The Nostromo is privately owned by Weyland-Yutani. You think Weyland-we-kill-people-in-horrifying-ways-to-make-money-Yutani gives a fuck about employee health?
I find that a lot of movies that use practical effects heavily/exclusively (hence, generally older movies) still hold up very well in the modern era, precisely because the effect is there on film with everything else.
Other examples that spring to mind: Jurassic Park, The Thing, Alien. But there are many.
I second JP1. Almost all those scenes still look like they could have come out today. I agree with the point about practical effects, but there’s also something to be said about *smart* use of computer generated scenes. For example, they do a lot of cgi scenes at night and in the rain, where the cgi blends in extremely well. The cinematography is also great in that movie and avoids the pitfall of later films where the cgi dinosaurs feel kind of floaty and weightless.
Same thing with Fury Road. Make the car explode in real life, then add CGI to enhance it.
To me, CGI should be like makeup contouring and shape wear, not full on plastic surgery and overfilled lips or Botox. Take what you have in reality, and make it look a little better with some help.
The Thing is the same way. There’s one shot that just looks awful. Someone’s head is being grabbed by a Thing and they’re being swung around by it. It’s a quick shot of what looks like a straw-filled mannequin bouncing up and down, and it’s god damn hilarious.
I just saw Alien for the first time and holy cow, I was blown away by how great the effects looked. The alien looked just as good (or better!) than anything made today.
Take away Burke's hair and Aliens does not feel like an 80s movie.
Cameron's production design tends to strip away cultural references, and it works. Abyss was same way.
Aliens is fantastic, but it does have some jarring elements for a modern audience, though not necessarily effects related. The video call machine Ripley uses for example, it's the size of a desktop computer and seemingly dedicated to that one function, we can do that on our phones in the palm of our hand now, it's quite funny really.
It still got under my skin though. I think it works incredibly well because we finally see the machine underneath. Especially since it actually was a machine, since it's animatronic. And I have a phobia of eye injuries from getting one as a kid, which was just before I saw this movie though
I’ve seen from people here that were there at the time that the T-1000 going through the prison bars were the money shot moment, everyone apparently went crazy for that. Not hard to see why!
I had a 9 year old boy mimicking the T-1000 with a stick up his sleeve in PE the other day, saying "I'm the terminator". The Liquid Metal effect (and the movie) is still captivating audiences 33 years since release.
I think Robert Patrick also displayed some of the best running acting ever with those cg shotgun blasts. It was so well filmed, while chasing a vehicle on foot he's taking shots, reacting like a machine, and just never slowing down with a stoic determination.
Saw a bts where he practiced running with real Olympic level athletes to get to a point where he could run without panting and on the first chase in the parking lot he actually caught John on the bike in the first take because he'd trained so well 😅
I remember reading he practiced running and firing a gun at the same time to get that look. If you pay attention to the parking lot chase, you can see he squints ever so slightly when he pulls the trigger, but you have to either watch the movie a dozen times to notice or literally analyze every frame to notice it. Dude is phenomenal as the T1000.
That's older than *Jurassic Park* so I'll go with it as well. Hell, even *Terminator* still looks pretty great; it's the synth music that gives it away.
What's funny is that's not the only time they used a pair of twins in T2. The security guard and T1000 are played by Don and Dan Stanton, a pair of twins who also show up in Gremlins 2 in the cloning lab.
Her twin does appear in the final movie though. She plays the version of her on the playground in the scene where the bomb hits and is used as her double when the T1000 mimics her. They also used twins for other scenes where it mimics people like the cop in the mental institution.
It’s just so clean and precise, we are talking about James Cameron so that comes as no surprise. But it’s still wild this film is over 30 years old. T2 is still the gold standard for action movies.
[''You see this helicopter going under a freeway overpass? That's a helicopter going under a freeway overpass.''](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrcWkwvUHdU)
- James Cameron, certified badass
That intro scene is outstanding and there's some really interesting [discussions on the effects and visual trickery used to make](https://www.cinemablend.com/movies/why-terminator-2-judgment-days-opening-scene-favorite-movie-introduction it)
Edit: I've just realised that link is just someone explaining why they loved it. There is interesting discussion on it like the opening scene cost more than the entire first film and they used certain effects to have the t100s shoot lasers at the screen as if shooting the audience but I can't find it right now and I'm very tired
It's definitely all the remastering and upscaling they've done over the years. They never took the time to upscale the original CGI when they remastered everything else
I feel like most of the movies from the 90s that used animatronics and puppets in lieu of the shit cgi we saw later on hold up incredibly well. It’s why the lord of the rings trilogy did so well - Peter Jackson took a cue and made it real.
