Movies that (you feel) have not aged well???

[AcesandEights]

I introduced my girlfriend to Top Secret (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088286/) on netflix a few weeks back, as I had watched the film a lot when I was a kid and seemed to recall liking it at the time. Of course, its been 20 years since I've seen this and though I don't think I held high expectations for it, it just fell flat for me, and my girlfriend didn't go in for it either. I mean it was wretched. I got up after the first 20 or so minutes of the film, told my girlfriend I'd be back and went to bed...:D I don't know why, but I felt the need to make good an escape.

Anyway, I was just wondering what films haven't aged very well in your eyes, or what movies you loved as a kid that you just can't sit through nowadays (probably an easier to list to come up with)?

[acealive1]

real genius, most of the friday the 13th series because it looks so dated, ghostbusters

[bassman]

ghostbusters

Blasphemy.

[BillyRay]

Burton's Batman.

Aged worse than Nicholson...

[clanglee]

I hear ya about Top Secret. . .It's something about those silly comedy movies that just don't hold well. But I still love to quote the movie. "Say Chowder Frenchie" or "This is our tunnel expert DeJaVu. . . ." "Have we not me before?"

I can't think of any badly aged movies offhand right now.

[bassman]

Oh yeah....I forgot to take this opportunity to be the honest fan here: Dawn of the Dead.

I still love it. For some reasons I can't really explain. But aged well, it has not.

[darth los]

The truth he speaks.

:cool:

[krakenslayer]

I think Dawn of the Dead has aged badly in some respects and very well in others. Visually, it does look quite dated. But the actual plot, characters, dialogue, etc. is still very gripping even today. Ironically, in my experience, newcomers to the film now tend to accept it as a film of its time (thanks, I suppose, to the increased awareness and understanding of 70s exploitation movies in the modern mainstream due to the likes of Tarantino) and overlook the imperfections more willingly than hardcore fans.

Superman 1 & 2 are another couple of movies that have aged poorly in certain respects while still remaining extremely watchable and powerful.

I'm sad to say, I think Halloween has aged quite poorly. I saw the original film quite late in my horror-watching life (at about 16) and I did not find it scary, shocking or even very suspenseful at all. Don't get me wrong; it's an entertaining film, and Donald Pleasance is awesome in it, but it just didn't affect me much at all. I can understand why it was considered quite ground-breaking at the time, but to me, The Fog, The Thing, EFNY and Assault on Precinct 13 are the true early-Carpenter classics. Those four films are virtually timeless.

Ghostbusters hasn't aged at all. The effects still look great, the comedy is as sharp as ever. We still sometimes use the Blu-Ray at work to demonstrate how great Hi-Def looks on a big screen TV.

[JDFP]

Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will". :D:p

I always get a kick out of the subtle things in older films that just don't happen anymore...

-- People smoking EVERYWHERE (elevators, freakin' hospitals man, around children, etc.).

-- 70's films with 70's fashion/style, man. I find it so groovy, you dig? Honestly, you can tell if a film is made in the 70's or not just by looking at stuff people are wearing (this includes "Dawn" '78). If they have clothes on that people in any other decade would find atrociously appaling (or look back at with a grin saying: "Wow, awesome velour sports jacket, man! I bet you get all the chics with that!") or just strangely interesting then you know it's a 70's film. Same thing goes with 70's fashion. Good God, there was some ugly carpet and furniture made in the 70's.

This is why "Dawn" has aged so badly (more so than the original "NOTLD" if you ask me) -- because of the clothes/style.

-- Films where all women do is scream when confronted by a monster and freeze in terror relying on valiant men to save them from the evil whateveritis creature. (This goes hand in hand with films where women actually defer to their husband's/man's better judgement ;)).

j.p.

[MoonSylver]

Hurm. Don't get the lack of love for "Top Secret" at all. If I found it funny back in the day, I still find it funny now. Caught the 1st hour of "Airplane" the other night (which is a move that is MUCH more dated than Top Secret) & it still cracked me up. There are a tone of 80's comedies I still feel this way about.

I'm pretty tolerant of the way a move ages, IF it's one that I'm "into". So Dawn, Phantasm, etc, while I can recognize that certain aspects of them are "dated", I've seen them so many times, that it doesn't affect me.

