I can't think of a lot off movies of hand....

Stars Wars hasn't age well at all... to my surprise. (IMHO)

James Bond Movies:

Batman movies- noted exception, Dark Night Trilogy

Network- Faye Dunway could never act and she was always one scene from busting out and acting as Mommie Dearest in damn near ever movie she starred in ... with the exception of Chinatown but she wasn't carrying that film either.

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - it didn't hold up when it was released.

Cat On A Hot Tin Roof

Fatal Attraction

Jaws

A lot of the Si-Fi moives of the 50's / 60's... because the future is here.

Most 50s/60s - Si-Fi

Superman I, II, & III

Love Story

Rosemary Baby

Clint Eastwood movies

.. And Just For All - theis movie started Al Pacino down the road to over acting.

Love Story

TD3 said:

Clint Eastwood movies

why do you hate the guy? because he made a fool of himself supporting Romney?

lol

wax on, wax off

imago said:

Prince: Screwdriver video

I would think that most (not all) sci films would suffer the most in the not aging well department.

But, perhaps it's are minds that have changed and not the movies.

When I was a kid I liked Short Circuit the movie. Not so much as an adult.

NDRU said:

Maybe it always sucked (though it did get good reviews) but Purple Rain has some of the worst drama I have seen.

The acting, however, is timeless.

The Matirx pt II and III

Poltergeist

Ghostbusters

JoeTyler said:

Poltergeist

Ghostbusters

ummm, WRONG!!!!! ghostbusters will never fade. never!

XxAxX said:

JoeTyler said:

Poltergeist

Ghostbusters

ummm, WRONG!!!!! ghostbusters will never fade. never!

I recently rewatched it (had not seen it since the late 90s):

I HATED IT stupidfest

ManlyMoose said:

I'm pretty sure your gonna have a tough time convincing people that the acting in anyone of the LOTRs was bad (Except for a couple of Bloom parts), the last two of the three are critics pets and with good reason too, the last in particular is held in the same ranks as the Godfathers and Shawshenk.

I think you're saying audiences now hold ROTK in the esteem of the Godfathers and Shawshank. Outside of ROTK being better than GIII, those audiences really need to evaluate that position.

JoeTyler said:

XxAxX said:

ummm, WRONG!!!!! ghostbusters will never fade. never!

I recently rewatched it (had not seen it since the late 90s):

I HATED IT stupidfest

I never liked Ghostbusters even back in, what was it? 1983? I never understood why it was so well regarded.

"Poltergeist" however is a classic for me. I saw it 5 times in the theater in '82.

It still blows away idiotic stuff like "Insidious" which feels like some "Tales from the Darkside" from the late 80's.

But they are remaking "Poltergeist" so those that feel it is dated will get an update.

ufoclub said:

JoeTyler said:

I recently rewatched it (had not seen it since the late 90s):

I HATED IT stupidfest

I never liked Ghostbusters even back in, what was it? 1983? I never understood why it was so well regarded.

"Poltergeist" however is a classic for me. I saw it 5 times in the theater in '82.

It still blows away idiotic stuff like "Insidious" which feels like some "Tales from the Darkside" from the late 80's.

But they are remaking "Poltergeist" so those that feel it is dated will get an update.

my problem with Poltergeist is how tongue-in-check it is, it's just a loud/overproduced boogeyman movie with excessive special effects; I also think Tobe Hopper had a different vision but Spielberg kinda forced him to adopt an "ET-like style" (family friendly)

just remember how disturbing and menacing The Thing was (a relatively "similar" movie released the same year), or how terrifying the first Paranormal Activity is, a superior "evil ghosts" movie with almost no budget...

[Edited 3/29/13 8:12am]

ufoclub said:

JoeTyler said:

ufoclub said:

I never liked Ghostbusters even back in, what was it? 1983? I never understood why it was so well regarded.

"Poltergeist" however is a classic for me. I saw it 5 times in the theater in '82.

It still blows away idiotic stuff like "Insidious" which feels like some "Tales from the Darkside" from the late 80's.

But they are remaking "Poltergeist" so those that feel it is dated will get an update.

my problem with Poltergeist is how tongue-in-check it is, it's just a loud/overproduced boogeyman movie with excessive special effects; I also think Tobe Hopper had a different vision but Spielberg kinda forced him to adopt an "ET-like style" (family friendly)

just remember how disturbing and menacing The Thing was (a relatively "similar" movie released the same year), or how terrifying the first Paranormal Activity is, a superior "evil ghosts" movie with almost no budget...