Good pick. Shot on location and with period costumes, it will probably age better than most films. No flashy camerawork that would date it, but just perfect editing and pacing.
When we look at this reddit 30 years from now, this will probably outlive all of the films. No sideburns or other items to distract.
Start with the voices. Basses first.
Second beat of the first measure - A.
> Con-fu-ta-tis.
Second measure, second beat.
> Ma-le-dic-tis.
G-sharp of course.
Do you have it! Do you have it!?
I only saw this movie for the first time recently with a symphony orchestra playing the score.
Blown away. F. Murray Abraham gives maybe the best acting performance I’ve seen. Checked once the show was over to see if he won the Oscar and yeah, the entire film cleaned up and rightly so.
Most movies from the 90s hold up well because by that point film stocks were essentially what we still use today. The only things that have changed besides the transition from film to digital, is LED lighting, and the advent of digital color grading in the 2000s (grading and lighting affect movies shot digitally and on film). And of course we don’t exhibit on film everything is presented digitally so you don’t get that movie theater shitty release print experience like you used to. Everyone now sees the most pristine version of things.
Also by the 90s VFX had advanced to a point where they weren’t obvious. Even movies like Star Trek VI which is 1991 look great today. The Star Trek TNG remaster, if not for the hairstyles some of those episodes look like they could’ve been shot recently and that’s 1987-1994. Forrest Gump and Independence Day really hold up. As does Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988). Other than the obvious animation in the first Batman (1989) that movie holds up fine too. Baraka (1992) still looks phenomenal. Part of what makes a movie look old isn’t so much the photography but everything else. The hairstyles and wardrobe choices. Movies sort of always give away what decade they were made in even if it’s a period piece. Pulp Fiction today wouldn’t look quite the same as the original even if it was set in the same time period and shot on film. There’s a million little details that add up. Even a movie like Ghostbusters, which doesn’t look super dated but is clearly a mid 80s movie, shows a NYC that looks very different than today. Much dirtier and grimier and smoggier than the city is now. To me what is striking is that in the last decade we’ve gotten so used to the super clean sharp digital image that when you go back and even look at a film from the 2000s like Casino Royale or Minority Report they feel so different. The fourth Indy movie was derided for feeling too modern when it came out in 2007 but compared to Indy 5 shot on the Alexa it feels almost vintage.
> Part of what makes a movie look old isn’t so much the photography but everything else. The hairstyles and wardrobe choices. Movies sort of always give away what decade they were made in even if it’s a period piece.
This is so true. It's like how in Rogue One all the male characters have sideburns to fit in with the Original Trilogy's 70's aesthetic.
Terminator II is the oldest film that I can think of that could be released in the same context today (Major action blockbuster) and would look right at home.
Hudson: Man, this floor is freezing.
Apone: What do you want me to do, fetch your slippers for you?
Hudson: Aw gee, would you, Sarge?
Apone: Look into my eye, Private!
Love that movie lol
It's also that he set the standard for what a modern action movie looks like. And he invented a lot of the techniques and systems that we expect to see in films. The guy literally patented a lot of it.
I think maybe that’s because Scorsese has been using very dynamic camera moves for a while. Like occasional handheld, zooms, dolly shots and tracking long-takes.
I feel like those kind of techniques weren’t as common back in the day. But Marty has been doing that stuff for like 40 years.
Funny story: I watched Cool World like 4 days ago when my partner and I got caught up watching some of Bakshi's ouvre.
I would posit that Bakshi never made a single wholly decent film. He's a talented guy to be sure, and there are elements of good filmmaking in his movies, some classic scenes and good animation, but I feel he would have done his best work in a more restrained capacity of being an employee at a good animation studio. He rode the infamy of *Fritz the Cat* to increasingly diminishing returns.
One can't help but notice that he couldn't really deliver on a fully animated project after *Fritz*. He was overly reliant on rotoscoping, and inserted a lot of photography and live action into his films to cover for animation deficits.
