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


New member
Sep 4, 2012
Psychobabble 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.
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.
I think one of the other issues that comes up with modern viewings of Citizen Kane is that there have been so many homage and parody references to it in movies and TV series that it's almost impossible to watch without thinking of all the references (I remember watching it in a film studies class about 12 years ago and having the two people sitting behind me do the Muppet Babies version of a couple of scenes).


New member
Aug 30, 2010
Pyramid Head said:
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.
I respectfully disagree. As someone mentioned before, with many old movies you really cannot hold them STRICTLY to today's standers. I say strictly because standards are often there for a reason and it'd be unreasonable to completely abandon them, but one really must loosen them to enjoy older movies for what they are.

With relation to Star Wars specifically, the acting was solid if not oscar-winning. The practical effects are sometimes very silly but for the most part very solid. I honestly don't see how the writing is slapdash, the movie was paced excellently within its running time (which is a very comfortable 2 hours. Enough for most movies).

As for goofiness, well that's a personal preference. Sure the whole aesthetic is a tad goofy, being put in a setting where most of the races are strangely humanoid and technology hasn't advanced significantly in at least 4,000 years (presumably more). I personally greatly enjoy how it doesn't try to be terribly "realistic" and embraces the technological and cultural quirkiness that would occur after having dozens of species co-existing for millenia. To me its a certain realism all its own, since after such a long time very little of that universe would be immediately familiar to anyone in our time, on our planet.


New member
Jun 11, 2013
I will say that the Hobbit will definitely not age well because of all the CGI they put in there. Meanwhile, LOTR will still be awesome. I have spoken.

Also, Ong Bak has awesome fight scenes, better than the Raid. The Raid was meh, some scenes were too long and a lot of the time the impact of the hits felt soft, obviously choreographed. That last fight was sooooo long, and how many times can they show clinch knees, come on now.

Tuesday Night Fever

New member
Jun 7, 2011
I find that most 90's movies that make extensive use of CGI don't typically hold up well with age. Granted, I'm not a particularly big fan of CGI anyway unless it's being used to enhance and add a bit more detail to practical effects... and even then, I'd rather just see practical effects on their own. It's probably why I have such a fondness for 80's movies.

redisforever said:
Nah, I love 90's action films. I find them more fun. Desperado, Zorro, Die Hard, and so on. Damn good movies.
Die Hard is an 80's action flick. Came out in '88, and is still, to this day, one of my favorite action movies.

But yeah, I definitely agree that 90's action movies were pretty fun, back when producers and directors weren't afraid of R-ratings and (mostly) used practical effects still. The Rock and Broken Arrow always seem to find their way into my regular rotation of movies.


New member
Aug 8, 2011
To be honest, Friday the 13th was never that good. It just got a good reputation because BOOBEHS.

The only movies that don't hold up with age for me are movies like Triumph of the Will or Birth of a Nation, and even those can be an educational insight into the ideologies of the people portrayed.


New member
Jul 18, 2011
It might be nostalgia talking, but a few Disney movies I've revisited lately are not quite as good as I thought they were. It might be all the singing, though - I've grown to loathe musicals, especially cheesy ones. The actual stories themselves are still wonderful.


Darth Marsden said:
That said... I'd like to nominate several 'classic' Bond films as having aged extremely poorly.
I agree. After hearing from almost anyone how great they are, I finally got a chance to watch Man With the Golden Gun, and it was really dull and completely unfunny. I don't understand it, but I guess perhaps we've grown more used to snappier, more dazzling action films.


New member
Jan 7, 2008
KoudelkaMorgan said:
"Who framed Roger Rabbit?"

It just looks ridiculous today. And I would have to assume "Cool World" would also suffer if I ever watched it again. No one should of course.

...okay, i'll back up a bit, there are admittedly some scenes where the interaction with nothing is obvious, and every "Stunt" that Eddie does looks a bit ridiculous, and i'm always a bit nitpicky about the way they sometimes in minor scenes trade cartoon props for real life props due to budget or something (especially the talking gun).

But other than that, i'm still amazed of how impressively they integrated the cartoons within the live-action footage. There is a attention to detail as well as a level of interaction that you don't really see in many movies that combine "special effects" with live-action, especially in the time it was made, but even today (although of course there are a bunch of movies that surpass this one in that regard).

NihilSinLulz said:
90s action movies: Fight choreography has advanced so much. I men remember when the fight sequences in The Matrix or Ong-bak used to be awesome and as such, we forgave other weaker areas of a film? After watching The Raid: Redemption, or even the impressive fight sequences in children's cartoons such as The Legend of Korra, what wowed me before only induces a resounding meh in me now.
I don't know really.

I zapped into Rush Hour 3 the other day and was shocked about how slowed down the fights feel when compared to stuff like...i dunno..."Rumble in the Bronx" (to be fair, Jackie Chan is quite a bit older now, but at the same time i remember how in many western movies, for example Rush Hour 1, Chan was told that he needs to slow down so people could follow his movements and stuff, and in the scene i've seen it indeed really did look like he was holding back).

Also, there is this whole close-up shaky cam thing that was "in" in the last few years, which ruined readable and graceful fight choreographies for INTENSITY (or for not having to have choreographies since no one really sees what is happening anyway).


New member
Jul 31, 2009
My issue with "WFRR?" isn't with the actual movie, but entirely with the animated characters looking so drab and colorless, and in some cases the animation isn't that great.

I would love to see it remastered, because you can definitely tell you are looking at a low def movie from the 80's with primitive blending of live action and animated characters.

Idk, it seems like people take my putting in in this thread to mean that I don't think the premise or characters hold up, when its entirely related to the cinematography and animation.

Other movies from the 80's hold up well. Other animated movies hold up well. But I guess I've just seen way too many MUCH better looking drawings and animations of Jessica and Rodger to look at the original ones and not think "wow this is what used to pass for triple A animation."

Space Jam still holds up I think. Its about the only other example I can think of.

And Bob Hoskins interactions aren't exactly on par with people interacting with Gollum on film.


Nov 11, 2011
Saxnot said:
Blade Runner. I understand that it had a lot of influence and paved the way for much of modern sci - fi, but it is a very, very slow movie.
i often feel the same way for robot anime.
the first gundam is not appealing to me, the same way starwars is kind of too old and cheesy for me.
But I respect its value as one of the first of its genre.


New member
May 24, 2011
Batman Begins does not hold up. I loved it when it came out, but it does not hold up to multiple viewings. I can still go back and watch TDK over and over but BB doesn't hold up at all.

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Apr 10, 2020
KoudelkaMorgan said:
"Who framed Roger Rabbit?"

It just looks ridiculous today. And I would have to assume "Cool World" would also suffer if I ever watched it again. No one should of course.
I always thought Roger Rabbit held up nicely. Cool World always looked like crap though.


Team Stupid-Face
Nov 11, 2008
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.
I have a friend who had never heard of Psycho nor knew any of the twists so last time he came over I put it on giving it as little fanfare as possible. Judging from his reactions and his thoughts afterwards, the shower scene and the big twist still hold up as surprises, but in no way is it as scary as it once was simply due to the level of violence people are used to now.

Zombie Badger

New member
Dec 4, 2007
My pick for this would be Goldfinger. While still a well-made and acted film, the unbridled misogyny, climaxing with the sex scene with Bond and Miss Galore, which really looks like a rape scene (and which is still a lot nicer that what happened in the book), makes it awkward to watch at times. It also contains the stupidest death in any bond film (death by paint) which is saying something.

OlasDAlmighty said:
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.
Someone should have told that to the guy who wrote Salt.