How good were 'classic' movies?

pixelburp · 23-09-2020 11:31am

Tony EH wrote: »

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

Shades of "was better in my day" with that. 12 angry men was made at the height of Drive-In cinema and the B movie. Hollywood was as flooded with garbage as it is now - maybe more so given you had the Double Feature back then - quality persists however. In 20 years the gems of this era will be as lauded as any other period.

Tombo2001 · 23-09-2020 11:54am

Incidentally, and forgive my ignorance on this one....

Is there a reason Netflix dont show old movies, or say movies that are not english language.

I used to go to the IFI a lot in the 1990s and early 2000s and watched lots and lots of Asian and European movies. Some of these would stick in my mind as some of the best films I've ever seen.....but never really saw them again, and wouldnt know where to access them.....

Is there a Netflix equivalent that would have this type of library.

On a related note, the so called Classics are for the most part Hollywood classics, there is more to movie history than American film, but they own the 'Classic' genre.

Tony EH · 23-09-2020 12:44pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Shades of "was better in my day" with that. 12 angry men was made at the height of Drive-In cinema and the B movie. Hollywood was as flooded with garbage as it is now - maybe more so given you had the Double Feature back then - quality persists however. In 20 years the gems of this era will be as lauded as any other period.

No, not really and "my day" came a years after '12 Angry Men'.

Alex Cox put it better than my one liner in an interview I saw the other day, in which he mentioned the issues of "monoform trap" film making that exists today and Ed Norton made a good point about contemporary studios now being populated by armies of producers that really constrain film makers to a large degree. I think that goes some way to explaining the problem of mainstream cinema where the diamonds in the rough are becoming harder and harder to find.

But sure, movies of any era will have a substantial amount of average and poorer quality fare. God knows I've watched a lot of it. But, there is a definite problem with formula film making in modern times that ends up producing a generally meh output. There's so much being put out there that is simply so underwhelming, so often.

That, of course, doesn't mean that there aren't great movies being made today. But with much, much, more "product" being pushed out (this year notwithstanding), it's almost inevitable that the over all impression is that the general product is of a "duller" nature, due to the "monoform" checklist that Cox mentions.

CrankyHaus · 23-09-2020 12:49pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Shades of "was better in my day" with that. 12 angry men was made at the height of Drive-In cinema and the B movie. Hollywood was as flooded with garbage as it is now - maybe more so given you had the Double Feature back then - quality persists however. In 20 years the gems of this era will be as lauded as any other period.

Bad films will always be with us, but what deliberately mediocre ones?
In the era of the Superhero Universe Hollywood's focus is on churning out formulaic snoozefests that feel like they were made by an AI engorged on international audience feedback data.

Hollywood made plenty of dross in the decades prior, but at least you could say those films were its failures rather than what it deliberately set out to create.

pixelburp · 23-09-2020 1:04pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Bad films will always be with us, but what deliberately mediocre ones?
In the era of the Superhero Universe Hollywood's focus is on churning out formulaic snoozefests that feel like they were made by an AI engorged on international audience feedback data.

Hollywood made plenty of dross in the decades prior, but at least you could say those films were its failures rather than what it deliberately set out to create.

Naw, I think this is still guilty of Recency Bias. Hollywood has ALWAYS been "the race to be second" and if you pick an era, chances are it was awash with whatever the flavour of the month was. As said the 1950s had a glut of utter, utter garbage trying to shovel out Drive In content with only slight variances. What persisted were those that varied to some creative degree (War of the Worlds or The Day The Earth Stood Still). "Mediocrity" is simply a subjective term, with the only variance a question of budget now; I don't genuinely believe anyone sets out to make something intentionally bad or mediocre (except perhaps the charlatans behind Sharknado and the lik - but that's another subject entirely). The differences between good and medioce are degrees of care, attention, or audience preference ultimately.

Maybe in terms of volume the modern era can claim "more" but to watch the real bottom-feeder material from the 50s or whatnot is to understand we don't know how good we have it - even if the middleground is seemingly more formulaic than ever. It really isn't, it's just the location of good material has shifted away from the Big Ticket releases.

