Most books and movies are one-off affairs, but a few get re-read or re-watched, and of those some actually get better the second time around. I wasn't too thrilled with the new Star Trek movie when I saw it in the theater a couple of months ago, but, surprisingly, liked it more when I watched it on DVD a few days ago.
I guess the super-sized special effects were a little less overdone when seen on the small screen. The second time, I appreciated the character development work that was done for all the revamped characters — a challenge to do that as well as run the plot of an entertaining movie. I was a little less annoyed by the rather labored use of the old Spock. The biggest problem with the movie remains, IMHO, that Captain Kirk, Sr. (the 12-minute version who saved 600 lives) and Captain Pike were both much stronger characters than the brash young James T. Kirk. I'd rather see Captain Pike running the Enterprise in a sequel than the apple-munching Jim Kirk. Maybe they can do another time-travel gimmick and let Pike run the ship in Star Trek II.
I'm not sure this movie is the best example of "better the second time around." Other nominees: The Blues Brothers gets funnier every time. Minority Report gets more intense every time. Or perhaps these are simply the movies that, for one reason or another, I've seen more than a couple of times. Any movie work this way for you?
Yes! Napoleon Dynamite. Couldn't stand it (or him) for a good chunk of the first time through. The second run at it was gorgeous fun. Primer was also better the second time. This probably has something to do with my having little understanding of how it fit together until I'd digested it twice.
Posted by: hawleigh | Nov 27, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I'll have to agree with Napoleon Dynamite. The first time I watched it as a national movie and it fell flat with nothing making sense. The second time I watched it as a local Idaho film and it was much better as I laughed at the in-jokes. Still don't think its that great of a movie compared to, say, Farris Bueller's Day Off.
As for Star Trek, the makers intentionally made it flashy and fast paced because they were imitating Star War's style. I have the same problem with the Capt. James T. Kirk character. He came off flat and a little off from the original. They achieved fun and action, but at the cost of what Spock would call logic. I am one of those who likes the slower pace of even the original first movie because I like the characters for who they are and not just the lasers and explosions.
Posted by: Jettboy | Nov 28, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Maybe Star Trek belongs on a TV screen. I recently bought a set of Bonanza disks, and it feels like old Star Trek more than anything that's been produced in the 40 years since. The same kinds of photography and fighting stunts and acting. I would guess that 80% of the actors who showed up on the Enterprise also spent time around the Ponderosa.
Posted by: John Mansfield | Nov 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM