Safety Month botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums The best from Bose just got wireless Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks STEM Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Movies that did NOT age well...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 738 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 6:33:00 PM PDT
stevign says:
re: "As to how it could be "dated," this thread is about how films don't "age" well."

That was part of my point. I NEED DETAILS! lololol

re: "I think the reason for that is that we as a society constantly evolve so universal truths will hold steady (to us) while cliche's of the day will fade/age."

That could certainly happen to a person if their politics or philosophy changed. Also, some things that impressed us at 20 no longer impress us at age 40.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 6:40:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 26, 2012 9:44:38 PM PDT
Jonathan Baker:

I think the first Star Trek film is the second worst. Shatner is hammy and it drags horribly. Star Trek 5, the one that Shatner directed, is trash. For me the best are the trilogy: 2, 3 and 4. 6 is pretty good, too.

Andromeda Strain is good because it is adult science fiction, but it drags, too. The actress who plays one of the scientists pronounces nuclear as "nucular." I'll never forgive Wise for letting that get by. Of the three you mentioned, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is certainly the best. Unbelievably, he also directed "West Side Story."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 6:46:33 PM PDT
"The Exorcist" has a few subtle moments of brilliance and yet also contains those notorious broad shock moments that seem vulgar just for the sake of it. Some people fainted in 1973; that's actually very exciting, that a movie could have such power and strong reaction. That must have been good for box office, people wanting to see this film because it was supposedly so disturbing.

The big shocks (head spinning, masturbation with a religious symbol, projectile vomit, bed shaking, unexpected vocal profanity, etc) are almost laughable to me, and have been ever since I saw the movie. These things come off almost cartoony.

I've always believed that if we removed those over-the-top things we would have a much more effective and moody horror film, no question. So maybe it's another case where the "less is best" philosophy is needed, as in "Jaws" and "Alien".

There are elements in "The Exorcist" that are genuinely memorable, like Father Karras' struggles with his elderly mother. That stayed with me, even though it was in the shadow of the demonic storyline.

I think it's still a good movie overall. And it's hardly a postcard from the 1970's, which is good. But all that demonic showmanship seems silly.

Posted on Jul 26, 2012 6:50:25 PM PDT
I think "Taxi Driver" (1976) is still very powerful and disturbing and is more relavent than ever to our society, such as it is. Just look at what happend in Aurora a few days ago. And you can be certain that something like it or worse will happen before too long.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 6:59:09 PM PDT
Re: I'll never forgive Wise for letting that get by. Of the three you mentioned, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is certainly the best. Unbelievably, he also directed "West Side Story."

Didn't he also helm "The Haunting" as well as "The Sound of Music"? Versatile.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 7:43:52 PM PDT
Baron:
Yes, he did. "The Haunting" is actually a good picture; certainly superior to the remake, which certainly isn't saying much. "Sound of Music" is good, too, if you like that sort of thing.

