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.

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.

Really? Huh. Some of it was a physical thing; I kept getting Pike and Thornton confused, and I couldn't tell how many different Mexican generals there were, or maybe there was just the one. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention during the backstory flashbacks to understand their significance. The only time I thought there was some interesting character stuff going on was the bit about owing something to a railroad, and how it matters whom you owe things to. But I felt like there were lots of scenes which didn't seem to serve any purpose; I thought you could have shaved off thirty to forty-five minutes easily. I have yet to see The Godfather or The Seven Samurai, but I couldn't follow Ran either, and I fucking know King Lear.

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.

Yeah, I recognized that. I was all, come on, tell me what's going on! Movies usually do that! Let me in on the story, people!

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.

I read The Sound and the Fury in high school, and I really liked it, but then I read Absalom! Absalom! in college, and it was so awesome. I read half of it in one day, which really fried my brain, I'll tell you.

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.

Maybe. Certainly not after a week, but maybe in the future, I guess. There are a lot of movies I've just not gotten, but I don't remember whether I've really given them a second chance. There are too many other movies I need to give first chances to.

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.

I didn't think I was into Westerns, but the first one I saw was Stagecoach, I believe, and I liked it, surprisingly. I didn't care much for Shane, though. I haven't seen The Searchers yet.

I can't think of movies I've grown into. Though in college, I was watching Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and realized it was a slasher flick, which made me love it even more.

Still not much of a Wild Bunch fan myself. I don't think it holds up well and, with due respect to Corwood, I think it has less going on in it than smart cookies like himself see in it. He thinks it's brilliant, I think it's merely good, with with some truly brilliant moments balanced by some deeply flat and flawed scenes.

His take on Ford, though, I endorse 100%!