All this recent discussion of "Superman" did make me think of this very subject though. I saw it for the first time in a long time last year, and was pretty shocked how dated & retro it seemed.

[clanglee]

Ooohhh I though of one. . . Bachelor Party!!

[triste realtà]

The Boogens TCM October 22 is what I am going to see about. I found it very creepy way back then on TMC. Other than that Beyond and Back's single hell scene didn't freak me out as much as it did on Suspense Theater. Invasion from Inner Earth was a little less weird but not much.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Dawn hasn't aged well... but it is still enjoyable to watch.

Meatballs hasn't aged well, neither has a majority of the horror flicks we grew up on. However, I will say the horror that has aged very well... Day of the Dead still works, Return of the Living Dead still works. ANOES 3 works... But a great majority of the flicks we grew up on haven't aged well at all. However, their age shouldn't stop your enjoyment of those movie in the least.

[LouCipherr]

Day of the Dead still works, Return of the Living Dead still works. ANOES 3 works... But a great majority of the flicks we grew up on haven't aged well at all. However, their age shouldn't stop your enjoyment of those movie in the least.

ANOES 3? Are you on dope? If you had said The Thing, I might agree with you, but ANOES 3? :duh: :lol:

[bassman]

Day of the Dead still works, Return of the Living Dead still works.

These two haven't aged well for their music alone. If Day had a different score, you could probably convince someone that it was made last year. Return would be a bit more tricky because of it's 80's "punk" thing, but the music is what really dates it.


Ghostbusters hasn't aged at all. The effects still look great, the comedy is as sharp as ever. We still sometimes use the Blu-Ray at work to demonstrate how great Hi-Def looks on a big screen TV.

Couldn't agree more with the first two sentences(obviously, if you know me). But I would be careful with that Blu Ray. It IS the best looking version of the film yet, but it's still really grainy. I think that would probably turn some people off. You should show them The Dark Knight, Wizard of Oz, Caino Royale, Godfather or something like that. Those picture qualities are enough to turn even the most stubborn BR-hater over to our side.

[darth los]

The grainyness is where HD hurts alot of older films. The sharpness just magnifies the film stock it"s already on.

Still love it though but that's to be expected.

:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ghostbusters hasn't aged at all. The effects still look great, the comedy is as sharp as ever. We still sometimes use the Blu-Ray at work to demonstrate how great Hi-Def looks on a big screen TV.

GB Blu-Ray is not great Demo material at all. As BM noted, Dark Knight, or even Zombieland makes great Demo Material for Blu-Ray. While I don't care for the movie Hot Fuzz is great for demo material, but you wanna really impress people... get Planet Erath the David Attenborough narrated set now that is excellent PQ.

[MinionZombie]

Interesting that Deej brought up "Meatballs". I saw it for the first time about two months ago, if that, and I thought it was pretty crap ... the only good thing about it was (naturally) Bill-fucking-Murray. And that "are you ready for the summer?!" song, as-shouted by a bunch of high-pitched brats, did my head in the first time, nevermind the several times, they used it in the movie. It's really tame as well, and there's barely any comedy in it so it seems ... until Murray rocks up that is, apart from that though - dreadful.

Dawn of the Dead, to me, has only "aged" in that nobody wears flared trousers and polyester/nylon shirts anymore (whatever the 70s favourite man-made fabric was). The only thing that "ages" it is the fashion and the props - like the TVs and technology on show - but that's so often the case with many movies. If that sort of thing puts people off movies - in general - then they should just stop watching movies altogether.

What truly makes a movie "not age well" (for me at least) is when you watch it and think "good god, this was a mistake to make" ... I'm trying to think of an example, but I have seen a few in recent years that I just thought "who thought this was a good idea at the time?!"

Sure, everything technically "ages", like we all do as people, but a movie just getting old isn't a bad thing. Dawn might have old fashions and clunky old black and white TVs in it, but the movie has stood tall since it's premiere because of how good it is.

What would class a movie "aging well"? Not noticing, or not caring what decade it was made in? It's a tricky thing really ... you can so often tell what decade a movie was made in, but is that a bad thing? Does it detract from the movie? No. If anything it's something to enjoy.

