Why is the head-spinning cheesy? You say you prefer old school effects but then you think they are cheesy..no comprendo
Isn’t head spinning by definition cheesy?
At the time I don’t think the head-spinning had been done before, right? So it was a big shock. And then a million people parodied it/used it in some way or another, and it became cheesy instead of scary.
Heres the thing…by definition head-spinning is the most terrifying thing to happen to a human being in the realm we live in. Somehow though in most films it comes across cheesy, probably because it is such a fallacy that we tend to think of it as a gimmick. In The Exorcist we see Regan’s head turn around with her face distorted and ultimately consumed by evil. This is the only instance in a film that I can actually say that the gimmick is absolutely necessary and especially terrifying when considering the symbolism of the moment.
And Odilonvert is right. Still though when I watch it today I see it as more symbolically horrific.
i never cared for die hard. what about the terminator? i know it’s tres 80s but how do people feel about it today? it’s impossible for me to be objective. it made a huge and lasting impact on me. don’t get me wrong; i know blade runner and brazil are better films. there’s just something about the terminator …. don’t really care for the sequels tho
Terminator 2 is OK, but I could not get into the first installment.
i can see how it might look dated and cheesy. the effects are laughable, etc. guess u had to be there :P glad i was :D
I love Terminator.
Fuckin-A. The original is the best.
1. I’d actually say that all the films you mentioned hold up extremely well. Especially The Exorcist. To hell with the effects, that film has an atmosphere like none other. Still haunts me.
2. I find that movies that come out of Hollywood are generally god-awful, but every now and then we get a pretty decent one. I mostly use Netflix and Hulu to watch Criterions and find other stuff here and there, so I have access to some wonderful art, and yes, I’m very satisfied. I actually wrote an email to Criterion after staying up all night watching Pierrot le Fou and Seventh Seal the day my girlfriend broke up with me, and thanked them for providing an avenue for such beautiful works of art. (They wrote back, and gave me a gift certificate for my email. THAT’S customer service.) I’d like to see more films that don’t sacrifice good storytelling and cohesive performances for subpar action sequences and “big-name actors.” The Tree of Life doesn’t personally impress me that much beyond the cinematography, but it seems like it’s kinda combined Hollywood with the arthouse, similar to early 90’s Lynch. I like…um….dealing specifically with American film, not much. There are some wonderful film artists in America (Coens come to mind), but we’re so inundated with the Bays and the McG’s that a lot of it falls through the cracks. Internationally, I find modern films to be kinda tiresome. Gomorrah was the newest non-English language film I watched, and while I enjoyed it immensely, it didn’t have the impact of a Europa or even Irreversible, which is possibly the most involving, draining filmgoing experience I’ve ever had, for better or worse.
3. I personally feel that film is one of, if not the most important artform. As a musician, I’m kinda tempted to lean towards music, but it’s impossible to deny that film is more effective at conveying just about every type of emotion. I think it’s generally silly to claim that any art is more “valid or important” than another though. I find films to be the perfect way to gleam something of myself, and when I expect this from a film, I’m hardly ever disappointed. I think film is severely important, and I am afraid that people are losing interest in, for lack of a better word, artfilms. We’ll see, though, this Melancholia press may be helpful. Haha. Also, Brad Pitt.
There’s my two cents. Background: I’m 19, jazz/hip-hop/classical pianist, living in Alabama. Follow me if you like! :D
Unless you really hate romantic comedies, I’d give When Harry Met Sally a shot. Did you ever see It Happened One Night, Bringing Up Baby, Annie Hall or Before Sunrise? if you liked those films, you should give When Harry a try.
…but I really liked When Harry Met Sally.
Alright! It’s a lonely world here at mubi land, though. Me and you, man! :)
I guess if the f/x of The Exorcist are laughable, that explains everything. You can’t be scared of a movie if that’s the case—although I’m not sure The Exorcist depends so heavily on effects (like say a monster movie). I think the idea of possession, especially of a young girl, is what is pretty scary.
Of course, if you think demon possession is about as likely as Freddy Krueger killing you in your dreams, then that would definitely diminish the film’s ability to scare you.
Btw, I thought Pet Semetary was pretty scary, too. Again, you had that child becoming a killer/crazy thing going on.
