Movies that haven't stood the test of time...

JohnT · October 17, 2003, 09:46

When released, they are considered brilliant, original, daring, or a crowd-pleaser, but now, with the test of time applied to these films, they have been revealed to be just a little bit less than originally thought. Society could've moved on, making the movies assumptions squirmfully embarrassing... the film is too dated, too much a product of the age that it was filmed... over time, what was once considered cool is just embarrassing.

Some well-considered films that, imho, have not aged well, include:

ET: The Extra-Terrestial: Loved it in 1982, was shocked at how treacly and "movie-of-the-week"ish it actually was in 2002. Oh, parts of it work (ET getting bombed, Gertie) but the rest? Yech.

The Bridge Over the River Kwai: A film made today, even an historical film, based upon British mechanical and work-ethic superiority over the Japanese would be damned hard to pull off, and sure as hell wouldn't be made in the style of Kwai, where Lean's own assumption of this basic "fact" permeates every frame of the film. The world has changed too much to make this film much more than a very well-made anachronism.

West Side Story: Perhaps its just me, but this flashy, colorful story about dancing Latino gangs looks and sounds so 1962 that I can't get over it. Include the fact that I was not raised upon the Broadway tradition, and you can understand why I find the entire movie alternatingly laughably silly or a bore. If this film were released as a major, original effort today audiences would just stare slack-jawed, dumbfounded at what they were witnessing. Of all the movies I've seen (well, all the "major" non-MST3K movies that is), this is the one that has me scratching my head the most and asking Did people really buy into this crap?

What films do you think haven't stood the test of time?

Q Classic · October 17, 2003, 09:48

titanic.
girls gushed over it, forcing us guys to deal with it at agonizing length.
now, most of the girls have kinda forgotten about it, mercifully.

JohnT · October 17, 2003, 09:49

I like Titanic.

MikeH · October 17, 2003, 09:51

Don't often see girl posters pretending to be boys.

Q Classic · October 17, 2003, 09:52

johnt, i'm going to pretend i didn't hear that.

FrustratedPoet · October 17, 2003, 09:53

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
I like Titanic.

Give it 10 years. You liked ET too, remember?

Rufus T. Firefly · October 17, 2003, 10:11

Gotta say, John, I disagree with all your choices; I think all those films are watchable today, though some may not be thought as great as they once were.

I think movies that fail to stand the test of time are movies that are very much of their time, but are considered "universal" when they are made. Some examples:

The Best Years of Our Lives - in 1946, this was a much-lauded multiple-Oscar winner, a seering drama about the problems of soldiers readjusting to civilian life after WWII. Today it's ponderously dull, and more melodrama than drama.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - mid-century liberalism was a great idea for politics, but a terrible idea for movies. This is the Magnum Opus of it's chief filmic perpetrator, Stanley Kramer; and while none of Kramer's films have aged particularly well (Inherit the Wind being another fine example), this one was considered his best. Preachy, trite, and racist in spite of itself.

Kramer vs. Kramer - Today you'd expect this script to be sent straight to the Lifetime Network. But in 1979, it actually won the Best Picture Oscar over Apocalypse Now and All That Jazz, to say nothing of such unnominated gems as Manhattan, Being There, The Black Stallion and even Alien. As for it's "important message" about the divorce, child custody, and fathers, it's only barely less tedious than a blackice thread.

Bosh · October 17, 2003, 10:20

Citizen Kane
Ponderous dull POS that tries to be deep and meaningful and fails miserably.

Beat you to it Elok

duke o' york · October 17, 2003, 10:36

I love the Beatles, but Yellow Submarine has so few decent gags to tide it over now that the flower power philosophy has dated that it is now stunningly dull. Songs pretty much all rubbish too.

Except Hey Bulldog!

Harry Seldon · October 17, 2003, 11:33

I loved Citizen Kane.

I think Ladyhawke's pulsing 80's soundtrack has fallen short.

MichaeltheGreat · October 17, 2003, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

I like Titanic.

I liked the sinking part. They could have spared all the bullshit until then.

