These movies are some of the most impactful that I have ever seen, but by no means would I rate them highly rewatchable. They are gut wrenching, and some people can only stand to watch them once, few want to rewatch them, but they are also incredible.
I also gain a lot from a rewatchable piece of content, but you might be shorting yourself by always watching things designed to tickle the dopamine receptors.
>I also gain a lot from a rewatchable piece of content, but you might be shorting yourself by always watching things designed to tickle the dopamine receptors.
Now this I just do not understand. Things designed to be good on primarily the first watch, and allowed to degrade on future experiences, seem much worse for this.
I think we are coming from different feelings about rewatchability.
If you asked me to rate movies as to their artistic merit, their excellence as films, I would say that those all fall into “instant classic” territory. However, I would not want to rewatch them in the same way that I might want to rewatch a Coen brothers film, for example.
That's fine by me, of course. The more signals I have, the better my decision can be made on what to watch next on average.
It's also a genre independent quality metric. That's not to be underplayed. Some examples of films that successfully passed it for me: Casablanca; Portrait of a Lady on Fire; Hereditary; Under the Skin; My Neighbor Totoro; The Fifth Element. I'm pretty sure most people would agree at least half of these movies are good.
It turns out most of the things I consider worth revisiting at least once are also things other people would consider that way. So for me a Rewatchability rating is a positive signal.