Favorite old films?

[Grumpy_Old_Man]

Blowup From Michelangelo Antonioni, loosely based in Julio Cortazar tale Las babas del diablo.

 

[Kid Dynamite]

-Wizard Of Oz
-One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
-Stir Crazy
-Stand By Me

So many more....

 

[stealthRUSH]

Tremors, Firestarter, The Mosquito Coast, Powder, Spriggan

 

[livingdead]

Top 5, no particular order.

View attachment 24236View attachment 24238View attachment 24240View attachment 24241View attachment 24245

I love Dawn of the Dead and Romero's other films.

 

[DukeRed]

Brilliant comedy, Grosse Pointe Blank

 

[SolemnlyDoc]

Casablanca with Humphrey Bogart

Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa

 

[Parasite_Steve]

Oof the list is just endless when it comes to older films.
Watching movies has been one of my favorite hobbies for more than a quarter century now so I’ve seen close to 4500 at this point (according to my IMDb profile). I do have a few blind spots left like nouvelle vague and italian neo-realism but I feel like I’ve sampled a wide selection so far.

Currently I’m watching a lot of movies from Weimar Germany, mostly silent films like Fritz Lang‘s Die Nibelungen. Close to 5 hours in two parts but what a trip.

 

[NobodyHere]

View attachment 28587

Tremors, Firestarter, The Mosquito Coast, Powder, Spriggan

Tremors is so awesome, Graboids are one of my all time favourite monsters. I love the effects with my entire heart

 

[livingdead]

Tremors is so awesome, Graboids are one of my all time favourite monsters. I love the effects with my entire heartView attachment 29553View attachment 29554

Is that from the Monroeville Mall Museum?

 

[miguk]

John Carpenter’s film They Live was stemmed from his dissatisfaction of by then U.S. Pres. Ronald Reagan’s economic policies and as well he saw the increasing commercialization of politics and pop culture.

It was a mix of Reagan-era politics (the economics clearly referenced early on in the film) and the media becoming less neutral after the cancellation of the Fairness Doctrine (which, of course, ended under Reagan the previous year). Basically, there was nothing stopping the media from using unethical methods like excluding opposing but otherwise legit opinions or dog whistling. (And this was at the start of that trend; it slowly got worse until the early 00s when it was fully visible to the public.) So what you ended up with is media (mainly TV media, but also some others) that looked perfectly fair on the surface but was lying to your face, and your only way of telling otherwise was to take the time to find good, usually print media that still practiced ethics (which required extra money spent on copies and/or subscriptions you might not want for the long term).

Oh, and I've rewatched Falling Down again recently too. That movie is strangely satisfying.

View attachment 24274

Falling Down is one of those films that can be good if you don't skip the ending, which all too many of its fans do. It's important to note that the "I'm the bad guy" line is supposed to turn the whole film on its head, showing you that Foster never really had a good point in what he was doing. Yes, you can argue that he sometimes did right, like how he dealt with the neo-Nazi, but other times, like his meltdown over not getting his breakfast, he was just out of his mind. The film further hints that he wasn't a good person to begin with (his wife left him for a good reason). And yet a lot of fans just ignore all that.

It's unfortunate that this happens to way too many good films. Scarface, Fight Club, American Psycho, and other well done films have all too many fans who only appreciate them on the surface level. It seems to happen a lot with films that have a somewhat macho main character who seems cool on the surface but by the end of the film is proven to be pretty pathetic when you stop to think about it. That's actually a great set up for a film, but it gets lost on anyone who wrongfully identifies with the main character and thus ends up pretending the ending never happened.

 

[ciro64]

Falling Down is one of those films that can be good if you don't skip the ending, which all too many of its fans do.

What. Are these people stupid?

The absurd power trip fantasy is fun and all, but the other part is meant to immerse you on how a real life person would bring themselves to do such things and see the ugly about it. Not to mention the end of the movie redeems what little there was left to redeem about him and also concludes the detective's story line as well.

