|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 1, 2024 17:11:29 GMT
I guess vintage films are like vintage wines.
I read a comment about A ROOM WITH A VIEW on the IMDb earlier, where someone says the film is aging well. The comment was posted back in 2004, when the film was only 19 years old. Now the film is 39 years old. I recently watched it a few days ago, and recalling how I felt about it when I first saw it back in the day, yes it is aging well.
Any films you feel have aged well, and continue to age well with time...?
Or films that you feel have not aged well at all...?
|
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Mar 1, 2024 18:31:29 GMT
Probably all of the Merchant/Ivory films have aged well, because they made a real effort to recreate the periods and not bow to modern tastes. They genuinely appear to be timeless. For some reason I recently caught a bit of Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor (2001) and that's an example of a "historical" film which will always seem like a product of its time, both in the filmmaking techniques used and in the use of young celebrity poster children to sell it at the box office. No offence to him, but Josh Hartnett then isn't the same as Josh Hartnett now and neither is the movie, not that it was all that great to begin with. Filmmaking techniques themselves go in and out of style and I think that could have a lot to do with how well a movie ages.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 1, 2024 18:40:15 GMT
Probably all of the Merchant/Ivory films have aged well, because they made a real effort to recreate the periods and not bow to modern tastes. They genuinely appear to be timeless. For some reason I recently caught a bit of Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor (2001) and that's an example of a "historical" film which will always seem like a product of its time, both in the filmmaking techniques used and in the use of young celebrity poster children to sell it at the box office. No offence to him, but Josh Hartnett then isn't the same as Josh Hartnett now and neither is the movie, not that it was all that great to begin with. Filmmaking techniques themselves go in and out of style and I think that could have a lot to do with how well a movie ages.
I don't think the Wheeler & Woolsey comedies from the 1930s hold up very well, though I enjoy them.
I don't think some of Jerry Lewis' shtick has aged well, though he's obviously very talented. Personally, I thought Jerry Lewis was brilliant in the garment trade arc he did on CBS' crime drama WiseGuy in the late 1980s. He was a stupendous dramatic actor if given the chance, but comedy was his main stock in trade.
Another thing that probably affects how well a film ages is how political it is (for its time). There is considerable propaganda in most WWII war flicks which immediately dates them historically...even the ones made in the 1950s and 1960s, looking back at the great world war. |
|
nickandnora34
Junior Member
Just a grease spot on the L&N
Posts: 77
|
Post by nickandnora34 on Mar 7, 2024 0:50:55 GMT
The Lord of the Rings special effects have aged really well, in my opinion. Watching the movies now in 2024, nothing really looks visually "off" to me at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonesomepolecat on Mar 7, 2024 7:37:50 GMT
The Lord of the Rings special effects have aged really well, in my opinion. Watching the movies now in 2024, nothing really looks visually "off" to me at all. I agree -- I rewatched LOTR recently and thought the FX hold up really well. The stuff that looks more digital is no more digital than FX these days, IMHO. The story is better written than a lot of movies these days as well.
I just watched the original JURASSIC PARK and thought the same thing, mostly because of the fantastic puppets. I really miss the days of physical puppets before everything was just digital. Of course some shots look more 90s like the gallimimus, but overall still a great movie (though kids today might disagree, who knows).
|
|
