Just wondering, how old are you? This is something I have been pondering a lot lately. I am your opposite loving old movies and pretty much not liking much in the last 20 years.

But the thing I have been thinking about is this. Even though there is pretty much total access to practically every movie ever made at the press of a button or two are younger generations ever going to experience them? With so many other entertainment outlets are younger people ever going to even experience the older classics? With a million cable channels, several streaming services and stuff like youtube all spitting out newer content and just internet browsing and social media taking up so much time and attention will older movies be lost in the shuffle?

When I was younger entertainment viewing options were sparse. 3 channels and the movie theater. We had to rely on network TV and the late show to see movies. It wasn't until cable and VCRs entered the market that people could really devour that great classic content. That was probably the sweet spot for movie buffs. Now there is so much content that something will be odd man out for future generations and I am thinking it will be the great classic movies which your post is sort of confirming.

The Villainess Another kinetic, adrenaline-pumping action move from Asia. Plot's about an assassin who's forced to kill for some agency, yet she truly wants nothing more than to be an ordinary mother to her young kid. The plot becomes quite convoluted as her present and past relationships are never what they seem.

But you're here for the action, and that delivers in a highly stabby, slashy way as everyone in the Villainess has a preference for blades. The real star is the camera, which swoops from a third person view to so close that you're right in the middle of the mayhem. The bloody opening sequence in fact is shot from a first-person PoV as if you're playing a FPS game. You shoot, slash, dive, roll, kick, etc and then suddenly the camera pulls back so that you can see the protagonist.

All of a great deal of fun, seek this out if you're a fan of The Raid and similar.

I appreciate this post because I really am trying to understand this disconnect. I am 32 and definitely think how people feel about classics is strongly correlated with age.

But this is maybe what I'm getting at. Do older people love some of these movies mainly for the nostalgia? After watching a movie like The Conversation it makes me think yes.

It was a fine movie, probably great when it was released, but I'd rather rewatch the Hackman, Will Smith thriller from 20 years ago and I'm not really joking. A great modern day thriller like Wind River or Nocturnal Animals blows The Conversation out of the water. There's so much more going on.

There were some ludicrous plot points I could not get over. Maybe I missed something, but Hackman is a super stealth who goes to great lengths to be secret, but for some reason invites all his competitors and some strangers back to his studio for a sloppy after party and, surprise, his prized footage gets stolen! There's more, but I started to check out at this point. Just felt a little lazy and predictable.

I like the slow 70s movies in general, though I haven't seen The Conversation.

Enemy of the State was great though.

The Conversation is a great film and exudes a subtly disturbing menace throughout.

It's been a while since I saw The Conversation and I do remember it as being good rather than great.

I don't buy the nostalgia angle though. When I was your age I loved the older movies of the 40's and 50's from before I was born. Movies were just better then. They have evolved but why do you think we have so many remakes/reboots and horrid series and sequels? Because all the good stuff has already been done and they are out of ideas. Some movies do however age extremely poorly. But I think there is just too much "content" out there for future generations to really enjoy the vast history of entertainment. I know there are a ton of movies I want rewatch and there is just so much new stuff to see like quality series on platforms like Netflix or Amazon it is hard to keep up let alone go back and enjoy the past. I want to see the new Bladerunner movie but first want to rewatch the original since it has been a while since my last viewing and I am having trouble finding the time.

This old movies vs new movies debate is silly unless you define the parameters of the conversation. What's the cut-off for old? Are we referring solely to mainstream Hollywood, which itself is a term you'd need to clarify? Foreign-language movies ok? Non-US movies allowable? Could go on. But until you clarify what it is you're talking about, stating that old is better than new or vice versa is a gross, meaningless generalisation.

This is a fairly typical sentiment. I've heard "I watched this movie because it was on a bunch of best-movie-ever lists and I didn't even like it that much, so that means classic films suck!" many times.

The flip side argument to your first paragraph is something like "films nowadays can rely on fast editing and cheap visual tricks and special effects, so they don't have to have any real story or characters or good dialogue", and this is of course equally stupid (or stupider, because whoever says things like that literally just thinks "films nowadays" means superhero movies).

It seems plausible that movies as a whole are "better" now than they were 45 years ago, as newer filmmakers continually have more and more solid ground to build on and learn from. There are also plausible reasons for the opposite, but let's say it's true.

Even if it's true that new >>> old, you're still comparing say 20 years of films to the prior 80 years. If X% of "newer" films are great, but only (X - Y)% of older films are great, even if Y is massive you can do some math and find there's still going to be lots of gems worth checking out from the "old" days.

I saw The Conversation for the first time a few years ago at about your age, streaming on Netflix, and thought it was excellent. A big part of it for me at first was the music.

I saw it again in the last year and still thought it was excellent, and this time I picked up on a lot more nuance. If I have to justify the thing you're complaining about, I'd say that the character does want human connection in some ways but is usually thwarted by his own paranoia/mental illness. I'd also argue that I don't know how much of the events of the film we're meant to take at face value.