The only time when a movie truly "ages badly" is when it's a shit movie - like Judge Dredd. I recently re-watched that and good god, what a stinker. There's a painfully early-to-mid-90s attitude towards what a "comic book movie means" and yeah ... it's a right old stinker.

Meanwhile a year or two later, Stallone did Demolition Man - and that movie is still awesome - hence it has "aged well" ... but does it's age have anything to do with it? No, it's still awesome because it was an awesome movie in the first place ... the only bad thing about are the 'fire effects' on the 'burning building' at the very end (truly shocking), but so what, you know?

...

Speaking of a timeless movie(s) - the Back to the Future trilogy. Despite some of the effects looking a bit old now (surely some colour correction would help them blend in more - just like they did with the matte paintings in Blade Runner), and some of the fashion (stonewashed denim ... which, personally, I still think is cool) those movies truly hold together as pure quality entertainment. I recently saw the first movie in the cinema (and then 2 and 3 on DVD to round-out the trilogy - when you watch one, you can't not watch two and three :)) and it was great - young families brought along their kids, and those kids enjoyed the movie and saw why it was so good.

[Tricky]

I caught the film "flash gordon" on TV the other week one lazy hungover sunday afternoon, and my god that film looks terrible now! It was never good to start with, but is downright bloody awful now, the special effects & costumes are appalling!
The last time I caught "Aliens" on TV it looked quite dated, but I bought the special edition DVD a couple of weeks ago & when I watched it, the parts that looked bad on TV actually didnt on the DVD, must be to do with the picture quality I guess! The dropship scenes havent aged well though, you can tell its a plastic model, but its still an awesome film!

[AcesandEights]

I caught the film "flash gordon" on TV the other week one lazy hungover sunday afternoon, and my god that film looks terrible now! It was never good to start with, but is downright bloody awful now, the special effects & costumes are appalling!

That movie was always appalling.

And thank you for getting that Queen Flash Gordon song stuck in my head this Friday, Tricky :p

[MoonSylver]

Ooohhh I though of one. . . Bachelor Party!!

Oh you mean still funny? Yep. ;) "A little vino, whould be keen-o! I want some wiiiiine!" :lol:


These two haven't aged well for their music alone. If Day had a different score, you could probably convince someone that it was made last year. Return would be a bit more tricky because of it's 80's "punk" thing, but the music is what really dates it.

Meh. Part of the charm on both for me. ;)



Dawn of the Dead, to me, has only "aged" in that nobody wears flared trousers and polyester/nylon shirts anymore (whatever the 70s favourite man-made fabric was). The only thing that "ages" it is the fashion and the props - like the TVs and technology on show - but that's so often the case with many movies. If that sort of thing puts people off movies - in general - then they should just stop watching movies altogether.

What truly makes a movie "not age well" (for me at least) is when you watch it and think "good god, this was a mistake to make" ... I'm trying to think of an example, but I have seen a few in recent years that I just thought "who thought this was a good idea at the time?!"

Sure, everything technically "ages", like we all do as people, but a movie just getting old isn't a bad thing. Dawn might have old fashions and clunky old black and white TVs in it, but the movie has stood tall since it's premiere because of how good it is.

What would class a movie "aging well"? Not noticing, or not caring what decade it was made in? It's a tricky thing really ... you can so often tell what decade a movie was made in, but is that a bad thing? Does it detract from the movie? No. If anything it's something to enjoy.

+1000 & 1 :)


I caught the film "flash gordon" on TV the other week one lazy hungover sunday afternoon, and my god that film looks terrible now! It was never good to start with, but is downright bloody awful now, the special effects & costumes are appalling!

But wasn't it all REALLY calculated for maximum cheese effect? I always assumed so, 'cause that move looked dated when it was NEW. :lol:

[shootemindehead]

Really depends on what one means by "aged". 'The French Connection' has aged, but still looks (and is) a fantastic film. The later 'Dawn of the Dead' has aged, but looks bloody awful in comparison. Likewise, 'Martin' looks rubbish as well, even though the two films have a special place in my heart.

