CitizenKaneRBud

This is because cinema was a new medium during that period. Actors in the early days of films were used to the theater, and in the transition from theater to movies, this 'theatrical' style of acting carried over into the new medium.

Buttmunker

I hate Gone With The Wind, and I even tried to watch it multiple times with my wife, who absolutely adores this picture. I really tried to like this movie. No go.

I don't think Mister Roberts holds up well, and I don't see what was so very special about Jack Lemmon's performance to warrant an Academy Award.

Numanoid

When I was a kid, I would sit entranced at Chico's piano playing. I loved it when he did that knuckle roll and "shot" the last key.

Groucho...it's for the kids.

Groucho

The piano playing is entertaining for about 30 seconds or so, but it always ends up overstaying its welcome, kind of like the guy who shows up drunk to a party.

NCMojo

No way this thread should have started off with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Sting. I honestly cannot think of two films that hold up better than those two masterpieces. (Well, OK, maybe Godfather and Godfather II...)

I agree about 2001... every time I see some part of this film, I always try to figure out what makes everybody go ga-ga. Overly pretentious, low on action and suspence, and with enough weirdness going on to make you want ask David Lynch for his reinterpretation.

Also... and yes, let the flame wars begin... I think Hitchcock's work is greatly overrated. Psycho seems especially tame by today's standard.

And one more film that does not stand the test of time: Star Wars. Maybe it's the lousy special effects... maybe it's how Lucas obviously ripped off a bunch of other movies... I just don't know...

F For Fake

I also hate GWTW. It takes gaudy melodrama to unexpected levels. I just can NOT watch it. I've seen it twice, and will never sit through it again.

This one usually gets me a lot of dirty looks: I hate "The Sound of Music". I know, I know, but I can't help it. And the funny thing is that I LOVE musicals, so that's not the reason.

chowderhead

ok, the gloves come off (and the flamesuit is put on) and nothing is sacred. I will say, Citizen Kane. I know it's a classic, the number 1 film ever, etc. However, the acting was atrocious. The characters especially the women tend to overact which apparently was the style back them. The storyline was ok but the black and white made it hard to see the background of many shots. It was an ehh... type of movie for me so I think it does not hold up to today's great movies like Shawshank, etc.

ckolchak

i first saw Bullit in the late 80's, and even then i'd been hearing for years how great & influential the car chase was, and after seeing it thought the whole thing was very over rated.
i gave it another shot recently, and after years of MTV directors shooting high-gloss, witless stories- the low key , subdued, procedural approach of Bullit was a breath of fresh air i very much appreciated this time.

the last time i saw Butch Cassidy was a couple years ago and i thought it was remarkably over-rated. the lauded Willam Goldman script in particular seemed to me, really amateurish.

the Sting i haven't seen in a while (waiting for a matted version of it), but i've always thought it was a terrific popcorn movie.
interested in the characters, intently following the story, suprised, amused, and smiling on the way out the door.
and , to me, Newman and Redford just have a lot more charisma than somebody like Adam Sandler and the rest of this generation.
in fact, i love most of the movies mentioned here, including Gone With The Wind.

Inverse

Of course, no one today overacts, nosiree Bob.

I'd like to be here in 2063 and see how people then judge today's actors (assuming anyone even remembers them.)

Scot1458

We will be dead, but I can doubt Shawshank will be nowhere near as regarded as Citizen Kane is 60 years from now.

I agree with GONE WITH THE WIND though...very unimpressed.

moocher

I'm glad 2001 has been mentioned several times so I don't feel so artistically challenged by not "getting it". I find this to be one of the most boring films I have ever seen. I actually liked 2010 better (not much better...but better).

What seems odd is that scifi films usually get picked on for being all about the effects yet this one escapes that criticism even though much of the film centers around very dated effects work that does little to advance the plot (what little there is of one).