MfMan · 23-09-2020 1:57pm

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I think in any age there are movies that are huge but dont survive well, as with other art forms, music especially. Possibly this is because of the convention around what a great movie should look like.

The Big Lebowski is a really good example of a movie that wasnt especially big on release, but grew wings. The biggest grossing movie that year was Armageddon, the oscar winner was Shakespeare in Love.

Shawshank Redemption is another good example. Ultimately what makes a Classic movie is that people enjoy it, not that critics think its great or that it won a lot of Oscars.

There are lots of great movies from the 1950s, the hitchcock ones would stand out for me.

Wouldn't really mind if Shawshank... was downgraded from Classic status TBH.
The more I watch it, the ickier and 'over-noble' it gets.

loyatemu · 23-09-2020 4:14pm

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Incidentally, and forgive my ignorance on this one....

Is there a reason Netflix dont show old movies, or say movies that are not english language.

I used to go to the IFI a lot in the 1990s and early 2000s and watched lots and lots of Asian and European movies. Some of these would stick in my mind as some of the best films I've ever seen.....but never really saw them again, and wouldnt know where to access them.....

Is there a Netflix equivalent that would have this type of library.

On a related note, the so called Classics are for the most part Hollywood classics, there is more to movie history than American film, but they own the 'Classic' genre.

I assume the French version of Netflix has more French movies and so on. NF don't license them for non-French markets as there isn't as much demand. You can access other countries' Netflix with a VPN but it's hit and miss as NF actively block the VPN servers.

BFI Player, Mubi, Criterion would have more obscure offerings both English and foreign language (think Criterion requires a VPN as well).

tobefrank321 · 23-09-2020 4:19pm

Casablanca holds up very well and will always hold up well.
As for others: The Quiet Man, Shane (particularly the gunfight at the end), couple of Spencer Tracey films, Seven Year Itch and several more I can't think of at the moment.
The acting generally for the classics was top notch.
On the otherhand, I could never understand the appeal of Citizen Kane.

Melanchthon · 23-09-2020 6:10pm

loyatemu wrote: »

I assume the French version of Netflix has more French movies and so on. NF don't license them for non-French markets as there isn't as much demand. You can access other countries' Netflix with a VPN but it's hit and miss as NF actively block the VPN servers.

BFI Player, Mubi, Criterion would have more obscure offerings both English and foreign language (think Criterion requires a VPN as well).

Amazon prime definitely has more odd and lower budget films in its selection, I am not sure about this but its selection might be as big or bigger than Netflix in terms of films but it's interface is godawful for suggesting stuff

Tony EH · 23-09-2020 6:20pm

tobefrank321 wrote: »

On the otherhand, I could never understand the appeal of Citizen Kane.

The same could be said of all of Welles' pictures really. To me, his debut effort and 'Touch of Evil' are his best in a pretty underwhelming catalogue.

But the major appeal of 'Citizen Kane' is that it was an absolute triumph of film making effort on the part of a 25 year old first time director. In terms of makeup, framing, effects, Welles' acting, and the fact that it had the balls to tackle a man like William Randolph Hearst at the height of his power, 'Citizen Kane' deserves its laudations and puts it on the best of all time list for many.

But, the further we get away from 1941, the frequency with which it'll appear on lists of those type will become less and less. But 'Citizen Kane' will always be remembered for the fact that Orson Welles took the reigns of directing, producing, writing and acting AND still managed to make a coherent and entertaining movie all at tender age.

faceman · 25-09-2020 8:39am

Tony EH wrote: »

The same could be said of all of Welles' pictures really. To me, his debut effort and 'Touch of Evil' are his best in a pretty underwhelming catalogue.

But the major appeal of 'Citizen Kane' is that it was an absolute triumph of film making effort on the part of a 25 year old first time director. In terms of makeup, framing, effects, Welles' acting, and the fact that it had the balls to tackle a man like William Randolph Hearst at the height of his power, 'Citizen Kane' deserves its laudations and puts it on the best of all time list for many.

