Huh. I mentioned in the Ghostbusters video game thread in the Game Room how I thought Ghostbusters has held up very well. Granted, the soundtrack is very, very 80s (except the theme, that is timeless), but beyond that there’s nothing else that dates the movie terribly. All technology used in both films is fictional and not obviously obsoleted by modern tech (who’s to say prototype proton packs wouldn’t need to be backpacks even now?), and the special effects are pretty good; CG wouldn’t be all that much better.
I’m going to disagree with this. I think the original Thing has fantastic dialog, is paced really well, and has some wonderful scenes. I don’t dislike the Carpenter version, but I think the original is superior in nearly every way.
I agree. As trite as scenes like this have become, the scene where the scientist is working at this bench unaware of the melting block of ice behind him is still scary.
How about Rain Man. In 1988 it came across as a fascinating character study of a very singular person, whereas now it’s just “oh, right, he’s one of those guys.”
Saw Midnight Cowboy recently & despite some memorable moments & a decent amount of old-time New York flavor struck me as sour, overly-contrived, and lacking in humor (with exceptions like “I’m walking here!”).
Movies (or any fiction) set in the future can age poorly if the assumptions they are based on change. While technical assumptions, like in 2001, or structural assumptions, like in EFNY (catastrophic events, political changes, etc.), can be accepted, what really date a movie are social assumptions. Best example I know is not a movie but a short story called Cold Equations. I read it for a high school class in 1991. The plot turns on the assumption that you can coldly kill a man if the situation requires it (in this case a stowaway on an emergency ship due to fuel limitations), but if it is a woman, everything changes. My whole class was dumbfounded by this underlying cultural assumption about gender roles. Interstellar travel in faster than light vehicles was easier to except than antiquated attitudes in a future setting.
Jonathan
I can’t speak for anybody else, but it wasn’t solely the suspension of disbelief issue for me. I don’t like the way Hitchcock films look. I don’t like most of the decisions he makes as a director. The acting is never subtle or clever in a Hitchcock film–and he had actors who could be subtle! Then he throws in some psychological mumbo-jumbo (like in Spellbound, though the dream was great), which I know was perfectly fine at the time, but really doesn’t help with the timeless quality. And I really wanted to like Suspicion. Cary Grant being all hot and charming with a slightly sinister edge? I eat that up with a spoon!
I haven’t seen The Lady Vanishes, but I’ve watched the other two several times, and each time, I’m struck with “What’s the point of this?!” I mean, at various points in The Birds, I wanted Tippi Hedron to be murdered. Were we supposed to cheer for her demise? Because she was just about as stupid as a character could be.
Speaking of “What’s the point of this?” I never know what to think of Vertigo. I really hate Jimmy Stewart’s character, and yet, I never get the sense that we’re supposed to despise him.
I had a whole list of Hitchcock films that I wanted to see (not just the ones with Mr. Grant), but to me, the movies are like exercises in tedium (I don’t remember hating Rear Window but I don’t remember making it through to the end, either). I know that it’s just me. I never see anybody else volunteer that they can’t stand the guy. There’s just something about his films that rubs me the wrong way.
You’re making out like I said it was a bad movie or something, which I didn’t. It just didn’t, in my view, stand the test of time for the reasons I gave. Obviously you disagree but I’m not clear why you seem to be taking my comment so personally. Did you write it or something? 
Oscar and Golden Globe-Nominated Bye Bye Birdie has got to top this list somewhere.
I think we have a classic sig here…
I wasn’t taking anything personally, I just don’t understand your rationale for saying it doesn’t stand the test of time. It’s set in a future time that, for various reasons, we now know doesn’t match with the way reality actually progressed. So what? Why does that equate with “doesn’t stand the test of time?” Are you using a narrow definition of “test of time” to mean “accurately predicts the future”? If so, that just seems like an odd and not very useful definition of that term, especially as applied to this thread. If not, then I really just don’t understand your conclusion.
As Strassia said, if “Escape from New York” had featured some social or cultural meme that was obviously a product of the time the movie was made, and now was either completely gone or had drastically transformed, I’d agree that that means the movie failed the test of time. But what you pointed out as signaling that failure were a physical change to New York City that the movie failed to predict, and a predicted rise in the crime rate that failed to come true. I just don’t see how either one of those is at all relevant to whether or not the movie holds up on current viewing.
You always have to apply the old “Willing suspension of disbelief”. To enjoy “Escape from New York”, you have to do that for the idea that the island of Manhattan will be walled off and turned into a giant prison, which is wildly far-fetched. If you can’t do that, then you probably won’t like the movie, if you can, you probably will. What I can’t understand is how applying that suspension somehow gets more difficult because we now know that the crime rate really didn’t rise; that’s such a minor point, compared to the idea of turning Manhattan into a prison in the first place.
Don’t forget the father telling them “quick run before they catch you” and then screaming “AVENGE ME” at the top of his lungs.
To me, “the test of time” is about re-watchability, not technology. I just can’t watch that movie again.
The House On Haunted Hill, starring Vincent Price.
I saw it when it first came out and it scared the crap out of me. I saw it again about 20 years later and had to wonder how or why I was scared by something so incredibly cheezy. I saw it again about 3 years ago and it’s gotten even worse.