# Movies that haven't stood the test of time. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 4, 2008, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649 "2008-12-04T10:27:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/161 "2008-12-09T01:20:34Z")
My DVD copy is nice and clean. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/162 "2008-12-09T01:40:30Z")
> [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > I nominate **Escape from New York** , mainly because we know for a fact that the New York that contained the World Trade Centre didn’t get turned into a huge prison. That and the fact that the overall crime levels in the US dropped steeply during the 90s so the vast population of criminals that NY prison housed never actually came about. So, a movie that is set in the future (of when it’s made) doesn’t stand the test of time when that future turns out to not come true? Wow, pretty stiff criteria. (And by the way, you don’t even have to get as convoluted as saying that “the New York that contained the WTC didn’t get turned into a huge prison”; the movie clearly says that it’s set in 1997, when the WTC in the real world was still standing, and New York was still a city.) By that logic, **Citizen Kane** started right out as a bad movie, because we know for a fact that no such person as Charles Foster Kane ever lived. I’m not really trying to be snarky but, jeez, they call it “fiction” for a reason. What’s the difference between a movie that’s set in a future that doesn’t turn out to come true, and a movie that portrays characters that never lived? And in closing, does that mean that if **Escape from New York** is re-released with an opening crawl that proclaims it to take place in an alternate universe where the crime levels in the US **did** skyrocket in the early 90’s, it would go back to being a good movie? ---
**Author:** ![Marlitharn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@Marlitharn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marlitharn)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/163 "2008-12-09T02:52:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I have to disagree here. IMHO, the newer one has both held up better and is more faithful to the original story _Who Goes There_. John Carpenter’s version of _The Thing_ is both a good movie and features a monster that doesn’t require an idiot plot to be extremely dangerous. The older one is about a vegetable guy. “A walking carrot” is a phrase one character uses IIRC. “An intellectual carrot?? The mind boggles!” I prefer the original to the John Carpenter version; it’s got some funny lines, and I like cheesy B&W sci-fi/horror flicks. For the thread, I’d like to nominate “Valley Girls”. I was an adult when I saw this for the first time just a couple of years ago, and I hated it. Hated the viciousness of the girls, the herd mentality of the “cool kids”, Nicholas Cage’s hair. Hated it. And it seems to me that teenagers today are taught to be more individualistic than we were in the 80s (when conformity was important and it wasn’t cool to be a nerd, or different in any way) so I don’t think they’d react well to the main valley girl dumping Cage because her friends thought he was weird. At least my kids wouldn’t. Maybe I’ll try this movie out on my daughter in a couple of years and see what she thinks. ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/164 "2008-12-09T04:28:24Z")
I’m probably going to commit the cardinal sin by dissing Kubrick, but although I initially was scared shitless by **The Shining** , a recent repeat watch only had me rolling my eyes in exasperation. There was so many better ways of showing him losing it (and attaining monster-like status), so many other instances in the novel that were terrifying that didn’t make it into the movie well and a more realistic take on Duvall’s character that clearly doesn’t brand her as a product of the era. I typically love any movie from the 70s (and this one counts, being only right around '80), but even dealing with their continually slow pace, this one drug enough that I could’ve read _War and Peace_ during the huge amounts of down times. Just overall ugh. ---
**Author:** ![Jolly\_Roger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jolly\_Roger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jolly_Roger)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/165 "2008-12-09T05:04:42Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Keep in mind that when you hit high school, it was probably 1995 or thereabouts, and the Soviet Union was gone, and your teachers had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. > > Speaking from my experience, the late 1970s through about 1988 or so were VERY tense as far as I could tell. Do you think that movies like Threads, The Day After, Testament or Red Dawn would have been made in a period where the Cold War was a joke or a foregone conclusion? > > I remember being terrified of nuclear war when I was about 10 years old (1982), and growing up thinking that the Soviets were the “Bad Guys”, much like kids grow up these days thinking that Islamist terrorists & Osama Bin Laden are the “Bad Guys”. > > So you’re remembering it through young kid glasses- the Cold War was very much alive and scary through most of the 80’s. I can remember wondering if the shit was going