But, the further we get away from 1941, the frequency with which it'll appear on lists of those type will become less and less. But 'Citizen Kane' will always be remembered for the fact that Orson Welles took the reigns of directing, producing, writing and acting AND still managed to make a coherent and entertaining movie all at tender age.

Citizen Kane and A Touch Of Evil are definitely classic films, with Citizen Kane being timeless.

That being said films to age and in an era where films are now spectacle blockbusters, the art of making movies is now reserved for indie films and films that we could consider "foreign language" but are in reality major films in their home countries.

Even this forum is testament. Its a film forum where the majority of posts are for superhero films or Hollywood crap. Twaddle in the greater scheme of things.

People dont have patience for films like Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Vertigo anymore. And as a result of the heroin of the Hollywood backed movies, audiences lose sight of what films are supposed to be about; telling the story about characters, and those characters have a story arc.

The bigger question is are we making modern day classics. I recently read an article that put the original Michael Bay Transformers on a pedestal because of how dire all the sequels were. Think about that for a moment. The big pile of steaming skunk excrement is being labelled as a good movie. :rolleyes:

From a Hollywood perspective, modern day classics are a rarity with perhaps a league reserved for people like Spielberg (although I dont think he has a good movie left in him) and Christopher Nolan.

So when you look back on older classics, they didnt have the special effects we have today, there was no such thing as CGI. Therefore they had to rely on strong storytelling skills and solid performances.

johnny_ultimate · 25-09-2020 10:34am

Now, now, let's not suggest Orson Welles was some sort of two-hit wonder. Chimes at Midnight, F For Fake and Lady From Shanghai are all pretty significant works - the former two in particular I'd class as major. And I haven't seen some of his other well-regarded film, such as The Trial and Othello

Man Vs ManUre · 25-09-2020 10:45am

Which is the best western, the good the bad and the ugly or once upon a time in the west??

Tony EH · 25-09-2020 11:20am

faceman wrote: »

Citizen Kane and A Touch Of Evil are definitely classic films, with Citizen Kane being timeless.

That being said films to age and in an era where films are now spectacle blockbusters, the art of making movies is now reserved for indie films and films that we could consider "foreign language" but are in reality major films in their home countries.

Even this forum is testament. Its a film forum where the majority of posts are for superhero films or Hollywood crap. Twaddle in the greater scheme of things.

People dont have patience for films like Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Vertigo anymore. And as a result of the heroin of the Hollywood backed movies, audiences lose sight of what films are supposed to be about; telling the story about characters, and those characters have a story arc.

The bigger question is are we making modern day classics. I recently read an article that put the original Michael Bay Transformers on a pedestal because of how dire all the sequels were. Think about that for a moment. The big pile of steaming skunk excrement is being labelled as a good movie.

From a Hollywood perspective, modern day classics are a rarity with perhaps a league reserved for people like Spielberg (although I dont think he has a good movie left in him) and Christopher Nolan.

So when you look back on older classics, they didnt have the special effects we have today, there was no such thing as CGI. Therefore they had to rely on strong storytelling skills and solid performances.

All of this "blockbuster" stuff can be traced back to 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars', unfortunately. While I consider both of those films to be great and, indeed "classics", their affect on cinema has been full of negatives. In the 45 years that they've been around, we've seen studios more and more seek spectacle and event over producing a good story that can last the test of time. That isn't to say, of course, that spectacle or event cinema didn't exist before 1975. You can look at the biblical epics and films like 'Gone With the Wind' and see the same thing. But nowadays, it seems that every major studio is hellbent on getting their "franchise" and milking it til it drops over.

But, where today's efforts appear to depart from the event cinema of before, is that it is all crash bang wallop, with "quiet parts" being kept to an absolute minimum. I mean, even with 'Jaws' or 'Star Wars', there are numerous moments within those stories where one can breath and absorb the events...while you are watching it. Today the viewer, generally, doesn't get a second to actually think about what's going on with the story or the people in it. They are films that happen only in the moment, as it were, and often upon reflection that story and its characters end up looking less and less coherent, which has the further effect of distancing the audience once the film has ended. Whereas, the "classic" film continues to resonate within the viewer's mind long after the credits have rolled.

