|
|
Post by marianne48 on Mar 18, 2018 1:07:00 GMT
--suck, which ones would you AVOID showing them? Not all old films are "classics," after all. For example, my local library has a lot of great silent films by the legends of that era--Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Ernst Lubitsch silent comedies, etc. They also have some films by less well-known artists such as Raymond Griffith, who had an interesting career in silent films. These were entertaining enough that I checked out another collection called "The Mishaps of Musty Suffer." This one turned out to be, IMO, a total dud--they featured a creepy, charmless character named Musty Suffer who was anything but funny. Maybe the collection had some value as a curiosity for serious film historians, but they had almost no entertainment value. I would hate to think of someone unfamiliar with silent films checking out this DVD and thinking that it represented the general caliber of silent comedies.
What other old films would you consider "non-classics"? The MGM "Our Gang" comedies? Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla? A really bad Godzilla sequel?
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Mar 18, 2018 1:17:28 GMT
Tou show them Casablanca, The Little Foxes, Angels with Dirty faces, Brother Orchid, and of course Gone With the Wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 18, 2018 1:24:25 GMT
This subject kinda deserves a topic all its own—shall you or I make it, marianne48 ?  —but I really like “Our Gang” and a lot of the lousy Lugosi movies and Godzilla sequels. (Probably just says something for my taste, I suppose.) But, of course, not all, say, pre-1960 movies are “classics,” and the idea of creating an anti-canon is intriguing. Yet even bad movies have not only their charms but also their good points: just for one example, Lugosi was in a picture with the East Side Kids called Spooks Run Wild (’41), directed by b-movie maestro Phil Rosen and produced by schlock-maker Sam Katzman. It’s terrible, and not very funny, but there’s a fairly brilliant concept that recalls but actually improves on Tod Browning’s London After Midnight/ Mark of the Vampire: we are led to believe that Lugosi is a monster/villain, à la Dracula, but he’s actually a kindly magician, and all the spooky stuff is for his show. OK, OK, not particularly original, but here’s the kicker: it’s the Van Helsing character who is actually the real monster! Now that’s clever. One can find a bit of artistry even in schlock. |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Mar 18, 2018 1:45:26 GMT
I loved the original, anarchic Our Gang stuff, but the sappy MGM shorts were such a letdown. I like bad movies if they have an aura of goofiness, but some old films are just tedious, unoriginal, and show no creativity, schlocky or otherwise.
You make the topic--I'm tired.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 18, 2018 1:49:53 GMT
I loved the original, anarchic Our Gang stuff, but the sappy MGM shorts were such a letdown. I like bad movies if they have an aura of goofiness, but some old films are just tedious, unoriginal, and show no creativity, schlocky or otherwise. You make the topic--I'm tired. Oh, capisco—yes, I’d agree with you about the MGM shorts. I’m sure you’ve seen it, but I’ve got to say that I think Our Gang Follies of 1938 (’37) is a small masterpiece: it’s hilarious, and features one of the great all-time villains, Henry Brandon’s insidious Silas Barnaby (from Stan and Ollie’s Babes in Toyland). |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 18, 2018 1:55:17 GMT
marianne48 … Now that I think of it, this thread probably works just as well as what I was thinking for an “anti-canon”—movies that you would not show others to convince them of classic cinema’s greatness, movies that would never work as “classics,” yet that you like a great deal. To phrase it another way, what are movies that aren’t particularly good but that we enjoy anyway? A few that would go on my list… (Lots of Lugosi and Karloff, and lots of b-movies of all stripes) The Raven (’35), The Gorilla (’39), Ghosts on the Loose (’43), Mr. Wong, Detective (’38), House of Frankenstein (’44), Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome (’47), Adventures of Captain Marvel (’41), Black Magic (’44) I’m sure there are several more, but here’s a start.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 18, 2018 19:35:44 GMT
RE: Q. What other old films would you consider "non-classics"? A. the bad or mediocre ones .. they are just OLD.
I read it that the OP is looking for a list of BAD OLD MOVIES with no redeeming qualities. (?)
The more I see people thinking that an entire category of anything "sucks", the more I wish that I was smart enough to say "Their loss !" and just move on. I would hate to think of someone unfamiliar with silent films checking out this DVD and thinking that it represented the general caliber of silent comedies.
Similar to statements such as "I saw a British movie and I didn't like it so I don't watch British Movies. They are as slow as a snail on barbiturates and boring." Anyone who thinks that one film in a genre or from one country is representative of all is not worth bothering to convince other wise.