Also the Hackman character from Enemy of the State is supposed to be the same guy.

On the nostalgia argument (do we only kinda pretend to like old films because of nostalgia, or only like them bc of nostalgia) - no, not in this thread at least. Recently I haven't cared as much for some acknowledged classics like Casablanca, The Graduate, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Young Frankenstein, but I have cared quite a lot for Lawrence of Arabia (have seen 3 years in a row in a theater), Gone With the Wind, The Third Man, The Godfather, Eraserhead, etc.

Legitimate difference in preference does play a role in film/art appreciation, and this is only something I've come to accept VERY recently.

Anyway, keep watching old stuff. There may come a point where you realize you don't care too much about really coming to appreciate the art form (which would necessarily involve the history) and then you can just stick more to recent films there's a better chance you'll "like", but I don't think you're at that point yet.

Movies are movies. Some you will like, some you will not. I've found that how old the movies has very little to do with whether I like it or not.

This. I never liked the Conversation that much, but will watch the French Connection every time I run across it. Who knows why?

I did not like Blade Runner 2049.

It felt like a pastiche of various sci-fi movies and other stories, both in terms of plot elements and the world itself. The production design was extremely disappointing. Very sparse style (fun to contrast with the few seconds of flashback you see from Tyrell's gorgeous office in the first film) except for Ford's hideout which is a few rooms from BioShock.

No need for this Wallace corporation nonsense to confuse things; just make it Tyrell.

Hans Zimmer can go **** himself; we don't need the stupid Inception sound in every ****ing movie, least of all Blade Runner.

Should have cut 45 minutes, mostly from the first half obviously.



The authority figure who is driven by an ideology that doesn't make sense is bad.

You could easily have made a good sequel in this universe; this wasn't it.

Except that he is not, what's in your spoiler is wrong. Seems like you didnt get it.

Lucky

Harry Dean Stanton: Dazed & Confused but still lives by a code.

Good story? Not really any story, more of a portrait.

Plays the harmonica, sings ranchera, and lives on coffee and cigarettes: Chick magnet.

Trigger warning: theater packed with old people.

Eye candy: Bloody Marys and the desert.

Check it out: But might be best to wait until your 70s. It'll keep.

Bladerunner: enjoyed it a lot but for one of the plot lines I kept thinking

original blade runner kind of sucked. the (audio)book it's (loosely) based on was better.

now i'm off to see B2049R. it's been a busy 2 days.

The Florida Project: A+. Terrific movie about kids living in poverty in America 2017. Don't miss it.

Blade 2049

Ryan Gosling: won't eat his cereal.

3 years after 2046: a lot has changed.

Imaginary girlfriends are: the best kind.

Who keeps? a dead tree.

Daryl Hannah: she's baaaack.

Peugeot: the future's hot ride.

Garbage dump: incoming.

Garbage dump: Fagin mentors voc ed students.

Bees: Vegas, Baby!

Crash land in a jacuzzi: wtf?

Candygram: Land Shark saves the day!!!

Ryan Gosling: still won't eat his cereal.

Dom's right, it's a great flick. Check it out.

Blade Runner 2049 is by the far the best movie I've seen this year. Think the story kind of falls apart in the last third of the movie but the story was the last thing I cared about. The visuals, the sound and the way Villeneueve sets up scenes were all amazing, dude is a master of ambiance. While some people might be bothered with the slow pacing of the movie I really dig slow burn type movies/ tv shows and despite the movie nearly three hours I never really felt bored because there were so many things to look at on screen. Can't wait to go back and see it again in IMAX a few more times.

apparently bjork has accused talentless hack and part-time nazi lars von trier of sexual harassment during the filming of dancer in the dark

to compound the story, she basically says that his next movie Dogville, a movie where Kidman's character gets raped a bunch (and the worst movie I've ever seen) was made as a reaction to Lars Von Trier being repeatedly rejected by her.

this makes me perversely happy, because the people who praised it looked like gullible simpletons. the man clearly hates women, and depravity and humiliation for the sake of it isn't art. hopefully his reputation and oeuvre get shipped off to the garbage bin....probably unlikely.

I've seen two Lars von Trier movies

Breaking the Waves >>>> Melancholia

I saw enough of Nymphomaniac to know that I hate it.

Dancer in the Dark seems like it might be good though. I'm conflicted - I really like Bjork, but don't want to support the Nazi who harassed her. You'd think that she'd want people to see it, but she's definitely not predictable, so who knows?

domer, did you see that one? You didn't like Breaking the Waves?

Von Trier films are great. He is a genius.

If he sexually harassed Bjork he should be in jail but it has nothing to do with the quality of his films.

Breaking the Waves is the one I haven't seen!

Melancholia was very good. Nymphomaniac was much ado about nothing. Havent seen Dancer in the Dark or Breaking the Waves. Remember liking Dogville but dont remember as much about it.

I didn't hate Melancholia. Like 6.5/10 or something. I liked Breaking the Waves a lot, but it was 21 years ago and I don't really remember it that well.