I'm "only" 40 and strongly prefer films made when they still shot and edited on film. The peak as far as visual quality and overall effect of film, for me, was probably the 60s through early 90s, though I love a bunch of films older or newer than that.
The constraints of not being able to color-grade the whole film with a slider or two, of every cut in the edit taking time to do, and of effects that weren't in-camera being relatively expensive, tended to lead to better and more-interesting filmmaking, even in middling films.
I appreciate what the right people can do with modern tools—I enjoy and even love plenty of newer films, and it's undeniably brought some cool stuff within reach of smaller, cheaper productions—but overall I see it as making cinema worse.
"We did it in a computer" being the answer to every "how'd they do that?" isn't movie magic, it's boring as hell. It's why even a film that tries to avoid that to some degree, like the new Dune duology, is in some important respects—though setting aside overall quality of the film on some other dimensions—just less interesting than broadly similar films like Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars (or even, if I may be so bold, David Lynch's Dune).
I think this sort of opinion is fairly common among film-fans of all ages, due to interest in film making itself as much as output of the process per se. Not sure most movie watchers care, and they may well prefer the newer stuff because of the ultra-fast editing and tuned-to-be-cotton-candy-appealing color schemes and unconstrained video-game camera of fully CGI scenes and all that.
> I prefer 1970s music. Autotune is for whippersnappers.
Hard agree. I can't friggin' believe the heavy-handed autotune in children's media, especially (Daniel Tiger! Fred Rogers would be so unhappy with it). Let's teach them that natural human singing voices, like their own, sound wrong and bad. WTF.
It's not about "hitting as hard" and I admitted I like, and love, tons of modern films... it's not even an "argument", it's a statement of preference, part of what I, and many other film fans, enjoy is the craft of film, and there was simply more to that before everything went digital, so pre-heavily-digital films are more interesting and impressive, to me and to others who appreciate those factors, all else being equal (though often enough, all else is not equal!)
I simply find film-craft more interesting and impressive, and the constraints to drive more-fun (and sometimes absolutely brilliant) creative choices, before they were ~all shot and edited digitally. It's not about good or bad, exactly, but about an aspect of older films that's now all but gone in modern ones. I also happen to appreciate silent film, and some things about those that were impressive and fun went away with talkies—it's not that the talkies were necessarily worse in some absolute sense, but some potentially-enjoyable qualities of silents took a back seat once talkies took over. If someone had really been into those aspects of cinema, they might have tended to prefer older silents over newer talkies, without necessarily disliking all talkies. Similar story with film vs. digital.
I happen to like the film-craft side of things enough that, for me, it in general makes film-era movies more appealing. That doesn't mean I don't watch and enjoy three dozen or more digital films per year, but I do lose out on some of that aspect of my enjoyment of film, with those. This is most-pronounced in action and "genre" (e.g. sci fi) movies.
Like, I watch the modern US Godzilla (I happen to think the first one in this US series is pretty good!) and the action's... fine, nothing particularly wrong with it, but I'm marveling at none of it, just zero. I watch 1954 Godzilla, or Return of Godzilla (1984) and sure, the action's mostly less-convincing (though some of those room-collapse shots in the '54 movie...) but it's also far more interesting.
> Even before autotune, there was no shortage of ways to make terrible music.
Did anyone claim there weren't absolute mountains of bad music in any age? Of course there were, most of anything is bad. Disliking autotune and related tech's effects on music (e.g. visual vs. by-ear editing) doesn't mean claiming that music lacking it is necessarily not-bad.
I can easily rattle off movies and music from the last decade
If you have recommendations for good recent drama, I'm interested to hear your suggestions. Let's limit it to interpersonal conflict, by which I mean a movie that follows multiple persons and multiple viewpoints. Think Closer or Dead Poets Society, not Lady Bird or Juno.
You know, it hadn’t occurred to me how rare that very-narrow sort of film is. I can easily come up with ones focused on a single character, or different sorts of films with multiple perspectives, but that? The only recent stuff I can think of is from Wes Anderson, though even that’s not a close match, if I’m reading your request correctly.
