|
Post by snsurone on Mar 26, 2017 22:22:51 GMT
I have two examples of movies I thought were great when I first saw them, but now I dislike:
THE SOUND OF MUSIC Breathtaking photography and an excellent Rogers & Hammerstein score, but I now find the story mawkish, and Julie Andrews makes my teeth rot! I might like it better if Mary Martin (the original Maria) reprised her stage role, but I suppose by then she was too old to play a postulant/governess.
ANNIE HALL I guess I got caught up in the '70's when I first saw this film, but now I find it outdated and boring. Woody Allen's incessant whining really can grate on my nerves, as is his belief that he's a "love machine". Jeesh! Diane Keaton's kookiness is also off-putting, and I find it disturbing that at her age, she still tries to affect the "Annie Hall" image. I guess some people never grow up.
I also have a hard time watching some of David Lean's films: LAWRENCE OF ARABIA DR. ZHIVAGO RYAN'S DAUGHTER Sure, they're all a feast for the eye and ear, but dammit, I have so much trouble trying to figure out just what they're all about! There are so many characters and subplots that I find it dizzying. I prefer Lean's earlier films, like OLIVER TWIST and SUMMERTIME.
Do any of you know films you once liked but now don't?
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on Mar 27, 2017 4:00:28 GMT
I couldn't really put any films in the category you suggested. My list of 182 favorites has remained fairly stable over the years. If I have to boot a film off the list, it is only because I want to replace it with something that I like even more and don't want the list to grow any bigger.
Of course, there are films that once resonated more than they do now because of age, for example, those I saw as a child which now seem, well - childish. Also, there are some films that made a strong impact on me because I saw them under particular circumstances in my life which no longer exist. There are also some films that I love but have gotten tired of seeing.
So, I guess the answer is not that there are films I once liked/loved but now don't, but that with age and circumstances, some films take on less meaning and others take on more.
|
|
Seto
Sophomore
@seto
Posts: 315
Likes: 233
|
Post by Seto on Mar 27, 2017 4:33:09 GMT
I loved 'The Phantom Menace' when it came out. Don't blame me though, I was only a nine year old kid at the time. Put the name 'Star Wars' on anything I would have loved it. Now I see it for the terrible movie that it is.
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Mar 27, 2017 5:09:07 GMT
In my youth I quite liked MacKenna's Gold and Ice Station Zebra. Seeing them again about 10 years ago I was appalled at my bad taste. [But Patrick McGoohan is great]. No wonder Howard Hughes went whacky.
|
|
|
Post by Wesley Crusher on Mar 27, 2017 5:24:44 GMT
In my youth I quite liked MacKenna's Gold and Ice Station Zebra. Seeing them again about 10 years ago I was appalled at my bad taste. [But Patrick McGoohan is great]. No wonder Howard Hughes went whacky. I have not seen Ice Station Zebra ... but I did see Mackenna's Gold ... I do not know how that film has a 6.8 rating. It was not entertaining at all to me ... 4/10 (probably closer to 3.6/10)
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 28, 2017 3:17:43 GMT
howardschumannsaid : "those I saw as a child which now seem, well - childish." Made me think about: Abbott and Costello were my favorites at those notorious "kiddy matinees" of my youth. Now, the only time I can stand them is in their "Who's On First" routine. I still laugh at that! In the movies though, I want to smack Lou for his childish (NOT "child-like) behavior and Bud for being such a rude bully. I even turned off the one where they meet Frankenstein and that was the last holdout of A&C that I could watch. On a related note, I have a dvd set of the Francis the Talking Mule films which I loved as a kid but am almost afraid to watch them. Shirley Temple. Can only enjoy her musical numbers lately. The baby talk gets to be too much especially in her more "grown up" roles, ie over seven or eight. I must confess that another film I don't care for any more (but certainly not for childishness) is "Breakfast at Tiffany's". Somehow it has lost some of its innocence and charm as I have learned just how she and her friend Peppard actually made their money. Don't even mention the Mickey Rooney character... please.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 28, 2017 4:08:42 GMT