[Edited 3/29/13 8:12am]

I agree with everything you said

rdhull said:

JoeTyler said:

my problem with Poltergeist is how tongue-in-check it is, it's just a loud/overproduced boogeyman movie with excessive special effects; I also think Tobe Hopper had a different vision but Spielberg kinda forced him to adopt an "ET-like style" (family friendly)

just remember how disturbing and menacing The Thing was (a relatively "similar" movie released the same year), or how terrifying the first Paranormal Activity is, a superior "evil ghosts" movie with almost no budget...

[Edited 3/29/13 8:12am]

I agree with everything you said

oh, a fellow The Thing fan :cheers:

JoeTyler said:

rdhull said:

I agree with everything you said

oh, a fellow The Thing fan :cheers:

yes..the clustrophobic paranoid atmosphere captured was awesome

rdhull said:

JoeTyler said:

oh, a fellow The Thing fan :cheers:

yes..the clustrophobic paranoid atmosphere captured was awesome

yeah I remember the first time I watched it: I had no idea what the hell was going on or who/where was the alien or whatever that thing was, the actors did a good job expressing the anguish of the characters...

one of my fav winter movies

JoeTyler said:

rdhull said:

yes..the clustrophobic paranoid atmosphere captured was awesome

yeah I remember the first time I watched it: I had no idea what the hell was going on or who/where was the alien or whatever that thing was, the actors did a good job expressing the anguish of the characters...

one of my fav winter movies

I think the thing is a perfect example of a sci-fi-ish movie that holds up incredibly well because the story is so solid and well acted, & the claustrophobic atmosphere is still so effective. You can look for the seams in the effects if you want to do so, and they may look a little quaint, but you should try just to judge them by standards of the era, and by that measure the thing is top notch. I'd say the much the same thing about Alien. I also think some 50's era sci-fi films hold up really well - Forbidden Planet & The Day the Earth Stood Still in particular.

Aliens, on the other hand, seems a little wobbly to me now, maybe in part because the versions I've seen all look a little fuzzy and the miniatures look a little too obvious now, but mainly because it seems like such a typical 80s action movie - not too far removed from Commando or something silly like that.

JoeTyler said:

XxAxX said:

ummm, WRONG!!!!! ghostbusters will never fade. never!

I recently rewatched it (had not seen it since the late 90s):

I HATED IT stupidfest

wrong. just....wrong

JoeTyler said:

ufoclub said:

I never liked Ghostbusters even back in, what was it? 1983? I never understood why it was so well regarded.

"Poltergeist" however is a classic for me. I saw it 5 times in the theater in '82.

It still blows away idiotic stuff like "Insidious" which feels like some "Tales from the Darkside" from the late 80's.

But they are remaking "Poltergeist" so those that feel it is dated will get an update.

my problem with Poltergeist is how tongue-in-check it is, it's just a loud/overproduced boogeyman movie with excessive special effects; I also think Tobe Hopper had a different vision but Spielberg kinda forced him to adopt an "ET-like style" (family friendly)

just remember how disturbing and menacing The Thing was (a relatively "similar" movie released the same year), or how terrifying the first Paranormal Activity is, a superior "evil ghosts" movie with almost no budget...

[Edited 3/29/13 8:12am]

Actually Tobe Hooper had just come off of the quite impactful miniseries "Salem's Lot" which used all manner of effects to revolutionize how creative vampires were presented even with a made-for-tv-budget. Floating around with the power to fly, The Exorcist eyes, the very human voices and presence with the completely inhuman appearance, the smoke, and use of reverse motion, physically impossible movments, plus the demon uber vampire design that was an homage to Nosferatu. If you think about those patterns, the drive to make Poltergeist (a funhouse ride converted to an event movie) with the use of cutting edge/surreal effects was a partnership of both Hooper and Spielberg.

"The Thing" on the other hand failed for me to actually delivery a sense of claustrophobia or scare and came off, in plot and characters, as far less effective take on a combo the far superior films "Alien" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1978).

Carpenter never reached the scarey heights he did with "Halloween" ever again, but he himself has made his own handful of extremely entertaining "funhouse" type horror/comedy/scifi that are tongue in cheek films (Prince of Darkness, They Live, and I can't remember name of the one with Sam Neil).

Don't get me wrong, where "The Thing" excelled was in the practical makeup effects. Rob Bottin was a creative genius pioneer with The Howling and The Thing.

ufoclub said:

JoeTyler said:

my problem with Poltergeist is how tongue-in-check it is, it's just a loud/overproduced boogeyman movie with excessive special effects; I also think Tobe Hopper had a different vision but Spielberg kinda forced him to adopt an "ET-like style" (family friendly)

just remember how disturbing and menacing The Thing was (a relatively "similar" movie released the same year), or how terrifying the first Paranormal Activity is, a superior "evil ghosts" movie with almost no budget...