Seeker · October 17, 2003, 12:15

I'm just thinking of the Great Contradiction:

So many great films were made in the 70s....and thus cursed forever with 70s hair and decorating.

Dated movies:

Quo Vadis

Metropolis (it's really really hard to get into any silent films)

Jim Belushi's WW2 North Africa movie. All stereotypes ALL the TIME!

Sands of Iwo Jima: we can do better than stock footage and only ever seeing the enemy up close twice for cheesy sword killings.

And yes, any movie cursed with upbeat 80s theme music....Goonies was a classic 80s kids adventure movie, but Cindy Lauper just hasn't weathered well.

Same with 'the Explorers' 'the Wizard' 'Flight of the Navigator' 'Cloak & Dagger' all the other 80s 'kidventure' genre movies. ESPECIALLY 'Wargames'.

Japher · October 17, 2003, 12:20

Many horror movies have a hard time continuing to be scary.

The Exorsist, was good then, sucks now

Amityville Horror

Child's Play

JohnT · October 17, 2003, 12:40

Wow, Japher. I consider the Exorcist to still be the most effective horror movie ever made.

Good choices, Rufus!

Especially the "Guess Who" nomination. "In the Heat of the Night" hasn't stood up too well either, but at least it boasts some rock-solid performances by Steiger and Portier.

JohnT · October 17, 2003, 12:44

Btw, Rufus, I don't think my selections are unwatchable (well, maybe WSS) I just don't think they've stood up very well to the changing times. For example I do have Bridge and ET on DVD so it isn't as if I dislike them.

monkspider · October 17, 2003, 13:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Boshko
Citizen Kane
Ponderous dull POS that tries to be deep and meaningful and fails miserably.

Screw you.

The correct answer is "Birth of a Nation".

Dis · October 20, 2003, 12:06

Rambo

hell going psycho and tearing up a town is pretty run of the mill now days

Sarxis · October 20, 2003, 15:19

THX 1138

Dis · October 20, 2003, 15:21

Red Dawn. not that the movie was that good in the first place.

Wargames- yes I definately have to agree there. The computer technology is horribly out of date.

I suppose you could include Tron in that list as well.

Any movie when ww3 breaks out before 2003

.

Jac de Molay · October 20, 2003, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
Many horror movies have a hard time continuing to be scary.

The Exorsist, was good then, sucks now

Dude, that is still a hella scary movie! Especially that first scene in Iraq with the archaelogical dig, where Max Von Sydow is sitting in that bare room looking at the statuette and the clock, barely perceptible in the background, stops.

Creepy sh*t.

Edit: That's also one the scarier books written as well.

asleepathewheel · October 20, 2003, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Any movie when ww2 breaks out before 2003

.

So any WW2 movie? I haven't seen any futuristic WW2 movies....

Combat Ingrid · October 20, 2003, 16:07

st_swithin · October 20, 2003, 16:11

Labyrinth - I thought that this was so much better when I was 12.
Legend - I thought that this was so much better when I was 12.
Ladyhawke - I thought that this was so much better when I was 12.

Holy crispy crap, Batman, I'm really old.

Az · October 20, 2003, 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

I liked the sinking part. They could have spared all the bullshit until then.

My mother and father both watched the movie together. Both cried in the sinking part. Mom because of the story dramah, dad, because of the courage of the captain who went down with the ship ( dad's a captain, too )

Tripledoc · October 20, 2003, 16:24

The Dictator by Charlie Chaplin.
I doubt that anyone would make a comedy about Hitler these days, with Bush in office an all. Except maybe the Farrely Brothers.

It is still a funny movie, nevertheless.

Buck Birdseed · October 20, 2003, 16:40

I like both In The Heat of the Night and The Dictator.

My most dated film is 2001: A Space Oddysey hands down. Ignore the blatant and unpleasant christian propaganda and what's left? Bad monkey suits. Fifteen minutes of 60s effect-****ery set to some of the most overanthologised classical music you can buy. Twenty minutes of meaningless babble on a moon colony, most of which is centered around how wonderful this future technology we're using is eh eh. A decent sequence involving a killer computer. And then the remaining half an hour is left to a really drawn-out and unpleasant trip sequence. *shudder*

It's not nicely filmed, it's not intelligent, the sci-fi is immensely clichéd and the effects/technology predictions the whole thing rest on are really, really dated.