Posted on Jul 26, 2012 9:05:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 26, 2012 9:47:17 PM PDT
Here are some films that were/are popular or initially highly regarded that I don't think have aged well:
"The Great Zeigfeld" BP Oscar for 1936. Very, very long. Good musical numbers but the spaces between them are endless.
"Gone With the Wind" (1939). I know, I know, but for me it doesn't evoke the Old South, but rather the old 1930s, especially Gable's performance.
"Babes in Arms" (1941) Rooney and Garland razz-a-ma-tazz and little else.
"Saboteur" (1942) Lesser Hitchcock here; Cummings simply wrong for the part. Exciting finish.
"Arsenic and Old Lace" (1944) Grant just isn't funny here. Got better as he got older.
"Gaslight" (1944) An overrated picture. The original 1940 British version is a better film.
"Spellbound" (1945) Peck acts like a zombie. Not particularly engaging Hitch for me.
"Stage Fright" (1950) Bad Hitchcock.
"Annie Get Your Gun" (1950) Very popular boring musical.
"The Greatest Show on Earth" This turkey got the best picture Oscar of 1952. A crashing bore.
"The High and the Mighty" (1954) A big deal then. Corn right off the cob.
"Porgy and Bess" (1959) Both the Gershwin and Goldwyn estates hated it so much they demanded to have it taken out of circulation.
"Plan 9 from Outer Space" (1959) I'm beginning to think this is a pretty good film. I go for shock therapy tomorrow morning.
"West Side Story" (1961) Not aging well. Stage version, when well done, is super.
"Cleopatra" (1963) What can you say? 4 hours of soap opera but her entrance into Rome is a gas.
"A Shot in the Dark" (1964) Thought this was a scream when new. Now I don't crack a smile at it.
"Thunderball" (1965) One of the least interesting of the Bonds. Underwater scenes go on forever.
"Butch Cassidy, etc." (1969) I like this flick, but now the "Raindrops" number is completely out of place.
"What's Up, Doc?" (1972) A fatal case of the cutes.
"Superman II" (1981) Terribly corny now.
"Crash" (2005) Everybody knows the BP Oscar for this picture was a run for cover by the Academy.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 9:41:13 PM PDT
D. Duarte:

The Exorcist is noted for its shock value. For me the best of it are the scenes in Iraq with Max von Sydow. The cutsy, cuddly scenes between Ellen Burstyn and Linda Blair are enough to make you sing your lunch. With this movie, as with many today, it's all in the editing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 9:49:54 PM PDT
D. Duarte says:
What did you think about the ending?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 9:57:49 PM PDT
D. Duarte says:
Baron Sardonicus,

You said that all of the "big shocks" of the Exorcist seemed laughable to you from the very first time you saw it, so, I can't help but ask, when did you first see it? Was it on the big screen when it first came out?

The little screen many years after?

At the time of its release, those big shocks were a necessary and intrigral part of the whole experience, imo. Keep in mind that at the time, nothing like this had ever happened before on the big screen, not from a major studio at least.

As a kid, I can recall that the two most horrific and audience impactful movies of their day was "The Exocist" and "Jaws." I couldn't get in to see "The Exorcist" at first, being that it was rated "R." But did see it the first chance I got, and enjoyed it.

I think a huge part of the reason both had such high audience shock value because they picked the to monsters that parents don't say "aren't real." We had no emotional nor intellectual blinders, or protectors against them. They were both aimed, dead on, on our collective emotional achillies heels.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 9:59:37 PM PDT
Green Meanie says:
The scenes are so dark, don't they have interior lighting in the 23rd century ?

Posted on Jul 26, 2012 10:10:11 PM PDT
Green Meanie says:
Summer of '42 , My Tutor , and other coming of age films romanticized the adolescent boy becoming a man while being seduced by the older , more experienced adult woman. Nowadays the woman gets arrested and serves jail time.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 10:22:10 PM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
I'm not sure that's fair to Jack Webb. On Dragnet Jack Webb sought to engage their arguments head-on, and generally portrayed them as angry young snots who didn't know what they were talking about. That's a lot closer to the truth, than the many nostalgic portrayals written by aging boomers in the '80s. Hippies are generally portrayed as hedonistic versions of St. Francis of Assisi.

Personally I find movie portrayals of beatniks more entertaining. Particularly Frank Gorshin in more than one movie. Then there's the scene in Disney's Moon Pilot where the army rounds up all the female beatniks.

Posted on Jul 26, 2012 10:35:45 PM PDT
stevign says:
Speaking of cliches; "Alien" was one big cliche. It's your basic horror film with a maniac sneaking around the house killing the occupants. In this case the house is a space ship and the occupants aren't teenagers. Too bad, maybe if the space crew would have been 1/2 naked college chicks I wouldn't have been so bored.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 10:45:21 PM PDT
Green Meanie says:
..sounds like Jason X.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 10:46:33 PM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
Some effects seem to hold up better than others I just saw the 50s Sci-Fi epic "When World's Collide" most of the movie's practical effect hold up rather well against modern CGI except for the alen planet at the end which is obviosly a matte painting.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2012 12:01:41 AM PDT
stevign says:
Those are some excellent points CJ.

re: "and generally portrayed them as angry young snots who didn't know what they were talking about."

