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

[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.

[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

[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!" 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.

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

[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.