 

[miguk]

What. Are these people stupid?

The absurd power trip fantasy is fun and all, but the other part is meant to immerse you on how a real life person would bring themselves to do such things and snap you out of the charm. Not to mention the end of the movie redeems what little there was left to redeem about him and also concludes the detective's story line as well.

It's a pretty common problem, unfortunately. A lot of fan bases in general eventually amass a subsection of them that really do not get the work at all. One notable subsection tends to be made up of young men of low intelligence and high machismo who are looking for a justification for behaving badly. Thus, when they see these "cool" characters acting the way they want to act while being portrayed the way they want to be portrayed via Hollywood magic, they latch on to them as a representation of their identity and ignore anything that makes them look bad, including the whole subtext and ending. (This isn't exclusive to films, though; Rick & Morty and even Alan Moore's Watchmen have had these kinds of fans.)

(And for the record, in case anyone gets the wrong idea, this is not "men bad", but "violent macho idiot bad.")

The funny thing is that these works are often made by people who are deliberately trying argue against that very type of behavior due to the negative effect it can have on themselves based on their own identities. Falling Down was directed by Joel Schumacher, who was already openly gay at the time. American Psycho and Fight Club were both written by gay authors (both came out of the closet publicly years later, but were open in their personal lives). Alan Moore is an anarchist who is practically anti-traditional in his views. And yet, the weirder members of the fanbase just ignore the fact that these authors don't have any reason to embrace an overly traditional machoistic worldview, and have made it clear they don't to anyone who critically thinks about their works.

 

[NobodyHere]

Is that from the Monroeville Mall Museum?

No the Museum of Western Film History

Post automatically merged: Feb 22, 2025

Might be my favourite movie, such a good time

Nosferatu does have one of my favourite vampire moments of all time, I love watching him run around in what looks like broad daylight with a box of dirt.

 

[sandogma]

As an 80's kid, this movie amazed me and terrified me at the same time (Krull 1983).

 

[miguk]

Almost forgot something I wanted to say earlier: Seeing films from the 90s and 00s listed here as "old films" is pretty awkward. None of those look or feel old to me, particularly because CGI, high resolution cameras, and modern lighting and color correction don't really give that "old film" feel. Anyways, here's a few of my own:

• Alice (1988): A great half live action, half stop motion film. Has a really unique look that borders between fantasy and horror without being that scary.
• An American Werewolf in London (1981): So first, don't pay for this one; the director doesn't deserve money. Second, this is one of the earliest major horror comedies and had some amazing practical effects. (Yes, that scene had no CGI.)​
• Big Trouble in Little China (1986): It's a controversial choice for some, and I'll admit it's not perfect. However, it was unique among action films of the time by making the main character the comic relief in a different hero's story.​
• Blade Runner (1982): One of the most influential sci-fi films ever. The whole cyberpunk aesthetic was based on this film.​
• Blue Velvet (1986): If you are new to David Lynch, this works as training wheels. Dennis Hopper plays one of the scariest villains in film history.​
• The Dark Crystal (1982): Jim Henson made the best live action film without any on screen actors. After watching the theatrical version, look up the director's cut (actually a fan made recompilation of what the workprint cut was said to be: devoid of English voice acting and narration).​
• Do the Right Thing (1989): It's pretty amazing that a film that was so of its time as this one actually still holds up as relevant today (for better and for worse).​
• Grave of the Fireflies (1988): Still one of the saddest films ever made. Ghibli drama at its finest.​
• Labyrinth (1986): More Jim Henson. A great little fairy tale with two great actors.​
• Little Shop of Horrors (1986): Honestly, if you can see it on stage, you should, as there are better singers on stage than these Hollywood actors, and the ending is a bit better. (Check YouTube while it's still there.) But the film version removes the weakest song and adds a really good new one, and the cinematography and effects are amazing (just how they do "Be a Dentist" is a massive improvement), so it's still worth watching.​
• The Neverending Story (1984): If you are a fantasy fan, you have to watch this; it feels so much like a modern RPG despite being made in the era of D&D and Wizardry. It was the highest budgeted film in German history when it released.​
• The Secret of NIMH (1982): Still one of my favorite animated films. The SFX budget on this was huge for its time, and it shows.​
• The Thing (1982): A horror classic. Probably the smartest cast in any horror movie.​

That's it for pre-90s films. I think I'll save anything newer for a non-"old films" thread.

