| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TarTar |
Posted - 04/02/2004 : 08:24:38
I'm talking movies from about 1920 through 1960. I tend to not enjoy films from this time period as much. Oh, don't get me wrong, there's plenty of greats still, but overall, I find that I can't get into them as much. This may be a combination of a few different things.
For one, actors were still used to the stage in the early days of film, and were used to projecting their voices more when acting. This automatically creates an inflection in one's voice that isn't quite natural, so in older films, the actors are definitely acting. Also, they obviously had different ways of speaking back then, which I'm not used to, so it contributes to the difficulty of believing these people aren't reciting lines.
I also just don't feel like film was often very adventurous back then. The camera was quite stagnant much of the time, the lack of steadicam probably playing a big part in this. It wasn't till Orson Welles did Citizen Kain that the camera became a crucial player in films and how the angle and mise en scene really conveyed a feeling or mood. Nowadays, we see crazy awesome shots in even the lamest films.
I just felt like rambling a little bit.
"(insert clever quote here)" |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Newo |
Posted - 04/05/2004 : 09:38:50
I've never seen Double Idemnity, it is unavailable in Irealnd and I ain't watching it in Spanish.
--
"You one of those right-wing nut outfits?" inquired the diplomatic Metzger.
Fallopian twinkled. "They accuse us of being paranoids."
"They?" inquired Metzger, twinkling also.
"Us?" asked Oedipa.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 04/05/2004 : 09:29:53
Two of my favourite 70's ones are The Parallax View and The Conversation, I think the sound in the last one is remarkable.
--
"You one of those right-wing nut outfits?" inquired the diplomatic Metzger.
Fallopian twinkled. "They accuse us of being paranoids."
"They?" inquired Metzger, twinkling also.
"Us?" asked Oedipa.
|
| Broken Face |
Posted - 04/05/2004 : 09:06:42
i love a lot of old films, especially German Expressionist stuff and Film Noir (both of which floop already covered). I'd highly recommend DOUBLE INDEMNITY as a great film from the 1940s that most people probably haven't seen (i would recommend Citizen Kane or Casablanca but all even casual film fans should have experienced those already)
-brian
 - "I joined the Cult of Frank / And they tried to cut off my nuts and make me put on a blue jumpsuit"
|
| Newo |
Posted - 04/05/2004 : 01:59:59
They relied on their technical trickery too, just as we rely on ours for our time - which will seem hideously out-of-date to people watching in 2030. If the trend continues, Woody Allen's love interest should be played by a cup of sperm by then.
--
"You one of those right-wing nut outfits?" inquired the diplomatic Metzger.
Fallopian twinkled. "They accuse us of being paranoids."
"They?" inquired Metzger, twinkling also.
"Us?" asked Oedipa.
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 14:38:41
I guess old films had to rely on acting/writing because there wasn't any of the technical trickery...
I'd recommend The Third Man and Ice Cold In Alex as classic 'oldie' movies, those are great.
 "Join The Cult Of Wormy Cheese Man/In Ten Words Or Less" |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 13:11:29
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
For some, a film being old seems to qualify it as great. I was watching one called The Spiral Staircase a while back and the DVD sleeve was filled with movie-critic jism in quotation marks and I have to say that if it had been made today it would have starred Tom Berenger, Rebecca de Mornay and Eric Roberts.
--
"You one of those right-wing nut outfits?" inquired the diplomatic Metzger.
Fallopian twinkled. "They accuse us of being paranoids."
"They?" inquired Metzger, twinkling also.
"Us?" asked Oedipa.
It's the same with 'old' pretty much anything. Some people think it's cool to say they like it. You can always tell the ones who are being genuine. The others are just pathetic.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!! |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 07:26:26
i only like new films that have fast cars and chicks. |
| Newo |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 07:16:10
For some, a film being old seems to qualify it as great. I was watching one called The Spiral Staircase a while back and the DVD sleeve was filled with movie-critic jism in quotation marks and I have to say that if it had been made today it would have starred Tom Berenger, Rebecca de Mornay and Eric Roberts.
--
"You one of those right-wing nut outfits?" inquired the diplomatic Metzger.
Fallopian twinkled. "They accuse us of being paranoids."
"They?" inquired Metzger, twinkling also.
"Us?" asked Oedipa.
|
| jimmy |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 06:01:32
I've always like TCM and AMC (before they started commercials). The older movies are almost always better written than newer movies. And a lot of times I'm surprised how funny the old movies are. There are some great lines in "The Seven Year Itch", "The Lion in Winter",& "Spellbound"
Plus it's good to see a time when men wore real hats and women wore dresses. ( I think a lot of women don't realize how much some guys would rather see them in dresses than pants.)
Some movies are better because they are based on a play; the original "Bad Seed" starred mostly cast memebers from the play and it's an excellent movie. |
| Bryan Shepherd |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 07:54:40
I find the writing to be sharper on many of the older movies...maybe the performances are less "real" than movies made after the late 60's, but sometimes I prefer witty banter to long silent pauses. Female characters seem especially more clever and nuanced, like Hepburn in "The Philadelphia Story". Even a sappy feel-good film like "It's A Wonderful Life" has many moments of dark humor and subtle wordplay. So many movies of the last few decades are locked into their genre to a fault, like "here's what you want, & plenty of it". I'm talking about mainstream movies. There's still plenty of fun on the edges, but a lot less in the middle than there used to be. More like Splash Mountain, less like white water rafting.