Dis · October 20, 2003, 20:17

err make that ww3

pchang · October 20, 2003, 21:11

Really, when it came out it was viewed as a real land mark. Now, it is just cheesy.

Sikander · October 20, 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Gotta say, John, I disagree with all your choices; I think all those films are watchable today, though some may not be thought as great as they once were.

I agree. Though I've never seen ET (and have no plans to do so), West Side Story is still interesting to me because of the dancing and the music. The plot wasn't even all that interesting in 1962 in all likelihood (though the subject matter was a good deal more germain to the audience in large cities because of the large amount of street gang violence in the 1950s). But the music and dancing are still pretty cool.

Bridge over the River Kwai is a film that I haven't seen in a long time, but it seems to me that a great performance or three isn't going to be completely lost on me only 30 or so years after the fact. Sure people might have a different idea of the Japanese these days, but the fact of the matter is that the Japanese of WW2 and the idea of the Japanese some of us might have today are very different creatures. I think a lot of people are either blind or sophisticated enough to see this film without having it ruined by the lens of the early 1960s.

I think movies that fail to stand the test of time are movies that are very much of their time, but are considered "universal" when they are made. Some examples:

Quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The Best Years of Our Lives - in 1946, this was a much-lauded multiple-Oscar winner, a seering drama about the problems of soldiers readjusting to civilian life after WWII. Today it's ponderously dull, and more melodrama than drama.

I saw this film recently myself, and while disappointing I still thought that there were parts of it that were strong. In particular the "actor" with no hands was still extraordinarily compelling. The love stories varied considerably, but I have no connection to about half of the love stories in other films of this age either. Things are simply that different, I can't read all the clues that an audience in 1946 could about a character, much less have the same reaction to them.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - mid-century liberalism was a great idea for politics, but a terrible idea for movies. This is the Magnum Opus of it's chief filmic perpetrator, Stanley Kramer; and while none of Kramer's films have aged particularly well (Inherit the Wind being another fine example), this one was considered his best. Preachy, trite, and racist in spite of itself.

This film was outdated in the 1970s when I saw it. Part of the problem is the moving target of race relations and ideas about race. Another part of the problem is that IMO discussing race (or race consciousness more accurately) is tantamount to perpetuating racism. It's the idea that someone's "race" is more important than say their build or hair color that is the foundation of all the other crap. So I don't blame the film for this. It's interesting to watch from an historical standpoint, but it has no universality to protect it from the passage of time, other than perhaps the fact that Tracy and Hepburn and Poitier are pretty interesting actors.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Kramer vs. Kramer - Today you'd expect this script to be sent straight to the Lifetime Network. But in 1979, it actually won the Best Picture Oscar over Apocalypse Now and All That Jazz, to say nothing of such unnominated gems as Manhattan, Being There, The Black Stallion and even Alien. As for it's "important message" about the divorce, child custody, and fathers, it's only barely less tedious than a blackice thread.

Another puke-fest that I have never seen. It looked about as compelling as Tootsie at the time, and I couldn't afford to waste my money on it because I was too busy seeing Apocolypse Now, All that Jazz, Manhattan, and Being There. All of these films IMO are better than the Best Picture in most years, and as you point out they all came out in a flurry. A best picture Oscar is still a more predictable measure of quality than a Grammy, but the two awards are converging quickly in terms of their usefullness to me.

Sikander · October 20, 2003, 21:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
Many horror movies have a hard time continuing to be scary.

The Exorsist, was good then, sucks now

It was so bad in the 70s that we couldn't quit laughing at it and almost got thrown out of the theatre. Yes, they had people that actually worked at the theatre while you were there then.

Perhaps I was a bit jaded because I read William PeePee Bladder's book when I was 12, and it did scare me.