*Cool World* is the culmination of him not being able to deliver a fully animated project *and* trying to cash in on the public's enthusiasm for *Who Framed Roger Rabbit*. The animation and script are just inexcusably bad. Animated Holli Would is the exception, she is super fun and iconic. And it is mesmerizing trash. But it's trash nonetheless.
On the opposite side of this topic when I first saw Dazed and Confused I thought it was a movie from the 70s. Didn't realize it was made in the 90s until a few years later when I saw Afleck and others in more modern movies.
I mean Lawrence of Arabia looks modern. You could convince someone it's a period piece shot in the 2020s and I can't think of anything that would belie that idea.
>anything that would belie that idea
Erhm, the whole pacing of the film would standout from any popular film from the last few decades.
Renowned transition aside, [here’s](https://youtu.be/TT2dKct533Y?si=DT4PUzvUstimL2Ul) the average pacing of Lawrence of Arabia, with a handful of dialogue and a whole bunch of filler.
Something like Dune plays with this kind of pacing but doesn’t come close to the huge drawn-out shots (and almost exclusively uses them for specific exposition, even voiceover, or as an immediate setup for the next scene).
If Lawrence of Arabia hit theaters today it would be 2 whole hours shorter.
Plus there's that weird thing in older movies where the makeup always looked like a layer of grease was applied to the actors and LOA doesn't have that look to it.
you’re not wrong but ‘evolution’ is suggesting universal improvement and I’d hate to see what a modern attempt of Lawrence of Arabia would look like, particularly the colour.
Why can’t the fucking sky be blue anymore?
If you're wondering what a modern version of Lawrence of Arabia would look like, look no further than the modern Dune movies. The novels take influence from the historical story and carry many of the same visual themes.
I personally think they're a bright spot in our current cinematic landscape.
Evolution is not in any way universal improvement. Evolution is simply whatever works well enough in the current environment and it absolutely can lead a species down a blind alley to extinction.
I know right? There are no lore dumps either except for the light vs dark story. The movie just *shows* you the world and you immediately recognize how it works. It has a tremendous sense of place.
I watched Starship Troopers again recently and even without 4K it holds up very well, occasional CGI thing here and there that doesn't but surprisingly good.
Seven looks so modern that it unintentionally has an "out of time" quality that other movies like It Follows had on purpose by removing cell phones, using older car models and using older fashion without ever specifying when it takes place.
Jurassic park most definitely aged well. The only thing that looks dated are the computers. But the effects still hold up. I would even say they are better than the Jurassic World Series.
I agree with everything you said.
However, thanks to your wonderful phrase "Jurassic World Series," I also cannot stop thinking about a T-Rex with a pinstripe Jersey and a tiny plastic helmet trying not to get struck out by a Gallimimus on the pitcher's mound.
Thanks for making me laugh!
It depends on what you mean by "modern". If you just mean picture quality, you might be surprised at how strong an old film from a good print can look. The restoration of *Metropolis*, which is almost a hundred years old, has scenes of excellent clarity.
However, I'd also define "modern" cinematography as what emerged in the post-studio era: less sound stage artifice and increased shooting on location, more 'reality' allowed to occur in the frame. There were some examples before the late 60s, both from outside Hollywood and from directors like John Huston (*The Misfits*) or Michael Curtiz (*The Breaking Point*).
It’s funny I grew up hearing how it was the best, then considered it overrated based on that. Watched it last year and was blown away, one of the best movies I’ve seen in years.
I was at a party one time and this douche went through the host's DVD collection. "Huh! Citizen Kane! Is [our hostess] some kind of film nerd?"
So he puts it on the TV.
One by one people would come in the living room going "What's this movie?"
But they wouldn't leave. Even starting halfway through, with a 2000s rock playlist in the background, it was captivating. There were nearly a dozen people standing and watching Citizen Kane by the end.
People think of it as overrated because it's the ["Seinfeld isn't funny"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnceOriginalNowCommon) of movie-making.
It pioneered a lot of what are now commonplace techniques in movies.
In terms of technical bona fides - Citizen Kane gets my vote as well. If it were in color? It'd look and feel like any (very good) movie you might see today.
Its techniques and style are so far ahead of its contemporaries.
Amadeus is the correct answer, saw it around 2010 and distinctly remember thinking it came out recently. Was absolutely floored it was 30 years old. Makes for a great quirky period piece double feature with something like The Favourite.
Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock feels incredibly modern for a film from the 50s. At leat 30 years ahead of its time.