Although, I can easily imagine that there are plenty of younger folk around today that would simply be bored to tears by 'Jaws', or indeed 'Star Wars' and consider both films to be "slow". Much of that has to do with the fact that we absorb content nowadays as opposed to watching films. There is also a tyranny of content, of sorts, in effect as well, whereby there is just so much "stuff" out there it creates a glut.

With further regards to 'Citizen Kane', though, it's actual story isn't that much to write home about, in fairness, and the parallels to the likes of Hearst will simply be lost on much of today's audience. But, 'Citizen Kane' has first and foremost, always been a film geek's movie. It's techniques are the real star of the show, rather than its actual yarn. So, I can understand why many people would be saying "Best film ever? WTF?". So, with respect to what Welle's managed to achieve with that film, it's quite impressive. But you have to know what you're looking at on the screen and understand how it was made to gather why many people hold it in such high esteem. The thing is most people, and quite rightly too, aren't bothered by that. They just want to see a good story, well told, and if that story isn't doing it for you, it's entirely legitimate to declare that you don't like the film.

But then, everybody has their "That's supposed to be a classic?" bewilderment with certain movies. I certainly do. Somebody mentioned 'The Searchers' on the other page, which would be one of my "WTF's?". That's a film that littered with terrible, terrible, moments that I can only believe that its fans have to navigate around them to truly enjoy it. It's comic moments are truly dreadful and the hamfisted romance is an absolute drag.

But, really, what I think 'The Searchers' is well loved for is, merely, John Wayne's performance as Ethan Edwards. To see such an upstanding icon (at least in his Hollywood persona) reduced to a vile and unreasonable racist was quite interesting. There is definitely something to enjoy in the relationship between Wayne's Ethan Edwards and Jeffery Hunter's 1/8th Cherokee Martin Pawley, and the efforts Pawley goes to to make Edwards see the error of his ways.

But, elsewhere, the movie is simply awful, even when allowing for 1950's cinema cliches, like whitey in redface (Henry Brandon), or wretched Vaudeville accents (The Jorgensens). And even taking into account what John Ford was famous for, the vistas of Monument Valley, it's a failure in that regard too, because much of it was shot in an obvious studio that looks about as convincing as a planet surface on the original 'Star Trek' TV show.

There are those who claim it to be Wayne's best movie and indeed John Ford's. But, for my money, that belongs to 'The Shootist' for Wayne and a toss up between 'The Grapes of Wrath' and 'Who Shot Liberty Valance' for Ford.

tobefrank321 · 25-09-2020 2:09pm

faceman wrote: »

Citizen Kane and A Touch Of Evil are definitely classic films, with Citizen Kane being timeless.

That being said films to age and in an era where films are now spectacle blockbusters, the art of making movies is now reserved for indie films and films that we could consider "foreign language" but are in reality major films in their home countries.

Even this forum is testament. Its a film forum where the majority of posts are for superhero films or Hollywood crap. Twaddle in the greater scheme of things.

People dont have patience for films like Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Vertigo anymore. And as a result of the heroin of the Hollywood backed movies, audiences lose sight of what films are supposed to be about; telling the story about characters, and those characters have a story arc.

The bigger question is are we making modern day classics. I recently read an article that put the original Michael Bay Transformers on a pedestal because of how dire all the sequels were. Think about that for a moment. The big pile of steaming skunk excrement is being labelled as a good movie. :rolleyes:

From a Hollywood perspective, modern day classics are a rarity with perhaps a league reserved for people like Spielberg (although I dont think he has a good movie left in him) and Christopher Nolan.

So when you look back on older classics, they didnt have the special effects we have today, there was no such thing as CGI. Therefore they had to rely on strong storytelling skills and solid performances.

