I just posted something along this line in one of the recent TV show thread.
OF COURSE MOVIES DON'T AGE WELL. THEY WERE MADE 20, 30, 40 YEARS AGO (sorry about the yelling, just trying to get my point across).
But isn't that what makes them so important? That they capture a specific point in history? Similar to a painting or a novel. As I said in the TV thread, I really think we should concentrate on the movies/TV shows that are just as, or more, pertinent than they were when orignally made. As someone mentioned, we shouldn't equate cheesy with "not aging well"
Sorry to be a downer.![]()



Quote
Watched Soylent Green this weekend and was completely turned off. This is a movie that simply did not age well. Sci-fi as a genre runs a greater risk in the aging poorly department than just about any other film genre. I think the film's social commentary was adequate and topical enough for a 1970's audience that it was able to carry the film back then, but DAYAMN, there is some third rate acting in this flick!
Worse yet, knowing the spoiler ending eliminates any vestige of suspense the film ever manages to create. I wonder if perhaps we should all avoid The Crying Game for this same reason?