to hit the fan and I’d be drafted for World War III when I was a teenager in about 1988 or so. Hell yeah. I was in High School and college during the 80’s. I thought I’d be living in a Mad Max type of world by 2000. (ok, I was being really paranoid, but…) I still remember drills in freaking elementary school where we had to hide under our desks in case of nuclear attack. No joke. ---
**Author:** ![greatshakes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@greatshakes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greatshakes)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/166 "2008-12-09T05:38:31Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > You’re right, I probably was too young (but kids born in 81 were still considered the last “Cold War Generation” because we were around before the Berlin Wall fell). But I guess what I’m getting at is that the idea of the Cold War by the 80s had become something of a joke. Absurd situations where Russians invade Bumfuck, Colorado only to be beaten back by a bunch of teenagers or Rocky crushing communism (and Ivan Drago) in Rocky IV. > > Basically, there was no Fail-Safe being made in the 80s. Sorry, dude, but you’re way off the mark. The cold war was hot stuff then. I suspect that, when the wall fell, you were hardly coherent in re: Communism v. Democracy, and or socio-political considerations. Let’s be real-at 8 or 9 years old, politics-wise, in essence, you weren’t there. The dorky movies were an illustration of the times (the Russians were ahead of us in nukes, IIRC, and it was accepted that they may very well be able to beat us in a strategic war, and guerilla warfare may be the only way to keep our accepted way of life) and stuff for suspended disbelief. Rocky wasn’t about Rocky crushing Communism, but it was a symbol-The USSR may be big and powerful, and the wave of the future, but the good ol’ US was still going to come out ahead, goldurn it! Their cheesiness wasn’t because the CW was old hat, it was because they were cheesy! And don’t forget, they weren’t a _bunch of teenagers_-they were Wolverines! btw, they didn’t remake Fail Safe because there were very few movies of that quality, with the themes that were so quirky, and anything else along those lines would be shot down quickly. Back then, to blatantly ripoff something that obviously was a no-no. Also, Rock Hudson was in WW3 movie. Others, too, but I’m too tired to even think of them right now. ---
**Author:** ![ArrMatey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrmatey/32/3522_2.png) [@ArrMatey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArrMatey)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/167 "2008-12-09T05:47:10Z")
Not sure if anyone’s mentioned it yet, but I came to say **Peter’s Friends**. When it came out AIDS was still a spectre that no one knew anything about (HIV wasn’t a term the layman new), so when Peter busts out his revelation at the end that he’s ‘got the virus that causes AIDS’, it was him saying, in essence, ‘so I probably don’t have all that long to live.’ At the time, it was an amazingly scary message. Now, I watch it with my friends, and when Peter gives the big reveal, there’s the sound of crickets. “Oh, he’s got HIV?” Yeah. Not as ‘impressive’ now. Other than that, however, great movie throughout. ---
**Author:** ![greatshakes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@greatshakes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greatshakes)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/168 "2008-12-09T05:50:27Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I have to disagree here. IMHO, the newer one has both held up better and is more faithful to the original story _Who Goes There_. John Carpenter’s version of _The Thing_ is both a good movie and features a monster that doesn’t require an idiot plot to be extremely dangerous. The older one is about a vegetable guy. “A walking carrot” is a phrase one character uses IIRC. The old one is full of laughable cliches, and the dialogue is one running cliche. The monster is only kind of scary-if everybody got together, they could have beaten it, and there was no suspense buildup. Carpenter’s version was ten jillion times better. ---
**Author:** ![greatshakes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@greatshakes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greatshakes)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/169 "2008-12-09T05:53:31Z")
> [@greatshakes](#): > > Sorry, dude, but you’re way off the mark. The cold war was hot stuff then. I suspect that, when the wall fell, you were hardly coherent in re: Communism v. Democracy, and or socio-political considerations. Let’s be real-at 8 or 9 years old, politics-wise, in essence, you weren’t there. > > The dorky movies were an illustration of the times (the Russians were ahead of us in nukes, IIRC, and it was accepted that they may very well be able to beat us in a strategic war, and guerilla warfare may be the only way to keep our accepted way of life) and stuff for suspended disbelief. Rocky wasn’t about Rocky crushing Communism, but it was a symbol-The USSR may be big and powerful, and the wave of the future, but the good ol’ US was still going to come out ahead, goldurn it! Their cheesiness wasn’t because the CW was old hat, it was because they were cheesy! > > And don’t forget, they weren’t a _bunch of teenagers_-they were Wolverines! > btw, they didn’t remake Fail Safe because there were very few movies of that quality, with the themes that were so quirky, and anything else along those lines would be shot down quickly. Back then, to blatantly ripoff something that obviously was a no-no. Also, Rock Hudson was in WW3 movie. Others, too, but I’m too tired to even think of them right now. _Amerika_, with Kris Kristofferson. I’m going to sleep now. Of course, WW3 did rip off the ending to Fail Safe, but it did suck otherwise. More idiotic than red dawn. stopimgoingtosleepand stopthinkingofthisbutwaitAmerikawasprettynastytoononogoingtosleep! ---