 I'm the guy from wonderland...& you will never understand... |
| TarTar |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 04:51:55
Casablanca's awesome. I haven't seen it in ages, gotta watch it again. And then there's it's illegitimate son, Play It Again, Sam.
"(insert clever quote here)" |
| glacial906 |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 02:13:25
I've liked some of the old movies I've seen. I can appreciate nearly all of them. I really love "Casablanca."
Take me, break me, tell me a good one and maybe I'll cry
|
| Newo |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 01:58:50
I like movies from all ages.
--
"You one of those right-wing nut outfits?" inquired the diplomatic Metzger.
Fallopian twinkled. "They accuse us of being paranoids."
"They?" inquired Metzger, twinkling also.
"Us?" asked Oedipa.
|
| floop |
Posted - 04/02/2004 : 12:22:46
quote:
Originally posted by TarTar
I also just don't feel like film was often very adventurous back then. The camera was quite stagnant much of the time, the lack of steadicam probably playing a big part in this. It wasn't till Orson Welles did Citizen Kain that the camera became a crucial player in films and how the angle and mise en scene really conveyed a feeling or mood. Nowadays, we see crazy awesome shots in even the lamest films.
there was innovative camerawork happening before CITIZEN KANE though.. Wells borrowed a lot from the German Expressionists (THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, NOSFERATU)..
plus, CITIZEN KANE came out in 1941. if films became more styliscitally interesting after that, then, by your rationale, anything 1941 and on could be potentially interesting.
personally i like films from all eras, for different reasons. when a film is "dated," it's inevitalbe that certian things are going to take you out of it, because they're funny or whatever (but then, for me, that is a pleasure in itself).. but if a film is good, it doesn't matter when it was made.
i'm a big fan of all the noir stuff from the late 40's and early 50's. for the most part, hollywood films at that time were stylistically conventional and formulaic. but there were also all these amazing b-movies being made that didn't get recognized till later. like KISS ME DEADLY and TOUCH OF EVIL and DETOUR. these are all hardcore films with unconventional styles (even now)..
and Bunuel was making strange films in the 50's and 60's. he does have a subdued visual style, but his films all manage to have some surreal, disturbing twist to them.
i like all the crazy horror/sci-fi films from the 50's and 60's. granted, most are enjoyable because they're silly, but there are also some amazingly put together films too. like the original CAT PEOPLE.
the 60's: the whole French New Wave thing started happening, Fellini was making his outlandish films, there were visually brilliant Italian horror films being made (Mario Bava etc..).. Stanley Kubrick was making films. BONNIE AND CLYDE, THE WILD BUNCH and EASY RIDER were all made in the 60's. these are all timeless, for me.
i guess i enjoy different films for different reasons, and on different levels. sometimes you have to forgive them for stuff.. but if you bear in mind how radical and different some of these films were at the time, that's another layer of appreciation. just give them a chance, is all i'm saying..
rent SUNSET BOULEVARD or DOUBLE INDEMNITY or TOUCH OF EVIL.. |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 04/02/2004 : 12:16:52
TarTar wasn't saying that he couldn't watch any old movies. He was just saying that he prefers more recent ones. And I agree with him, even though I really like Harold Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy, Marilyn monroe and Shirley Temple (Awwwww!!!). 
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!! |
| BLT |
Posted - 04/02/2004 : 10:59:24
Providing the story is good, I can easily enjoy a film from the silent era on up. One thing I love about films from the '30s is the lack of background music. In the '40s they began relying too much on music to set the mood and instill emotion. The mere presence of certain actors make the films of the '20s and '30s worthwhile. Give me some Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, James Cagney, Lon Chaney, Bette Davis, Edward G. Robinson, Boris Karloff, et al., and I'm happy. Same goes for the early directors: Lang, Hitchcock, Raoul Walsh, Curtiz... their ideas are still being recycled 70 or 80 years later.
 Join the Cult of Cochise Gunn & the Catholics / Because he is Frank's handpicked replacement |
| Erebus |
Posted - 04/02/2004 : 10:31:27
I'm more likely to watch a pre-1965 film, back to about 1940, than I am the more recent stuff. Largely depends on the actors involved. Practically anything with William Holden is great, and I have a taste for the westerns, with guys like Randolph Scott. Then there's always Tracy, Bogart, and Mitchum. Love Deborah Kerr, Ida Lapino, Lauren Bacall, and Ingrid Bergman. |
| offerw |
Posted - 04/02/2004 : 10:15:49
Yes, some of the oldies might be classics but they are not much fun to watch. All of the films I realy love were released from the late seventies onwards, those before I can apreciate because of their influence on later films but they rarely move me.
wilhelm |
| mun chien andalusia |
Posted - 04/02/2004 : 10:04:16
Same here. I actually hate 90% of pre 80's films.
 join the cult of errol\and you can have a beer\without having to quit smoking
|
|
|