I give every film a chance. I gave Citizen Kane plenty of chances. Its no doubt a great film, but I could never understand why some would put it down as their number 1 film of all time. Top 10 sure.

Spielberg classics? He's been hit and miss. He hasn't been afraid to go down the blockbuster sequels route himself. He's made some all time greats, Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, and some others.
I found Bridge of Spies, The Post and Lincoln hard watches and they just didn't do it for me. Others probably found them differently, each to their own. He flogged Indiana Jones to death for example. The CGI on the last one was awful.

One person's classic doesn't work for someone else, that's the great thing about films, the tolerance of different opinions and every film means something different to each person.

tobefrank321 · 25-09-2020 2:19pm

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Which is the best western, the good the bad and the ugly or once upon a time in the west??

For me, Shane and Who Shot Liberty Valance are very good, and beautifully illustrate life in the "west".

expectationlost · 25-09-2020 5:56pm

The Philadelphia Story a 'comedy' starts with the husband pushing his wife to the ground.

Conall Cernach · 26-09-2020 8:05pm

tobefrank321 wrote: »

For me, Shane and Who Shot Liberty Valance are very good, and beautifully illustrate life in the "west".

The Searchers is my own favourite western it's beautifully shot with strong performances from everyone and explores themes of racism, obsession, family, loneliness etc.

jack of all · 26-09-2020 8:08pm

The Culpepper Cattle Company is another western that's well worth a watch.

HiGlo · 27-09-2020 4:22am

i grew up watching old movies and loved them (they were already old by the time i was watching them)....
Some of my faves;
Harvey (one of the best family comedies ever! Arsenic & Old Lace is also good)
Rebecca (dark suspense thriller type)
Some Like it Hot
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (but I’m a Tenesee Williams fan so perhaps not for everyone - it’s very dialogue heavy as it’s an adaptation of a play)
On the Waterfront
Gone with the Wind is a great epic story
On The Town (as someone mentioned) is a great musical. Adored it as a kid!!
12 Angry Men (having been on a jury I can see how close to reality this movie is. It’s really well done in my opinion)
Shane (loved this as a kid too)
Roman Holiday
Lawrence of Arabia
North by northwest
The Apartment

There’s probs loads more but just what I can think of....

I actually amnt a huge fan of Casablanca but I can appreciate the filmmaking and storytelling involved.

I definitely sometimes lament “they don’t make em like that any more” sometimes... Some modern movies are too fast moving and action packed etc etc.... At the end of the day it’s business and they’re chasing the money but there’s such a distinct lack of storytelling to some movies these days.

As one poster said sometimes it seems people forgotten that movies can be about characters and their story.... That’s my preferred kind of movie. (don’t get me wrong. I enjoy a Marvel blockbuster with the best of em, but I lament some good quality storytelling).

ballyargus · 27-09-2020 5:10am

I find the opposite to be true. Modern movies are hard to stomach. Tacky soundtracks and lurid editing.

Give me a film by Billy Wilder, Orson Welles or John Huston any day of the week

mikeecho · 27-09-2020 5:17am

I watched Key Largo (1948) on one of the Sony movie channels recently, and I thought it was brilliant.

Some like it hot is another great one.

27-09-2020 5:20am

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Which is the best western, the good the bad and the ugly or once upon a time in the west??

Once upon a time in the west shades it imo... Start is excellent in the train station; Jack Elam having a disagreement with a fly was funny (think they used honey to attract that fly).... And along comes Charlie with the great "You brought 2 too many" line.

It was bittersweet too - bitter because the old west was dying, but sweet because of all the homesteaders and such making lives for themselves in the USA :pac:

The lead actress was sweet too

27-09-2020 6:22am

Double Indemnity and Strangers On A Train are both excellent films.

larva · 27-09-2020 7:38am

Ive got a thing for old historical roman films

Spartacus
Ben Hur
Cleopatra
Fall of the Roman Empire (Obi Wan does a great Marcus Aurelius)

Ive even watched the infamous Caligula though I cant say I would recommend that anyone watch that, ever.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-09-2020 12:13am

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Which is the best western, the good the bad and the ugly or once upon a time in the west??

