◄ IMDb Polls

Poll: Face-Off: How Important is the Re-Watchability Factor?

So here's a question: Does a film have to be re-watchable to be considered great? There are those films that exist, those that were amazing to watch, but can only be watched once, perhaps do to their depressing, twisted nature or a specific twist that would render a second viewing "magic-less" as a result. So, how important is it to consider re-watchability when debating how good a film is?

After voting, you may discuss the poll here.

Big thanks to board user albstein for the idea!

See results without voting »

Make Your Choice

Vote!

Brad Pitt, Joel Bissonnette, Paul Dillon, and Holt McCallany in Fight Club (1999)

Extremely important: If a film is truly amazing, like Fight Club (1999) or American History X (1998), the difficult subject matter or topics at hand should not be enough to dissuade me from enjoying future viewings, regardless of how controversial it may be, plain and simple. Re-watchability should always be the chief factor when judging classics.

See more▼See less▲
Vote!

Corinne Orr, Ayano Shiraishi, and Emily Neves in Grave of the Fireflies (1988)

Not very important: There are those films like Grave of the Fireflies (1988) or Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009), those that take so much out of you, that you can just never watch them again. But does that make them bad films? On the contrary - it shows the power a film can have on you, and that makes it all the more extraordinary.

See more▼See less▲
Vote!

Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, and Peaches Jackson in Gone with the Wind (1939)

Somewhat important: There are many great films on both ends of the spectrum - Gone with the Wind (1939) is an example of a film many people will likely only watch once due to its extremely long time length, and yet it is a triumph of filmmaking. You just can't pick one over the other when judging general cinematic quality. Re-watchable, not re-watchable - great films can be both!

See more▼See less▲