Most WWII movies from the early 60's backwards have aged terribly too. Full of the most appaling cliches and awful jingoism. I just cannot watch them anymore.

50's sci-fi on the other hand has aged well, in my opinion. But that's partly because of the spirit that I watch them in. 'Them' and 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' being outstanding examples. They've aged "well" I spose because the were age-ed before I was born.

Some 80's filcks have suffered badly though, I believe as they tried too hard to capture the "feel" of the decade and therefore have been banished to 80's hell, even though I have a soft spot for some of them. 'Repo Man' just looks old now.

'Flash Gordon' was always bollocks, though. Not only that, but the soundtrack was by one of the worst bands ever. HATE Queen. HATE.

One film that has aged superbly though is 'Jaws'. Looks as good today as it did in 1975.

[acealive1]

'Flash Gordon' was always bollocks, though. Not only that, but the soundtrack was by one of the worst bands ever. HATE Queen. HATE.









LOL so thats why it did so good in europe at the box office?

[Danny]

i was looking at ghostbusters on blu-ray earlier, honestly i am hesitant about this one. the ghosts in particular.

[AcesandEights]

HATE Queen. HATE.

You go too far, sir! Too far!

(Though I never particulaly liked the cheesy Flash & Highlander songs they did, but I do still think they're damnably catchy.)

[bassman]

i was looking at ghostbusters on blu-ray earlier, honestly i am hesitant about this one. the ghosts in particular.

Do you mean the effects? They look the same as always on the blu ray. The problem with the blu ray is the grain. A problem that I hear is common with a bunch of older movies and the certain film they used. But nah...the effects still look the same, really. Only sometimes you see the mat line around them, but that's about it.

[The Great Gazoo]

Most WWII movies from the early 60's backwards have aged terribly too. Full of the most appaling cliches and awful jingoism. I just cannot watch them anymore.

50's sci-fi on the other hand has aged well, in my opinion. But that's partly because of the spirit that I watch them in. 'Them' and 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' being outstanding examples. They've aged "well" I spose because the were age-ed before I was born.


the older war movies have all been torpedoed by the ultra-realism used in modern movies & TV shows.

as for 50's scifi: I totally agree with you. many of those films, especially "the thing from another world" , are flicks that i can watch time and time again.

[bassman]

the older war movies have all been torpedoed by the ultra-realism used in modern movies & TV shows.



Not to mention the overused "private ryan" shakey cam. It worked for Spielberg's film, but now it seems to be the norm. Kinda annoying...

[MoonSylver]

Not to mention the overused "private ryan" shakey cam. It worked for Spielberg's film, but now it seems to be the norm. Kinda annoying...

Make that damn annoying. Only other movie I can think of where it worked well was "Children of Men". Other than that, looks like the camera man is having a seizure. Between that & fight scenes where it looks like the camera man was getting attacked as well...:mad:

If I wanted to watch movies & NOT see what was going on...well...I wouldn't watch 'em in the first place! :rant: :lol:

[bassman]

yup. The only recent movie I can think of that used it well was Star Trek. It wasn't too over the top. If the camera man tries to make it shakey himself, that's when it becomes annoying. The trick is having an outside source cause the vibration, so the cameraman's reaction is to fight against it. Then it turns out being shakey and exciting, but not so much that you have no idea what's going on. If you look at the trek special features, it was Abrams causing the shaking by banging on the back of the camera while the camera man tried to hold it steady.

[krakenslayer]

Couldn't agree more with the first two sentences(obviously, if you know me). But I would be careful with that Blu Ray. It IS the best looking version of the film yet, but it's still really grainy. I think that would probably turn some people off. You shoultd show them The Dark Knight, Wizard of Oz, Caino Royale, Godfather or something like that. Those picture qualities are enough to turn even the most stubborn BR-hater over to our side.

Yes, it is kind of grainy but it's more of a FILM GRAIN as opposed to DVD digital compression-looking grain. It makes for a good talking point - HD allows such high resolutions that the actual analogue celluloid grain of the original footage comes through. It can be part of what gives a film its characteristic look and feel. If you look at the French Connection BR, for example, it's extremely grainy, but its completely natural and deliberate, and makes the film look gritty and noirish, as it was supposed to be.