It's a series sort of. A Fistful of Dollars is a low budget remake of Yojimbo, both are classics.

The Good The Bad and the Ugly and For a Few Dollar More had bigger budgets and are better films. Music works better in them too.

Nice use of music in Blazing Saddles too, Count Basie and his Orchestra. Another one of the movies that got the traditional Hollywood Western put on hold for years.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-09-2020 12:20am

Tammy! wrote: »

Scrooge :P

The 1970 Scrooge musical is way better than the 1968 Oliver!

pixelburp · 28-09-2020 12:07pm

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I give every film a chance. I gave Citizen Kane plenty of chances. Its no doubt a great film, but I could never understand why some would put it down as their number 1 film of all time. Top 10 sure.

Spielberg classics? He's been hit and miss. He hasn't been afraid to go down the blockbuster sequels route himself. He's made some all time greats, Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, and some others.
I found Bridge of Spies, The Post and Lincoln hard watches and they just didn't do it for me. Others probably found them differently, each to their own. He flogged Indiana Jones to death for example. The CGI on the last one was awful.

One person's classic doesn't work for someone else, that's the great thing about films, the tolerance of different opinions and every film means something different to each person.

Again I think there's a tricky question of Recency that comes into this entire discussion: you look at Hitchcock or Kubrick - two immortals in terms of "classic" cinema - and many folk that would include casual filmgoers can list the goto classic from both; but like Spielberg, their catalogues are themsevles full of also-rans nobody remembers or cared-for - especially Hitchcock.

How many people have seen or even heard of "Torn Curtain", "The Paradine Case" or "Family Plot" (ok the last maybe 'cos it was the director's final film)? Perhaps a few here given the generational lamenting going on, but I daresay even enthusiasts would struggle to recall many from Hitchcock's admittedly voluminous CV. Whlle with Kubrick, how often does "Paths of Glory" or "The Killing" figure in any discussion? Another forgotten film, "Barry Lyndon", has recently surfaced into the zeitgeist somewhat, but often only for the technical merits of the film (having shot much by literal candlelight).

So Spielberg has a lot in common with Hitchcock in that they're both busy men with long careers and as such, quite the varying filmography. In time Spielberg's flops or failures will be forgotten, this latter part of his career framed within some retrospective angle. Now, the latter has nothing in his catalogue as wretched as "Ready Player One", but Hitchcock was an ostentatious filmmaker; he liked thrilling his audience and turning the screw, happy to jump into various genres. Heck maybe were he alive today we'd have already seen a Hitchcock superhero film. Impossible to know but works like "The Birds" didn't exactly suggest a subtle, artful man by any account

Decuc500 · 28-09-2020 4:24pm

I’ve been watching a lot of Hitchcock’s films recently. His run of films from the early 50’s onwards is so impressive.
Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, Vertigo, North By Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, Marnie. I particularly loved The Man Who Knew Too Much.
They are crowd pleasing films but made with such skill and style and a wicked black humour. And he was over 50 when making all these. You’d think he should be slowing down, not producing classics.

You can see so many camera moves, sequences, edits etc that have been imitated and copied to death ever since.

Torn Curtain and Topaz might be lacking overall but suddenly there would be one great moment that reminds you you’re watching Hitchcock.

Tony EH · 28-09-2020 4:35pm

I became a bit obsessed with Hitchcock in my 20's and at one stage had nearly every film he made (from 1934 onwards) on video, but today there are only a few films that I can still watch of his. 'Rear Window' being one of them, which I threw on last night for the first time in ages and it's still a great film.

Probably 'Psycho', 'Rear Window' and 'Vertigo' are the blessed trinity of Hitchcock movies. But I've always thought 'Frenzy' was one of his greatest.

expectationlost · 28-09-2020 6:00pm

Tony EH wrote: »

I became a bit obsessed with Hitchcock in my 20's and at one stage had nearly every film he made (from 1934 onwards) on video, but today there are only a few films that I can still watch of his. 'Rear Window' being one of them, which I threw on last night for the first time in ages and it's still a great film.

