Films That Don't Stand the Test of Time

[prplchknz]

Uh, bad, actually. It kind of worries me that people these days are so entertained by horrific violence and nightmare-inducing imagery. People have always loved being scared, of course, but it didn't used to be so extreme. They keep pushing the envelope, making movies, TV shows, and video games more and more graphic and disturbing. I don't think it contributes to a healthy state of mind.

But anyway. That's for another thread.


When I think of "cringe-inducing racism", the first movie that immediately comes to mind is Breakfast at Tiffany's. Holy hell. Mickey Rooney as a bumbling, buck-toothed Japanese guy. I wish I could un-see that.

you want to see when gore started getting really bad watch flesh for frankenstein it was made in the 70s. in some ways its more gory then a lot of films even today.

 

[Crabs]

I like some psychological or supernatural horror, but not the gory kind. Never understood the fascination with slasher flicks either. Is it some sort of socially-acceptable, cathartic way of dealing with angry and violent emotions? If so, then it's better than acting upon those impulses in reality, but I'm wary of people who seem excessively drawn to violent imagery.

 

[Jaguar]

I like some psychological or supernatural horror, but not the gory kind. Never understood the fascination with slasher flicks either. Is it some sort of socially-acceptable, cathartic way of dealing with angry and violent emotions? If so, then it's better than acting upon those impulses in reality, but I'm wary of people who seem excessively drawn to violent imagery.

How about psychos sawing off the limbs of people with blood squirting in the air? It's magic. I love it. (I'm kidding.) I can't stand that mindless shit.

 

[SD45T-2]

How about psychos sawing off the limbs of people with blood squirting in the air? It's magic. I love it. (I'm kidding.) I can't stand that mindless shit.

 

[Jaguar]

As I was saying . . . mindless shit.

 

[wolfy]

That Python sketch is hilarious.

 

[Qlip]

Titanic. I assume if I re-watched it, it wouldn't be a horrible movie, but, No. 2 in box office history? I think the difficulty with answering the O.P. is that pretty much all major movies are throw away, and the ones that have some merit to them don't really get wide audience appeal so don't make great discussion topics.

 

[Totenkindly]

Titanic. I assume if I re-watched it, it wouldn't be a horrible movie, but, No. 2 in box office history? I think the difficulty with answering the O.P. is that pretty much all major movies are throw away, and the ones that have some merit to them don't really get wide audience appeal so don't make great discussion topics.

Yeah. I think blockbusters have their place, even if they aren't necessarily as decent as some of the smaller movies, arthouse movies, etc. [I should also note that, while I appreciate quality in a blockbuster in terms of characterization, drama, etc., I go there looking for some other things versus a dramatic movie per se. Blockbusters often utilize some decent action sequences, for example; a dramatic movie can be focused on character interactions and thus has to deliver on that end since it can't rely on other strengths.]

I was actually thinking of Titanic, I just hadn't gotten around to posting yet. I think Cameron has a high level of detail involved in his sets and the time sequence and constructing a real sense of "you are there" in the last few days of this ship. He also had a historical event already surrounded by mystique and romanticized tragedy that he was riding on.

However, aside from Jack revitalizing Rose / sacrificing himself for her and the sense of Rose losing herself by trying to regain her family's fortunes for everyone else's benefit (and some of the broad class conflicts, comparing the first-class and third-class sections of the ship, for example), the Rose/Jack romance was pretty thin, it's not one of DiCaprio's better performances (his lines typically fell flat / sounded garbled), Billy Zane is kind of over the top in spots, and Bill Paxton is miscast, among other issues.

The movie could have been much more solid versus coasting on the set/timeline detail, so it was disappointing compared to how much it might have been. Still, box office is more about whether you can get repeat viewings plus hit the largest demographic; it can be somewhat correlated to quality (a really crappy movie usually won't get the numbers out for a prolonged period of time) but not directly.

Cameron had similar issues with Avatar, even more directly related to the script. Again, he had some great actors who brought oomph to their roles (Zoe Saldana and Stephan Lang are the main two I'm thinking of -- I think they were really good there), but when you miscast your lead (Sam Worthington really is a lousy actor, even if he's got action chops), rip off an old storyline we've already seen, and waste some great actors (like Giovannia Ribisi) with really crappy lines, well... yes, you made a ton of money mostly through the spectacle of the set and the experience of 3D (which was novel at the time) but not a movie that will endure as technology improves and it's one really strong saving factor is thus eroded.

 

[Lark]

From a Cracked.com article -

"The end result is films that absolutely don't stand the test of time, because once the audience is immune to the spectacle, all that's left is a bunch of lackluster mouthbreathers."

Which films does this colorful statement describe to you?

The first and only movie that popped into my head upon reading that was Independence Day. The excitement I felt when seeing the previews of this movie only rivaled (at the time) the excitement I felt seeing previews of "Star Wars" on TV (and it's not "Star Wars: A New Hope," just "Star Wars").

(THIS IS NOT A STAR WARS THREAD! and I sincerely doubt it's one of the movies which didn't stand the test of time.)

ID4 has both the spectacle - and the build-up from Hollywood advertisers - and the mouth-breathers such as Harvey Fierstein who played "Marty Gilbert," a character that should have been listed alongside "Man in office."

