Movies You Changed Your Mind About (1 Viewer)

[Worth]

I wonder if the fakeness of sets or rear projection in older movies was even a concern to viewers back then. I think it was probably like when there's bad CG in movies today. The audience knows it's fake but they accept it because that's just what you see in a movie.

I don't think it was an issue up until around Marnie. The effects in Hitchcock's older films are are on par or better than other films of their era. But he became stuck in that mindset, and by the mid-60s, other movies started using new techniques while Hitchcock remained set in his ways.

 

[Thomas T]

Well, my biggest confession here would be that from the time I was a kid until I was in my 20s, I did not like Alfred Hitchcock films much. I just felt the films looked phony and were loaded down with artifice. Everything to me looked so carefully staged and doll house. It just did not work. As a kid growing up in the 1970s I was in love with the pictures of that time and those pictures took great pains to look and feel much more realistic and gritty. They shot on real locations and it gave the films such grand authenticity. Hitchcock cared about none of that, he was reveling in the idea that we are watching a movie. Things were allowed to look fake because it was a movie and he was not hiding from you any of the seams. Once I got used to that...well...I fell in love with his pictures. It took a long time for me to get there though.

Now this idea that yes, you are watching a movie and movies being about movies is central to so many films. Quentin Tarantino's whole career is about "Hey, look at me I'm making a movie!" and yes, it tends to be a lot of fun. Now being self referential seems a requirement.

Oddly, I latched on to De Palma before Hitchcock and it was basically just about the settings in his pictures looking less phony. De Palma though was just embracing that Hitchcock idea that it was alright to be winking at your audience and not caring how outrageous things get because...well...it is supposed to because it's a movie.

The emergence of realism was refreshing after decades of Hollywood artifice. Post WWII, movie audiences were more willing to accept naturalism after what the world had been through and by the end of the 1970s glossy Hollywood movies like Doctor Dolittle and Star! began bombing at the box office while audiences embraced more gritty films like Midnight Cowboy and Easy Rider. But ironically, posterity has been kinder to movies like Doctor Dolitttle and Star! than Easy Rider and Midnight Cowboy who seem to be stuck in time. Nothing dates faster than topicality. Timelessness is forever.

 

[jayembee]

Agreed. Try doing anything with a migraine, or any other condition that demands your attention. It's possible, but it never comes to any good.

I went to a midnight show of Armageddon back on its initial release. I didn't walk in with a headache, but I walked out with one. First and still only time a movie ever gave me a headache. I had wondered if my (extremely) negative reaction to the movie was because of of the growing headache, but had no desire to try watching it again.

Because I was collecting Criterion LDs at the time, I picked up their edition of Armageddon. It took me a while to get myself in the right frame of mine to finally watch it. I have to confess that I really enjoyed watching all of the supplements, but the movie itself still sucked beyond understanding.

 

[jayembee]

Humor is subjective and subject to change as we mature. As a kid, I laughed at the Three Stooges. As an adult, they appall me.

I've always said that there's nothing more subjective than a sense of humor, except for perhaps a sense of beauty.

That said, I've always liked the Stooges, and still do. Which is odd, as I tend toward more witty comedy and away from mean-spirited and "cruel" comedy. But there's just something about the Stooges that makes me laugh. I think mostly it's Curly's unabashed (and sometimes incomprehensible) joie de vivre.

My adult nephews couldn't stand the Stooges, but they enjoyed watching WWE. They thought of it in the "so bad it's good" category, and considered it hilarious. I never saw the appeal. Hence my feelings about senses of humor.

 

[jayembee]

I don't think it was an issue up until around Marnie. The effects in Hitchcock's older films are are on par or better than other films of their era. But he became stuck in that mindset, and by the mid-60s, other movies started using new techniques while Hitchcock remained set in his ways.

This makes me think of my reaction to Clash of the Titans (the original). Up to that point, I'd always been a fan of Ray Harryhausen. I probably would've been more receptive to Clash if it wasn't for the fact that it was preceded by a month or two by Dragonslayer. In comparison, Harryhausen's effects looked antiquated.

These days, though I marvel at the quality of CGI, I'm still enamored of stop-motion animation because one can see the artistry of it, and all of the effort put into it, right there on the screen.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

I went to a midnight show of Armageddon back on its initial release. I didn't walk in with a headache, but I walked out with one. First and still only time a movie ever gave me a headache. I had wondered if my (extremely) negative reaction to the movie was because of of the growing headache, but had no desire to try watching it again.

Because I was collecting Criterion LDs at the time, I picked up their edition of Armageddon. It took me a while to get myself in the right frame of mine to finally watch it. I have to confess that I really enjoyed watching all of the supplements, but the movie itself still sucked beyond understanding.

I still have a headache from watching The Last Action Hero when it was released in the theater.