Many of us didn't.....and probably still don't, but I was speaking about the superficial aspects of the portrayals; the exaggerated hippie lingo, the over-the-top clothing etc. Check out the documentary of the Monterey Pop Festival some time, the crowd was far more conservatively dressed than what one would think by looking at the movies. And unless Hollywood would say that they were just portraying the really "stupid" hippies, they got that wrong most of the time as well.

re: "nostalgic portrayals written by aging boomers in the '80s"

I agree Hollywood got it mostly wrong......again. The new kids on the block, so to speak, definitely romanticized our generation in order to make us look smarter, more politically savvy and wiser than we were. Hollywood does tend to deal in caricatures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO5gKgjzsFw

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2012 12:02:07 AM PDT
stevign says:
A movie?

Posted on Jul 27, 2012 12:16:30 AM PDT
Caswell says:
The whole "Star Wars" series is a cheesy embarrassment, not to mention the TV sitcom hokeyness of the "Back to the Future" trilogy. These big budget toy commercials will be remembered with the same fondness as the ol' Toho Godzilla series. Even the effects look flat.

Posted on Jul 27, 2012 12:17:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 27, 2012 1:10:59 AM PDT
RichieV says:
Carrie holds up very well... except the psycho sound effects, when scary things are supposed to be happening on screen, eeek, eeek, eeek, eeek. And of course in modern times, the shrubbery would be trimmed for that bit at the beginning.

However, other than those two things, a movie about an over bearing mother and a girl getting bullied in school is still relevant today.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2012 12:40:27 AM PDT
Balok says:
@James N. Smith:

> Of course if we're talking dated as in story that's a bit different, but
> then how come some historicals don't feel dated even though they
> are period specific?

I suspect it's because we're not expected to share the attitudes of the characters in the film or necessarily to recognize that (say) a character was wearing clothes that would have been considered extremely chic in 1262. Whereas a movie made in 1962 might look ridiculous because the fashions depicted therein are within living memory and we know that people don't wear those kinds of clothes or hairdos today.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2012 3:28:03 AM PDT
Balok says:
@Baron Sardonicus:

> Wait, never mind, I get what was meant; maybe it doesn't sound like
> the era it was set in, it doesn't ring true to your ears.

That doesn't make it "dated" -- it makes it "anachronistic."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2012 3:35:38 AM PDT
Balok says:
@Green Meanie:

> The scenes are so dark, don't they have interior lighting in the 23rd
> century ?

If "CSI" is to be believed, they didn't have interior lighting in the 20th century.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2012 3:37:35 AM PDT
Balok says:
@C. J. Vasta:

> Personally I find movie portrayals of beatniks more entertaining.
> Particularly Frank Gorshin in more than one movie.

He's not exactly a beatnik, but Paul Newman's struggling avant-garde artist in _What a Way to Go!_ is a hoot. As is Robert Mitchum's wealthy businessman -- two guys that you might not have thought could do comedy.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2012 3:40:02 AM PDT
Balok says:
@stevign:

> "Alien" was one big cliche.

At the time (1979), the John Hurt Moment (thanx and a tip o' the hat to Steven Moffat) was as shocking as the Janet Leigh shower scene was in its day.

The real problem with "Alien" is not that it doesn't make any sense -- films of that genre rarely do or are expected to. The problem is that anyone who has ever read a science-fiction novel knows the solution to their problem about 15 minutes in and spends the rest of the movie wondering, "Just how stupid *are* these people, anyway?"
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Movie forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  80
Total posts:  738
Initial post:  Jun 13, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 29, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions