 |
| |
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:31
|
|
When released, they are considered brilliant, original, daring, or a crowd-pleaser, but now, with the test of time applied to these films, they have been revealed to be just a little bit less than originally thought. Society could've moved on, making the movies assumptions squirmfully embarrassing... the film is too dated, too much a product of the age that it was filmed... over time, what was once considered cool is just embarrassing.
Some well-considered films that, imho, have not aged well, include:
ET: The Extra-Terrestial: Loved it in 1982, was shocked at how treacly and "movie-of-the-week"ish it actually was in 2002. Oh, parts of it work (ET getting bombed, Gertie) but the rest? Yech.
The Bridge Over the River Kwai: A film made today, even an historical film, based upon British mechanical and work-ethic superiority over the Japanese would be damned hard to pull off, and sure as hell wouldn't be made in the style of Kwai, where Lean's own assumption of this basic "fact" permeates every frame of the film. The world has changed too much to make this film much more than a very well-made anachronism.
West Side Story: Perhaps its just me, but this flashy, colorful story about dancing Latino gangs looks and sounds so 1962 that I can't get over it. Include the fact that I was not raised upon the Broadway tradition, and you can understand why I find the entire movie alternatingly laughably silly or a bore. If this film were released as a major, original effort today audiences would just stare slack-jawed, dumbfounded at what they were witnessing. Of all the movies I've seen (well, all the "major" non-MST3K movies that is), this is the one that has me scratching my head the most and asking Did people really buy into this crap?
What films do you think haven't stood the test of time?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
Gotta say, John, I disagree with all your choices; I think all those films are watchable today, though some may not be thought as great as they once were.
I think movies that fail to stand the test of time are movies that are very much of their time, but are considered "universal" when they are made. Some examples:
The Best Years of Our Lives - in 1946, this was a much-lauded multiple-Oscar winner, a seering drama about the problems of soldiers readjusting to civilian life after WWII. Today it's ponderously dull, and more melodrama than drama.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - mid-century liberalism was a great idea for politics, but a terrible idea for movies. This is the Magnum Opus of it's chief filmic perpetrator, Stanley Kramer; and while none of Kramer's films have aged particularly well (Inherit the Wind being another fine example), this one was considered his best. Preachy, trite, and racist in spite of itself.
Kramer vs. Kramer - Today you'd expect this script to be sent straight to the Lifetime Network. But in 1979, it actually won the Best Picture Oscar over Apocalypse Now and All That Jazz, to say nothing of such unnominated gems as Manhattan, Being There, The Black Stallion and even Alien. As for it's "important message" about the divorce, child custody, and fathers, it's only barely less tedious than a blackice thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
Labyrinth - I thought that this was so much better when I was 12.
Legend - I thought that this was so much better when I was 12.
Ladyhawke - I thought that this was so much better when I was 12.
Holy crispy crap, Batman, I'm really old.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
The Dictator by Charlie Chaplin.
I doubt that anyone would make a comedy about Hitler these days, with Bush in office an all. Except maybe the Farrely Brothers.
It is still a funny movie, nevertheless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Gotta say, John, I disagree with all your choices; I think all those films are watchable today, though some may not be thought as great as they once were. |
I agree. Though I've never seen ET (and have no plans to do so), West Side Story is still interesting to me because of the dancing and the music. The plot wasn't even all that interesting in 1962 in all likelihood (though the subject matter was a good deal more germain to the audience in large cities because of the large amount of street gang violence in the 1950s). But the music and dancing are still pretty cool.
Bridge over the River Kwai is a film that I haven't seen in a long time, but it seems to me that a great performance or three isn't going to be completely lost on me only 30 or so years after the fact. Sure people might have a different idea of the Japanese these days, but the fact of the matter is that the Japanese of WW2 and the idea of the Japanese some of us might have today are very different creatures. I think a lot of people are either blind or sophisticated enough to see this film without having it ruined by the lens of the early 1960s.
I think movies that fail to stand the test of time are movies that are very much of their time, but are considered "universal" when they are made. Some examples:
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The Best Years of Our Lives - in 1946, this was a much-lauded multiple-Oscar winner, a seering drama about the problems of soldiers readjusting to civilian life after WWII. Today it's ponderously dull, and more melodrama than drama. |
I saw this film recently myself, and while disappointing I still thought that there were parts of it that were strong. In particular the "actor" with no hands was still extraordinarily compelling. The love stories varied considerably, but I have no connection to about half of the love stories in other films of this age either. Things are simply that different, I can't read all the clues that an audience in 1946 could about a character, much less have the same reaction to them.
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - mid-century liberalism was a great idea for politics, but a terrible idea for movies. This is the Magnum Opus of it's chief filmic perpetrator, Stanley Kramer; and while none of Kramer's films have aged particularly well (Inherit the Wind being another fine example), this one was considered his best. Preachy, trite, and racist in spite of itself. |
This film was outdated in the 1970s when I saw it. Part of the problem is the moving target of race relations and ideas about race. Another part of the problem is that IMO discussing race (or race consciousness more accurately) is tantamount to perpetuating racism. It's the idea that someone's "race" is more important than say their build or hair color that is the foundation of all the other crap. So I don't blame the film for this. It's interesting to watch from an historical standpoint, but it has no universality to protect it from the passage of time, other than perhaps the fact that Tracy and Hepburn and Poitier are pretty interesting actors.
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Kramer vs. Kramer - Today you'd expect this script to be sent straight to the Lifetime Network. But in 1979, it actually won the Best Picture Oscar over Apocalypse Now and All That Jazz, to say nothing of such unnominated gems as Manhattan, Being There, The Black Stallion and even Alien. As for it's "important message" about the divorce, child custody, and fathers, it's only barely less tedious than a blackice thread. |
Another puke-fest that I have never seen. It looked about as compelling as Tootsie at the time, and I couldn't afford to waste my money on it because I was too busy seeing Apocolypse Now, All that Jazz, Manhattan, and Being There. All of these films IMO are better than the Best Picture in most years, and as you point out they all came out in a flurry. A best picture Oscar is still a more predictable measure of quality than a Grammy, but the two awards are converging quickly in terms of their usefullness to me.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-10-2003 18:46
|