 

[titch]

I tried to watch Highlander again last week, as part of a Sean Connery retrospective. Hadn't seen it since it came out in 1986. Had to stop after about 45 minutes. It was blatantly obvious that the director got to make films because he had directed 400 MTV videos beforehand. Terrible acting, terrible dialogue, boring plot and the camera sweeping around on a helicopter. So dull. When I was a teenager, watching music videos was incredibly exciting. I also thought Highlander then was marvellous. You would never get me to sit down and watch musicians miming in a music video now! Or get me to watch the rest of Highlander.

 

[Ejanss]

I lost a lot of love for Citizen Kane, too, once I really delved into the wonderful films of Marion Davies later in life...not a hysterical talentless drunk at all. Now Kane seems rather mean spirited and nasty to me, although I still enjoy most of the rest of it.

It's worth noting that Welles, in his later bearded-raconteur years, did enthusiastically apologize for people thinking Marion Davies was Susan Alexander--He said they were impressed with Davies' comic talent seeing her at Hearst's parties, but the script had to make the point about Kane controlling everyone's career.

This makes me think of my reaction to Clash of the Titans (the original). Up to that point, I'd always been a fan of Ray Harryhausen. I probably would've been more receptive to Clash if it wasn't for the fact that it was preceded by a month or two by Dragonslayer. In comparison, Harryhausen's effects looked antiquated.

I remember audiences giggling at Clash just for the pandering attempts to put Star Wars into it, with the Burgess Meredith character and the R2-D2 owl, especially when there were flashier movies that summer of '81.
Now the movie's earnest naivety feels like one of Harryhausen & Scheer's true classics of the 50's and 60's.

I also remember having had my fed-up fill of the in-your-face cartoony rib-nudging of Disney's Afternoon cartoons in the early 90's (it was popular to hate Michael Eisner back then), and always regret getting into an argument with my dad over his liking the original Robin Williams Aladdin.
Which, as we all know, is one of the greatest Disney animated films ever made...

 

[Thomas T]

I went to a midnight show of Armageddon back on its initial release. I didn't walk in with a headache, but I walked out with one. First and still only time a movie ever gave me a headache. I had wondered if my (extremely) negative reaction to the movie was because of of the growing headache, but had no desire to try watching it again.

Because I was collecting Criterion LDs at the time, I picked up their edition of Armageddon. It took me a while to get myself in the right frame of mine to finally watch it. I have to confess that I really enjoyed watching all of the supplements, but the movie itself still sucked beyond understanding.

I've only seen the beginning and ending of Armageddon. I don't remember being particularly tired but I fell asleep shortly after the movie began but woke up in time for the big finish. I've never had any desire to find out what happened in between.

 

[Edwin-S]

Once Upon a Time in The West:

My father was a big fan of Westerns, so we went as a family to the film. I thought the film was boring and weird. I'm sure that film was the one that caused my father to stop going to movies in the theatre. Now I find the film a lot more watchable as an adult.

Top Gun:

I thought the film was good when I first saw it in the theatre. I watched it again, years later on BD, and thought it was terrible. A total 180 in my opinion of the film. I still like the opening scene though. I shut it off after that is done.

 

[Thomas T]

Once Upon a Time in The West:

My father was a big fan of Westerns, so we went as a family to the film. I thought the film was boring and weird. I'm sure that film was the one that caused my father to stop going to movies in the theatre. Now I find the film a lot more watchable as an adult.

In the 1960s, I had a much older friend who loved westerns. But with the arrival of westerns like Once Upon A Time In The West, The Wild Bunch, High Plains Drifter etc., he stopped going to westerns. They were no longer black and white where the good guys and the bad guys were clearly defined. He didn't have anyone to root for.

 

[Nick*Z]

I've had my share of conversions over the years; everything from Citizen Kane, to 2001: A Space Odyssey, to Network - movies, I only marginally considered when first seeing them back in my early teens, but movies I couldn't imagine the world without today.

Some I have always loved and continue to ripen with age: Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The Sound of Music, My Fair Lady, and some - at least for me - have improved even more with age - Casablanca, Now Voyager, Singin' in the Rain (this one never gets old).

And some I continue to dislike with a passion. My number one pick here - Eyes Wide Shut. It stunk on opening night when I was assigned to review it for my local paper, and I just think it an awful, self-indulgent, and terribly unprepossessing movie today. Others on the that list include Cameron's Titanic, the musical Chicago, and, Slum Dog Millionaire (a movie I personally think I could have written with my right hand - I'm left handed - while sitting on the loo! Oscar-winner, indeed!!!).

We all have our favorites - movies we'll hate to leave behind when we pass from this world into the next. I cannot imagine a world without, say, National Velvet, or Mrs. Miniver, or the Marx Bros. and the Three Stooges, or The Great Ziegfeld, Dinner at Eight, Scaramouche, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? There are plenty more here. But those who know me well enough will already have a good idea about the rest.