Probably 'Psycho', 'Rear Window' and 'Vertigo' are the blessed trinity of Hitchcock movies. But I've always thought 'Frenzy' was one of his greatest.

because they are nearly all the same film, even thought excellently made and variance in style for some of them, he's a bit of sick bastard, I started watching Frenzy and turned it off I'll might try it again.

Homelander · 28-09-2020 9:41pm

The Longest Day is one of the timeless classics for me. Few others too from the slightly later, and somewhat more realistic era pre-modern movies relatively speaking - A Bridge Too Far for example.

Always found it strange that SPR is now over 20 years old and yet there hasn't been a war movie since that even comes close to capturing the raw, visceral anti-war carnage that it brought to the table.

"Come and See" is another example of a haunting, powerful film that hasn't really been bettered since. The Painted Bird was good but not that good.

Rothko · 29-09-2020 4:22pm

expectationlost wrote: »

because they are nearly all the same film, even thought excellently made and variance in style for some of them, he's a bit of sick bastard, I started watching Frenzy and turned it off I'll might try it again.

Why do you say that?

Joe_ Public · 29-09-2020 6:28pm

Homelander wrote: »

The Longest Day is one of the timeless classics for me. Few others too from the slightly later, and somewhat more realistic era pre-modern movies relatively speaking - A Bridge Too Far for example.

Always found it strange that SPR is now over 20 years old and yet there hasn't been a war movie since that even comes close to capturing the raw, visceral anti-war carnage that it brought to the table.

"Come and See" is another example of a haunting, powerful film that hasn't really been bettered since. The Painted Bird was good but not that good.

The issue for me with SPR is that if you take those admittedly compelling battle scenes out, there's not much left to the film. Very contrived, over wrought plot imo. A triumph of form over content which is also how I would regard Dunkirk.

Personally I think Spielbergs war opus is Band of Brothers which I revisit every couple of years and never find it less than gripping.

29-09-2020 7:16pm

I don't know if they would be considered classic movies, but a lot of
the early talkies in the nineteen thirties must have been lost or destroyed,
or considered too riskay to be shown nowadays

I was watching a bio of Jean Harlow recently, and she was a major star in them
days. She made a few movies 'Pre - Code' , and along with other actresses of the
time she was pretty tasty. In those days they were allowed to appear practically naked on screen :pac:

It's a crying shame that those films are not on TV more often imo.

expectationlost · 29-09-2020 8:33pm

Rothko wrote: »

Why do you say that?

because Hitchcock is famous for making lots of movies about the wrong man accused. (or people that enjoy trying to get away with murder as the other lot)

ShaneU · 29-09-2020 9:15pm

Watched Vertigo for the first time on Netflix a few weeks ago and loved it. It's a slow burn film you don't see very often these days. The acting was a bit OTT at times though.

Tony EH · 29-09-2020 9:40pm

You gotta roll with that. 50's acting could be a little...theatrical.

expectationlost · 02-10-2020 12:48am

bringing up baby jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus christ what an annoying film

bnt · 02-10-2020 5:57pm

Mezzotint wrote: »

It took a while for movie technology to become less intrusive. The early movies tended to be limited by need for extremely bright lighting to ensure films exposed correctly and very primitive sound recording technology that often necessitated very loud speech and ultra clear diction that hampered dialogue. The actors also took a long time to move to away from treating it like a stage performance.

There's a classic comedy / musical movie that is set in the period when sound was introduced, and it covers some of the problems film-makers encountered during the transition: Singin' In The Rain. Silent movie actors didn't always make it: some couldn't sing, so they got dubbed, but some couldn't even talk right. The dancing isn't half bad either e.g. here's how Debbie Reynolds, Donald O'Connor and Gene Kelly say "Good Morning":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB2yiIoEtXw

Tony EH · 02-10-2020 8:04pm

^
One of the very few musicals that I can watch.

