8 Movies That Have Not Aged Well Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 1 - 10 of 109
1 2 3 4 >  >>  
egoist 1/11/2010 2:34:10 AM

Moonraker should be #1. The special effects were outdated before it got to Betamax.

Dazzler 1/11/2010 4:26:12 AM

Moonraker is my favorite of the Bond films!  Better than curent stuff anyway. 

I see your points in this list, but again these movies are for fun and entertainment, seems like everybody forgets that. 

Versutus 1/11/2010 4:27:28 AM

"Why didn't Clancy “The Kurgan” Brown just chop off Connor MacLeod’s head in their very first battle on the shores of Loch Shiel in 1536"

He was going to but he got tackled by Angus and Duncan...  

 

Wiseguy 1/11/2010 4:40:12 AM

Burton's Batman is still the best Bat film to date, bar none. And Nicholson's Joker more like the comic book Joker than Nolan's new interpratation where all the fantasy associated with the character went out the window. But since today everyone wants "realism" even in a comic book based film. Burton's was dark, edgy and had the feel of a real comic book Batman more and IMO inspired TAS which rocked. Nolan's "realism", generic city and emo Batman doesn't gel with me.

What was the theme of this article? I forgot. Oh yeah, Burton's Batman still rocks, they need to converted to 3D and re-release it

Highlander still works too, even today. The sequels are the ones that fukked up the mythology

Was the point films that didn't age well or ones with stuff that doesn't quite gel with the story, cause even the best movies today can be picked apart


 

cheekymonkey 1/11/2010 4:55:58 AM

Superman 1?  I don't think so. After the Crystal Skull, Temple of Doom is looking better and better.

I'd add E.T. to the list.  I loved it as a kid, can't stand it as an adult

cheekymonkey 1/11/2010 4:57:34 AM

I agree with Wiseguy that Batman does not belong anywhere near this list.  While Dark Knight is an awesome flick, I don't think that it changes how good the 89 flick was.

Flint521466 1/11/2010 5:22:45 AM

"Moonraker" is GARBAGE. It's the Broccoli's tryin' to cash in on the "Star Wars" craze.  Much like they're tryin' to cash in on the "Bourne" craze today.  That being said I really liked CR & QoS so it must be working.

I never thought "Temple of Doom" was as bad as some have made it out to be.  Personally, I liked it better than "Last Crusade"

Wise is dead on w/ "Highlander" holding up.  GREAT FLICK made even better by Queen's soundtrack.  Sequels were dog shit.

Burton's "Batman" is great.  The only problem I have w/it is how they had young Jack Napier shoot the Wayne's and not Joe Chill.  

Nothing wrong w/"Superman". 

death4sale 1/11/2010 5:38:23 AM

It's funny, but I still love every film on this list. They are all still terrific movies and I would take any of these films over the crap being released nowadays. Superman I, just bought the Blu-Ray. For a movie of it's age, it looks decent in High-Def. It's still a classic and Reeves is still Superman. The original Highlander is one of my favorite flicks of all time and has one of my favorite climactic battles in cinema not to mention the soundtrack. I grew up watching Superman II the Lester version almost more than any other movie because Terence Stamp is awesome. The only movie I don't much care for is the '89 Batman. I could never take Michael Keaton seriously as Batman. Most criminals would laugh if they came against a midget dressed up in a Bat costume. It wasn't Bob Kane's Batman, it was Tim Burton's Batman and sometimes I think Tim Burton is a little overrated. Tron is awesome and don't fault the computer knowledge of the time. No one really knew Jack about computers at the time. I guess most people just assumed they ran on magic. And I always find it funny that most people seem to hate Temple of Doom, but it is my favorite Indy film. I felt it was his darkest story and the Thuggees made it personal when they infected him as well. I thought it was a more adventurous film than the other Indys.

littlemikey979 1/11/2010 6:16:54 AM

Moonraker - "I think he attempting re-entry"

Redshirt1 1/11/2010 6:32:31 AM

I pretty much agree with death4sale.  Your comment about people not knowing very much about how computers worked back then and believing they worked on magic was very funny because it was true, and to a certain part still is I think.  Of course that is fairly common approach to writing in Sci-fi, writers have to rely on the lac of understanding of the average reader/viewer in order to get them to suspend their disbelief.  Look at all the original Marvel super-hero origins.  Almost everyone was created by some form of radiation exposure.  Sorry folks, if your exposed to a sufficient amount of radiation you do not get funky super powers.  You get sic and die so don't lick the stuff in your smoke detector.  

Of course lately genetics in a similar vein have become the bitch of science fiction.  Average people simply don't know enough about it so they assume that you could use it to create all sorts of super-powered beings.  Everyone from Dark Angel to the updated Spider-man is being based on genetic manipulation.

However, I've gotten off topic.  Highlander is and will forever be cool. While its sequels should be sent to the bottom levels of Hell.  To be honest I never minded the series very much.  I just imagined in my own head that the stories simply took place before the movie and Kurgan or some other immortal killed Duncan.  Then Connor and Kurgan faced off ending the immortal conflict once and for all.  That's how i see that particular universe.

Batman under Tim Burton was essential from moving Batman from the campy TV series to the much Darker versions that we've all pretty much come to love.  I thought Jack was excellent as the Joker and Keaton did surpisingly well.

I can't believe your trash taling Superman 1 and 2.  Yes Clark was a klutz, but that was how he was in the comics as well.  Clark didn't get an overhall to the football playing high school cool kid till the 80's revamp.  Also I agree there were plot holes that you could fly a Kryptonian battle crusier through, spinning around the planet sow that it reverses its orbit would more likely shatter the planet like an egg, but I accepted it because he's Superman and it made for a fun set of movies.

Anyway what I saying is this.  You can nit-pick movies all you want.  I sure that when these movies were first released some critic also brought up all of these points as well.  So you basically like the movie or you don't.  If you like the movie it's because your willing to accept or at least tollerate the interptretation or "flaws" of the movie.  I still willing to accept these movies and love them as they are, wrinlkles and all.  

1 2 3 4 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.