 

[Antilocal123]

What. Are these people stupid?

The absurd power trip fantasy is fun and all, but the other part is meant to immerse you on how a real life person would bring themselves to do such things and see the ugly about it. Not to mention the end of the movie redeems what little there was left to redeem about him and also concludes the detective's story line as well.

I think people just see a Phonk Edit of the movie and ignore the moral.

And I contributed to that because I was part of that audience lol

Post automatically merged: Feb 22, 2025

It's a pretty common problem, unfortunately. A lot of fan bases in general eventually amass a subsection of them that really do not get the work at all. One notable subsection tends to be made up of young men of low intelligence and high machismo who are looking for a justification for behaving badly. Thus, when they see these "cool" characters acting the way they want to act while being portrayed the way they want to be portrayed via Hollywood magic, they latch on to them as a representation of their identity and ignore anything that makes them look bad, including the whole subtext and ending. (This isn't exclusive to films, though; Rick & Morty and even Alan Moore's Watchmen have had these kinds of fans.)

(And for the record, in case anyone gets the wrong idea, this is not "men bad", but "violent macho idiot bad.")

The funny thing is that these works are often made by people who are deliberately trying argue against that very type of behavior due to the negative effect it can have on themselves based on their own identities. Falling Down was directed by Joel Schumacher, who was already openly gay at the time. American Psycho and Fight Club were both written by gay authors (both came out of the closet publicly years later, but were open in their personal lives). Alan Moore is an anarchist who is practically anti-traditional in his views. And yet, the weirder members of the fanbase just ignore the fact that these authors don't have any reason to embrace an overly traditional machoistic worldview, and have made it clear they don't to anyone who critically thinks about their works.

The Film adaption of AP was directed by a woman too, Christian Bale himself has said that Bateman is fucking ridiculous, and Fight Club is homoerotic as shit.

I think people just see the cool edits and don’t watch the source material.

 

[Ikagura]

Falling Down is one of those films that can be good if you don't skip the ending, which all too many of its fans do. It's important to note that the "I'm the bad guy" line is supposed to turn the whole film on its head, showing you that Foster never really had a good point in what he was doing. Yes, you can argue that he sometimes did right, like how he dealt with the neo-Nazi, but other times, like his meltdown over not getting his breakfast, he was just out of his mind. The film further hints that he wasn't a good person to begin with (his wife left him for a good reason). And yet a lot of fans just ignore all that.

It's unfortunate that this happens to way too many good films. Scarface, Fight Club, American Psycho, and other well done films have all too many fans who only appreciate them on the surface level. It seems to happen a lot with films that have a somewhat macho main character who seems cool on the surface but by the end of the film is proven to be pretty pathetic when you stop to think about it. That's actually a great set up for a film, but it gets lost on anyone who wrongfully identifies with the main character and thus ends up pretending the ending never happened.

I'd probably sound pedantic but we cannot really say to people that "they're not appreciating the art/the media the correct way", that would sound a bit "elitist" and art is meant to let people have their own interpretation of something. I mean even if Starship Troopers is a great satire it's also a damn good action movie and it's also why it's a good one. You cannot really make a profound and meaningful message without it being a good movie on its own (which is what many current directors are missing, only making moral lessons without having quality cinematography on top so it falls flat).

To me the moment that told me that D-Fens (yeah I like to name him like that)
was actually unemployed for years and lived in his mother's was when I knew something was horribly wrong with him (why was he in that car to begin with?)

So yeah, I won't go tell people that they're not good fans because they didn't appreciate the way I did.


PS: Patrick Bateman is quite charismatic but he's also a horrible person, you can like an antagonist without approving what they're doing.

 

[miguk]

I'd probably sound pedantic but we cannot really say to people that "they're not appreciating the art/the media the correct way", that would sound a bit "elitist" and art is meant to let people have their own interpretation of something. I mean even if Starship Troopers is a great satire it's also a damn good action movie and it's also why it's a good one. You cannot really make a profound and meaningful message without it being a good movie on its own (which is what many current directors are missing, only making moral lessons without having quality cinematography on top so it falls flat).

To me the moment that told me that D-Fens (yeah I like to name him like that)
was actually unemployed for years and lived in his mother's was when I knew something was horribly wrong with him (why was he in that car to begin with?)

So yeah, I won't go tell people that they're not good fans because they didn't appreciate the way I did.


PS: Patrick Bateman is quite charismatic but he's also a horrible person, you can like an antagonist without approving what they're doing.

You can have many interpretations of a work of art, but there are some that are just wrong on more than one level. That isn't being elitist, but pointing out that the person making the interpretation should actually think about everything the author wrote, not just cherry pick the most comforting escapist elements, especially if that leads to a downright disturbing conclusion.

You mentioned Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, which is an interesting case. Verhoeven read the book and felt that Heinlein was basically arguing for a fascist society. (Note that Verhoeven's experience during WWII made it so he knew what fascism is like better than Heinlein.) That is not the author's intended interpretation, as Heinlein wanted to show military life as the highest honor in life. But it is a valid interpretation given what the text and subtext of the book presents. So Verhoeven adapted it as a satire of itself, trying to make it very clear by using propaganda, horrific imagery, and actual Nazi uniforms towards the end.

It would seem obvious what Verhoeven was getting at, right? Like I said, there's this one group that watches anything that looks cool and interprets it in a messed up way. Tons of meatheads watched that film and saw it as arguing in favor of Heinlein's point (though few actually read the book), not against it. Fascists themselves loved the film (as they aren't any good at understanding art). Still others accused Verhoeven of being a fascist for making a film that has fascists as the main characters. Verhoeven has said in interviews that he's shocked at all the poor interpretations of his film when he made an effort to make his message plainly obvious.

On a similar note, Alan Moore has stated that he doesn't want to meet any more Rorschach fans, and his response to them is to tell them to get the hell away from him. Again, this is a character that was built to be unlikable, but is interpreted as perfect by people who are deliberately avoiding a deeper reading so they can identify with a character that was obviously never meant to be identified with. (Granted, Zack Snyder tried to change him into something likeable when he realized that he is built to be a criticism of people like Snyder himself, but using a bad adaptation as a source material is not the best method of understanding a character.)

As for Bateman, yes, he is kind of charismatic, but that is a surface level trait that we are warned against early on. (Note that his charisma doesn't work too well in-story; others see him as a dork wearing mismatched designer clothing, as if he understands "who" to wear but not how to put it together into a normal suit. This is one thing from the book that unfortunately didn't make it into the film.) He is entertaining, and even slightly relatable (his "I just want to fit in" attitude being the initial concept that led to his creation). But he is ultimately meant to be looked down on for his overreaction to everything, as he is a satire of the excesses and shallowness of the 80s.

That also gets ignored by a certain segment of the audience. There are people whose take away from the film is that you can do anything you want if you have Bateman's morning routine. (In other words, the psychos approve of the psycho, and took notes.) And there are others that throw out the whole satirical element in favor of a simple text reading that concludes with "anyone could be a serial killer" or "it was all just a dream/in his head." Even if these latter two are not unethical, they are pretty shallow and lacking much of any thought about the whole work, focusing on a few little things here and there and treating that as the whole of what the story is.