I certainly enjoyed The Grand Budapest Hotel, but I remember it more as an absurdist exposition rather than a gripping drama. I may be misremembering though. The only other movie I have seen from him is Moonrise Kingdom, so there's a lot left to explore. Thanks for the recommendation!
Maybe you're right that my request is quite narrow. I didn't mean it to be, but it occurred to me that many stories seem to fall back on the rather formulaic "one person's struggle against the world", so my intention was to specifically ask for movies outside of that formula. I could probably have phrased it better than I did.
There is Greta van Fleet, where the lead singer's voice sounds like Robert Plant's voice, and I could imagine Zep was back in business. Unfortunately, the singer hated being compared with Plant and went off in some loser direction.
This perception is an effect of what gets promoted, which is mostly hot garbage.
I watch a lot of movies and can't keep up with the likely-to-be-good ones every year.
There are north of 500 US & Canadian films released per year. Add in foreign (edit: I mean, even more foreign than Canada) cinema, and it's solidly in the four figures. How many movies were you aware of last year? Ten? A couple dozen? Maybe as many as fifty? Drop in the bucket, regardless.
I'm sure there hasn't been a year in the 2000s in which there weren't at least 20 movies released that were worth your time (for those with all but the stingiest and harshest take on "worth my time", and probably also coupled with narrow taste to get the list down under 20).
And I write this as the person who has been perceived as disliking modern movies, from my post a couple steps up this thread! (I don't dislike modern movies! They're just almost-all, for reasons of technology-related changes in production processes, missing certain qualities that I appreciated a bunch in film-era movies)
Let’s be real, the overwhelming majority of those 500 are straight up terrible. Netflix alone has produced well over 100 movies, and IMO at best some of them are worth finishing not that I can think of any off the top of my head.
Now I’m sure you’ve looked forward to many movies but off the top of your head list stuff you’ve either seen more than once and or actually recommend to someone that came our in the last 10 years vs…
(78) The Deer Hunter, Superman, National Lampoon's Animal House, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (79) Apocalypse Now, Alien, Life of Brian, Mad Max, Escape from Alcatraz (80) The Shining, Star Wars: Episode V, Airplane!, The Blues Brothers, Caddyshack, The Elephant Man (81) Raiders of the Lost Ark, Das Boot, The Evil Dead, Mad Max 2, Escape from New York, Time Bandits (82) Blade Runner, The Thing, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Poltergeist, Conan the Barbarian, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Tron (83) Scarface, WarGames, Star Wars: Episode VI, Trading Places, The Evil Dead
Obviously not all great movies but that’s ~30 classic movies in just 6 years and I’m sure I’ve missed a few as kids movies are largely missing from that list.
I dunno, 2015, I'm a little weak on this year: It Follows, Creed, Ex Machina, Max Max: Fury Road, Sicario, The Hateful 8. I'd watch those again with someone any time, and recommend all of them often. Several on my to-watch list most of which I expect to be good, like Queen of the Desert, While We're Young, Slow West, and The Overnight, just haven't made it to them yet. Not an exhaustive list, just gleaned from some titles I have at hand.
2016: Green Room, The Nice Guys, Hail Caesar!, The Neon Demon, Swiss Army Man, Hunt for the Wilder People, The VVitch, Train to Busan, Shin Godzilla, Moana (hey, I like this one), Arrival. Moonlight's on my to-watch and is supposed to be really good.
2017 (I've done OK on catching up with these!): The Lost City of Z, Dunkirk, Low Life, Good Time, Logan Lucky (absolutely slept on, kills it as a feel-good lightweight small-stakes heist movie), Blade Runner 2049, The Death of Stalin (I liked this less than a lot of folks, but given how widely-loved it was, I'm probably the idiot here), One Cut of the Dead, You Were Never Really Here. The Planet of the Apes movie from that year, plus Phantom Thread, and The Little Hours are to-watch for me and come highly recommended.
2018: Annihilation, Isle of Dogs, Upgrade, Sorry to Bother You, High Life, Eighth Grade, the Suspiria remake. To-watch that I expect to be good include Champion (Korean arm wrestling movie—there's another movie by the same name that year), First Reformed, BlacKkKLansman, The Favourite, The Wolf House, Climax, and some others.
