How good were 'classic' movies?

Like films of any era some people will take to certain films more than others. From Here to Eternity is not one I'd return to very often even though it got stacks of Oscars. OP should look up lists of great films and then choose from within those, films that might appeal to them. Randomly choosing one may end in disappointment.

Always check the free film channel listings to see if one of the old classics is coming up and will settle in for a relaxing afternoons viewing.

A few i have watched recently:

Ice cold in Alex
Lawrence of Arabia
For whom the bell tolls
The misfits
On the town (dont normally like musicals but enjoyed this one, as i do the wizard of oz).
The Producers

I find as a general rule, the old films tend to have better plots and scripts, but are more slow moving and require bit more concentration to follow. Very rewarding in the end, though.

I'm of the opinion comedies have declined greatly since the so-called "classic" era.

I remember seeing Bladerunnner when I was an impressionable teenager, and loved it. Seen it again in my 20s probably, again thought it was good.

Watched it in the last year or so, thought it wasn't great and had dated terribly.

I would agree with most mentioned previously, and add Sunset Boulevard to the list. It's fantastic.

IMDB have a top 250 list of all time. There's some classic era movies on that if you're looking for something along those lines.

I’m no fan of avengers or most of these other superheroes films, but most old films are absolutely rubbish. The actors are always shouting their words. And the women are mostly not very sexy in them.
The only black and white films I ever watch to the end is Schindler’s List, It’s a wonderful life and The man who wasn’t there.

Classic film on bbc2 later tonight, Kubricks Paths of Glory with kirk douglas in the lead. I love war films and cant think of any recently made war film that betters it. Though maybe anti-war film is a more accurate way to describe it.

Back in 1960, Psycho terrified audiences and people fainted in cinemas.

By today's standards, it would be very mild.

However, it is still a masterpiece of its time.

It's difficult to view classics through a modern prism.

I've watched quite a lot of old films on specialist blu ray labels recently.

Classic Film Noir's and Westerns from the likes of Fritz Lang, Delmer Daves, Anthony Mann, Billy Wilder, Howard Hawks etc. The list of brilliant directors and actors from Hollywood's Golden Age is frankly endless.

The style of filmmaking and acting might appear quaint compared to modern film but the talent and artistry of these films is obvious.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Classic film on bbc2 later tonight, Kubricks Paths of Glory with kirk douglas in the lead. I love war films and cant think of any recently made war film that betters it. Though maybe anti-war film is a more accurate way to describe it.

gah - wish I'd seen this earlier, one of the few Kubrick films I've never seen.

(actually it's on the iPlayer until next weekend...)

bobbyss wrote: »

Saw From here to Eternity a few days ago. Burt Lancaster Frank Sinatra. Deborah Kerr.
Is this suppossed to be a classic? Or do we judge things differently because they are old films? I thought the acting was poor. Laughable in parts. Lightweight Sinatra throwing a punch at Ernest Borgene was pure comedy.
Are these types of films vastly overrated?

Well, your question has already been pointed out as unanswerable and that's true.

However, throwing all of that to the wind, I would like to think that a "classic" is a film that stands up today as either a story that can still function or a film that is exemplary of its type and period.

So, while 'From Here to Eternity' has often been listed as a "classic", I have never viewed it as such, because in too many places it's simply mediocre, even for its time. It's quaint and hampered by a censorship, which neutered much of James Jones' great novel. The romance is enhanced in a 1950's Hollywood style and, indeed, the movie's most famous scene is Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr snogging on a beach as the tide comes in. But, I think a number of things pushed it in "classic" status for some people. Compared to a lot of 50's war movies, it looked "realistic" and Frank Sinatra's role as Pvt. Maggio was trumpeted in all the right places. The fact that he did it for next to nothing helped no end with audience's talking points and he's one of a number of good performances in the film, Ernest Borgnine being another. But looked at today, those talking points become meaningless to the vast majority of viewers, who would neither know or care about such things and will only see the film as another 50's melodrama.

On the other hand, 'Shane' a film from the same year, I would consider a classic, because as a story it still stands up to "modern viewing" as it were in a way that 'From Here to Eternity' doesn't. 'Shane' remains believable, even if it has some of the trappings of the period. But, it's a genuinely entertaining western with a compelling yarn that's well told.