howardschumann said : "those I saw as a child which now seem, well - childish." Made me think about: Abbott and Costello were my favorites at those notorious "kiddy matinees" of my youth. Now, the only time I can stand them is in their "Who's On First" routine. I still laugh at that! In the movies though, I want to smack Lou for his childish (NOT "child-like) behavior and Bud for being such a rude bully. I even turned off the one where they meet Frankenstein and that was the last holdout of A&C that I could watch. On a related note, I have a dvd set of the Francis the Talking Mule films which I loved as a kid but am almost afraid to watch them. Shirley Temple. Can only enjoy her musical numbers lately. The baby talk gets to be too much especially in her more "grown up" roles, ie over seven or eight. I must confess that another film I don't care for any more (but certainly not for childishness) is "Breakfast at Tiffany's". Somehow it has lost some of its innocence and charm as I have learned just how she and her friend Peppard actually made their money. Don't even mention the Mickey Rooney character... please. Funny thing is, Bat, that, while I appreciate a good deal of Abbott and Costello's material, I've never found "Who's on First?" all that funny. I mean, it can be done well, and I appreciate its cleverness, but after my millionth time of hearing it, it lost its luster for me and hasn't regained it since. Oh, well, maybe that just speaks more for me than for them. At this point, though, I must confess that I never found A&C all that funny--or, at least, not in any of their movies (besides Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, which I still love). Though their TV was largely old vaudeville routines anyway, I found it had an edge and speed to it that their movies lacked. (I've just never found Buck Privates funny either, and as regards the sequel, Buck Privates Come Home ['47], I just keep wondering how they got away with plagiarizing 99% of Laurel and Hardy's Pack up Your Troubles ['31].) While I only giggle at Abbott and Costello, I guffaw at the Marx Brothers, and I laugh the loudest and longest at Laurel and Hardy, whom I still consider the best comic team of them all. But, heck, who can trust my opinion on cinematic comedy anyway? I'm the only damn' fool on planet Earth who thinks that (with the exceptions of the famous "surely" bit and some momentary funny stuff with Leslie Nielsen, Barbara Billingsley, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar) Airplane! isn't funny in the slightest!
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 28, 2017 4:25:42 GMT
Nalkarj While I don't actually seek out "Who's On First" I enjoy it when it gets stumbled upon. Not a frequent event, that. I don't recall seeing their tv efforts but this whole "man-child" childish bit by Lou gives me the willies enough to not watch their films any more. Agree totally on Stan and Oliver being the cream of the crop. Infinately watchable. Stan is another man-child but somehow not in the same way that Lou is. Oliver is... just Oliver !!! Tie twiddle and silly looks and even when he is mad, just so appealing. "Airplane". Ahah ! So you are the other one who doesn't find it 100% comedy genius ! What do you think of "Blazing Saddles" ? ugh
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on Mar 28, 2017 4:31:22 GMT
howardschumann said : "those I saw as a child which now seem, well - childish." On the other hand, there are many films I remember from my childhood that have held up well, especially some of the Disney classics and films such as The Wizard of Oz and Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 28, 2017 4:42:08 GMT
Nalkarj While I don't actually seek out "Who's On First" I enjoy it when it gets stumbled upon. Not a frequent event, that. I don't recall seeing their tv efforts but this whole "man-child" childish bit by Lou gives me the willies enough to not watch their films any more. Agree totally on Stan and Oliver being the cream of the crop. Infinately watchable. Stan is another man-child but somehow not in the same way that Lou is. Oliver is... just Oliver !!! Tie twiddle and silly looks and even when he is mad, just so appealing. "Airplane". Ahah ! So you are the other one who doesn't find it 100% comedy genius ! What do you think of "Blazing Saddles" ? ugh What, you don't think Airplane! is incredible either? Amazing! As I wrote to someone else here once, we have to band together and form some kind of secret society--there are so few of us! I mean, I still enjoy A & C Meet Frankenstein, to be honest. Part of that is I think the jokes are above-par (no recycled vaudeville routines!), and part of it is that Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney, Jr., seem to be having the time of their lives as the monsters. (I except poor Glenn Strange, who plays the Frankenstein Monster, because he doesn't have time to provide much of a character--admittedly, though, he does have more to do than in both House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, supposedly "serious" monster movies!) I have always loved, and still love, Stan and Ollie. They really are just wonderful. I'm not crazy about Blazing Saddles, but I don't think it's terrible. As for Brooks's films, I prefer The Producers (though I do find it overrated), High Anxiety, Robin Hood, and more than anything Young Frankenstein. Oh, and the early Get Smart stuff, of course!
|
|
persephone
Freshman
It's a perfect night for mystery and horror. The air itself is filled with monsters.
