Movies That Don't Hold Up With Age [Possible Spoilers]

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
I can't BELIEVE nobody has mentioned Wargames yet. The entire movie is based around 2 things essentially

1. The cold war
2. Computers (and how awesome they are)

The cold war ended so long ago that most people on this site probably can't remember it, thus making it's premise less relevant to viewers today;, and all the computers in the movie are from the early eighties and therefore look almost comically archaic (because they are). Not that it isn't a good movie mind you, but you really have to be able to transport yourself into the eighties to take it seriously.
 

Wereduck

New member
Jun 17, 2010
383
0
0
Mangod said:
Wereduck said:
It still gets a lot of respect as an innovator among movies of it's day but most modern viewers I've spoken to agree that Citizen Kane doesn't hold up at all.
Are you sure that's the movie not aging well, and not just the movie failing to live up to its own hype? I watched it again recently and I still thought it was a good movie, but nowhere near the levels that you'd come to expect from the "greatest movie in history".
I don't remember hearing it hyped up that much but still, you could be right.
Watching "Kane" was like an endurance trial for me though - I think because everything it does well has been done much better since but I suppose it might just be really not to my taste.
 

Mangod

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2011
829
0
21
Wereduck said:
Mangod said:
Wereduck said:
It still gets a lot of respect as an innovator among movies of it's day but most modern viewers I've spoken to agree that Citizen Kane doesn't hold up at all.
Are you sure that's the movie not aging well, and not just the movie failing to live up to its own hype? I watched it again recently and I still thought it was a good movie, but nowhere near the levels that you'd come to expect from the "greatest movie in history".
I don't remember hearing it hyped up that much but still, you could be right.
Watching "Kane" was like an endurance trial for me though - I think because everything it does well has been done much better since but I suppose it might just be really not to my taste.
There's a reason people talk about things being the "Citizen Kane of X" when discussing games, for instance, but it is like you said, a matter of personal taste as much as anything. I for instance think that Casablanca is a better movie. As for the "endurance trial" bit... yeah, you're right, the movie can be a bit slow at times. But I took two semesters in film studies, so I'm used to sitting through long, drawn out dramas ;)

Hmmm... I genuinely feel like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory has aged worse than the eponomous chocolate. Still a good movie, but it just isn't the same thing anymore.
 

Resetti's_Replicas

New member
Jan 18, 2010
138
0
0
Most comedies don't hold up, because comedy is an evolving art. We're constantly building on and deconstructing the comedy tropes of yesterday. When I watch old comedies, I can predict a lot of the punchlines, even if I've never seen the movie before. Airplane! is the best example of this for me.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
I don't really watch older movies than 80's for the most part, so I don't have much to say in this topic. But Psycho should be nominated. It's still a very good film and you should totally see it, but considering what it became famous for, the first 40-45 minutes mostly consist of the viewer going "Come on, get to THAT part! THAT part" whenever Anthony Perkins isn't on screen.
 

J.McMillen

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2008
247
0
21
I think the key to enjoying older movies is to adjust your expectations. I love old movies, but I always go in knowing that all the technology used is decades out of date, and to not hold it against itself.

I recently saw the movie 'Metropolis'. Not the anime movie, I'm talking the 1927 black and white silent film from Germany. I thought it was great. Sure it wasn't in color, no dialog, and effects worse than stuff I've seen on YouTube, but it's still a great film. However, you can't watch it expecting it to look like anything made in the last 40-60 years. You have to adjust to what movies were like back then, and look past its dated shortcomings. Then, and only then, do you have a chance to enjoy it.
 