When do you see Halloween. I wonder if it would be scary now, but I saw it when I was about eleven and it was pretty scary, then.
I prefer the original. But I have to admit the sequel has one of the coolest villains of all time!
Jazz, I’ve seen all of those movies so I will probably try to look into it :3
KATE: that scene from P.S is one of the few that still gets to me today!
huh. so where’s the thread for those that have lost the illusions of youth but are not yet wise enough to accept that loss? i.e. the 25-35 thread…or is every thread other than those designated ours to conquer and snark weakly on? or are our opinions so tremulous and transitional that we shouldn’t be speaking at all? (gnaws gently on the walls of her cocoon and dreams of benning’s ten skies and men with beards)
Die Hard is perfect.
Watching the working-class run around bare-foot is simply enthralling!
He gets so dirty!
Also, it’s Fogey or Fogy, unless you’re an 18th Century Scot.
Noo, gie aff mah green!
Just for your guys reference, im a 20 year old (just finished) joint honour Film and History student at University.
1.The question of classic films, ie films before I was born, I feel have had an impact on me as any film of any age would. Personally my favourite film is ‘The Good, The Bad and the Ugly’, and I am well studied in ‘classics’ such as Hitchcock for example. I personally dont feel that to have an opinion on modern cinema you need a healthy knowledge on past cinema, but it does help. So when for example youre looking at genre filmmaking (seeing as that seems to be the main interest of yours), it does help to know how far back they go, but I dont feel this is vital. You can enjoy a film just as much with or without background knowledge.
In answer to the films you mention…
Jaws, good, doesn’t do much for me though.
Exorcist, best of the lot you mention.
RotLA, bit of throwaway fun.
Have not seen the other films you mentioned.
Oh, I couldnt even start to say what classic films have stood well to time, as there are so many it’ll be a waste of time.
Yes, to be honest I am, which is why I often get frustrated when people (strangely people who seem to only watch cineplex Hollywood) say that they are no good movies anymore. Maybe its helped going to Uni and being able to develop my knowledge, as I’ve done modules where we have looked at movements such as Mumblecore (contemporary indie American, not exactly mainstream), as well as contemporary European cinema. Because of the way the world is, if you want to watch good films, you have to make a bit of an effort, but if you refuse to make that effort, then you aren’t really qualified to say that “there are no more good films”. The thing about modern society (and cinema) is that I have just as much chance of seeing a Cineplex film as a successful Chinese film. I believe people are to lazy, and its far easier to make no effort, watch 1 shit film in 3D a year and then complain that theres nothing good. I’ve seen two movies from 2011 that I believe are fantastic (‘Cold Weather’ by Aaron Katz and ‘Submarine’ by Richard Ayoade, both English speaking), both at cinemas in the UK…wasnt that hard to find them…
I care a lot more about film then most people, but thats not exactly a bad thing, people have differing interests. Some like books, some like going for walks, I like films. My housemates to talk to me about film, maybe because of my interest, but they all have collection of films. 2 out of the 3 have foreign, non-Hollywood films in the collection, so…To be honest, I think we are kidding ourselves if we believe that Cinema is going to become vital to society, it had that chance and its long gone. People think of Cinema, think of Hollywood, cheap Hollywood flicks with which they can zone out to. Thats the difference, some see it as art, most people see it as light entertainment, and I dont really think thats a bad thing, having the light flicks, but if the balance was re-addressed a little more. If these Cineplexs were able (willing?) to show films that challenged the audience to actively participate, it could be addressed.
‘Inception’, if you love or hate, did this to some extent. Im sure most of us here have seen films that are more stimulating and whatever, but that film challenged a mainstream audience to watch, think, and follow what is actually happening, and amazingly it was a huge hit. More films like ‘Inception’, as well as a certain stigma of watching subtitled films disappearing would help Cinema be seen more of an art form.
We will have to wait….
Sorry if this comes across as a ramble, but yeah, im tired and the size of the reply box puts me off scrolling and re-reading it.
1. Those movies from the 1980s are responsible for the economic model as it exists today.
2. Tricky – 1000s of films in festivals each year but only a handful of good ones.
3. They prefer photographs.
Access today is not the issue, there are open-minded theaters and festivals, if not there’s the internet and peer-to-peer sharing, you can watch what you want to watch, if you can be bothered to look.
