[GerateWohl]

I like your statement, Thor, that one must feel comfortable in the world of the movie and like spending your time with the characters. That’s probably a big part of it.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

“Feel comfortable in the world” is a good way of putting it.

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

In the end, it isn’t so much a generalization for me, but a discovery of certain film elements that I either like or don’t like. For example, I’m not a big fan of dialogue, especially if that dialogue dominates, is full of plot-centric information and delivered at high speed. I can obviously like a good and well-written dialogue like everyone else, but I prefer films that communicate more via visuals.

I find no such patterns when it comes to my own preferences though, which is why I personally find it hard to generalize. I love movies like GLENNGARY GLENN ROSS or 12 ANGRY MEN, which are heavily dialog driven, and movies like APOCALYPTO or SORCERER, where dialog is secondary. I could add these to the list of movies I could always re-watch.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Well, it’s not something that I set out to do, they’re just preferences that have made themselves clear after watching thousands of movies over almost half a century.

Asking WHY is trickier, though. WHY am I so drawn to films with a pronounced sense of PLACE, for example? I have a theory that it’s because I’ve had some very important places in my life (especially two different family summer places), and that has trickled into films as well. But I think that only answers half of it. It’s more to do with my personality.

Same with the dialogue thing. I’ve always been attracted to visual (and aural) stimuli, first and foremost. Which is kinda ironic, since I write TEXT for a living, hold lectures etc. — all very WORDS-based — but somehow I’m not a big fan of words in films. Weird.

I find that knowing about what you’re drawn to or not drawn to in artistic expressions, also tells you something about who you are as a person. “Show me your CD/book/film shelf, and I’ll tell you who you are!” and all that.

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

This may be true, which is why I find it interesting to discover these patterns. But I can’t say that I have discovered a particular pattern about the type of movie I prefer. Not in the sense that I prefer more or less dialog in any case. I prefer “good” movies, obviously, but it’s very different things that can make a movie good.

[Gloin the Dark]

I’m not absolutely certain, but there’s a good chance that the film I’ve seen the most times is The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, which I saw in the cinema 31 times. Odd, given that (for the first several viewings) my feelings about the film were decidedly mixed…

[Thor Joachim Haga]

31 in the cinema? That’s insane. But kudos! I have a colleague who probably has the same, if not more, so it’s not altogether uncommon.

[Schilkeman]

I mean, I’m sure it’s one of the Star Wars movies. Growing up poor, I had about 7 vhs tapes that I would watch when I had the chance. I’ve seen Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, Jurassic Park, and Independence Day a stupid amount of times. The Big Lebowski, maybe, but probably the first Star Wars, or Attack of the Clones, my personal favorite.

[Gloin the Dark]

31 in the cinema? That’s insane.

Yeah! Back then I didn’t have a DVD player, or a widescreen TV, so each time I saw the film I was thinking that might be my last opportunity ever to see it presented in an acceptable way. It just so happened that I was free most weekdays after noon, and the cinema was just ten minutes down the road, and the film was playing from December through to April or May…

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Yet another is – as I alluded to above – because I love the mood. It’s a fictional universe where I can just stay and absorb and experience the surroundings. This is, in fact, one of the most important aspects for me when it comes to filmic experience. It can be “cozy”, like the opening of LOTR, set in Hobbiton, or it can be “unsettling”, like in ALIEN. But even in ALIEN, there is a familiarity with the unsettling surroundings that I find comforting.

And then there is a different type of use as well. A fairly mundane form of reuse is watching a film when I’m inebriated, at the end of an evening, before I go to sleep. That’s why JURASSIC PARK is so useful, up until the appearance of the T-Rex. Or films like 2012 and THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, when the purpose is to “live inside the acts”, and the expectations of what’s to come. Or films like THE MARTIAN or CAST AWAY, that are both calm and tense at the same time, but with plenty of time to just ‘stay’ at the place. I’ve seen all of these films countless times.

I thought about doing a thread on “comfort movies”, but then realized I pretty much said all I had to say on the subject in this thread already, in the quote above.

Anyone else have “comfort movies” like this, whose quality is less important than the function they serve for you? And THAT’S the primary reason for why you return to them over and over again?

[Malte Müller]

Of course, many films or also series already noted certainly have also that function.

[Jon Aanensen]

THE LANGOLIERS is a “comfort movie” for me.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

THE LANGOLIERS is a “comfort movie” for me.

Definitely has the potential. Seen it three times, I think. Although it can’t live up to the book/novella (which has one of the best moods in all of King’s work), it’s impressive for a TV film of the era. The ominous dread of what’s to come, the deserted airport.

[Jon Aanensen]

I’m a bit surprised there hasn’t been a remake.

[Author]

Posts