You are right though, some customers have no undestanding of the artistic applications of film grain, and want everything to look like it was shot on Digital Video. Which is a shame. But some people really go for it.

[shootemindehead]

You go too far, sir! Too far!

(Though I never particulaly liked the cheesy Flash & Highlander songs they did, but I do still think they're damnably catchy.)

SLAP!

I stand by my words sir! Choose your second...I'll see you at dawn!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1XbCsR5voz8/SIOObgS_b-I/AAAAAAAABLM/21ydMQuwz4U/s400/The%2BDuelists%2B1977.jpg

[shootemindehead]

the older war movies have all been torpedoed by the ultra-realism used in modern movies & TV shows.

as for 50's scifi: I totally agree with you. many of those films, especially "the thing from another world" , are flicks that i can watch time and time again.

Actually, I would say that they were torpedoed by the likes of 'Cross of Iron' and 'A Bridge Too Far' etc. Both made in the 70's. I think the post Vietnam audience and the fact that Hollywood was (at that point) willing to try anything made all the difference.

Unfortuantely, war movies today are settling down into "preachy mode" again and are generating their own cliches.

[Tricky]

Another thing that's really torpedoed the old war movies is that people won't stand for modern tanks with crosses painted on being passed off as third Reich era tanks, so they have to be either extremely good replicas or the real thing on screen. Any war movie worth its salt needs to use 100% accurate period gear & military terminology, or it will be picked apart by people who have actually served, historians or armchair generals. Hell even your average gamer knows what a tiger tank looks like! Films like "the battle of the bulge" and "the dirty dozen" look pretty damned bad now!
80's actioners are pretty bad too, commando being a prime candidate! It's great to watch for sure, but modern audiences won't put up with guns that never need reloading & lead characters with god mode on!

[shootemindehead]

Yes Trick, you're 100% correct. Films like 'The Battle of the Bulge' are laughable now.

However, even the "tiger" from 'Saving Private Ryan' fails under close inspection. It's built on a T-34 chasis. Personally, I think it looks the business. But, some purists go wild. It's the least of SPR's problems though.

[Tricky]

Yes Trick, you're 100% correct. Films like 'The Battle of the Bulge' are laughable now.

However, even the "tiger" from 'Saving Private Ryan' fails under close inspection. It's built on a T-34 chasis. Personally, I think it looks the business. But, some purists go wild. It's the least of SPR's problems though.

Yeah the SPR one has completely the wrong running gear, that stands out really badly, but other than that it looks good. Although hanks firing through the drivers view port is ridiculous, I've clambered around a real tiger at bovington tank museum & its safe to say that couldn't have happened! Flawed film but the d.day scene is still awesome!
Band of brothers pulled it off much better, very accurate barring the tigers in a couple of scenes!

[shootemindehead]

Yep, the blocks of armoured glass would have had Hank's bullets rebounding in a very dangerous fashion. However, there are cases where they were removed in the field by the drivers. It's doubtfull that they all would have been taken out though.

I can forgive Ryan's "Tigers". Like I can forgive 'Kelly's Heroes' Tigers. But at least in Ryan they attempted to get the camo correct.

Always wanted to head to Bovington myself. Haven't got over yet. Their Tiger is still running I believe. That would be a hell of a sight...(and sound).

[Tricky]

Yep, the blocks of armoured glass would have had Hank's bullets rebounding in a very dangerous fashion. However, there are cases where they were removed in the field by the drivers. It's doubtfull that they all would have been taken out though.

I can forgive Ryan's "Tigers". Like I can forgive 'Kelly's Heroes' Tigers. But at least in Ryan they attempted to get the camo correct.

Always wanted to head to Bovington myself. Haven't got over yet. Their Tiger is still running I believe. That would be a hell of a sight...(and sound).


Yeah its definitely worth seeing Bovingtons Tiger, they've got the engine running 100% now & it sounds a beast! cost them enough money to get it running though, but I'm pretty sure it will have recouped it with the amount of people who go there just to see that one tank! Hopefully one day it will get used in a film so we finally have one where they got it right! Although I'm sure some well done cgi could do it too now