Movies that Have Aged Well, and Those that Haven't

[hellboy76]

Frankenstein was the first that came to mind, followed by 12 Angry Men.

I think, despite the story being set in a specific time period and a few silly effects, that Dr. Strangelove has held up very well for a movie made 5 years before man walked on the moon. The writing is top notch and it feels a little bit like it could be made today in a similar fashion.

I am wondering, if we can find a relatively well known film that has held up well , made prior to our current line in the sand of 1931.

[afx237vi]

I am wondering, if we can find a relatively well known film that has held up well , made prior to our current line in the sand of 1931.

I just knocked it back a year with All Quiet on the Western Front. Check out this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciq9ts02ci4

Not just the visceral level of violence and death, but also the way the camera moves, the use of sound and rapid-fire editing.

[hellboy76]

I am wondering, if we can find a relatively well known film that has held up well , made prior to our current line in the sand of 1931.

I just knocked it back a year with All Quiet on the Western Front. Check out this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciq9ts02ci4

Not just the visceral level of violence and death, but also the way the camera moves, the use of sound and rapid-fire editing.

So you did, I think I was writing as you posted. I haven't seen it since grade school, and have it pegged for a re-watch.

[3dRevelation]

Anywho, I know what you're referring to with the book's ending, but I remember disliking it. I imagine they probably ended the movie [spoiler]with Tom's departure from the family[/spoiler], and that felt like the climax of the book to me, also. (Correct me if they didn't)

Yeah that is pretty much how it ended, except right after that Ma Joad delivers this conclusion (which if I remember correctly is not in the novel):[spoiler]I ain't never gonna be scared no more. I was, though. For a while it looked as though we was beat. Good and beat. Looked like we didn't have nobody in the whole wide world but enemies. Like nobody was friendly no more. Made me feel kinda bad and scared too, like we was lost and nobody cared.... Rich fellas come up and they die, and their kids ain't no good and they die out, but we keep a-coming. We're the people that live. They can't wipe us out, they can't lick us. We'll go on forever, Pa, cos we're the people.[/spoiler]

[CMonster]

Also, when talking about movies that aged well it is impossible not to mention Network. It may fall out of the "older than 1970" parameter but nothing has aged better.

[JacoIII]

I agree with whoever said "M".

I'd also toss in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". I was used to fifties sci-fi boring the hell out of me but I actually enjoyed both of them quite a bit. I also still love "The Hustler".

[mattorama12]

As for those that have not aged well....I keep thinking about the ED 309 in the original Robocop

I think it's still a good movie, but the ED 309 looks like something from a low budget sketch comedy. It's been mentioned before in this thread, but sci-fi seems to be the hardest genre to time-proof. Logan's Run has to be one of the most dated movies I've ever seen.

Also, when talking about movies that aged well it is impossible not to mention Network. It may fall out of the "older than 1970" parameter but nothing has aged better.

Couldn't agree with this more. I checked the date of the film like 5 times as I watched it (sometime in the last year or so was my first viewing) because I simply couldn't believe it wasn't made more recently.

[AlexDourm]

It is probably safe to say that silent and pre-color films are too antiquated for general audiences today. Thus in general terms I would say that anything pre-color has aged badly, with the average viewer in mind. That said, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Laurel & Hardy are exceptions that come to mind. At least in my anecdotal experience they still retain a palpable amount of appeal (silent era works included), again with the average viewer in mind. Thus in general terms I would say their films have aged well. I have not personally observed it to be the case today, but the Marx Brothers might be another example. Up to the 80's and 90's at least, their appeal had endured.

For myself though, I can't really think of much. I reckon I have relatively low standards, plus I can get into a mindset that is conductive towards drawing some enjoyment from most any film. The main thing that comes to my mind is the "victim of its own success" scenario, where elements of a unique or groundbreaking film become established cliches that pervade many later works. When visiting the film for the first time one might find it, well cliche, even while being aware that this is the movie which pioneered the elements in question. That falls under "aged badly" to my mind, granted, through no fault of its own.

[ShogunRua]

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) -

Can't believe I forgot that one! Arguably my favorite picture of the entire decade, and one of the best adaptations of a classic ever. Good call; the pacing is excellent, and it has an appropriately somber mood to go with a grim conclusion. (Many war films from that time were downright cheerful!)

Yeah that is pretty much how it ended, except right after that Ma Joad delivers this conclusion (which if I remember correctly is not in the novel):

Wow, that is INSANELY out-of-character for Ma Joad! You're correct; that was definitely not in the novel. She would never get on a soapbox and pronounce a long, hokey string of exposition. In fact, some of what she said in that movie quote is inconsistent with the events of the novel, and her feelings at the time.

Also, when talking about movies that aged well it is impossible not to mention Network.

Sidney Lumet's best film, and one of the greatest masterpieces ever.

That said, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Laurel & Hardy are exceptions that come to mind.

Haven't seen any of the silent Laurel and Hardy reels, but Chaplin and Keaton definitely aren't exceptions for me. Keaton is a little more palatable because he was essentially the first film stuntman, and some of his acrobatics are neat to this day, but both guys relied on vaudeville-style (where both guys came from) physical comedy that is slow-moving, dull, and antiquated for today's audiences.

I appreciate them as two amazing pioneers, but aside from Keaton's 15-minute shorts, I have a hard time suffering through anything either of them made.

[mwgerb]

I would say that Metropolis has held up surprisingly well, while another old, forward-thinking sci-fi film, Things to Come has not held up well at all. Forbidden Planet is probably the only 1950s sci-fi that's still impressive today. In comparison, Logan's Run seems fake and corny, even being made 20 years later.