I use pre 1968 as an arbitrary date based on 2001: A Space Odyessey being released that year and ushering in a new type of cinematic experience other than the usual drama/crime/western/comedy/musical.
I have two:
Picnic- I find the romance between a young Kim Novak and old William Holden to be both creepy and unbelievable. I think the Holden character was supposed to be younger- a Monty Clift type actor would have worked much better. The plot was lame, it dragged, and I found the dance de la seducion to be more comical than seductive. However I did love the James Wong Howe cinematography and thought Susan Strasberg was awesome as the bookwormy, “unpretty just because she wears glasses and is smart” younger sister.
In the Heat of the Night- sure, the racial subtext was intriguing, as was the great acting by Poitier & Stieger, but come on, the plot was so ridiculous that it ruins the whole movie. Without giving it away, the manner in which Poitier deduces who the killer is, and why, is the single most ridiculous reasoning I have ever seen in a movie, and I have seen just about every grade Z noir there is. Even low budget films are able to produce a rational way for the killer to be determined. A film of this magnitude to do what it does is unfathomable. It’s kind of the like “The killer was wearing a blue suit. Bob likes apples- therefore he is the killer” WTF??
“And anyone who says they like Citizen Kane is a LIAR!!”
I got Rififi about a month ago from Netflix, and I was a little disappointed by it. The heist sequence itself is amazing, and inspired more films than I can count, but what came before and after it didn’t quite work for me. Everything is impeccably planned, and then Cesar makes a spectacularly stupid and careless mistake. The Grutters stumble on that one clue and instantly follow it to the right conclusion. It just seems rushed and out-of-character, as if the director would have put in anything he had to to get to the bleak ending he wanted.
Maybe it makes more sense in the book. The heist was a minor passage that Dassin expanded to be the centerpiece of the movie.
And I could never quite figure out what the police were doing poking around the car at the end of the robbery, either.
By the time I was growing up, Marlon Brando had already become a self-parody. But I always heard that back in his early days he had been a great actor. So when I watched On the Waterfront, I was surprised by both how hammy his performance was and the overall poor quality of this legendary film.
Easy Rider was made in 1969 and falls just outside of your limit. But when I saw it I was thinking “I guess you had to be there.”
Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Actually, I haven’t seen the whole movie. I don’t consider myself politically correct or easily offended, but Mickey Rooney playing an extremely cartoonish Asian guy took me right out of the movie and I had to turn it off.
I don’t want to rain on this parade of finding fault with old movies. Really I don’t. But I want to offer a challenge.
Pick your top 10 movies made within the past 5-10 years, the newer the better. Go over those movies with careful scrutiny and weigh every aspect of them for quality and craft. After you have assured yourself that you have THE 10 movies that represent the pinnacle of movie excellence, write those titles down and put the paper away in a safe place with self-assurance that you won’t even look at that paper for 5 years.
In five years, pull that paper out and look at the stupid movies you selected just 5 years ago. If there are any of the 10 still on the list that you would even watch on cable, you will have disproved my basic thesis: movies don’t wear well, especially with people who weren’t there when they were new.
Zeldar, I “think” you are misinterpreting my OP. I LOVE old films. LOVE 'em. I don’t watch anything newer than 1980 unless it’s foreign. I HATE current American big budget big studio cinema. The point of my post is that most “classic” films really ARE that good, and DO stand the test of time. Of the 1000 or so “classic” films I have seen, the two I named are really the only ones I loathe- modern films the ratio would be about one in ten I like. I was merely looking for examples of old films that don’t deserve, in anyone’s opinion, to be considered a classic. I can’t think of one post 1935 Hitchcock film I loathe, and I’ve seen 'em all. I came to praise “that old shit”, not to mock them.
I’m sorry, but I’m not lying and I love Citizen Kane (and The Graduate).
Some older films that I never liked though are:
South Pacific – Specifically for the weird coloring effects the director chose, but also, even though it has some of the best music Rodgers ever wrote, I just can’t feel sorry for Nellie or Joe.
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers just never should have been made.
And while Judy Garland and Gene Kelly are two of the most talented people ever put on film, I don’t think you can come up with one really good movie with both of them in it.
Probably others (When Worlds Collide is horridly long and boring – talk about a movie in which nothing happens!)
Tangential to this thread, I guess, but you are missing out. There are some damn good movies being made by major Hollywood studioes. There are an awful lot more NOT damn good movies being made by major Hollywood studios, but still, there are some damn good movies being made by major Hollywood studios.