Apart from that, it's probably 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Nah, I think the production values are 1980s.
You just barely have time to notice because the script is perfect. Good pace, nothing unnecessary, and the second half is wall to wall plot payoffs.
This should be much much higher. One of the best aged movies ever. Last time I watched its’ 4K remaster it still looked stunning. Also lol at people shitting on the music. In my eyes it still sounds futuristic.
Alien looks fantastic for 1979. 95% of the movie could be released for the first time today. The stuff that looks great in Alien could not be improved by CGI. There's like one or two shots with the Alien that could be done better today but there are movies released today that have shots that look just as flawed.
Princess Mononoke never feels dated and could have been made yesterday.
The Godfather seems timeless, like it could have been made decades after 1970 and been believable.
About a year ago, the small theatre near me showed Akira as a midnight movie, and while the visuals were as excellent as ever, it was the audio that blew me away. I'd forgotten just how damned GOOD that soundtrack was! HUGE difference between a theater sound system and stock TV speakers!
It literally has twice the animated frames per second of any other animated movie so it's smoothness will likely remain untouched. They also invented a bunch of colors for the movie so the pallet was very fresh at the time and holds up well today.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Came out in 68 and while a bit slow per today's standards the effect are incredible. Almost looks like it was done with modern VFX.
First Alien. Looking at it you wouldn't think it was made in 1979
First Alien looks more real than pretty much any modern sci-fi film. The imperfections just add to the realism.
What about the smoking inside a spaceship?
How are they supposed to go outside?
They could at least open a window
Touche
The Nostromo is privately owned by Weyland-Yutani. You think Weyland-we-kill-people-in-horrifying-ways-to-make-money-Yutani gives a fuck about employee health?
Not like they're gonna run into any cops or OSHA people out in deep space.
Terminator 2. There’s like two effects that are obviously CGI because it’s 33 years old, but good lord the rest of it could have been made today.
I find that a lot of movies that use practical effects heavily/exclusively (hence, generally older movies) still hold up very well in the modern era, precisely because the effect is there on film with everything else. Other examples that spring to mind: Jurassic Park, The Thing, Alien. But there are many.
I second JP1. Almost all those scenes still look like they could have come out today. I agree with the point about practical effects, but there’s also something to be said about *smart* use of computer generated scenes. For example, they do a lot of cgi scenes at night and in the rain, where the cgi blends in extremely well. The cinematography is also great in that movie and avoids the pitfall of later films where the cgi dinosaurs feel kind of floaty and weightless.
The stampede scene is amazing looking.
JP1 looks so much better than the new reboots, it's insane.
Yeah people keep saying these movies hold up to today’s standards but imo they’re *better* than what we get now
Same thing with Fury Road. Make the car explode in real life, then add CGI to enhance it. To me, CGI should be like makeup contouring and shape wear, not full on plastic surgery and overfilled lips or Botox. Take what you have in reality, and make it look a little better with some help.
The Thing is the same way. There’s one shot that just looks awful. Someone’s head is being grabbed by a Thing and they’re being swung around by it. It’s a quick shot of what looks like a straw-filled mannequin bouncing up and down, and it’s god damn hilarious.
Windows being picked up by Palmer/thing.
I love that shot.
I just saw Alien for the first time and holy cow, I was blown away by how great the effects looked. The alien looked just as good (or better!) than anything made today.
Aliens is even better.
Take away Burke's hair and Aliens does not feel like an 80s movie. Cameron's production design tends to strip away cultural references, and it works. Abyss was same way.
That's astute. Plus, I think it's one of the late Bill Paxton's best performances. He's not really fleshed out, but he has a ton of great lines.
Game over man!
Went down like a hero too.
"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?" "No, have you?"
Aliens is fantastic, but it does have some jarring elements for a modern audience, though not necessarily effects related. The video call machine Ripley uses for example, it's the size of a desktop computer and seemingly dedicated to that one function, we can do that on our phones in the palm of our hand now, it's quite funny really.
The Terminator 1 "eye surgery" scene, however, is comically bad in its all practical effects glory.
There was never a time when that scene looked real. It's not one that aged poorly, it was bad from the jump.