**Author:** ![Ruffian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71e660/32.png) [@Ruffian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruffian)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/170 "2008-12-09T06:06:06Z")
First thing that crossed my mind reading the OP was _Flashdance_. Though I am a child of the 80s, I didn’t see it when it first came out (I was a bit too young). Seeing it as an adult a year or two ago, I was stunned at the craptacularness of it. It was more successful than well-regarded, though. When it comes to movies that are Big Deals: _Rebel Without a Cause_ left hubby and I scratching our heads. James Dean, not that rebellious. Not that dramatic. Not that interesting. Just…weird and a touch melodramatic. I saw _The Graduate_ 10 years ago and thought it was a peculiar, and not particularly a _good_, movie. The editing seemed forced and awkward, and the storyline unremarkable and uninteresting. And the incessant playing of Simon and Garfunkle’s “The Sounds of Silence” got really, really old. What an odd flick. And just FTR, I love _Real Genius, The Breakfast Club, Jaws, The Princess Bride, American Beauty, and Clueless._ ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/171 "2008-12-09T06:54:48Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > I can’t speak to _Solaris_, but _2001_ has held on not so much on it’s own merit as much for it’s fanbase keeping it alive. How is that not the case for every film? ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/172 "2008-12-09T09:17:05Z")
I’ve noticed a lot of references to **War Games** , which for me _does_ hold up well. I don’t think it’s fair to say a movie hasn’t held up because of the technology that appears in the movie. Let’s face it, Lightman had a great bedroom for the early 80’s, and the technology was state of the art. I’m wondering if anyone is old enough to remember the release of **Easy Rider**? I remember sitting down with a friend to watch the movie in the early 90’s, as this was **THE** movie that defined the 60’s. I just didn’t get it at all. It was slow, boring, and I didn’t care about the characters at all. Not that I wanted them to get killed, but it _did_ end the movie, which was a relief. SFP ---
**Author:** ![TommyTutone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c4cdca/32.png) [@TommyTutone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TommyTutone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/173 "2008-12-09T12:28:48Z")
> [@BMax](#): > > Although it’s been pointed out already how tech stuff doesn’t stand the test of time, I’ll mention _Videodrome_. Sorry, naked Debbie Harry means this movie will stand the test of time. LONG LIVE THE NEW FLESH! As for my entry: **The Day After**. This movie was so traumatizing that it had support phone lines for people to call in for counseling. Watching it on Sci Fi channel, it’s a typical made for tv movie with lots of melodrama and actors that should be doing better work (I’m looking at you Jason Robards). ---
**Author:** ![TommyTutone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c4cdca/32.png) [@TommyTutone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TommyTutone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/174 "2008-12-09T12:43:53Z")
> [@pepperlandgirl](#): > > It was great enough for Joan Fontaine to win an Oscar for it. I’ve made it a goal to see every single one of Cary Grant’s movies. I recently saw this one, and I _wanted_ to like it, since I adore Mr. Grant so very, very much. But quite frankly, I don’t think _any_ of Hitchcock’s movies stand the test of time. Well, I might be willing to make an exception for **Rear Window** (I don’t remember rolling my eyes or yelling at the screen at any point), but I just find the vast majority to be over the top ridiculous. And boring. I don’t know how movies can be ridiculous and boring at the same time, but Hitchcock found a way. I know that’s basically heresy, but I’ve stopped recording/renting Hitchcock films, because I just know that I’m not going to like them at all. > > Of course, I still have to watch **North by Northwest** because of the aforementioned goal. All of you make me weep, but this one hurts the most. **Suspicion** required some suspension of disbelief, but it was not, at least to me, huge. The movie suffered from Grant’s presence (because they had to change the ending from the one in the book), but if I pretend the ending was Hitchcock’s original one, it would have been perfect. And to say his other films do not hold up? I suppose if you look at them occurring in today’s world, but I’d say, with the exception of the distractingly bad