So, there is a "test of time" I suppose that will help define whether a film is deemed a classic or not and as time moves on, more and more films will end up failing that test with younger audiences.

For example, 1931's 'Dracula' is often called a classic film. But, it's really quite a poor picture and it's classic status exists only because of the type of film it is and when it was made. However, next to Universal's 'Frankenstein', also from 1931, it looks absolutely ridiculous. James Whale's film of Mary Shelly's novel remains excellent entertainment, due in no small part to a great turn from Boris Karloff, who remains a sympathetic creature, despite being buried under Jack Pierce's iconic makup. Whereas Bela Lugosi in Tod Browning's 'Dracula' just comes off as laughably camp today in a movie that's dreadfully creaky.

Browning's real classic is (and always has been as far as I'm concerned) 'Freaks', from 1932, because even now that picture has a morbid fascination and in many ways it's batshit crazy story is timeless.

Of course, you'll get people that wouldn't consider any of the above films to be classics at all, because at the end of the day everyone's meter for such a status will be very different.

bobbyss wrote: »

Saw From here to Eternity a few days ago. Burt Lancaster Frank Sinatra. Deborah Kerr.
Is this suppossed to be a classic? Or do we judge things differently because they are old films? I thought the acting was poor. Laughable in parts. Lightweight Sinatra throwing a punch at Ernest Borgene was pure comedy.
Are these types of films vastly overrated?

watched this I agree its a jumble of stories, its the disappointing film in the AFI top 100 apart from maybe the Maginificent Ambersons which seems to be in there mostly because of what it could have been not what it was.

Plenty stand up still , would there ever be a better version or competition for The Good The Bad and The Ugly? or even lesser movies like the B&W Dunkirk movie from the 50's , has far mar more charm and re-watchability then the recent incarnation.

pixelburp wrote: »

Plenty of old movies hold up, I think the problem that can present itself often comes down to pacing. Even the more sedate modern films tend to have way more edits / cuts than older films (IIRC the classic Film School test of this is to click your fingers each time there's a cut. Michael Bay movies sounds like jazz applause). So older films can _feel_ much slower; if the audience isn't then atuned to this context or expectation then, it can make for a frustrating - or even boring - film experience.

As a for instance, I re-watched 12 Angry Men the other day and relative to modern-day filmmaking takes an AGE to get going. It does a great job establishing the environment, setting & basics of the characters but its pacing is almost sleepy in comparison with younger cinema. Someone watching the film off the back of a simple "this is a classic movie, it's great!" without the important context of "... but it's an older film and you gotta appreciate its slower pacing" runs the risk of zoning out before the real drama even kicks in. And that's FINE, everyone's different, but Classic Cinema needs caveats IMO.

you don't have to go that far back to see the difference. I watched Die Hard with one of the kids and he asked me if the whole film was going to be about McClanes' marriage problems. It takes forever to get to the action, by modern standards.

I'd take a film like '12 Angry Men' over about 90% of the rubbish that's made today in heartbeat.

pixelburp wrote: »

Plenty of old movies hold up, I think the problem that can present itself often comes down to pacing. Even the more sedate modern films tend to have way more edits / cuts than older films (IIRC the classic Film School test of this is to click your fingers each time there's a cut. Michael Bay movies sounds like jazz applause). So older films can _feel_ much slower; if the audience isn't then atuned to this context or expectation then, it can make for a frustrating - or even boring - film experience.

As a for instance, I re-watched 12 Angry Men the other day and relative to modern-day filmmaking takes an AGE to get going. It does a great job establishing the environment, setting & basics of the characters but its pacing is almost sleepy in comparison with younger cinema. Someone watching the film off the back of a simple "this is a classic movie, it's great!" without the important context of "... but it's an older film and you gotta appreciate its slower pacing" runs the risk of zoning out before the real drama even kicks in. And that's FINE, everyone's different, but Classic Cinema needs caveats IMO.

Funny enough, I showed the kid Karate Kid recently, and exact same thing.....took ages to get going and they got bored.