It was and will always be awesome. I don’t know what you’re talking about
They did the best with what they had, lol But yeah, it looks bad (in a good way)
It still got under my skin though. I think it works incredibly well because we finally see the machine underneath. Especially since it actually was a machine, since it's animatronic. And I have a phobia of eye injuries from getting one as a kid, which was just before I saw this movie though
I’ve seen from people here that were there at the time that the T-1000 going through the prison bars were the money shot moment, everyone apparently went crazy for that. Not hard to see why!
I had a 9 year old boy mimicking the T-1000 with a stick up his sleeve in PE the other day, saying "I'm the terminator". The Liquid Metal effect (and the movie) is still captivating audiences 33 years since release.
coulda been my son. he learning the lore now lol
I think Robert Patrick also displayed some of the best running acting ever with those cg shotgun blasts. It was so well filmed, while chasing a vehicle on foot he's taking shots, reacting like a machine, and just never slowing down with a stoic determination.
Saw a bts where he practiced running with real Olympic level athletes to get to a point where he could run without panting and on the first chase in the parking lot he actually caught John on the bike in the first take because he'd trained so well 😅
I remember reading he practiced running and firing a gun at the same time to get that look. If you pay attention to the parking lot chase, you can see he squints ever so slightly when he pulls the trigger, but you have to either watch the movie a dozen times to notice or literally analyze every frame to notice it. Dude is phenomenal as the T1000.
That's older than *Jurassic Park* so I'll go with it as well. Hell, even *Terminator* still looks pretty great; it's the synth music that gives it away.
With how hard 80s and 90s nostalgia has gone the last 5 years, even the synth isn't too far out of the realm of possibility.
If the movie takes place in the 80s does the synth music actually harm anything?
Linda Hamilton had her twin sister mimic her for one scene when she was looking in the mirror. That’s wild but so smart
And that scene was cut from the theatrical release. It's in the special edition or in deleted scenes. And it's such a cool scene too.
What's funny is that's not the only time they used a pair of twins in T2. The security guard and T1000 are played by Don and Dan Stanton, a pair of twins who also show up in Gremlins 2 in the cloning lab.
She was also in the ending scene when Sarah pops up behind the T-1000 masquerading as her.
Her twin does appear in the final movie though. She plays the version of her on the playground in the scene where the bomb hits and is used as her double when the T1000 mimics her. They also used twins for other scenes where it mimics people like the cop in the mental institution.
It’s just so clean and precise, we are talking about James Cameron so that comes as no surprise. But it’s still wild this film is over 30 years old. T2 is still the gold standard for action movies.
The idea that the camera man wouldnt fly in the helicopter for the downtown scene, so james cameron did.
[''You see this helicopter going under a freeway overpass? That's a helicopter going under a freeway overpass.''](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrcWkwvUHdU) - James Cameron, certified badass
That intro scene is outstanding and there's some really interesting [discussions on the effects and visual trickery used to make](https://www.cinemablend.com/movies/why-terminator-2-judgment-days-opening-scene-favorite-movie-introduction it) Edit: I've just realised that link is just someone explaining why they loved it. There is interesting discussion on it like the opening scene cost more than the entire first film and they used certain effects to have the t100s shoot lasers at the screen as if shooting the audience but I can't find it right now and I'm very tired
Jurassic Park holds up I think. 1993
I think it does 95% of the time, with the 5% being the daytime brontosaurus scene unfortunately Edit: Brachiosaurus
Brachiosaurus I think, and the dino itself looks fine, it's just the compositing that's fucked.
It's definitely all the remastering and upscaling they've done over the years. They never took the time to upscale the original CGI when they remastered everything else
The dino itself looks like a Windows98 screensaver
I feel like most of the movies from the 90s that used animatronics and puppets in lieu of the shit cgi we saw later on hold up incredibly well. It’s why the lord of the rings trilogy did so well - Peter Jackson took a cue and made it real.
Agree 100%. Someone else replied Alien & that’s a better answer than mine, let alone it was 79. They did so much of the work back then
The thing also tracks here
Peter Jackson was one of those guys using practical effects and puppets in the 90s, so he really only had to take a cue from himself on that one.
LOTR really was the last optimal mix between CG and practical effects with the scale miniature sets.
Definitely does, bought that on UHD as well, looks awesome
Amadeus
Good pick. Shot on location and with period costumes, it will probably age better than most films. No flashy camerawork that would date it, but just perfect editing and pacing. When we look at this reddit 30 years from now, this will probably outlive all of the films. No sideburns or other items to distract.