An interesting question for me is whether the dominant atmosphere has become more anti-intellectual (maybe one might draw an analogy with the shift to the right in politics), especially among those who are supposed to be a bit agressive, rebelious. I’m slightly familiar with film/drama students in my country, and there is maybe a tendency to have a, let’s say self-content approach to taste. There is also a resistance when it comes to non anglophone films (unless they’re sort of classics), which is a bit of a paradox coming from eastern europeans.
There is possibly a conservative, lazy way of thinking, a less stimulating spirit within the let’s-call-it-liberal community, that’s more pronounced now than some 30 years ago.
“You mean the idea that films are culturally and morally getting worse is a false claim, right? If that’s true, are you relatively satisfied with the films being made today?”
Sorry this is such a late response. I’m not particularly satisfied with the quality of films being made today, no. However, I don’t think they’re proportionately any better or worse in a significant way than at any single point in the past. History doesn’t really represent anything of a degradation, things are more or less qualitatively the same. I seem to remember Cicero (~ 50 BC) complaining about the degradation of his society. If that were the case, where does that leave us?
@CeleryFC – welcome to the forums! I absolutely agree with this “‘Inception’, if you love or hate, did this to some extent. Im sure most of us here have seen films that are more stimulating and whatever, but that film challenged a mainstream audience to watch, think, and follow what is actually happening, and amazingly it was a huge hit.” Although INCEPTION doesn’t get much love on MUBI boards.
It entertained the pants off of me and it was wonderful to hear my friends that otherwise don’t give a crap about film talking about it for weeks on FB and Twitter and throwing around theories and ideas with a fervor usually reserved for TV shows like LOST nowadays. It’s been a long time since a mainstream film has inspired so much debate.
I’m 19 so I definitely fall in this category. Of all the films you mentioned I was most excited by the inclusion of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Being a pre-teen watching that film, I wanted to be an archeologist because of that series. I watched the Indiana Jones Series all the time. Then one day I found out there was less gunplay in real archeology and decided I wanted to be a filmmaker haha. But the rest of your list has definitely held up well. I don’t even consider those films remotely outdated.
I’m Rachel and I’m 25
1. out of the films mentioned, I think Jaws, The Exorcist and Die Hard held up pretty well. I think of all the horror films I’ve seen, The Wicker Man (the original) stuck with me the most.
personally I think (these are just from off the top of my head) All About Eve, Sabrina, Anatomy Of A Murder, Amadeus, Harold & Maude, Annie Hall, Bringing Up Baby, Star Wars and even The Terminator 2 stood the test of time as well.
2. I love a lot of today’s movies but there’s something about older films that is just special. I’d love to see more British new wave, but that genre kind of turned into the films Mike Leigh or even Guy Ritchie does. This Is England had that gritty realness, but it wasn’t the same as Saturday Night And Sunday Morning or A Taste Of Honey for example. if the old genre could be duplicated, I’d be very happy.
I love that I live in the age of youtube and TCM etc, where I have access to great films I wouldn’t have when they were released (or after they’re out of theaters)
I think what I don’t like about today’s films is too much emphasis on CGI and special effects. I think emphasis on story, acting, and directing is just as important than looking pretty or scary. and also remaking films, or giving it a sequel/prequel is taking the easy way out of creating something new
3. me and a lot of my friends enjoy old movies, granted they haven’t seen (nor even heard of as many as me and my brother lol), but they love classic Hollywood and cult classics too. I couldn’t do without movies, and I always love finding out that people my age and younger still love classic cinema
1. I don’t think genre films hold up as well for most audiences. Things we as a society find funny and scary are constantly changing, and with action it’s difficult to impress an audience that’s so used to the advanced special effects we have today. For me, I love all the films you mentioned except for When Harry Met Sally, which I haven’t seen. (Die Hard in particular has never failed anyone I’ve shown it to.) But I’m sure I like them in a different way than people who saw them in their time. For example, I appreciate that Ghost Busters is a “classic” but I wasn’t particularly impressed by it. I liked it and see its value as a “classic”.. but that’s as far as it goes. I was scared shitless of The Exorcist as a kid (I am 19, so still pretty much a kid), but when I watched it with my younger sister (she was 11) she was decidedly unimpressed. Most people I know think Monty Python is not funny and would rather see a horror remake like the new Jason movie than Psycho. I am highly critical of films, but I do admit that I give more leeway to older films because it almost feels like it’s not for me to criticize? Like I’m just an onlooker into another time, watching a movie that wasn’t really meant for me. For that reason I’m slightly more forgiving towards older films and their outdated effects and humour. (E.G. I’ve sat through silent film festivals more for the nostalgia factor and out of curiosity than true enjoyment of or enthusiasm for the genre.)
