One of my big issues with the movie, and remember, I had just read the book, was the way the castle was presented. The book dedicated something like 40 pages to the castle. Explaining everything about it in tremendous detail. By the time Stoker was done, you were almost to creeped out to get out of your own bed. The movie spent literally 30 seconds on that same subject. I expected the first 20 minutes of the movie to be a tour of the castle.
Whenever I hear a person (specifically a celebrity) quote Dracula as their favorite movie I always wonder A)Have the actually seen it and B)did the read the book first?
I agree – not because of lack of concentration, but most of the silents are just really crummy and corny. I’d love to see the 9-hour version of Queen Kelly or however long it was meant to be, for example, but I’m not going to sit through even one hour of some garbage just because it had John Gilbert in it or whoever the big deal was of the moment.
Disagree strongly about Golden Arm, though. Preminger is always worth sitting through.
One I loathe in the same vein, though, because it is just too hokey-dated: The Lost Weekend. Can’t stand Ray Milland, and it’s like [The Days of Wine and Roses. Too much of a joke to sit through and not be going MST3K in your head.
The Graduate is a common answer for this question. But it’s not as if the film has dated badly, just the audience.
“Issue” movies tend not to age well - HandsomeHarry named the one I came in to mention, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?Jack Tardiff mentioned another - The Lost Weekend, which won an Oscar for Best Actor (IIRC).
And I don’t think they’ve “dated” badly, but I can’t imagine either Fast Break or the original The Bad News Bears being made today, in all their raunchy, race-baiting, no “drugs are bad, mkay” messaging glory.
The Parralax View is almost enjoyable because it’s so dated. Government consipracy! GASP!
My favorite part is when Warren Beatty follows a guy into the airport, then jumps a fence and sneaks onto his plane. After they’re airborne a stewardess walks up and asks him his name, so he gives a fake name which she writes down on her legal pad, then asks him for seventy dollars.
A lot of it is dated generally, but not telling someone they are very sick “for their own good” and giving them no say in their own care – which is held up as a morally correct and acceptable act in the movie – is now (rightly, IMHO) considered despicable and makes the whole second half seem very cruel.
It was probably not particularly good even in its own day, but The Bells of St. Mary’s, where Ingrid Bergman develops tuberculosis (dated at the moment, but possibly not in a few years) and the doctor tells Bing Crosby that she needs to be transferred away from the parish she loves and into a better climate – but don’t tell her why. So they make her feel like an utter failure until the truth is revealed.
And I know that still now courtroom drama is nothing like real life. But Law and Order and the like have raised the bar for writing.
I just don’t find The Verdict gripping. I can’t suspend my disbelief. The case hinges on a document that the defendants get thrown out as evidence (for a bullshit reason, but the evidence does get eliminated). So there’s no case left.
I remember watching that, noting that the other characters were calling Frank Sinatra “dealer”, and then being utterly baffled to find out what he was dealing were cards at various illegal poker games, and he didn’t even look all that skillful at it.
Yes, obviously. The original audience accepted it as normal and even good; today it makes the whole movie grotesque. Hence my choice to include it as a “movie too dated to be enjoyable.”
I am guilty above of confusing just plain shitty movies with movies that are “dated.” As I think some people are as well.
It’s really a fine line. All That Heaven Allows is extremely dated in that the very attractive Jane Wyman is presented as an old hag, pretty much. A spinster. And the cartoonish, Three Stooges-style “society women” in her town are just as dated.
But I can accept that was just sort of the trope of the day – didn’t stop me from enjoying the film (as much as I can ever enjoy that type of movie – not my thing, even if there are some good things in it reading between the lines).
So where’s the line? Someone mentioned 2001 above, which I’ve heard lots of people say regarding the special effects and the “Hey, that’s not like 2001 was – I was there, man!,” and I get that, and specific examples must be the only way to attack the theoretical problem.
I agree with you on all three of these films, especially Wait Until Dark (NOT SCARY OR SUSPENSEFUL) and Harold And Maude (NOT FUNNY OR COHERENT). I’ll add some more:
Repo Man. When I first saw it I thought it was funny and unusual and cutting edge. I watched it recently and it was none of those things, although I still enjoy Harry Dean Stanton’s performance.
Some Like It Hot. It’s a one joke movie and in my opinion the joke isn’t even funny.
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. I actually like this movie, but I find Lou Costello’s schtick to be quite painful and embarrassing to sit through.
As a matter of fact, there’s apparently some reason for the problems with Dracula, as mentioned above—it seems the director, Browning, was suffering from personal problems at the time of the shoot (he was an alcoholic, and depressed after the death of friend Lon Chaney, who might have been the star otherwise). Abandoning the set to leave the cinematographer to direct scenes, tearing pages out of the script, etc.
The Spanish language version, filmed at nights on the same sets, with the same script, costumes, and whatnot, is actually considered the technically superior version.
