I think that one should ignore films like Austin Powers where quotable dialogue is concerned. A catch phrase and good dialogue are not the same thing.
Not really. It’s the lack of sound that pushes it over the edge for me. Movies with sound from, say, the 1930’s for example, don’t creep me out as much even though they are all similarly departed.
As it happens, I watched this movie again last night (it’s an old favorite) with the boys and fella bilong missus flodnak, who had never seen it. No one ever says it’s bad that Augustus is fat, really - his fault is that he’s always stuffing his face, especially with sweets, which has the side effect of making him fat. And Veruca is so over-the-top that I don’t think too many people would object to calling her spoiled, although you’d probably have some denouncing the use of the word “brat” and the implication that Mummy and Daddy are to blame for her behavior.
But there is one thing that obviously wouldn’t fly today - the Oompa Loompas. It’s hard to imagine any situation in which you could put a backing chorus of little people in a movie today without being (justifiably) accused of insensitivity. The costumes and the “dance” routines just make it worse. Much worse.
They DO blame the parents for why the children are so awful. Especially Veruca-it even says so in the Oompa Loompa song!
You’re being a little bit oversensitive here. Willy Wonka is being remade, with Mike Myers in the lead, and the Oompa Loompas will be back. Hooray!
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---9074,00.html
The genre of old films that really creep me out is the Boy Meets Girl films.
Boy meets girl, who will not give him the time of day. Boy pines for girl, buy spies on girl, boy follows girl, boy does something to take some other boyfriend out of the picture, boy forces a kiss out of girl (during which she melts and changes her mind about him).
These says that kind of behavior is criminal.
Make that , “These days that kind of behavior is crominal.”
Ha! The Onion had a great story about this. I can’t find the whole thing in their archives, but here’s a snippet:
ROMANTIC COMEDY BEHAVIOUR GETS REAL-LIFE MAN ARRESTED
Marzano, who recently broke his leg falling off a ladder leaning against Hamilton’s second-story bedroom window, said he was “extremely surprised” that his plan to woo the woman had failed. “She was supposed to hate me at first but gradually be won over by my incredible persistence, telling me that no one has ever gone to such lengths to win her love,” Marzano said. “But for some reason, her irritation never melted into affection.”
:smack: Err, I mean, to each his own.
Well, 2002 is just half-over. Goldmember, Pluto Nash, and Signs haven’t even come out yet. But seriously, it’s too early to tell what are going to be the classic movies of the past couple of years. Last year was pretty good, with Fellowship of the Ring, Moulin Rouge, The Royal Tennenbaums, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000, but close enough).
And your argument is fatuous. Two classics (Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind) happen to have been released in the same year, but the way you describe it, it sounds as if they were just cranking out classic after classic for any year you pick out. That’s an aberration, not the rule. The point stills tands: Only the best movies from the 40’s and 50’s get remembered.
I’m with gex gex; I think movies on the whole have improved over the years. There’s still a great lot of crap being put out, but the movies that are good are really good, partly because they have so many older movies to use as reference or inspiration (see: just about any Coen Brothers movie).
Sugaree—Yes, that is my new book mentioned in the August Vanity Fair, thanks for noticing! This is what comes of two years of concentrated ass-kissing . . .