Topic Question
Added 2023-01-27 23:00:13 +0000 UTCName a movie that didn't age well for you when you watched it again.
Comments
Damn, I forgot about Popeye. Though, if memory serves, the artificiality of that set was more intentional, given that it was based on a cartoon. I don’t think Spielberg meant for Neverland to look like it existed on a backlot. There’s a difference between a stylized, fantastical setting and one that looks like it was produced for a movie. Hook falls squarely into the latter category.
Bennett Oliver
2023-01-30 20:46:15 +0000 UTCJesus, I'd forgotten about that one; and Robert Altman's Popeye!
PETER COLLINS
2023-01-30 19:45:34 +0000 UTCThe Labyrinth! Although it only aged 2 days hehe the first time we watched it was with mushroom tea. And it was so amazing we had to watch again sober. Bad idea LOL All those deep, super insightful parts were just corny. It was still good, but no match for our imaginations! XD
You're Awesome
2023-01-29 05:37:22 +0000 UTCSteven Spielberg’s Hook (1991). I grew up loving the movie as much as anyone of my generation, all the more so because it was one of my earliest moviegoing experiences that I remember. But now…I have to reconcile myself to the fact that it is one of Spielberg’s weakest films, and contains examples of some of his worst traits. In Hook, Spielberg mistakes bustle for inventiveness, and fuss for wit. He never stops throwing things at the screen for the audience to see, whether it be shtick or spectacle or some obnoxious combination of the two. The effect is not unlike that of having too much sugar; you don’t feel entertained so much as zapped. And I hate to disparage a film that was made during a time when things were actually constructed rather than green screened, but the sets and costumes look exactly like what they are: sets and costumes. Combine that with the Lost Boys looking like they came out of the Hollywood child talent pool and it’s like you’re watching the most expensive high school play ever produced. The money spent is there to see, but nothing much else. Spielberg went on record at the time saying that he had always wanted to do a Peter Pan movie. It’s enough to make you wish that he had kept his ideas solely for his kids’ local drama school program.
Bennett Oliver
2023-01-29 02:48:30 +0000 UTCKingdom of the Crystal Skull for me. I enjoyed it fine the first time and only upon rewatching it I realized the flaws more. I don't really hate the fridge scene or anything like that that makes peoples blood boil. But finally after viewing all four movies this was definitely a step down from the previous three motion pictures in the franchise. I don't think it's god awful but it's the one I'd rewatch the least out of the films we have
K_
2023-01-28 20:46:33 +0000 UTCGladiator was my first R Rated movie, so growing up I would watch it on TNT at least once a year. When I started exploring cinema in my teens, I kinda forgot about it, and didn’t revisit it on blu ray until last year. I don’t think it’s a bad movie, and I still like the story, but the fighting and action scenes are way too shaky and incomprehensible. There are very few memorable wide or medium shots that show off the choreography and stunts, which is such a letdown for a big budget action film. It’s not as bad as Taken 2-3, but now that I’ve seen John Wick, Mad Max: Fury Road, and The Raid 1-2, I have no patience for films that hide the hard work of their stunt teams.
Jared Angcanan
2023-01-28 18:01:11 +0000 UTC"Les Miserables" by Tom Hooper. I saw it right after premiere in the movie theater, and despite some worrisome signs (like an audience's laughter every time Russell Crowe was *cough* miserably attempting to sing) I've enjoyed it quite a bit as fan of the novel and musical. Rewatched it again, and holy moly, what a mess this movie is. It's a living anti-commercial of big screen musicals. What killed it was probably director's tone death syndrome - he turned one of the most humane world's literature works into a parody. Oscar-baiting, tearjerking scenes one after the other, with Burton-esque setpieces and questionable - to say the least - casting. Don't get me wrong, Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean, HB-C with Sacha Baron Cohen as Thénardiers were pretty good and Colm Wilkinson (who played Jackman's part in London's stage version of the musical) as bishop was a nice touch, but everyone else were doing there poor impersonations of original characters. Famous Anne Hathaway scene is an example of performance directed right to the Academy's committee rather than to the audience. It's a shame, that from all adaptations (good and bad) of Hugo's masterpiece, this one get the biggest commercial success and worldwide appeal. What's worse, it also set the tone for following Hollywood's musicals, like god-awful "Cats" (also work of Hooper) and recent "West Side Story" remake. Ugh.
