The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent
Rewatching movies from our pasts -- still good?
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on June 07, 2009, 04:05:09 am ---On the other side of rewatched movies is Raiders of the Lost Ark. I remembered that as one of my favorite movies. But when I watched it again with my (then pretty young) sons, they hated it and even I did not enjoy it as much as I remembered. It seemed surprisingly slow moving and, from their POV, too scary and gory, even though I thought by then they had seen far worse.
--- End quote ---
Raiders "slow moving"? :o
--- Quote ---It's weird how movies age well, or don't.
--- End quote ---
That's probably as subjective as taste in moves to begin with, don'tcha think? I mean, whether a movie has aged well or not?
I guess I haven't noticed this phenomenon that much. I have an entire bookcase full of movies (most on tape). I seem to have so little time to sit down and watch a movie--and I hate watching movies on video in a stop-and-start fashion. If I don't have time to watch the film the whole way through, I usually just channel-surf TV. (There's always a Law and Order episode on somewhere! :laugh: ) When I do have time to watch a movie, I tend to reach for an acknowleged classic, like Sunset Boulevard or All About Eve (Lord have mercy, how gay are those choices? :laugh: ) But I find that films like those stay just as good as the day they were released--which, I suppose, is at least one attribute of a classic movie.
Katie77:
Yes I have to agree with all the fans of Back to the Future....I love it. In fact I love most movies set in the 50's because I love the music that goes with them. There were some great sounds from that era. Grease is another one I have seen more times than I can remember.
I guess, sometimes, re-watching a movie that you saw years ago, is a little bit like hearing a golden oldie song on the radio. It can often bring back the memory of when you first saw it, who you saw it with,and how you felt when you first saw it.
Grease, for example, was the first video we ever owned and so it was played non stop when we first got it. My kids were in their early teens,and knew the script off by heart, and started using some of the phrases like "cruisin for a bruisin" and loved to get up and do their own rendition of Grease Lightenin. Whenever I watch Grease, those times come rushing back.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on June 07, 2009, 10:02:25 am ---Raiders "slow moving"? :o
That's probably as subjective as taste in moves to begin with, don'tcha think? I mean, whether a movie has aged well or not?
--- End quote ---
It's partly subjective, yes. But for instance, the reason Raiders didn't age well, for me, was that a lot of its initial appeal came from its snappy pace and nonstop action, because when the movie first came out those things were novelties. That was around the time when movies were still transitioning from '70s-style character dramas to flashy, comic-book, special-effects spectaculars.
But now the pace of action flicks has picked up SO much -- too much, one might argue, but still -- that Raiders no longer seems novel and original. And a movie whose entertainment value lies mostly in its pacing and thrills can no longer afford long talky scenes that drag a bit, which, surprisingly, Raiders has.
By the way, one thing I noticed about Bull Durham was how the characters swear a lot, but there's no graphic sex or nudity. That would never happen now, I don't think. Movies rated PG-13 can't have more than about one "fuck." Bull Durham probably has a dozen or so -- but just the word, not the act. I think now filmmakers either tone down the language and go for a PG-13, or they include sex and nudity and get an R.
Front-Ranger:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on June 07, 2009, 04:05:09 am ---
Another really good one that I liked seeing again and they liked too was Big. What a delightful movie. Even though those back-to-the-past movies have become a cliche, they're almost always pretty watchable. I also liked 13 Going on 30 and, more recently, 17 Again. But "Big" and BTtF really set the bar, IMO.
--- End quote ---
Do I detect a trend here, friend??
Lately I enjoy watching select old movies in director's cut or Blu-Ray...I really enjoyed watching The Shining in Blu-Ray just before visiting its filming location, the Timberline Lodge in Oregon!! A few of my favorite movies are now being issued on DVD, such as Bertolucci's The Conformist and di Sica's The Leopard. Watching the latter set me off on a major Claudia Cardinale movie hunt, which culminated in seeing her in Once Upon a Time in the West. Outstanding movies...they just don't make em like that ennimore.
Oh, and Katherine, better a crazy codger than a dour dowager!!
::)
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on June 07, 2009, 04:11:27 pm ---It's partly subjective, yes. But for instance, the reason Raiders didn't age well, for me, was that a lot of its initial appeal came from its snappy pace and nonstop action, because when the movie first came out those things were novelties. That was around the time when movies were still transitioning from '70s-style character dramas to flashy, comic-book, special-effects spectaculars.
But now the pace of action flicks has picked up SO much -- too much, one might argue, but still -- that Raiders no longer seems novel and original. And a movie whose entertainment value lies mostly in its pacing and thrills can no longer afford long talky scenes that drag a bit, which, surprisingly, Raiders has.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, I still say that's subjective, and not just "partly." Even if you time a scene with a stopwatch, what seems "talky" and draggy to one viewer may still be something that another enjoys--and doesn't tind talky or draggy at all.
All add one caveat (if that's the correct term here) with specific regard to Raiders. From the very first release I thought the sequence where Indy tries to commandeer the truck taking the Ark back to Cairo was too long. But that's not something that I would find changed with the passage of time. I thought it was too long in 1981.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version