[Edited 3/29/13 8:12am]

Actually Tobe Hooper had just come off of the quite impactful miniseries "Salem's Lot" which used all manner of effects to revolutionize how creative vampires were presented even with a made-for-tv-budget. Floating around with the power to fly, The Exorcist eyes, the very human voices and presence with the completely inhuman appearance, the smoke, and use of reverse motion, physically impossible movments, plus the demon uber vampire design that was an homage to Nosferatu. If you think about those patterns, the drive to make Poltergeist (a funhouse ride converted to an event movie) with the use of cutting edge/surreal effects was a partnership of both Hooper and Spielberg.

"The Thing" on the other hand failed for me to actually delivery a sense of claustrophobia or scare and came off, in plot and characters, as far less effective take on a combo the far superior films "Alien" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1978).

Carpenter never reached the scarey heights he did with "Halloween" ever again, but he himself has made his own handful of extremely entertaining "funhouse" type horror/comedy/scifi that are tongue in cheek films (Prince of Darkness, They Live, and I can't remember name of the one with Sam Neil).

Don't get me wrong, where "The Thing" excelled was in the practical makeup effects. Rob Bottin was a creative genius pioneer with The Howling and The Thing.

Did you see The Thiong in a theater upon release or later on video and tv?

Same with Poltergeist? Did you see it in a theater?

rdhull said:

ufoclub said:

Actually Tobe Hooper had just come off of the quite impactful miniseries "Salem's Lot" which used all manner of effects to revolutionize how creative vampires were presented even with a made-for-tv-budget. Floating around with the power to fly, The Exorcist eyes, the very human voices and presence with the completely inhuman appearance, the smoke, and use of reverse motion, physically impossible movments, plus the demon uber vampire design that was an homage to Nosferatu. If you think about those patterns, the drive to make Poltergeist (a funhouse ride converted to an event movie) with the use of cutting edge/surreal effects was a partnership of both Hooper and Spielberg.

"The Thing" on the other hand failed for me to actually delivery a sense of claustrophobia or scare and came off, in plot and characters, as far less effective take on a combo the far superior films "Alien" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1978).

Carpenter never reached the scarey heights he did with "Halloween" ever again, but he himself has made his own handful of extremely entertaining "funhouse" type horror/comedy/scifi that are tongue in cheek films (Prince of Darkness, They Live, and I can't remember name of the one with Sam Neil).

Don't get me wrong, where "The Thing" excelled was in the practical makeup effects. Rob Bottin was a creative genius pioneer with The Howling and The Thing.

Did you see The Thiong in a theater upon release or later on video and tv?

Same with Poltergeist? Did you see it in a theater?

I saw "Poltergeist" many times in the theater and then on video. That was always a packed house in the theater, summer of '82. It's not meant to be serious horror as much as (like a theme park haunted house) a fun thrill with incredibly imaginative sequences. It was the flip side to "E.T." (which similarly is not intended to be serious scifi) and both were shot at the same time. Two different takes on surreal suburban exaggerations. Both were incredibly accurate in the middle class Americana culture of the time, warts and all (pot smoking parents, suburban sprawl with the illusion of peace and control, broken families with estranged kids)

I saw "The Thing" and "Alien" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" all on Beta rental or Satellite cable (what was it called, Movievision?). I think those three are quite comparable in what they were trying to do: Shocking organic realistic aesthetic of monster and sound design, working class natural Altman-esque characters, paranoia, claustrophobia, loss of order.

I now own and rotate all four movies on blu-ray. I showed just "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" to my film class last week.

Even if you watch the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and then watch "Sugarland Express" (also shot and set in Texas) you will see the similarities between Hooper and Spielberg, and why it was a good pairup. Look at how they stage scenes, and how they love acting "frenzies". From what I hear, Hooper may have fallen to alcohol or drugs after which stopped him after the rapid ramp of TX Chainsaw to Salem's Lot to Poltergeist.

ufoclub said:

rdhull said:

Did you see The Thiong in a theater upon release or later on video and tv?

Same with Poltergeist? Did you see it in a theater?

I saw "Poltergeist" many times in the theater and then on video.

I saw "The Thing" and "Alien" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" all on Beta rental or Satellite cable (

Thanks. That's what I thought.

rdhull said:

ufoclub said:

I saw "Poltergeist" many times in the theater and then on video.

I saw "The Thing" and "Alien" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" all on Beta rental or Satellite cable (

Thanks. That's what I thought.