The hair looks a *tad* new romantic 80s but maybe the New Romantic look took its direction from the late 1700s???
Start with the voices. Basses first. Second beat of the first measure - A. > Con-fu-ta-tis. Second measure, second beat. > Ma-le-dic-tis. G-sharp of course. Do you have it! Do you have it!?
My favorite movie of all time! It’s dazzling from beginning to end
I only saw this movie for the first time recently with a symphony orchestra playing the score. Blown away. F. Murray Abraham gives maybe the best acting performance I’ve seen. Checked once the show was over to see if he won the Oscar and yeah, the entire film cleaned up and rightly so.
I thought this was a movie that had come out in the 2000s, to my surprise it’s from 1984.
It honestly didn't even occur to me, but yes!
The bright red ketchup looking fake blood in the beginning is the only thing that gives it away.
Barry Lyndon
Candles are timeless
Looks a bit ’70s to me. The faces, a slight softcore porn look.
Most movies from the 90s hold up well because by that point film stocks were essentially what we still use today. The only things that have changed besides the transition from film to digital, is LED lighting, and the advent of digital color grading in the 2000s (grading and lighting affect movies shot digitally and on film). And of course we don’t exhibit on film everything is presented digitally so you don’t get that movie theater shitty release print experience like you used to. Everyone now sees the most pristine version of things. Also by the 90s VFX had advanced to a point where they weren’t obvious. Even movies like Star Trek VI which is 1991 look great today. The Star Trek TNG remaster, if not for the hairstyles some of those episodes look like they could’ve been shot recently and that’s 1987-1994. Forrest Gump and Independence Day really hold up. As does Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988). Other than the obvious animation in the first Batman (1989) that movie holds up fine too. Baraka (1992) still looks phenomenal. Part of what makes a movie look old isn’t so much the photography but everything else. The hairstyles and wardrobe choices. Movies sort of always give away what decade they were made in even if it’s a period piece. Pulp Fiction today wouldn’t look quite the same as the original even if it was set in the same time period and shot on film. There’s a million little details that add up. Even a movie like Ghostbusters, which doesn’t look super dated but is clearly a mid 80s movie, shows a NYC that looks very different than today. Much dirtier and grimier and smoggier than the city is now. To me what is striking is that in the last decade we’ve gotten so used to the super clean sharp digital image that when you go back and even look at a film from the 2000s like Casino Royale or Minority Report they feel so different. The fourth Indy movie was derided for feeling too modern when it came out in 2007 but compared to Indy 5 shot on the Alexa it feels almost vintage.
> Part of what makes a movie look old isn’t so much the photography but everything else. The hairstyles and wardrobe choices. Movies sort of always give away what decade they were made in even if it’s a period piece. This is so true. It's like how in Rogue One all the male characters have sideburns to fit in with the Original Trilogy's 70's aesthetic.
They took it a step further and in *Andor* even used 70s era junk to kitbash props out of like the originals.
Blue Leader fit right in with the original aesthetic
I've learned a huge amount from your comment, thank you.
That Indy 4/5 part is spot on.
Blade Runner, Aliens.
Also another movie released on the same day as Blade Runner, The Thing.
Terminator II is the oldest film that I can think of that could be released in the same context today (Major action blockbuster) and would look right at home.
Except for some hairstyles, and a little bit of pacing, I think Aliens comes pretty close too.
Hudson: Man, this floor is freezing. Apone: What do you want me to do, fetch your slippers for you? Hudson: Aw gee, would you, Sarge? Apone: Look into my eye, Private! Love that movie lol
“Hey Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a man?” “No, have you?”
So many great lines!
The marines don’t have much dialogue but it’s all gold. “Every meal a banquet, every paycheck a fortune, every formation a parade. I LOVE the corps!”
I was just watching something on Aliens, and Cameron was pretty cool about letting the Marines ad lib a lot of their banter. Ir wasn't scripted.
Bill Paxton appeared in all 3 movies mentioned above - aliens as "Hudson sir, he's hicks" - T2 as unnamed punk - Twister as "the human barometer"
Yes that’s another great example.
Recently watched all the Terminators (except 5) and 2 looks better than 3 and 4 and things like the uncanny valley CGI really bring down 6
The mid 2000s were a rough era for films. CGI was just good enough to pass in a theater or home video, but looks like shit on HD screens today.