Mateusz
2023-01-28 16:34:58 +0000 UTCSchindler’s List. When I first saw it, I was blown away by the filmmaking and heartbreaking subject matter. But on reevaluating the film, I find it surprisingly tame and Hollywood for this kind of story, especially compared to other war films like Come and See. I think Kubrick said that it didn’t work for him because the film is about a small success making a difference, where the holocaust is about the ultimate failure of the human race. That pretty much sums up how I feel about it. Not to say that it’s not well made, and certain things such as the Ralph Finnes character are insightful, but overall I think it’s too Hollywood.
Jackson Littlewood
2023-01-28 04:33:26 +0000 UTCUS Marshals- saw on tv the other night. Just horrible.
Paul Robinson
2023-01-28 03:18:01 +0000 UTCThree quasi-classic BW films: (1.) Marty (1955) now seems too slight for the big screen, and somehow incomplete in scene/act story structure. (2.) 12 Angry Men (1957), despite a superlative cast is too on-the-nose earnest, Fonda's arguments are not dispositive to an adult and he carried them too easily. He should have had a shrewd and eloquent antagonist, and the end result would have been more powerful if he lost, or it was deadlocked--for the audience to ponder. (3.) Fail Safe (1964) Fonda and Lumet again. Nuking New York was the kind of nonsense that we now call 'jumping the shark' Lumet's style in the early years was static and deficient in filmic qualities--filmed plays. Didactic and heavy-handed at that. I'll add one color spectacular that took Best Picture: Around the World in 80 Days (1956). I remember watching it wide-eyed the first time. Slept through it on re-release. Cotton candy for the eyes. Sometimes 'no pain, no gain' goes for films too. I don't mean in production, I mean in content
PETER COLLINS
2023-01-28 01:57:27 +0000 UTCI remember I really enjoyed August Rush as a kid and then looked back at it as an adult and thought “This is too sappy.”
Ken
2023-01-28 01:03:59 +0000 UTCAvatar. Admittedly though I admired the picture for it's technical achievements, especially its 3D. James Cameron does have a way with pacing that is uncanny, but Avatar is structurally flimsy to start with.. I've not seen the sequel but I'm pretty sure it's the same.
Atticus Xey
2023-01-27 23:56:01 +0000 UTCI loved Adventureland when I was a teenager but that movie is peak cringe incelcore. Really embarrassing power fantasy of a director redoing his own adolescence as an irresistible and intelligent ladies man. Honestly they should study that movie.
Arthur Augustyn
2023-01-27 23:52:58 +0000 UTCDefinitely all Pasolini's movies and all Rainer Werner Fassbinder's movies haved aged well at all, in my opinion. They are just products of their time, 1970's...
Alexandros Alexandropoulos
2023-01-27 23:51:56 +0000 UTCLike most people, my parents loved the movie Airplane but I had never seen it. When we watched it they said the jokes didn’t hold up as well and there were some references that felt dated. I liked it enough but didn’t at all feel it lived up to its enormous reputation
kron
2023-01-27 23:43:05 +0000 UTCDjango Unchained it came out when I was in high school at the peak of my Tarantino fanboying so I ate it up. I’m still a fan in general, but the older I get I really don’t like his revisions of history movies he did. I could go on and on about how Tarrantino’s black people fetish rears it’s ugly head. But imo it’s just a woefully constructed film. it’s tonal whiplash in the worst way(I mean it’s like a buddy film, then Dukes of Hazard with Kklansman, then there’s like a Mandingo fight in slow motion) the anachronisms are beyond corny. Why does this slave talk like a Bay Area pimp from the 70s and like a Rick Ross needle drop dawg?!! Really?!! and the film has more endings than Return of The King. Watching this and Inglorious Basterds as an adult with at least a cursory understanding of those atrocities there’s something perverse about films like this, because it just feels like he was sitting around getting high like “maan! If I was there I would’ve made a plan to fuck all the Nazis and slave masters up!”
jared Clarke
2023-01-27 23:33:38 +0000 UTCThe original Star Wars trilogy. I didn't see these ones until my early college years when I hadn't fully developed yet as a cinephile and I absolutely loved them like most anyone else. However, after seeing much better and more in depth interpretations of the same general story in franchises like Final Fantasy and Avatar: The Last Airbender, going back to those films is like going back to something more barebones and shallow especially with A New Hope and Return of the Jedi. Empire Strikes Back is still okay but I'd take Final Fantasy VII or X and Aang's story arc over it any day.
Wolfman Brandon
2023-01-27 23:25:25 +0000 UTCMasters of Disguise. Saw it when it came out. I was young and thought it was hilarious. Most bad movies hold up because of nostalgia. But nothing saved Masters of Disguise.
Gabriel Woodward
2023-01-27 23:06:14 +0000 UTC