There's good reason "The Thing" bombed upon release unlike "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or "Alien". It weighed in with style of effects over it's derivative plot and pastel characters. Read any number of reviews from '82. Plus I saw all three under the same viewing conditions. Two were very scary as was Carpenter's own "Halloween", even on a little B&W tv. "The Thing", was not scary at all. It was spectacular in visuals, and highly influential in that regard alone.

Here you go as an example of a review of 1982's The Thing:

"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost. Characters have never been Carpenter's strong point; he says he likes his movies to create emotions in his audiences, and I guess he'd rather see us jump six inches than get involved in the personalities of his characters. This time, though, despite some roughed-out typecasting and a few reliable stereotypes (the drunk, the psycho, the hero), he has populated his ice station with people whose primary purpose in life is to get jumped on from behind. The few scenes that develop characterizations are overwhelmed by the scenes in which the men are just setups for an attack by the Thing.

That leads us to the second problem, plausibility. We know that the Thing likes to wait until a character is alone, and then pounce, digest, and imitate him--by the time you see Doc again, is he still Doc, or is he the Thing? Well, the obvious defense against this problem is a watertight buddy system, but, time and time again, Carpenter allows his characters to wander off alone and come back with silly grins on their faces, until we've lost count of who may have been infected, and who hasn't. That takes the fun away. - Roger Ebert

ufoclub said:

Carpenter never reached the scarey heights he did with "Halloween" ever again, but he himself has made his own handful of extremely entertaining "funhouse" type horror/comedy/scifi that are tongue in cheek films (Prince of Darkness, They Live, and I can't remember name of the one with Sam Neil).

"In The Mouth Of Madness"... A CLASSIC!

A friend was over with his kids (7 and 8 year olds) so I put on my girls DVD of "Neverending Story" (hadn't seen that shit since I was 8 years old and loved it back then...)

That shit blew my mind in how shitty that shit is... That movie did not age well... I almost felt embarrassed watching it while these kids were looking at me like "WTF man?!"...

So I just stopped it halfway and put "Eraserhead" on just to fuck with them... That movie aged perfectly...

Neversin.

ufoclub said:

rdhull said:

Thanks. That's what I thought.

There's good reason "The Thing" bombed upon release unlike "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or "Alien". It weighed in with style of effects over it's derivative plot and pastel characters. Read any number of reviews from '82. Plus I saw all three under the same viewing conditions. Two were very scary as was Carpenter's own "Halloween", even on a little B&W tv. "The Thing", was not scary at all. It was spectacular in visuals, and highly influential in that regard alone.

Here you go as an example of a review of 1982's The Thing:

"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost. Characters have never been Carpenter's strong point; he says he likes his movies to create emotions in his audiences, and I guess he'd rather see us jump six inches than get involved in the personalities of his characters. This time, though, despite some roughed-out typecasting and a few reliable stereotypes (the drunk, the psycho, the hero), he has populated his ice station with people whose primary purpose in life is to get jumped on from behind. The few scenes that develop characterizations are overwhelmed by the scenes in which the men are just setups for an attack by the Thing.

That leads us to the second problem, plausibility. We know that the Thing likes to wait until a character is alone, and then pounce, digest, and imitate him--by the time you see Doc again, is he still Doc, or is he the Thing? Well, the obvious defense against this problem is a watertight buddy system, but, time and time again, Carpenter allows his characters to wander off alone and come back with silly grins on their faces, until we've lost count of who may have been infected, and who hasn't. That takes the fun away. - Roger Ebert

it's ok if you don't like The Thing, but don't pretend that the movie is not rewarded as a classic; I couldn't care less if the movie was not a hit back in 1982 (american audiences??? L-O-L). Just look how revered the Thing is on RottenTomatoes or AllMovie

period

JoeTyler said:

ufoclub said:

There's good reason "The Thing" bombed upon release unlike "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or "Alien". It weighed in with style of effects over it's derivative plot and pastel characters. Read any number of reviews from '82. Plus I saw all three under the same viewing conditions. Two were very scary as was Carpenter's own "Halloween", even on a little B&W tv. "The Thing", was not scary at all. It was spectacular in visuals, and highly influential in that regard alone.

Here you go as an example of a review of 1982's The Thing:

"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost. Characters have never been Carpenter's strong point; he says he likes his movies to create emotions in his audiences, and I guess he'd rather see us jump six inches than get involved in the personalities of his characters. This time, though, despite some roughed-out typecasting and a few reliable stereotypes (the drunk, the psycho, the hero), he has populated his ice station with people whose primary purpose in life is to get jumped on from behind. The few scenes that develop characterizations are overwhelmed by the scenes in which the men are just setups for an attack by the Thing.