2019: HUGE year for the particular (small) set I'm seeing on my list, including a ton to-watch but a bunch I've seen. Uncut Gems, The Lighthouse, Knives Out, Little Women, JoJo Rabbit, Ready or Not, Parasite, Midsommar, The Art of Self Defense, maybe Marriage Story (but if you've seen one Baumbach movie, you've kinda seen them all, and I'm not sure I'd put it above The Squid and the Whale). Midway's a well-above-average war movie and pairs great with Tora, Tora, Tora! as a crazy-long double feature in a really fun way. To-watch list is nuts and I really need to dedicate a month or so to filling out my watched-list for this year: First Cow, The Irishman, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Bacurau, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, The Farewell, The Souvenir, Blow the Man Down, The Vast of Night, Her Smell, Funan.
It basically just keeps going like that, year after year, and I've barely even tried to dredge up good movies for most of those years, the bulk of it's just stuff that's risen to my attention one way or another, and I'm terrible at keeping up with foreign film especially. I also left off some that a lot of folks would probably include, like at least one Mission Impossible (aside from MI2, I think these are all pretty good action movies, though quality varies a bit) and Avengers: Endgame which, opinion on the rest of Marvel aside (I think it's mostly kinda lazy crap? But was basically entertained for most of them regardless, so I guess I can't complain too much) was a hell of an event. Also Black Panther, which everyone loved but I was pretty meh on (I hate the entire end fight, and it's looooong)
Personally when I notice the acting the movie has already failed at something else. The Lighthouse’s acting stands out to me because the movie’s attempts at suspense fail. I quickly found it hard to avoid engaging with nuances of the films creation as an intellectual exercise rather than the film itself.
At the other end of the spectrum there’s a ton of movies with child actors where the kids are just vastly less talented, so the film simply demands less of them. It’s just as true of Let the Right One In a low budget foreign film as it is high budget films such as Harry Potter or classics like The Shinning. Characters come to life not through great acting but because all the elements line up so you forget you’re looking at puppets at the puppet show.
IMO, Great movies are all about understanding the limitations of the medium, the audience, characters, budget, script, etc. That’s why the snap at the end of Avengers: Infinity War was spectacle but didn’t have the emotional impact of a single deer being shot at the beginning of Bambi.
/soapbox
Again not that you’re wrong, but I was thinking about your response for a while.
Sure, no problem, never bothered by disagreement over art/entertainment. I appreciate the perspective. And sure, I’d not put many of these near the tier of, say, a Godfather or a Passion of Joan of Arc. Only a few anywhere near an Alien, for that matter.
> That’s why the snap at the end of Avengers: Infinity War was spectacle but didn’t have the emotional impact of a single deer being shot at the beginning of Bambi.
God, truth, and all the more effective a comparison for me because I happened to re-watch Bambi within the last week.
Marvel movies rarely achieve even that lesser connection, maybe a half-dozen times in the thirty-whatever movies.
For comparison, go watch the 1975 Escape to Witch Mountain movie.
The practical effects are whimsical but are so close to realistic that it's quite jarring for people who have only seen digital FX, it evokes that wonder of, "how did they do that" when you suddenly realize that it's not perfect but it wasn't done with a computer and you can't clearly identify what isn't perfect about it.
It's charming and it will make you lament the lack of practical special effects in modern movies.
Disney used to be the equivalent of watching a magician perform an amazing stage play live.
Now it's a prerecorded bus stop ad designed to distract you from the burning air and dirty seats until you step onto the next leg of your journey between work and the office.
If you haven’t seen it, check out the 1990 Total Recall making of especially for how they built and filmed the Mars models.
It was the peak era of practical special effects, and hugely expensive to do something that now can be done with only a couple of people and a cheap computer.
The special effects in them were - they built flying replicas of the airplanes used in the films! Can you imagine that happening today?
Two great and very special movies. Both made in the 1960s.
