-
Spock realizes it, not Kirk.
-
It doesn’t have anything at all to do with Khan being a man of the 20th century; you must be misremembering the scene. Spock states that it’s because Khan simply isn’t experienced in commanding a starship, which is obviously true, and of course would be true of most people in any century.
Marooned had “greatness” when I saw it as a kid (but I had to go to bed before the ending). Forgot about it after seeing it.
Someone at work in the 90’s at just seen it mocked on MST3k and said it was just awful and boring. When the MST3k repeated the episode, I marveled how I as 12 year old would fail to see that it was like watching paint dry.
Being a big fan of the moon landings probably had something to do with it.
Summer bachelors are still alive and well in Spain, even if they happen to have a/c at home. Maybe that’s a reason The Seven Year Itch gets regular TV showings. A lot of my coworkers (of both genders) have spent most of the summer commuting on the weekend to the beach home where their spousal unit, the grandparents and the kids were.
And thank you very much for giving me the English term for what we call “Rodriguez” 
Right, and of course even someone born in the 19th century would no have no problem making effective use of three dimensional space, so long as he happened to have been a fighter pilot in the first world war.
Billy Jack came out when I was in High School and we thought it was really cool. As I recall, it wasn’t released through normal distribution channels. They did something called fourwalling, where they rented the theater and kept all the proceeds. It turned out to make a lot of money that way. As I recall Walking Tall was also released that way.
It was the hat.
Seriously.
Marooned may have indeed been a great movie. If is purported to have eased tensions between the US and Soviet Union during the planning of the Apollo-Soyuz mission.
On the other hand, ‘watching paint dry’ is a a charitable description. Paint dries faster than that.
There can be no doubt. And the bare feet. I can still hear him saying “…and then I go Bee-zurk…” and punting some asshole’s jaw off.
Not even a nod to acting anywhere in the movie.
Exactly what I was going to say. Complaining about an anachronistic character looking anachronistic is silly.
I thought the Hitchcock movie was pretty good (I can even overlook the laughable SFX of the autogyro); the BBC remake had its moments but wasn’t nearly as good. The stage play is making a comeback, I guess: http://www.clevelandplayhouse.com/showinfo.asp?eventID=128
I don’t know if this fully qualifies, but I saw The Manchurian Candidate for the first time last weekend. It was an enjoyable film, so I guess in that regard it’s stood the test of time. But the entire concept is about a society stricken with fear by Communism. Up to 11 people could be completely brainwashed in a mere 3 days to become secret killing machines, giving up our free will for the machinations of the Red State. We, as the audience, aren’t even supposed to question that it’s possible for this to occur. We accept it because it’s our worst fear come to life.
Except I live in a world where the Cold War has ended and such a thing as was presented wouldn’t be possible in 300 days of captivity, let alone just 3. I’m not going to accept the premise and I truly cannot understand the world as was presented in 1953 (when the film took place) or 1962 (date of release). I didn’t live it and I think you really need to to understand the film.
Somebody mentioned Easy Rider. I’d say anything with hippies, assuming we’re meant to think the hippies are cool. Get a job, you slackers! And get off my lawn!
I’m going to make a bold statement based on personal experience:
If you see a movie for the first time that was made before you were born, no matter how “great” it may have been for earlier generations, it will not have “stood the test of time.”
Further, if you saw it before your “age of reason” kicked in, same story.
If you can locate a counter-example, it is indeed a “great movie.”
Sorry – too many counter-examples for me. I love plenty of films made before I was born, many of which I saw before my “age of reason”.
Many of these continue to be watched and loved:
King Kong
Wizard of Oz
Gone with the Wind
Casablanca
The General
.
.
.
I know that MilliCal, born in 1997, loves plenty of flicks from before she was around. Especially Disney films like Mary Poppins and most of the cartoons.
I do believe you have made my major point: these are among the “great movies.”
Otherwise, it’s just an “old movie.”
How many exceptions do you need before your “rule” isn’t valid anymore?
I don’t accept your hypothesis, and am simply choosing the most obvious examples.I’m not about to make a full list of the movies I like from before I was born, but it’s long.
I still find Transformers: The Movie great fun, and I doubt that’s what you had in mind as a “great movie”.
My point was and is that “old movies” (before you were born or before your reasoning abilities were well-formed) are just “old movies” and not “great movies.” The fact that movie historians may label them as “great movies” doesn’t make them “great movies” at your own personal level.
Movies made during your lifetime, and which you saw before your critical faculties were well developed have a good chance of not “standing the test of time” as far as your own tastes go when you see them again decades later.
The “boldness” of my statement (not a hypothesis for you to shoot down) is that that’s the way I see the issue. If it’s not the way you see the issue, make your own bold statement. I won’t attempt to shoot it down. I will see it as your way of dealing with the issue.
I was under the impression that this was Cafe Society and not Great Debates.
I can challenge a statement anywhere. Your Bold Statement doesn’t hold true in my case, or for lots of folks I know. YMMV.
We watched it the other night on TMC, and I was struck in some places by how contemporary it looked–airports haven’t changed much except for the security Also, Benjamin’s “lost young man” thing probably strikes a more profound chord today than it did in 1967.
On the other hand, kids watching it today are probably struck by how completely the women’s lives can be controlled by their families–or by how (relatively) lightly Mrs. Robinson’s allegations of rape are taken by Emily. She is angry, but not in the same way that a young woman today would be calling for Benjamin’s head.
If a young person has been watching *Mad Men *and getting used to 1960s middle-class culture in that context, I don’t think they’d find The Graduate too out of line.