@persephone
Posts: 97
Likes: 30
|
Post by persephone on Mar 28, 2017 4:42:18 GMT
Dr. Zhivago is on my list. I tried watching it last Summer again and I almost fell asleep. My Fair Lady. I was so mad while watching it again last year because it hit me all of the sudden that Henry was abusive. I think when I saw it on TV as a kid the costumes and the music was all that I really paid attention to. That is why I liked it then.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 28, 2017 5:06:59 GMT
howardschumann said : "those I saw as a child which now seem, well - childish." On the other hand, there are many films I remember from my childhood that have held up well, especially some of the Disney classics and films such as The Wizard of Oz and Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Totally agree ! Some of the films we saw and loved as children seem childish now and some are still treasured friends to be re-watched over and over.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Mar 28, 2017 6:25:31 GMT
Nowhere near old enough to be classic, but I liked "Shrek" as a kid. Now I consider the film to be an example of the decline of human civilisation. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Mar 28, 2017 7:41:15 GMT
So many. Times change, tastes change, and I change. I loved To Kill A Mockingbird as a child, saw it at least three times in the theater, and continued to love it for years to come. Now it feels manipulative, old-fashioned,--of its period, the Sixties, not the period in which the film is set--and I steer clear of it today. David Lean has been mentioned: neither The Bridge On The River Kwai nor Lawrence Of Arabia do it for me today. I respect the effort and artistry that went into their making but egads!,--they pile it on, endlessly, pointlessly--why are these movies so long? I guess they were trying to be epic. Now they just play (to me) as very long movies. They're not epics. I don't think that David Lean had a flair for epics. A Passage To India holds up much better for me. It takes its time but there's a certain narrative drive to it, and I care for the characters. A lot of Walt Disney films (of Walt's era) fall flat for me now, sad to say, even my once all-time favorite The Swiss Family Robinson, and I can't explain it. The word dated isn't a favorite of mine but I can't think of a better one. Also, I'm not a kid anymore . The worst for me is Mary Poppins, which I and millions of others loved then it came out that plays (for me) atrociously these days,--and forget Dick Van Dyke's wretched cockney accent--the movie just doesn't hold up. The black and white Flubber pictures actually play better. My all-time favorite Disney live action film, the one that towers above the others: Third Man On The Mountain (aka Banner In The Sky). It's still breathtaking to behold, and the story, for all its sweetness and light, still holds up. Some classic era stars don't do it for me anymore. I used to like James Cagney a lot; now, not so much. His classic films, yes: The Public Enemy, Angels With Dirty Faces, The Roaring 20s and White Heat still work their charms, so to speak. Overall, however, Cagney's acting style increasingly rubs me the wrong way: too strident, too in your face, no subtlety or shading. I don't think I've ever seen Cagney play a character who truly develops, matures during the course of a film. Yankee Doodle Dandy I've never cared much for except as a relic of another time. For me, Mister Roberts works best when Cagney is off-screen. His performance in Man Of A Thousand Faces does move me, however, and while I wouldn't call Cagney's performance as Lon Chaney great, he serves the material well and with dignity. Strangely, while I despised the 1981 Ragtime when I saw it first run, at a sneak preview, Cagney's brief performance was the film's highlight for me. But then the veteran "guest stars" were, for many of us, the best thing in that film, aside from Miss McGovern's topless scene, that it.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 28, 2017 12:59:15 GMT
I liked 'The Private Eyes' when I saw it in the theater as a kid.
I bought the DVD a few years ago and couldn't watch more than 30 minutes of it.