And it's not wrong to discuss such possible interpretations, but to argue that that is all there is to the work is pretty ridiculous. There's a lot more that can be said than a cherry-picked textual interpretation, and there's a lot better interpretations than what violent macho idiots who want to get away with anything they want can come up with.

 

[Maicon Valentine]

The films I'm showing, some are bad and some are good. But I love them all and they define a part of me, they are there (:

1- Scarface (1983)
is my favorite film and it has a lot of phrases that I like. I highly recommend it to anyone.

2- Thank God It's Friday (1978)
I'm a fan of disco music and this film is very reminiscent of what it was, but it has aged poorly in several aspects.

3 - Sabrina (1954)
It's the only novel that makes me tear up, I feel overwhelmed haha. But I love this film too.

4- The Seven Year Itch (1955)
I'm a fan of Marilyn but I've seen few of her films and what's the deal with that? I love this romantic comedy, it's absolute 50s!

5- Family Plot (1976)
This one is pretty obscure, not even worth talking about. But it's a comedy with several characters, I really like it.

6- Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)
This film is ?

7- Sea Of Love (1989)-
the film is very good and so is the story, but it can be bitter for some people and I completely understand that.

8- Cleópatra Jones And The Casino Of Gold (1975)
I hate the film before this one, but the one I'm showing is incredible and full of action scenes that I thought wouldn't even have. the vibe won me over and it's a lot of fun.

9- Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (1984)
I'm a fan of the Indiana Jones franchise but this one is my favorite, I watched it a lot and still do and I was in love with Kate Capshaw ?

10- Dirty Harry (1971)
Another really great franchise: Dirty Harry. I highly recommend them, they are all good.

Thanks ?

These two.
View attachment 25213View attachment 25214

Both are wonderful, the opening of Soylent Green gives me chills to this day, it was very well done. Good movies, bro.

 

[Asian girls loverAsian girls lover's icon]

 

[DanCalibur]

Thanks for the recommendations, you guys have great taste ? .
If you enjoy dialog heavy movies that are almost studies of the human psyche you may like the works of Eric Rohmer.

A Summer's Tale and The Aviator's Wife are both fun and light stories to start. Or if you are feeling brave you can go straight to the heavy stuff like his most famous movie My Night at Maud's

 

[AnonymousCookieMonster]

One must define 'old movies' though the opening post suggests 60's-80's. I'd say before CGI was a thing. Special effects and green-screen or similar is okay otherwise you can't include mary poppins or the like.

It's difficult for me to touch older stuff as the pace of things tends to be a little.... too slow... Like a 10 chapter book but 6 of the chapters are filler.

Still... i'll drop in Police Academy (all of them), Mel Brooks films, and.... i don't know...

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

One must define 'old movies' though the opening post suggests 60's-80's. I'd say before CGI was a thing. Special effects and green-screen or similar is okay otherwise you can't include mary poppins or the like.

It's difficult for me to touch older stuff as the pace of things tends to be a little.... too slow... Like a 10 chapter book but 6 of the chapters are filler.

Still... i'll drop in Police Academy (all of them), Mel Brooks films, and.... i don't know...

I think the 90s and early 00s should count. There are people posting on this board who weren't alive at that time.

 

[Ikagura]

One must define 'old movies' though the opening post suggests 60's-80's. I'd say before CGI was a thing. Special effects and green-screen or similar is okay otherwise you can't include mary poppins or the like.

It's difficult for me to touch older stuff as the pace of things tends to be a little.... too slow... Like a 10 chapter book but 6 of the chapters are filler.

Still... i'll drop in Police Academy (all of them), Mel Brooks films, and.... i don't know...

CGIs were used in the 80's (like in Tron) so this is quite arbitrary.

90's movies (and even pre-HD early 00's) had a different look and feel from today (yes, even if TLotR looks modern for it).

 

[Maicon Valentine]

Acho que os anos 90 e o começo dos anos 2000 devem contar. Há pessoas postando neste quadro que não estavam vivas naquela época.

It's been fifteen years since the 2000s ended, I think we can consider them old (: