I kinda hate to say this, but Anchorman. Still super quotable, but the back half of the movie is just awful.
I kinda hate to say this, but Anchorman. Still super quotable, but the back half of the movie is just awful.
Chilhowee wrote:
Ozu began making films in the 1920’s during the silent era. His originality and value was never in question. You misrepresent him by suggesting he borrowed plot points from others. A better example would be the number of American directors who remade the films of Akira Kurosawa. The Seven Samurai became The Magnificient Seven. The Hidden Fortress became Star Wars. Ikiru is being reshot now, with the actor Bill Nighy.
I think you missed my point. I'm not questioning Ozu's originality, just trying to show that elements of prior works of others can sometimes be found in later works, and that pure originality, in every facet of a production, is not the only virtue that films should aspire to. This is very different from the wholesale remakes you cite. By the way, you forgot to mention another Kurosawa film, Yojimbo, remade into A Fistful of Dollars.
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed!"
thsjdjdjdjd wrote:
Braveheart, Karate Kid
There could be an entire separate thread on the Star Wars franchise...
I still like Karate Kid but ever since the "Daniel is the real bully" video came out I empathize with the Cobra Kai.
Ferris Bueller's Day Off. This weekend I watched it for the first time in about twenty years. Some parts were still funny but it all felt too pretentious.
michimanx wrote:
Sometimes it's about whether or not the movies still make you feel the same way. Among sports movies, "A League of Their Own" and "Field of Dreams" still feel good and my favorite parts of those still feel the same.
Or, sometimes, it's about them making you feel differently. For instance, now that I have a son who plays sports (including baseball) the ending of Field of Dreams hits differently. Still fantastic, but in a different way.
Chilhoweee wrote:
Actually, after Pulp Fiction, Tarantino tried a traditional film. He adapted an Elmore Leonard novel: Jackie Brown, with lackluster results. After trying and failing in a straight-up style, Tarantino hit his Cuisinart-button and made a series of bad films (both Kill Bills, Deathproof, etc...) Pulp Fiction is clearly his best film, with a snappy dialogue and circular structure, but the structure was lifted from a 1963 Italian horror film (Mario Bava's Black Sabbath) and the dialogue and dance scene with Travolta & Thurman come straight out of Jean Luc Godard's Band of Outsiders (1964.) Since then, Tarantino has tried to reinvent himself. He's tried to break away from his "post-modern" plagiarism (he's been sued multiple times over copyright infringement.) The only problem is he's got nothing to say. That's why his recent films portray history falsely before devolving into celebrations of hyperviolence. Inglorious Basterds treats World War II like Hogan's Heroes (hey, whatever floats your boat.) The trailers for Tarantino's most recent film: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, looked like a return to form. Here was a story that seemed to fit Tarantino's exaggerations and falsehoods: Hollywood the dream machine in the summer of 1969, the Manson Family and Sharon Tate murders, interspersed with a number of interesting characters (DiCaprio's alcoholic, insecure, TV star.) And up to a point the film works. The imagined fight between Pitt's character and Bruce Lee was excellent and very, very, meta, with Hollywood distorting and embellishing its own myths. By the end, though, all Quentin can show us is an extended celebration of sadism, with the Manson Family being devoured by a pit bull and incinerated with a flame-thrower. A feel-good ending for sure! But it goes on and on for minutes, until it's no longer about righteous vengeance but purely about torture. That's Tarantino's product now, it's what he does, and it's very far-removed from the comic twists of Pulp Fiction.
More pretentious than Tarantino himself lol
If I make allowances for my changing tastes due to "life", I cannot think of any movie that I thought was great in the '70's and is garbage now. Saw lot's of terrible movies then, but I knew they were terrible.
The same CANNOT be said for rock music. There are NUMEROUS bands/albums that I played non-stop and loved back then, that I listen to now and say "What was I thinking?!"
Some movies that have held up for me:
Rocky: “You’re a BUM!”
Dr. Strangelove: “Mr. President, we must not allow…a mineshaft gap!”
Jaws: “We’re gonna’ need a bigger boat…”
Singin’ in the Rain: “Make ‘em laugh!”
The Matrix: “I know Kung Fu.”
The Empire Strikes Back: “Maybe we can find new ways to motivate them.”
Overboard: “That was excellent, just excellent.” “—What’s excellent about it?” “Well, I was hungry.”
Caddyshack: “I feel like a hundred bucks.”
Flubs:
French new wave (Tati)
All Kung-Fu movies (Golan-Globus)
WWII movies, especially with Robert Mitchum and/or Ernest Borgnine
Anything with Annette Funicello and/or Frankie Avalon
MasterofNone wrote:
Clockwork Orange comes to mind/ It's not because it isn't a good movie; in fact it's fantastic. I just think that it is so bizarre and unsettling that it was only meant to be watched once.
I was cured alright.
Heat
Used to love it back in the 90s-early 2000s. Doesn't hold up very well.
anonaaa wrote:
Heat
Used to love it back in the 90s-early 2000s. Doesn't hold up very well.
I still love that movie. Although Pacino is kind of a maniac in that role, overdoes it. I think in the original script, Pacino's character would do bumps of coke. That explains his wild outbursts.
michimanx wrote:
How about Back to the Future?
In fact, Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd were reunited this past weekend at NY Comic Con.
That film would have you believe that Marty was 17-18 and Doc Brown was at least 60. It's always hilarious to me to realize that their real age is only 22 years apart, not 40. Lloyd was only 46 when that was made and Fox was 24.
Alright you're wild for this one. For me, these movies only get better as I age.
In the spirit of Halloween, I would add the original It (sorry Stephen King). I'm sure it might have been scary at the time, but now the effects and acting are just cheesy.
Many movies from the late 60's and early 70's just seem dated. The hair styles and clothing look stupid and dated. (The music from the 70's though is great)
Movies that aren't good anymore:
The original The Inlaws.
Halloween
The movies that have become classics:
Godfather
Scarface
Citizen Kane (I had to see it to see if that old movie was as good as its reputation, it was)
Casablanca
Delta Force.
The Benchwarmers
American Beauty which one the Oscar for best picture had not held up well over the last 22 years. At the time it seemed to hit upon universal themes but now comes across as a dated period piece. I mean the entire premise of this film is about how Kevin Spacey's character is sexually attracted to an underage teenage girl and wants to groom her to be with him. Turns out art imitates life with a slight twist.
Some movies do well because theme seem to capture the zeitgeist of the time but they often don’t age well.
With movies (and plays) it is often the award winner that fades over time whereas a contemporary film that was viewed as lesser at the time holds up much better.
Apocalypse Now had aged better than The Deer Hunter. Chicago has aged better than a Chorus Line.
Morbius. Nah, who I am kidding, Its always Morbing time!
I think Pulp Fiction. I rarely re-watch movies I've already seen, so I can't name many movies. My husband and I always watch documentaries but we decided to watch the comedy "Me Time". A great comedy with great actors. When I read this site and started to like watching movies and series even more. I'm planning to watch some series, but I haven't decided which one yet. Maybe you have some ideas?
I'll probably get heat for this but...
Clerks, Mall Rats, and Chasing Amy. They just don't seem as edgy as they once were.
Dazed and Confused hasn't aged well for me either.