BUT ... What's to do other than laugh or smack them up side the head for rank ignorance or seriously try to change their mind ? Not worth bothering with 2 out of the 3 ! so   if possible. |
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Mar 19, 2018 2:20:22 GMT
...just watched "The Mad Magician" with Vincent Price...not a classic, but a very well done film...
|
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Mar 19, 2018 3:56:48 GMT
This subject kinda deserves a topic all its own—shall you or I make it, marianne48 ? —but I really like “Our Gang” and a lot of the lousy Lugosi movies and Godzilla sequels. (Probably just says something for my taste, I suppose.) But, of course, not all, say, pre-1960 movies are “classics,” and the idea of creating an anti-canon is intriguing. Yet even bad movies have not only their charms but also their good points: just for one example, Lugosi was in a picture with the East Side Kids called Spooks Run Wild (’41), directed by b-movie maestro Phil Rosen and produced by schlock-maker Sam Katzman. It’s terrible, and not very funny, but there’s a fairly brilliant concept that recalls but actually improves on Tod Browning’s London After Midnight/ Mark of the Vampire: we are led to believe that Lugosi is a monster/villain, à la Dracula, but he’s actually a kindly magician, and all the spooky stuff is for his show. OK, OK, not particularly original, but here’s the kicker: it’s the Van Helsing character who is actually the real monster! Now that’s clever. One can find a bit of artistry even in schlock. We saw A Bowery Boys movie recently where they went out west, and it was actually pretty funny |
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Mar 19, 2018 3:57:29 GMT
...just watched "The Mad Magician" with Vincent Price...not a classic, but a very well done film... never heard of that one--thx |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 19, 2018 4:03:59 GMT
... but some old films are just tedious, unoriginal, and show no creativity, schlocky or otherwise. so to clarify : You are looking for recommendations for a list of crappy movies to totally avoid seeing ? Not crappy movies that are somehow enjoyable .... ? |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 19, 2018 14:17:00 GMT
... but some old films are just tedious, unoriginal, and show no creativity, schlocky or otherwise. so to clarify : You are looking for recommendations for a list of crappy movies to totally avoid seeing ? Not crappy movies that are somehow enjoyable .... ? That’s why I first suggested that my “anti-canon” concept could be its own thread, but the two are similar enough that I think it would work in this one (if anyone’s interested). I’m not positive was Marianne was looking for, of course, but I was thinking of movies that are genuinely bad, that we know are bad, yet that have points of interest anyway. These may or may not be “so bad it’s good,” like many Ed Wood flicks, the difference being that we may not find them enjoyable but are still intrigued by at least one element—as I was by Ghosts on the Loose. But of course there’s a lot of overlap between this concept and “so bad it’s good.” |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 19, 2018 16:10:44 GMT
Nalkarj Have looked at some of the older posts on Film General and there have been some "bad but we like 'em" threads. One more here certainly won't hurt ! Heck... there were three active CFB "Lee Marvin" threads and about 150 Randolph Scott threads going a once. Can't be any worse than the recent "LET US ALL BASH ON CHIMPS" thread.
OP said You make the topic--I'm tired.
SO looks like it'sup to you now. The ball is in your court. Knock it outta the ballpark. Smash those lights. GO PACKERS !
|
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Mar 19, 2018 23:07:26 GMT
I'm thinking of movies that are just--forgettable. If you wanted to get someone interested in Hitchcock, for instance, one film you might not recommend would be Topaz. My favorite actor is James Cagney, but I find one of his later films, These Wilder Years, rather tepid and wouldn't advise people to watch it if I wanted to show them how great I think Cagney was.
Even the drippy Love Story may have some "classic" value (especially for those who read the MAD magazine parody), but Oliver's Story, its sequel, likely wouldn't qualify for classic status.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 19, 2018 23:13:35 GMT
If they are "forgettable" why would anyone even think of them when trying to recommend a film ? This whole concept is making me dizzy !  |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Mar 19, 2018 23:21:05 GMT
Because they're included in the filmographies of prolific, respected artists, or they're released on DVDs with other rare titles, so when people come across these titles, they may be tempted to watch what they expect to be an underrated gem, and are disappointed when it turns out to be kind of a waste of time. Unless they're completists, or hardcore film buffs, it's really not going to inspire them to look for similar titles or those by the same artist.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 19, 2018 23:32:04 GMT
That's all well and good but the way that the OP is worded it sounds like YOU are recommending films to someone who is not as "into" films as you are and you want to know which ones to avoid recommending ?
Does not read as if it's someone browsing in general and likely to choose a dud all by themselves.
As I said... I'm getting dizzy looking for the point.
Good luck on your search.
|
|
—but I really like “Our Gang” and a lot of the lousy Lugosi movies and Godzilla sequels. (Probably just says something for my taste, I suppose.) 