special effects of **The Birds** , they have done very well. **The Lady Vanishes** is an outstanding mystery, soiled only by an attempt to remake the film with Eliot Gould, Angela Lansbury, and Candice Bergen decades later. **Notorious** is one of my favorite films by him, and other than the drunk driving scene which would not fly at all today, is a nail biter that has stood up well. **Rope** , not a great film, although a tehnical showpiece, still ages well, as does **Strangers on a Train**. **Lifeboat, Jamaica Inn, Sabotage, The 39 Steps** , when fortunate enough to catch them on TCM, I find it impossible to turn away from. I imagine you will not like **North by Northwest** , the infamous plane scene may ring hollow to you how it concludes, or the incident at Mt Rushmore too hokey, but it is still classic suspense, much like **Rear Window**. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/175 "2008-12-09T13:09:12Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > How is that not the case for every film? Not every film has a fan base keeping it alive. ---
**Author:** ![jali](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jali](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jali)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/176 "2008-12-09T14:04:38Z")
**Ghostbusters**. **Gremlins**. **Flashdance**. Sigh. I saw all three of these at theaters. I couldn’t stand to watch even 15 minutes of any of these today. ---
**Author:** ![Sigmagirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c89c15/32.png) [@Sigmagirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigmagirl)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/177 "2008-12-09T14:13:47Z")
> [@ArrMatey](#): > > Not sure if anyone’s mentioned it yet, but I came to say **Peter’s Friends**. When it came out AIDS was still a spectre that no one knew anything about (HIV wasn’t a term the layman new), so when Peter busts out his revelation at the end that he’s ‘got the virus that causes AIDS’, it was him saying, in essence, ‘so I probably don’t have all that long to live.’ At the time, it was an amazingly scary message. Now, I watch it with my friends, and when Peter gives the big reveal, there’s the sound of crickets. “Oh, he’s got HIV?” Yeah. Not as ‘impressive’ now. Other than that, however, great movie throughout. I saw that movie in a theatre when it first came out – because even then, my Hugh Laurie lust was in full bloom. Peter’s announcement, though tragic, was so incredibly anticlimactic even then – because it was so completely obvious from the very beginning. What else was he going to say? “I’ve called you all here to tell you I’ve started to collect Faberge eggs?” I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. There was only one shoe, and it was there the whole time. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/178 "2008-12-09T14:35:15Z")
After a string of successes, showing my kids and their friends movies made before they were old enough to appreciate them, I foolishly showed the Peter Sellers movie _The Party_. Although I remembered it as being both funny and clever it was neither. Luckily there was something on TV to distract us and none of them remember my mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Ronald\_C.Semone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cc9497/32.png) [@Ronald\_C.Semone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronald_C.Semone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/179 "2008-12-09T14:38:29Z")
> [@TommyTutone](#): > > Sorry, naked Debbie Harry means this movie will stand the test of time. > > LONG LIVE THE NEW FLESH! > > As for my entry: **The Day After**. This movie was so traumatizing that it had support phone lines for people to call in for counseling. Watching it on Sci Fi channel, it’s a typical made for tv movie with lots of melodrama and actors that should be doing better work (I’m looking at you Jason Robards). Funny you should mention \*\*The Day Aftr Tomorrow \*\* which practically caused a diplomatic break with the Soviet Union when it was first broadcast on TV. I saw it a few weeks ago for the first time since it was first broadcast and I thought it held up very well. The scene where the missiles are leaving the silos still has excruciating impact because you now know there is no going back ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/180 "2008-12-09T15:17:58Z")
> [@TommyTutone](#): > > As for my entry: **The Day After**. This movie was so traumatizing that it had support phone lines for people to call in for counseling. Watching it on Sci Fi channel, it’s a typical made for tv movie with lots of melodrama and actors that should be doing better work (I’m looking at you Jason Robards). Eh, the thing that always got to me about that movie was the _constant_ envying-the-dead. I mean, _jeez_—'kay, fine, you didn’t want a nuclear war, but it happened, and you got the shit end of the stick. Now if you don’t want to actually try and cowboy up and _do_ something with your lot in life, at least stop whining about it, lay down and die in a ditch somewhere, and let someone else with an _inkling_ of a basic biological survival drive take a stab at it! I’m…really not the kind of person these movies are targeted towards, I think. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649.md?page=10)