That leads us to the second problem, plausibility. We know that the Thing likes to wait until a character is alone, and then pounce, digest, and imitate him--by the time you see Doc again, is he still Doc, or is he the Thing? Well, the obvious defense against this problem is a watertight buddy system, but, time and time again, Carpenter allows his characters to wander off alone and come back with silly grins on their faces, until we've lost count of who may have been infected, and who hasn't. That takes the fun away. - Roger Ebert

it's ok if you don't like The Thing, but don't pretend that the movie is not rewarded as a classic; I couldn't care less if the movie was not a hit back in 1982 (american audiences??? L-O-L). Just look how revered the Thing is on RottenTomatoes or AllMovie

period

ufo tried ro intellectualize the hell out of his reasoning lol

Genesia said:

thekidsgirl said:

I COMPLETELY agree with you!! (and I'm under 35, lol) ... I was reading this, wondering how some people decide that a movie has not aged well?

Films are like snapshots of a place and time. A cheesey sci-fi film of the 70's may look comical by today's standards when it comes to special effects, but it is still a slice of 70's cinema and at that time may have been cutting edge.

Exactly! A great example of the sci-fi genre is Forbidden Planet. To the casual observer, this movie is hilarious, because of the dated 50s effects. But the movie is based on Shakespeare's The Tempest. And nobody better think of telling me that Shakespeare's plays haven't aged well.

most have, some havent.

not a big measure for measure fan, for instance

.

[Edited 3/29/13 14:17pm]

JoeTyler said:

ufoclub said:

There's good reason "The Thing" bombed upon release unlike "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or "Alien". It weighed in with style of effects over it's derivative plot and pastel characters. Read any number of reviews from '82. Plus I saw all three under the same viewing conditions. Two were very scary as was Carpenter's own "Halloween", even on a little B&W tv. "The Thing", was not scary at all. It was spectacular in visuals, and highly influential in that regard alone.

Here you go as an example of a review of 1982's The Thing:

"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost. Characters have never been Carpenter's strong point; he says he likes his movies to create emotions in his audiences, and I guess he'd rather see us jump six inches than get involved in the personalities of his characters. This time, though, despite some roughed-out typecasting and a few reliable stereotypes (the drunk, the psycho, the hero), he has populated his ice station with people whose primary purpose in life is to get jumped on from behind. The few scenes that develop characterizations are overwhelmed by the scenes in which the men are just setups for an attack by the Thing.

That leads us to the second problem, plausibility. We know that the Thing likes to wait until a character is alone, and then pounce, digest, and imitate him--by the time you see Doc again, is he still Doc, or is he the Thing? Well, the obvious defense against this problem is a watertight buddy system, but, time and time again, Carpenter allows his characters to wander off alone and come back with silly grins on their faces, until we've lost count of who may have been infected, and who hasn't. That takes the fun away. - Roger Ebert

it's ok if you don't like The Thing, but don't pretend that the movie is not rewarded as a classic; I couldn't care less if the movie was not a hit back in 1982 (american audiences??? L-O-L). Just look how revered the Thing is on RottenTomatoes or AllMovie

period

I love The Thing. That's why I bought it. That's why I bought the Cinefantastique that covers it back in the day. But I know it doesn't quite work for me as a solid movie. I'm not saying it has aged badly by any means. In fact it is getting better like wine...

but...

It didn't hit anywhere in the world. The only reason it's a classic now is in comparison to some contemporary attempts at scifi horror. But if you put in context of those other two classic movies or Carpenter's own "Halloween", it just doesn't quite work as horror. It has great sets, great photography, sound design, score, casting, and effects... but the flaw is in the script. But it is MUCH BETTER than the revamp prequel that came out last year.

I love "The Thing". That's why I own the blu-ray and show it to people. But I know what my initial reaction was when I saw it. Same as with "Blade Runner" or "Tron". they all look cool, they should have been cool... but they felt like they were all lacking something. But they have cool enough elements to love.

Both "Blade Runner" and "Tron" (same summer of '82, my favorite summer form childhood) are considered classics now by legions of fanboys, but if you really look at both, they have everything BUT a functional compelling plot. In fact, if you outline the story of "Blade Runner" it's quite flimsy, a cake that didn't rise. But it's frosted up with 12 inches of visuals and sound design and poetic dialog and an incredible performance by Rutger Hauer. It took the style of the last third of "Apocalypse Now" and applied it to the scifi setting and seduced fanboys years later.

I keep shit REAL, I bought "Westworld" but would never ever buy "The Terminator". You know what I mean?

And hey, the new "Battlestar Galactica" is brilliant, while the old one sucked. It's not a nostalgia thing with me. It's a functional, truthful, analytical thing.