Over the years, I've had less 'conversions' and more either likes or dislikes. Will those opinions one day ripen and mature? I suppose only time will tell. But as I prepare to round 50 - or a half century - whichever you prefer (hell, I'm a golden anniversary for a movie at this point!) I'll just say that my tastes have broadened and matured. My discerning nature, however, has only sharpened with age. The movies I used to like I now recognize as true art and absolutely LOVE.

The ones I never cared for have remained on the lower strata of that internal rating system. Ah me, the arc of time. It marches on - one day, without any of us who share their love and passion for great movie art here. That saddens me - a little. But I sincerely hope that we who continue to adore great movies do our due diligence to impart that love on the next generation, to carry the torch forward, holding the beacons of yore as markers of greatness by which all truly important art can be judged, admired and appreciated for now - forever. Enough said.

 

[bujaki]

On the cusp of adolescence I saw a double feature of An Affair to Remember and Snow White and the Three Stooges. Guess which film I wouldn't countenance watching now? Hint: it's not the inferior remake of 1939's Love Affair.

 

[bujaki]

Films that I went to see with high expectations and I left disappointed because they stank: The Greatest Show on Earth and The Great Ziegfeld. Maybe it's the adjective Great in their titles...
However, in later years, I've grown to admire aspects of both movies. Great, no; entertaining, yes.

 

[Thomas T]

Films that I went to see with high expectations and I left disappointed because they stank: The Greatest Show on Earth and The Great Ziegfeld. Maybe it's the adjective Great in their titles...
However, in later years, I've grown to admire aspects of both movies. Great, no; entertaining, yes.

Call me perverse but I much prefer the more modest The Big Circus (1959) to The Greatest Show On Earth. It may not be as slick but there's a lot less bloat.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I wonder if the fakeness of sets or rear projection in older movies was even a concern to viewers back then. I think it was probably like when there's bad CG in movies today. The audience knows it's fake but they accept it because that's just what you see in a movie.

I think it probably was not. I mean I think people will ignore that kind of thing if they are drawn in by the story. I do think for us children of the 1970s where things took a turn for looking more realistic and authentic it became an issue. To a great extent I think looking fake came back into style and with CGI a lot of movies today have that fake thing going on. I have not been able to get into that style even though I came to accept it in older films.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The emergence of realism was refreshing after decades of Hollywood artifice. Post WWII, movie audiences were more willing to accept naturalism after what the world had been through and by the end of the 1970s glossy Hollywood movies like Doctor Dolittle and Star! began bombing at the box office while audiences embraced more gritty films like Midnight Cowboy and Easy Rider. But ironically, posterity has been kinder to movies like Doctor Dolitttle and Star! than Easy Rider and Midnight Cowboy who seem to be stuck in time. Nothing dates faster than topicality. Timelessness is forever.

Sure, I think a lot of things date a picture be it how they look, how people act or talk, how it is edited, pacing, products, technology, and so if you set a story in a world that obviously is not real and exists only in its own little bubble it probably ends up with a bit more of a timeless feel. Easy Rider and Midnight Cowboy are movies of their time. Same with The Graduate. I think when you make a film that is meant to capture trends and pop culture stuff of the moment it dooms the picture to end up looking and feeling dated. Now for some that works and hits their nostalgia button but for others it can be more of an issue. Teen comedies of the 1980s are obviously doomed to be dated.

 

[Thomas T]

Now for some that works and hits their nostalgia button but for others it can be more of an issue. Teen comedies of the 1980s are obviously doomed to be dated.

The nostalgia factor is a big button for some. But as we move forward, some of these topical films fall to the wayside as society progresses. As someone else pointed out, as marijuana continues to become legalized and the "stigma" removed, stoner comedies lose their appeal. Still, it's possible to enjoy a "dated" film without the nostalgia factor. Those corny Mickey and Judy musicals were before my time (believe it or not ) so the nostalgia factor doesn't come into play but I can still enjoy them. I suppose it's possible that some of those 80s teen comedies might still have an appeal (like Pretty In Pink and Sixteen Candles).

 

[TravisR]

I suppose it's possible that some of those 80s teen comedies might still have an appeal (like Pretty In Pink and Sixteen Candles).

I don't think those movies are any more dated than any other movie of the era. The clothes are funny now and there's no cell phones but the situations that the characters are in would probably still resonate with a teen audience.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I've always been of the opinion that what dates a film, at least for me, is how much it focuses on cultural issues of the time in which it is released. Films that deal with universal concepts such as relationships, from the '80s will still have appeal in my estimation. Thinking about Pretty In Pink even though the location is never disclosed and presumably it is in America, (it was shot in Los Angeles) it feels so British due to the clothing and some of the language and accents.

Even though they are essentially '80s films I still enjoy a lot of the teen comedies from that era, notably Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Pretty In Pink, Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, and Some Kind of Wonderful to name some that readily come to mind.

- Walter.