Brian? · 04-10-2020 8:49am

Tony EH wrote: »

You gotta roll with that. 50's acting could be a little...theatrical.

Yeah, but it was supposed to be.

There’s a particular American accent you hear in a lot of films, particularly the women in Hitchcock films, that doesn’t actually exist outside those films anymore. I think it was based on rich white Americans from around New York/Connecticut. It sounds horrible to the ear now because it’s so at odds with the generic modern American accent we hear in films.

Tony EH · 04-10-2020 5:42pm

It was called a Mid Atlantic accent. Completely made up and fancied by women mainly, to indicate a poshness. Think Katherine Hepurn.

Full_Circle_81 · 04-10-2020 9:01pm

Tony EH wrote: »

It was called a Mid Atlantic accent. Completely made up and fancied by women mainly, to indicate a poshness. Think Katherine Hepurn.

Also Cary Grant!

silverharp · 05-10-2020 9:06am

The mid Atlantic accent is more modern though , there is an older one I'd call a Haaavaard accent, kind of a preppy college accent from the 40's. Later movies like Trading Places might have used it a bit for effect.

beauf · 05-10-2020 9:20am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The issue for me with SPR is that if you take those admittedly compelling battle scenes out, there's not much left to the film. Very contrived, over wrought plot imo. A triumph of form over content which is also how I would regard Dunkirk.

Personally I think Spielbergs war opus is Band of Brothers which I revisit every couple of years and never find it less than gripping.

Dunkirk is visually amazing. But over done is exactly how I describe it. I much prefer the original Dunkirk captures the events better. Theres lots of scope for better movies on those events. The book was great though. Agree with Band of Brothers. SPR is a watershed moment for war movies. But it's a classic guys on a mission plot in many ways.

beauf · 05-10-2020 9:38am

Homelander wrote: »

The Longest Day is one of the timeless classics for me. Few others too from the slightly later, and somewhat more realistic era pre-modern movies relatively speaking - A Bridge Too Far for example.

Always found it strange that SPR is now over 20 years old and yet there hasn't been a war movie since that even comes close to capturing the raw, visceral anti-war carnage that it brought to the table.

"Come and See" is another example of a haunting, powerful film that hasn't really been bettered since. The Painted Bird was good but not that good.

Fury does much the same for tank warfare. Though it loses its way a bit at the end, and is generally over done.

I'm a big fan of classic films and especially war movies.

Under hill 60 is decent film.

silverharp · 05-10-2020 9:55am

beauf wrote: »

Fury does much the same for tank warfare. Though it loses its way a bit at the end, and is generally over done.

I'm a big fan of classic films and especially war movies.

Under hill 60 is decent film.

I hadnt heard of the hill 60 one, its up on Youtube

https://youtu.be/omRmnZv9UeQ

Homelander · 05-10-2020 1:28pm

beauf wrote: »

Fury does much the same for tank warfare. Though it loses its way a bit at the end, and is generally over done.

I'm a big fan of classic films and especially war movies.

Under hill 60 is decent film.

Fury was exceptionally good until the last 15 minutes where it just lost me completely, I'm shocked they went to such great lengths to make it realistic elsewhere, and just devolved into brainless nonsense at the end.

Tony EH · 05-10-2020 2:27pm

silverharp wrote: »

The mid Atlantic accent is more modern though , there is an older one I'd call a Haaavaard accent, kind of a preppy college accent from the 40's. Later movies like Trading Places might have used it a bit for effect.

The theatrical "mid Atlantic accent" started to be used in the 30's and ended some time in the 50's, when it was viewed as a bit silly.

The "Haaaarvard accent" is a New England one, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. The same desired outcome was sought by using it. To indicate wealth and breeding by cultivating a certain speech pattern. That still occurs in some people today. I met a girl from Rhode Island who had that accent.

It all stems back to the 19th Century on the East cost of the US, where the rich were desirous of a more British accent to disassociate themselves from other "Americans".

How good were 'classic' movies?

Comments