To my discredit, it took 5 straight viewings of ID4 to see it for what it was - typical Hollywood schlock.

I dont think any singular movie stands out but a lot of the clones or franchises do, like the Final Destination series, I Know what you did last summer series, that kind of thing, because those movies are sort of like the processed food of cinematic releases.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Cameron had similar issues with Avatar, even more directly related to the script. Again, he had some great actors who brought oomph to their roles (Zoe Saldana and Stephan Lang are the main two I'm thinking of -- I think they were really good there), but when you miscast your lead (Sam Worthington really is a lousy actor, even if he's got action chops), rip off an old storyline we've already seen, and waste some great actors (like Giovannia Ribisi) with really crappy lines, well... yes, you made a ton of money mostly through the spectacle of the set and the experience of 3D (which was novel at the time) but not a movie that will endure as technology improves and it's one really strong saving factor is thus eroded.

Avatar had the stereotypical thing with the outsider from the more "advanced " culture stepping in as the savior of a more "primitive" culture. To me that sounds extremely imperialistic, and it's baffling to me that people can love the movie and still talk about the evils of imperialism. It seems to me to reflect this complex a lot of people have of wanting to act as "the liberator" of some oppressed or disadvantaged group. Ultimately, it's selfish behavior, because being a savior figure is about gratifying the ego; true selfless behavior would be helping people to stand on their own two feet so that they don't need anybody else to save them.

It's kind of annoying how persistently people refuse to learn any kind of lesson about why that doesn't work.

 

[Crabs]

How about psychos sawing off the limbs of people with blood squirting in the air? It's magic. I love it. (I'm kidding.) I can't stand that mindless shit.

I liked the movie Se7en, but hated SAW. Only saw part of the first movie and thought it was stupid. Watching someone get tortured or mutilated has never appealed to me. Campy, unrealistic gore in movies like Monty Python and even Piranha doesn't really bother me though. Neither does the stylized violence in 300/Sin City.

 

[Kas]

Avatar will probably be this.

I agree with that. It was a new version of "Pocahontas" with beautiful pictures and special effects. I enjoyed watching it, but I think that "Avatar" will fade away while "Pocahontas" will be still watched by the next generations of children.

 

[Qlip]

I agree with that. It was a new version of "Pocahontas" with beautiful pictures and special effects. I enjoyed watching it, but I think that "Avatar" will fade away while "Pocahontas" will be still watched by the next generations of children.

It seems like for big films, the ones that have the biggest chance at being classics are animations. I wonder why. Maybe creativity is actually allowed in that medium.

 

[Kas]

It seems like for big films, the ones that have the biggest chance at being classics are animations. I wonder why. Maybe creativity is actually allowed in that medium.

Maybe because kids don't care so much about special effects it's more about songs, colours and the story.

I actually like some old movies and I think they will be still classics in the future.
Like in the "Psycho" the scene with the knife is not very scary nowadays ( it's more funny now), but the ending is great. I don't think they could make a better final scene.

 

[Luke O]

The Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney Batman films

 

[BadOctopus]

The Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney Batman films

Were those ever considered good?

I like the first one all right, but even as a kid, I thought it was pretty cheesy. I thought Batman: The Animated Series was much, much better. (Mask of the Phantasm, by the way, is still my favorite Batman movie.)

 

[Luke O]

Were those ever considered good?

I like the first one all right, but even as a kid, I thought it was pretty cheesy. I thought Batman: The Animated Series was much, much better. (Mask of the Phantasm, by the way, is still my favorite Batman movie.)

They were intentionally cheesy to me, milder cheese at first to almost Parmesanaic with Batman & Robin. I was so glad Christopher Nolan came along to make Batman much more what it should be, and it was mostly that which confined the previous 4 films to history.

I never really watched the animated series, from what I've heard, I've missed out on something.

I've got a feeling Batman v Superman is going to be a mediocre film. Man of Steel was an awful film (it tried too hard in all the wrong ways), by the way, that can also go on the list...

 

[Crabs]

The Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney Batman films

I agree with you about the Joel Schumacher ones, but Tim Burton's films are what transformed Batman from a comic book character to an iconic hero in cinema. Bob Kane would jokingly taunt Stan Lee about the success of his character on the big screen in the early 90's while Marvel floundered until the new millennium. All of the latter Batman films have borrowed heavily from Burton's movies, although The Dark Knight is still my fave. Even the acclaimed Animated Series was greatly influenced by Burton's darker interpretation of Gotham City and the caped crusader. And Michelle Pfeiffer was phenomenal as Catwoman!

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Taxi Driver was a movie I highly anticipated watching then felt underwhelmed because it really was mild for the genre. Many of the 70s era folks feel the same way, though they were groundbreaking in other ways.

I recently reached The Matrix and was pleasantly surprised that it held up better than I expected. I had to blot out memory of the third movie to enjoy the first one, though.

 

[ceecee]

Neither does the stylized violence in 300/Sin City.

Those movies are guilty pleasures for me. So is the remake of Clash of the Titans/Wrath of the Titans and I loved the original Clash of the Titans. Does it stand the test of time? Eh, probably not but entertaining either way.