Wereduck

New member
Jun 17, 2010
383
0
0
Mangod said:
Wereduck said:
Mangod said:
Wereduck said:
It still gets a lot of respect as an innovator among movies of it's day but most modern viewers I've spoken to agree that Citizen Kane doesn't hold up at all.
Are you sure that's the movie not aging well, and not just the movie failing to live up to its own hype? I watched it again recently and I still thought it was a good movie, but nowhere near the levels that you'd come to expect from the "greatest movie in history".
I don't remember hearing it hyped up that much but still, you could be right.
Watching "Kane" was like an endurance trial for me though - I think because everything it does well has been done much better since but I suppose it might just be really not to my taste.
There's a reason people talk about things being the "Citizen Kane of X" when discussing games, for instance, but it is like you said, a matter of personal taste as much as anything. I for instance think that Casablanca is a better movie. As for the "endurance trial" bit... yeah, you're right, the movie can be a bit slow at times. But I took two semesters in film studies, so I'm used to sitting through long, drawn out dramas ;)
No supposing about that - Casablanca is a much better movie. The only thing about it that doesn't hold up as well today is the archaic treatment of women and occasional moments of jaw-dropping racism which tend to jar me out of the movie for a second or two. The story itself & how it's told are rock-solid.
 

Pyramid Head

New member
Jun 19, 2011
559
0
0
I'm probably going to take shit for this, but the Star Wars movies. By today's standards the writing is slapdash and the entire thing is too damn goofy. Of course it's not helped by Lucas who apparently lobotomized himself sometime between the original trilogy and the prequels.
 

J.McMillen

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2008
247
0
21
bartholen said:
I don't really watch older movies than 80's for the most part, so I don't have much to say in this topic. But Psycho should be nominated. It's still a very good film and you should totally see it, but considering what it became famous for, the first 40-45 minutes mostly consist of the viewer going "Come on, get to THAT part! THAT part" whenever Anthony Perkins isn't on screen.
You my friend, are missing some great movies. Many older movies tended to run about 2 hours (+/- 10 minutes), so they usually built up slower than modern movies which are in a rush to get to the action. But if you just sit back and enjoy the ride, those two hours will pass so quickly you'll wonder why you didn't notice. If you want a good old suspense movie, go watch 'Wait until Dark' with Audrey Hepburn. Just avoid the spoilers, it'll ruin the end.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
2001: A Space Odyssey. It may have been revolutionary for it's time, but when I had to watch it for a project I was doing it bored the hell out of me. The only good part was the part with HAL 9000 and Dave. Everything else was boring. And was the 15 minute long landing sequence really necessary?
 

UrinalDook

New member
Jan 7, 2013
198
0
0
You know, I think that worse than a whole movie not holding up to today's standards is when one small, discrete piece of that whole is the only thing that doesn't hold up. When a film has done everything it can to haul you in has that hard work undone by a moment that jolts you right back into the reality of 'I'm watching a film from the 80s'. A special effect failure is made worse when you have the juxtaposition of an otherwise excellent film, because naturally you are acutely more aware of it.

Perhaps the defining example for me would be Star Trek II.

I love Wrath of Khan. For me, it is still the only Star Trek (apart from maybe the reboot) that stands out as a good film even when divorced of its setting. One can go into WoK with only minimal exposure to Star Trek and come to genuinely care about the characters and their relationships, and the simple but effective themes the movie draws upon.

But, my God, the Mutara nebula looks like ass in today's post-CGI world. The genesis device explosion is similarly grating.

Another very similar example? Alien.

Still personally my favourite entry in the series, and a damn fine example of sci-fi done right. Most of the time, the arguably shitty alien costume is cleverly concealed by some top notch photography. So much so that I can even forgive those few seconds where it's painfully obvious that it's just some guy in a wetsuit. No, my problem is the end scene. The Nostromo's destruction. That flat screen of blank colour meant to signify an explosion is just awful.

To a lesser extent, I agree with the people that said Star Wars. ANH, at any rate. The worst thing about that is I'm not sure why it looks so much more dated than ESB, a film which still - to me, at least - is visually excellent. Is it the cameras and film used? The light filters? Cheaper stages and sets? The hilarious sideburns on some of the Imperial officers? Why does ANH look like such a typical artefact of the 70s, where ESB belies it's early release date of 1980?
 

Darth Marsden

New member
Sep 12, 2008
448
0
0
Interesting thread, with some interesting arguments, many of which I find myself agreeing with.