A special mention for Battle of Britain - they didn't build replicas, but dredged up the last remaining flying Me-109s and Spits and, well, seeing and hearing them fly is glorious.
Battle of Britain isn't the best from a narrative perspective, but damn is it a fun watch anyway.
My other favorite air war movies I've made it to so far are Twelve O'Clock High with its beautiful flying fortresses (they belly landed one of them! For the movie! For real!), extremely well-integrated war footage, and clear action (compare to the muddled, ugly mess that is The Dambusters); and Wings—how, how on Earth did they get such good aerial photography that early? And the miniature work isn't bad, either.
I've somehow heard of neither of your first two mentions, but will be checking them both out soon.
> I've somehow heard of neither of your first two mentions, but will be checking them both out soon.
I envy you! I wish I could see them again for the first time!
Based on your remarks, I bet you would love "The War Lover", 1963. They used 3 real B-17s for the movie. Very realistic. I know this because my dad flew 32 missions in a B-17, and was assigned by the Air Force to them as a consultant for accuracy for the movie. He made the mission map used in the briefing.
He was also responsible for the "cutting the grass sequence". The director was just going to use models because it was too dangerous, but my dad showed them how to do it safely. The sequence is just terrific. The AF was mad at him for recommending it, but the sequence was very popular with the critics and he was forgiven.
P.S. How to do it safely: do it at dawn when the air is still. Station people at various locations around the flight path in continuous communication with the pilot telling him his altitude. Fly the route again and again, each time slightly lower.
The War Lover made its way onto my to-watch list a few months back! I’ll bump it up a bit and keep an eye out for that sequence, thanks for sharing the story.
> The peak as far as visual quality and overall effect of film, for me, was probably the 60s through early 90s, though I love a bunch of films older or newer than that.
Those movies were real. The stories were made up, scenes were sets, but
... the images are of real people in meat-world locations, standing near other people, speaking things they mostly really spoke, doing things they mostly really did. It's jarring by juxtaposition just how ... fake modern hyperreal CGI appears on screen.
I get vertigo from heights very easily, so much so that I even have to look away from movie scenes where a camera looks straight down, like the scene at the beginning of The Matrix where Neo is on the ledge and drops his phone and the camera follows it down.
A couple years ago, some friends got me to go along to one of the Spiderman movies. Early on, there's a big fight scene on a bridge, and heroes and villains are flipping around in the air, falling off towers and things, and I realized it wasn't bothering me at all. None of it had any weight, or whatever it is about heights that usually makes me feel sick even when I know it's fake.
Like if there's a coffee shop scene you can look out the window and see like a postman deliver mail or a somebody walk a dog. Stuff that isn't between the main characters happens.
The newer trend of blurring everything that isn't a main character is really annoying to me. Real life isn't blurred ...
The constraints of not being able to color-grade the whole film with a slider or two, of every cut in the edit taking time to do, and of effects that weren't in-camera being relatively expensive, tended to lead to better and more-interesting filmmaking, even in middling films.
I appreciate what the right people can do with modern tools—I enjoy and even love plenty of newer films, and it's undeniably brought some cool stuff within reach of smaller, cheaper productions—but overall I see it as making cinema worse.
"We did it in a computer" being the answer to every "how'd they do that?" isn't movie magic, it's boring as hell. It's why even a film that tries to avoid that to some degree, like the new Dune duology, is in some important respects—though setting aside overall quality of the film on some other dimensions—just less interesting than broadly similar films like Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars (or even, if I may be so bold, David Lynch's Dune).
I think this sort of opinion is fairly common among film-fans of all ages, due to interest in film making itself as much as output of the process per se. Not sure most movie watchers care, and they may well prefer the newer stuff because of the ultra-fast editing and tuned-to-be-cotton-candy-appealing color schemes and unconstrained video-game camera of fully CGI scenes and all that.
> I prefer 1970s music. Autotune is for whippersnappers.
Hard agree. I can't friggin' believe the heavy-handed autotune in children's media, especially (Daniel Tiger! Fred Rogers would be so unhappy with it). Let's teach them that natural human singing voices, like their own, sound wrong and bad. WTF.