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Mar 28, 2017 13:48:40 GMT
Actually, I still love Disney animated films--both short and feature-length ones. Also Disney documentaries like THE LIVING DESERT.
But I can't stand those Disney live-action comedies and dramas. They are as badly dated as the "beach party" films of the '60's. Come to think of it, those flicks often starred Disney protegee Annette Funicello.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 28, 2017 14:38:54 GMT
I can't honestly say there are any I can categorize in this way; once I love 'em, they stay loved. That continues to be the case even after I come to recognize flaws that might not have been apparent in early viewings. A case in point: the film from which my sig line comes, 1935's The Raven. I couldn't have been more than 10 when I first saw it, but for most of the years of the half-century (plus) since, its complete absurdity has been clear. Still, it remains a pleasure, and appreciated for aspects that went over my head at that early age. howardschumann put it best: "I guess the answer is not that there are films I once liked/loved but now don't, but that with age and circumstances, some films take on less meaning and others take on more."
I do have to admit to some youthful lack of discrimination, as described by OldAussie; "Seeing them again about 10 years ago I was appalled at my bad taste," although that applies to films I enjoyed (rather than loved) when first seen, but which I now recognize for the shallow yet overwrought schlock they are (those of the "disaster film" trend, for instance - Airport, The Poseidon Adventure, The Towering Inferno - which now, in addition to their other deficiencies, look surprisingly cheap for such big-deal productions). I was 17, 19 and 21, respectively, when I saw them, so what did I know?
On the other hand, there have been a handful of films I initially found difficult to access, but which I finally "got" upon subsequent viewings and for which I now have great affection. And that phenomenon obviously has more to do with me than the films themselves. But that's for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Mar 28, 2017 14:54:53 GMT
As a kid, I liked Meet Me in St. Louis. Maybe largely because its turn-of-the-century look, with its Victorian-style homes that looked like dollhouses and the frilly dresses that made the female characters look like those porcelain dolls of that era, appealed to my tween girl tastes at the time. The story about the family feeling bad about being forced to move because the gruff dad got a job offer in some hick town in the East (New York City) made sense to me then, although the youngest daughter, Tootie, seemed rather creepy to me.
As an adult, I have to feel bad for the father. While his bratty daughters spend all their time going to dances and trying to snare affluent guys into marrying them, and his son is planning to go to Princeton, the poor old guy spends all his time working to support their extravagant lifestyle. The opening scenes depict this perfectly--they're all hanging around the house singing, while he staggers home, exhausted and sweating, and can't even have a bath when he wants because it might get in the way of his eldest daughter's machinations involving her wealthy suitor. Then when he tries and succeeds to get a better-paying position to enable his family to continue their upper-middle-class lifestyle, they all turn on him.
Also, when I was a kid, I may have thought Tootie was just obnoxious. Only as an adult did I fully realize the enormity of Tootie's false claim against the next-door neighbor. Her accusation of assault, with all its implications, might have been enough to get her older brother and her father to go after the poor guy with baseball bats. Afterwards, the little sociopath might have giggled as she helped the family secretly bury him in the backyard, among all the graves of her dolls. It's a good thing Dad was still at work, as usual, when this happened.
The music was okay, though.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 31, 2017 3:53:09 GMT
snsurone said "They are as badly dated as the "beach party" films of the '60's." Some of the beach movies were awful but what made them awful was awful when they were made and has nothing to do with being "dated" now. .
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 31, 2017 6:00:22 GMT
In my youth I quite liked MacKenna's Gold and Ice Station Zebra. Seeing them again about 10 years ago I was appalled at my bad taste. [But Patrick McGoohan is great]. No wonder Howard Hughes went whacky. ... tidbit that you may find intriguing if you are not already aware of it: Clint Eastwood could have starred in Mackenna's Gold (in the Gregory Peck role) as his first Hollywood vehicle following his Italian Westerns with director Sergio Leone. Given the movie's blockbuster pedigree, Eastwood's agents badly wanted him to accept the part. Instead, the rising star found the script too problematic and the protagonist too routine, characterized the project as "just an extension of Rawhide" (referring to his now defunct TV series), and declined.
|
|