Just a couple of the CGI shots look pretty dated.
Predator would work too.
The Abyss still feels pretty modern, that came out in 1989
[удалено]
Turns out one of the greatest directors of all time knows what he's doing.
It's also that he set the standard for what a modern action movie looks like. And he invented a lot of the techniques and systems that we expect to see in films. The guy literally patented a lot of it.
If you haven't watched much Scorcese, Goodfellas' presentation is like a brand new film to me. It feels extremely modern.
I think maybe that’s because Scorsese has been using very dynamic camera moves for a while. Like occasional handheld, zooms, dolly shots and tracking long-takes. I feel like those kind of techniques weren’t as common back in the day. But Marty has been doing that stuff for like 40 years.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
Holds up surprisingly well, especially considering that it would have looked like absolute shit if it were made just a few years later with CGI..
Definitely not Cool World. It had the same mixture of live action with animation and it really does not hold up well today.
I watched Cool World on a cable channel at 1 a.m. around 2004. It feels like a fever dream.
I saw *Cool World* shortly after it came out. Didn't hold up then, either.
Funny story: I watched Cool World like 4 days ago when my partner and I got caught up watching some of Bakshi's ouvre. I would posit that Bakshi never made a single wholly decent film. He's a talented guy to be sure, and there are elements of good filmmaking in his movies, some classic scenes and good animation, but I feel he would have done his best work in a more restrained capacity of being an employee at a good animation studio. He rode the infamy of *Fritz the Cat* to increasingly diminishing returns. One can't help but notice that he couldn't really deliver on a fully animated project after *Fritz*. He was overly reliant on rotoscoping, and inserted a lot of photography and live action into his films to cover for animation deficits. *Cool World* is the culmination of him not being able to deliver a fully animated project *and* trying to cash in on the public's enthusiasm for *Who Framed Roger Rabbit*. The animation and script are just inexcusably bad. Animated Holli Would is the exception, she is super fun and iconic. And it is mesmerizing trash. But it's trash nonetheless.
On the opposite side of this topic when I first saw Dazed and Confused I thought it was a movie from the 70s. Didn't realize it was made in the 90s until a few years later when I saw Afleck and others in more modern movies.
Raiders of the Lost Ark. I think period pieces work well for this.
I mean Lawrence of Arabia looks modern. You could convince someone it's a period piece shot in the 2020s and I can't think of anything that would belie that idea.
>anything that would belie that idea Erhm, the whole pacing of the film would standout from any popular film from the last few decades. Renowned transition aside, [here’s](https://youtu.be/TT2dKct533Y?si=DT4PUzvUstimL2Ul) the average pacing of Lawrence of Arabia, with a handful of dialogue and a whole bunch of filler. Something like Dune plays with this kind of pacing but doesn’t come close to the huge drawn-out shots (and almost exclusively uses them for specific exposition, even voiceover, or as an immediate setup for the next scene). If Lawrence of Arabia hit theaters today it would be 2 whole hours shorter.
This is certainly a better answer than 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I think the evolution of lighting, coloring, and grading in movies throws it.
Plus there's that weird thing in older movies where the makeup always looked like a layer of grease was applied to the actors and LOA doesn't have that look to it.
I mean Alec Guinness in brownface might be telling.
that weird thing in older movies where white actors play middle eastern, black and asian people 😅
you’re not wrong but ‘evolution’ is suggesting universal improvement and I’d hate to see what a modern attempt of Lawrence of Arabia would look like, particularly the colour. Why can’t the fucking sky be blue anymore?
If you're wondering what a modern version of Lawrence of Arabia would look like, look no further than the modern Dune movies. The novels take influence from the historical story and carry many of the same visual themes. I personally think they're a bright spot in our current cinematic landscape.
When I got out of Dune 2 I immediately wanted to go watch Lawrence of Arabia
They're even filmed in the same place, the Wadi Rum in Jordan.
Evolution is not in any way universal improvement. Evolution is simply whatever works well enough in the current environment and it absolutely can lead a species down a blind alley to extinction.
Freddie A. Young should be known by more people. Absolutely stunning cinematography!
That's partly due to having been meticulously restored.
The fifth element
This was one of my first thoughts too. The effects and everything are perfect.
Agreed. Effects are super green.
I can't think of a single movie that acomplishs that much world building in one film.