2. Again, it’s much easier for me to be critical of contemporary movies.* I think I (and loads of people as well) have a tendency to focus on the bad, big, blockbusters because they get so much attention, and it becomes easy to forget the things I actually enjoyed. So yes, generally I am satisfied with movies made today and the fact that they’re so easily and readily available. I’m not happy with everything. Mainly large studios’ unwillingness to take risks and wanting to always stick with the same tired actors. And the state of female characters in film. (*Foreign movies are a bit of an exception. I think usually I watch foreign films knowing that likely I am not part of its target audience, and I know I won’t understand every little nuance of a vastly different culture, just like I wouldn’t understand everything in a film that wasn’t made in my time.)
3. I definitely experience films differently than most of my peers. I am much more emotionally invested in fiction (even when something is based on nonfiction) than they are and so I take it a bit more seriously. Which doesn’t mean I only watch “serious” movies (quite the opposite, I often find it difficult to watch arthouse). I don’t think people will ever lose interest in films. Even if the majority of society considers cinema to be vapid, cheap, not worthy of serious thought, the fact is that the media affects everyone in ways we don’t even realize. Life imitates are at this point just as much as art imitates life.
These are interesting questions. I hope future generations can look back on our Jurassic Parks and The Matrixes and still appreciate them.
Damn. I am literally two months too old to participate directly in this thread. Carry on, youngins.
I’m sure no one will protest if you post your thoughts, DiB. Besides, I’m interested in hearing what you have to say.
@ POST-KYO – Thanks for the welcome, but I’ve been a member here a while! I just to restrain myself from the endless debates about nothing that nearly always fall into arguments…!
1. a few classics that i feel have held up and a few that haven’t –
Psycho, particularly the first hour, is a masterpiece, of construction and innovation and i feel holds up very well today almost completely thanks to Hitchcock. Battleship Potemkin is still breathtaking, Godard’s Breathless always makes me excited about film and is fantastic.
However, I feel Kurosawa’s ‘masterpiece’ Rashomon has not aged well at all, it is very stale, full of cheesy poetry and (dare i say it?!) bad acting – Mifune works for the straight up samurai features, but i was embarassed watching it – for me, though the film may have been at one point inspiring it has been easily outdone by many similar films that came after it, i’ve been more impressed by some tv cop show specials. I feel the same way about The French Connection with Gene Hackman (though The Conversation was a near-masterpiece, and possibly Coppola’s technically finest work in directing), it has simply been outdone by so many of its children. Where few films have ever quite topped Psycho because of the highly intricate skill (i feel a different way about Janet Leigh every moment of the film, same with Bates), those two are not really that intricate, too straightforward, so have been easily topped.
Chinatown doesn’t hold up for me, but having said that i don’t think that it is that has dated so much as it was never as great as it has bern said to be (notice how people who love Chinatown never actually say why it’s great, just that it supposedly is?)
And then are pictures like Apocalypse Now, which is i would say in my experience the greatest achievement in cinema, no film before or after ever quite touched it, not even Herzog’s Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo, or Stalker…
2. I think great films are still being made, yes, even in Hollywood. Coen brothers (A Serious Man), PT Anderson (There Will Be Blood), Michael Mann (Public Enemies) are making great movies as are many others – Malick, Polanski, Cronenberg are still around, Lars Von Trier is possibly the finest of his generation (at least those above ground), and making truly great pictures.
But then there’s still nothing quite the magic of old movies
3. I’m taking a couple friends to special showings of Taxi Driver and Apocalypse Now at cineworld….we’ll wait and see :’)
And, not only do I feel our generation has every right to critucise ‘old’ films, but if anything MORE right to, as Nostalgia is a powerful thing, and clouds judgement.