Someone said Dr No. I'd respectfully disagree - I think it holds up extremely well as a tense thriller with a dash of sci-fi mixed in. It's very much of its age, but if you divorce it from what we think of as the 'typical Bond film formulae', it becomes a surprisingly entertaining period piece.

That said... I'd like to nominate several 'classic' Bond films as having aged extremely poorly.

In order:

Goldfinger. Yes, I said it. I think it's a solid film with so many random asides and odd story beats thrown into it that it just... drags. There's a game of sodding golf in there, for heaven's sake! Go back and watch it again and I guarantee it's nowhere near as good as you remember.

Thunderball. This film is boring. Long stretches pass where very little happens, all the action is dragged out mercilessly and the underwater fighting completely fails to entertain because not only is it hard to see what's happening but it's all so deathly slow. It's really not held up well at all (except the Bond girl, who remains absolutely stunning to this day).

Diamonds are Forever. Tacky. That's the only word I can think of to adequately describe this film - tacky. It's cheap, unpleasant to look at (check out the casino where Bond meets Plenty O'Toole - ugh!), unbelievably campy and has some of the worst characters in the entire franchise - Tiffany Case does practically NOTHING throughout the entire film except stand around and look pretty. Awful film, I don't know why more people don't think so.

The Man with the Golden Gun. I shall simply direct you to my review of this [http://blip.tv/chrismadisun/madisun-s-arc-26-the-man-with-the-golden-gun-6580089] to fully illustrate why I think this film is so bad. Long story short: it's extremely cheap looking, painfully unfunny to the point of just plain being racist, badly acted (except for Christopher Lee) and has one of the worst car chases I've ever seen.

Moonraker. The concept alone is enough, but it suffers from terrible special effects, a script full of something failing to be comedy and weak performances all round.

Many others don't hold up either, but these are the worst offenders in my book.
 

redisforever

New member
Oct 5, 2009
2,158
0
0
Nah, I love 90's action films. I find them more fun. Desperado, Zorro, Die Hard, and so on. Damn good movies.
 

Psychobabble

. . . . . . . .
Aug 3, 2013
525
0
0
Wereduck said:
It still gets a lot of respect as an innovator among movies of it's day but most modern viewers I've spoken to agree that Citizen Kane doesn't hold up at all.

For me personally I'd also say that The Wages of Fear doesn't hold up very well. I thoroughly despised almost all of the main characters and it really lowers the stakes when you don't care whether the protagonist gets killed. I'd imagine that in a time when racism/classism was more socially acceptable they were much more sympathetic characters.
This is because most of the people raving over Citizen Kane have a working and in depth knowledge of the process and history of film making. They understand its contributions to cinematography and judge it accordingly. Most of the modern viewers I know who pan the film, do so because when only judged on its entertainment value, the film to younger viewers just isn't very exciting. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just disagree they do so because the film hasn't aged well, I feel its because most of the modern audience don't understand the reasons the film is held in such high regard.

Now as to my contribution to this thread, I'd have to add any near future science fiction film that was set in a time period that is now the past. For example the television series Space 1999.
 

Mangod

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2011
829
0
21
Most old movies don't hold up over time for one simple reason: Seinfeld is Unfunny*.

What a movie earns acclaim for, what it does to revolutionize the medium, will eventually be surpassed by the works that come after it, building upon its groundwork to achieve greater things still.

*[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny]
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
I can't BELIEVE nobody has mentioned Wargames yet. The entire movie is based around 2 things essentially

1. The cold war
2. Computers (and how awesome they are)

The cold war ended so long ago that most people on this site probably can't remember it, thus making it's premise less relevant to viewers today;, and all the computers in the movie are from the early eighties and therefore look almost comically archaic (because they are). Not that it isn't a good movie mind you, but you really have to be able to transport yourself into the eighties to take it seriously.
Bro, I was born in 1992. The Berlin Wall fell before I was born and I'm about to graduate college. But yes, I was actually gonna say War Games too. I saw it on tv and I loved it for some reason. The plot is just so silly. Its like Mathew Brodrick is from the distant future of 2002 and is explaining computers to 80's people like they're cavemen.

"My computer can talk to other computers over the phone line"

Just classic