2001 ages very badly IMO. (Flameproof suit has been donned )

wendersfan

I suppose it's old enough now to be considered a classic, so

STAR WARS

I thought it sucked then, I think it's sucks even more today.

mwj

In the Heat of the Night

I tried watching this couple of months ago and it took three times for me to finish it. I found it boring and preachy.

Josh H

How can a film be a "classic" and not hold up?

I always consider part of the definition of a classic to be that it is timeless.

Of course, not everyone is going to like all classic movies, just like not everyone is going to like all movies that come out today. I'd garner that it's just a matter of taste rather than the particular films not holding up.

I'd say that if you took two people who have more or less the same taste in films, one in his 20's when Casablanca came out, and one in his 20's now seeing the movie for the first time, they'd both either love it or hate it.

That's the definition of a classic IMO. Regardless of it's age it can still be enjoyed by those interested in that genre, type of movie etc.

Scot1458

The last 30 minutes are great...that's about it.

DodgingCars

This is why I can't watch many classic movies. The acting style drives me crazy!!!

zero

I dont for the life of me see what the big deal is over "Rebel without a cause."

Tuan Jim

For me, this description seems to fit most any early scifi film that's set directly on Earth in the near future (Star Wars and things like that -- Forbidden Planet, etc. don't really count). The technology of computers and leisure devices, transportation, etc. -- has just progressed so far, that most of the white, sterile, art deco, boxy designs just look dumb -- NOT a direct reference to CO since I haven't seen it, but to other scifi movies.

Of course, a future like Blade Runner is still very possible -- comparably speaking -- IMO, which makes its depiction far more interesting and "realistic".

Buttmunker

I bought it blindly, based on it being the Best Picture winner of 1967, and felt the same way you did about it.

Same with The Defiant Ones. For the same reason.

evenflow

Heck yeah!

The same can be applied to every single Star Wars film...

bardevious

Have to respectfully disagree with....pretty much everything you've said.

While I will acknowledge that the overall art design of Clockwork is horribly dated and overtly "seventies-ish" to the point of seeming absurd, I don't find the social commentary to be "generic" (whatever that means), nor do I think it's underwritten. I think the overall message (totalitarianism vs. individual liberty- which is more harmful to the individual and to society as a whole?) is as timely and powerful today as it's ever been.

Perhaps you mean by generic that it's been done before, that the themes of the movie are hardly groundbreaking and original. To which I would reply, "what hasn't been done before?". Really, when you get down to the root of it, the Aristotlian notion of drama holds true, and to a certain extent everything is therefore generic. And perhaps it comes off as underwritten because Kubrick does not lead the audience by the nose and tell them how to feel about whatever is happening at any given moment, ala the likes of Spielberg.

And I'm not whining, nor am I an elitist (again, whatever that means), but it is a better film than French Connection (speaking of dated movies..............).

kantboy

So, what the hell do you people like that wasn't made before 1980?? Five examples would be nice.

Groucho

I'm guessing this is addressed to everybody who has posted in this thread. Look, just because somebody doesn't like a few old movies doesn't mean that they don't like ALL old movies. And this thread isn't bashing movies from before 1980, it's just about so-called "Classics" that we don't feel hold up.

Relax.

Buttmunker

That's really for another thread. Besides, this list will be comparitively shorter than the list for Classics That Stand The Test of Time.

But, for argument sake, there's The Wizard of Oz, 12 Angry Men, On The Waterfront, The Poseiden Adventure, and It's A Wonderful Life.

moocher

For the record I like (and own) many films pre-1980 and find them to be superior to many recent films. Since it's OT I won't list them but the list would be far longer than five.

So there...

PS - I also agree with many of the opinions stated here. I think some of these films are considered classics because they were of high quality for the time and generally tried to do something new rather than copy films made before them (like so many do today). It does not necessarily mean they are still that good today.

For example, I would be willing to bet if you screened both Disney's Snow White and say, Aladdin to 1000 people who had never heard of either (hypothetically ), most would enjoy Aladdin more and find Snow White boring yet Snow White is a "classic" and Aladdin probably will never be considered a classic (except by Disney of course).