Should I see Red and White if I didn't like Blue?

My own two cents, for what they're worth:

I watched Blue last night and admittedly it wasn't quite my cup of tea. It's a very slow and introspective film, one that left me somewhat restless (it seems longer than it really is). I suppose you have to both be in the right mood to watch it, and to subject yourself to repeat viewings. In any case, I plan to watch the other two films of the trilogy, in the hopes that at the very least, I can "absorb" them and eventually revisit these films with a greater appreciation and understanding.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the question. Didn't like Blue? Is that possible? You want more of a plot? You mean more than a car crash that kills a family, compelling relationships, a mystery about a score, a comment on European unification, a look into the sex trade, a supreme ode to the power of music... all in one film?

No, do not see Red and White or any other films about the human condition, society and redemption. Perhaps give them another try in ten years. I mean this in all sincerity. Do not ruin them for you now when they have so much to give and tell. Maybe you will be open and listening later.

I like all sort of movies (including Godzilla) :)

Three colours were quite heavy to watch (I saw them around 2000 - that was a decade ago so the details escape my mind).

But I do remember that after seing them in their order (within 1 week), I had like a light bulb moment and say 'Ahhh... I see how this three clicks'.

So to the original question, I would say if you didn't like blue, give white and red a chance though. but don't go watch red first though. You don't want your dessert before your meal.

But if you hated blue, then i would don't bother with the rest... Red is much better after the blue and white experience. On its own, it's OK, but less meaningful.

Hope that helps.

They're all amazing, brilliant, artistic and beautiful. But the one who only looks at the plot in films, won't probably enjoy them. They go so much deeper, than just creating a fancy plot. But I do think that all films by Kieslowski would work just as good stories, because he and Piesiewicz are very talented storytellers. I can't believe that someone wouldn't like Blue.. Perhaps you just didn't understand the plot, I guess it was pretty complex and Kieslowski often breaks the chronology.

"I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle"

All three films are amazing, among the best I have ever seen, and I think another viewing is in order so you can fully appreciate it before you move onto the sequels, which are deviations among themes, but cannot be described in terms of better or worse. Being honest, if you didn't like the first one (a crime) then you probably won't take to the other two.

Part of the reason why you didn't like it is probably that it is really more like a Polish film that happens to take place in France than a French film. Kieslowski was a simply beautiful man/filmmaker, but his films do not really fit into the genre you might have been looking for. I personally like White the best out of his three color series just because it was the most playful and the most Polish. To me it helps make the series complete, like an extra, wonderful detail. But I really enjoyed Red and Blue also. You really have to watch them all for any of them to make complete sense.

I've seen all three and loved Blue the best. In Blue, Juliette Binoche's acting mesmerized me and I loved the storyline. The Three Colors Trilogy don't have to be seen in order - they're three diff stories. But if you didn't like Blue, I don't think you'll like the other two. They are film as an art form and if you don't have an appreciation for the artistry of film yet, understanding the director, cinematography, subtle nuances of character, subtext in screenplays, etc, then these are not the films for you.

[deleted]