. In some movies it just works for most parts, while in others it ruins pretty much´everything. As a writer he seems to be able to let go of his theatre background much easier than when he's directing.

Plus, Delpy.

Always a plus. *Bumps up Before/After sunset in the DVD queue*

I spent about 20 minutes watching Tape last night. I got it to facilitate my current Robert Sean Leonard fixation, but I found it really, really boring. Has anyone else seen it? Is it just Ethan Hawke and RSL talking in a hotel room for an hour and a half, with Uma Thurman showing up later on? Does anything actually happen? I don't need explosions or nudity--although I won't turn them down, especially if RSL is involved in the latter--but right now I don't care about any of the characters and the writing isn't compensating. I supposed I could just give up and rent Much Ado again. At least I'll get Shakespeare and leather pants.

*Bumps up Before/After sunset in the DVD queue*

I do hope you mean Before Sunrise/Sunset, because otherwise you'll be pretty surprised.

Ah, of course Before Sunrise/Sunset. No Brett Ratner for me.

I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on and I couldn't tell half the characters apart.

This sorta mystifies me. Each character has his own set of personal traits and motives, all of which seem particularly deliberate and well-constructed. Every scene works to either clarify those motives, advance the plot, or demonstrate the cathartic changes of the Bunch (and particularly Pike) during the picture. I don't think the Wild Bunch is any more challenging than, say, The Godfather or The Seven Samurai.

That said, all of these movies are definitely asking more of a viewer than most Hollywood fare, which is exactly why they're more rewarding in the long run. Strega's probably right; if you have any interest in dealing with the movie on its own terms, you should rewatch it. But, y'know, I recognize that people (and here I'm talking about my own experience) have to be ready and willing to come to great art on its own terms. When I think about all the brilliant people I know who tell me that Middlemarch is one of the greatest books ever written, I always think about how much I hated the hell out it when I read it (and still shudder at the memory of how much time I invested in finishing it). Of course, I was 18 and fairly naive when I read it, and it might speak more to me now. I certainly got more out of Faulkner when reading him in my late 20s, when I'd seen a bit more of the world, than when I read him as a teenager, when I was sure I know how the world worked a priori. And I assume I'll get even more out of him when I hit my 40s.

All of which is to say: if you don't want to rewatch it after a week like Strega suggested, at least be open to the idea of rewatching it in the future. You might find yourself surprisingly engaged.

it might speak more to me now

Hey, good topic. I can think of several books that changed for me, over the years, but I'm a little harder-pressed to think of movies that have done the same. (N.b. I've never seen The Wild Bunch. ) Can anybody name me movies that they "grew" into?

Can anybody name me movies that they "grew" into?

Withnail and I.

OK, I liked it a lot the first time I saw it, but on each rewatching I discovered layers that I hadn't seen before. On the surface it's kind of a silly "fish out of water" story (until the end, anyway), but there's much more going on....

edit for clarity.

I didn't understand Altman's movies the first time I watched a bunch of them back in college. I thought his attempts at naturalism were chaotic and stagey. And I hated the way he re-wrote The Long Goodbye.

I now have pretty much the opposite opinion. His sense of naturalism is far greater than most directors would allow themselves, and his take on the Long Goodbye is smarter than Chandler's, which is quite the feat.

I also hated most John Ford Westerns back then, because I saw them as stilted, racist reminders of Our Stupid Past and full of cornpone humor. Now, I find some of them deeply nuanced and groundbreaking, and able to address some of the burning issues of the 30s, 40s, and 50s (such as race, class, the loss of manifest destiny philosophy, disenfranchisement, the loss of the family farm and such) allegorically rather than directly. The Searchers is the cream of the crop, but others like Stagecoach, Liberty Valence, and Rio Grande are brilliant films, mainly because Ford knew how to use John Wayne as a symbol and as an actor.

Wow...Corwood, you just expressed my exact feelings about John Ford movies better than I ever could've. That's exactly it.

Apocalypse Now would be the main one on this list for me. Of course, I was too young when I first saw it to even make sense of it, and I hadn't read Heart of Darkness and didn't know much about Viet Nam. Now I think it's brilliant.