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


Showing items 11 - 20 of 109
<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  >>  
Mayhem101878 1/11/2010 6:45:21 AM

Highlinder was a great film and I thought that the TV Series was pretty good. I have to disagree about the sequels yes the second one sucked after all they brought back Sean Connery's character and he died in the beginging of the first one, but the 4th movie was not that bad it had a good torch passing moment between Christopher Lambert and Adrian Paul. Indiana Jones was good and I still don't see what everyone's beef is with Crystal skull. When you go to see theese type of movies you are supposed to suspend any disbelief and realize that real world logic does not apply in the movies

Hobbs 1/11/2010 6:56:36 AM

At first glance I didn't agree with a lot of this until I read your comments and you do make some valid points.  The Towering Infero Wagner line was priceless, lol...and very true.

Highlander the movie was good, and the series didn't hurt it at all. All those sheety sequels did.   Though watching it now Lambert is cleary miscast in the part.

I actually thought Temple of Doom didn't age well the day after it came out....the Crystal Skull was along these lines and why it wasn't that good.

I have not seen Tron in about 20 years so my memory of it isn't that good.  I would guess it would seem stupid is ways considering the time but you have to take that into account.

Never cared for Burtons Batman and in fact there wasn't a true Batman movie to come out until Batman Begins.


monkeyfoot 1/11/2010 7:13:33 AM

Oh, Joe, this article is just screaming to argued with. But then, that's the fun purpose of these articles. I liked, and more to the point still like looking at most of these movies. The view of your article seems to be looking back at these movies from today's point of view. Directing, acting and even FX styles for these films are strongly rooted in their eras. It was the way they did movies at that time. You can still enjoy these and other movie's from different times and enjoy them just as much with knowledge of where they are coming from.

You can look at the original King Kong and say, "Those FX sucks! And look at that silly acting!"

You can look at Gone With The Wind and say, "What a completely racist politcally incorrect view of the Civil War.! Ugh!"

You can look at The Ten Commandments and yell, "That is some of the worse over the top acting on Earth! Yuck!"

Or you can see them in the right perspective and still get the fun of watching them and the ones on your list for years to come.

Wiseguy 1/11/2010 7:17:27 AM

I said that IMO Burton probably influenced TAS, well I looked it up on wikipedia, the authority on everything :), and guess what, it confirms it and even the creators admit to the influence

Burton's Batman is the true Batman film, Bow down to it. Batman Begins was a borefest and it and TDK are lacking too many aspects of the comics that's why they appeal to old ladies and girls :) lot of old ladies at the theater

I think The Towering Inferno  maybe is the only I may agree with with a little encouragement but it's like monkeyfoot said

monkeyfoot 1/11/2010 8:02:06 AM

All the movies listed have good and bad points, but I will agree the movie I dislike the most on the list is Superman II. I'd been geeked up to see a big budget superhero slugfest and was sorely disappointed. The FX of that time couldn't do it justice. But mainly it was the overly silly acting and directing (yes, that stupid thrown "S") that really makes it one of my least enjoyable comic book movies.

But the reasons I don't like it aren't because it didn't age well with it's era's POV. I didn't even like it then and I still don't.

Except for my favorite General Zod line, though. After Luthor insults him he says to him in this distant casualness: "Why do you say these things to me when you know I will kill you for it?"   I use that with friends sometimes.

jimvo99 1/11/2010 8:09:39 AM

This list of movies is incredibly stupid.

trazalca 1/11/2010 8:19:43 AM

[taps foot, waiting for yet another, "Why I hate the LOTR movies" essay]

Why do I get the feeling these articles are nothing more than an attempt to elicit yet more fanboy ardor? Do you need the attention that badly?

I agree with Supes being dated to near cringe-inducing levels. I saw Superman a few months ago, and yes, Lester had no business with this franchise whatsoever. He was awesome with his take on the Three Musketeers films. But his sensibilities on humor seemed tacked on here, and inappropriate.

(Sidenote: The sad thing is, the very idea of Superman playing off as Clark Kent among us mere mortals is an idea that would never hold water anymore. Circa 1945, it's a device that is of its time, yet now terribly dated. It would fail today. I just cannot hold my suspension of disbelief any longer than I could hold my breath for that one.)

But for the most part, these movies are like snugglies or slankets or whatever the heck they're called. They're warm, comfortable, and would probably let you sleep better at night if you let 'em. And oh yeah, Moonraker ROCKS. I love that movie like I love extra melted cheddar/nacho cheese on my chips, and I mean EXTRA to the point where the chips and cheese become a single entity to be devoured an enjoyed without thought required.

SuperFan 1/11/2010 8:20:52 AM

 how dare you put Superman 1 and 2 on this list. And Temple of Doom? A little kiddy for sure but miles ahead of that crystal skull crap. 

shadowprime 1/11/2010 8:37:23 AM


I guess my biggest quarrel is with the title - MOVIES THAT HAVEN'T AGED WELL. That implies, to me at least, that they worked very well at the time, but for some reason don't work (well or at all) now - and maybe for the same viewer (that is, you saw the movie years ago and really liked it, then saw it recently and now DON'T).

Most of the comments here, IMHO, aren't like that. They would have been just as valid way back when as they are now (assuming you agree with them). Take the TOWERING INFERNO comment - for this to be an issue with "aging", the Robert Wagner scene would have had to have made sense on first viewing? Did it? His crashing into the first burning piece of furniture, pinwheeling off ever other piece, and then crashing through the insanely thin glass? If it DID work then, why so?

Or TEMPLE OF DOOM. Was "Short-Round" adorable way back when, but annoying NOW?

Personally, I really enjoyed SUPERMAN I and II (and BATMAN for that matter). My biggest complaint was with the attempts at humor mixed into the Superman/Zod battle (guy talks on phone after phone booth is blown over, roller skating man blown backward, ice cream flies from cone), but those were complaints I had on first viewing. And the friends of mine who couldn't stand Margo Kidder as Lois Lane didn't like her way back when.

Seems to me the premise calls out for movies that were good or effective way back when, but which, when watched now, aren't nearly as scary or funny or inspiring or sensible or whatever, for some reason.



everdreaded 1/11/2010 8:41:25 AM

I don't understand the list to be honest, sure some of the movies are dated in effects, style and presentation compared to contemporary films, but as far as i am concerned none have lost thier appeal particularly in the one thing which keep all relevant and that is nostalgia.

All these films elicits a feeling of nostalgia in me when i still watch them occasionally. Some are classics in a sense and others just inspire me to remeber times when I just went to the movies to do this thing called BEING SIMPLY ENTERTAINED!

So yeah, in terms of effects and stories, some come off as archaic, but thats what films do regardless of  when they are made...

..hell imagine 15 years from now when some kid looks back and says how corny a movie AVATAR was...lol!

It wasnt of course but I think you get the point.

<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  >>  


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