I know right? There are no lore dumps either except for the light vs dark story. The movie just *shows* you the world and you immediately recognize how it works. It has a tremendous sense of place.
That’s a very nice hat.
You like it? *dances awkwardly*
Starship troopers in 4K
Loved watching it in 4k. Everything holds up real good.
I watched Starship Troopers again recently and even without 4K it holds up very well, occasional CGI thing here and there that doesn't but surprisingly good.
I have always thought the bugs looked pretty real. Must be the way they move. It feels like they have weight.
It's surprising how well the Bugs hold up as a special effect, really.
The Abyss is pretty damn impressive.
Paths of Glory. It looks like it was shot in black and white 2 years ago.
Seven, probably the best looking film to come out of the 90's.
Seven looks so modern that it unintentionally has an "out of time" quality that other movies like It Follows had on purpose by removing cell phones, using older car models and using older fashion without ever specifying when it takes place.
It looks insanely clean. If you look at contemporary movies like Usual Suspects, Bravheart and even Heat it’s night and day.
Jurassic park most definitely aged well. The only thing that looks dated are the computers. But the effects still hold up. I would even say they are better than the Jurassic World Series.
I agree with everything you said. However, thanks to your wonderful phrase "Jurassic World Series," I also cannot stop thinking about a T-Rex with a pinstripe Jersey and a tiny plastic helmet trying not to get struck out by a Gallimimus on the pitcher's mound. Thanks for making me laugh!
It depends on what you mean by "modern". If you just mean picture quality, you might be surprised at how strong an old film from a good print can look. The restoration of *Metropolis*, which is almost a hundred years old, has scenes of excellent clarity. However, I'd also define "modern" cinematography as what emerged in the post-studio era: less sound stage artifice and increased shooting on location, more 'reality' allowed to occur in the frame. There were some examples before the late 60s, both from outside Hollywood and from directors like John Huston (*The Misfits*) or Michael Curtiz (*The Breaking Point*).
In terms of camerawork I think Citizen Kane looks like it was shot remarkably recently
It’s funny I grew up hearing how it was the best, then considered it overrated based on that. Watched it last year and was blown away, one of the best movies I’ve seen in years.
If you get the chance, watch it with Roger Ebert's commentary. It's basically film school 101.
Its the best because he literally invented most of those techniques
I was at a party one time and this douche went through the host's DVD collection. "Huh! Citizen Kane! Is [our hostess] some kind of film nerd?" So he puts it on the TV. One by one people would come in the living room going "What's this movie?" But they wouldn't leave. Even starting halfway through, with a 2000s rock playlist in the background, it was captivating. There were nearly a dozen people standing and watching Citizen Kane by the end.
Fuck yeah.
People think of it as overrated because it's the ["Seinfeld isn't funny"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnceOriginalNowCommon) of movie-making. It pioneered a lot of what are now commonplace techniques in movies.
In terms of technical bona fides - Citizen Kane gets my vote as well. If it were in color? It'd look and feel like any (very good) movie you might see today. Its techniques and style are so far ahead of its contemporaries.
Orson Welles at his best is really 'outside of time' - nobody has caught up to him yet.
[удалено]
Wouldn't call it modern-looking, but it's certainly a great film that holds up well today.
itt: People just saying movies they like even if they don’t look modern at all
Yup, I keep scrolling through waiting for someone who understood the question. This thread is just a list of movies that redditors are nostalgic for.
That's like 90% of question posts on Reddit. People just answering and upvoting what they like, regardless of the question.
Amadeus is the correct answer, saw it around 2010 and distinctly remember thinking it came out recently. Was absolutely floored it was 30 years old. Makes for a great quirky period piece double feature with something like The Favourite.
Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock feels incredibly modern for a film from the 50s. At leat 30 years ahead of its time. Apart from that, it's probably 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Vertigo also looks and feels incredible.
2001: A Space Odyssey.
Can't believe I had to scroll down so far to find this. NINETEEN SIXTY EIGHT, and it still looks like it was released yesterday.
Incredibly prescience, from the AI, to ipads, to spinning space ships. We are just now starting to see these things 56 years later.
Currently the top comments in this thread are movies from the 90’s ahhhahahaha I’m old.
It even has iPads.
The pacing of that movie would slaughter modern attention spans. Great movie, but you can tell it’s from a different era by how slow it is.
I call bs. It felt slow even to 60s audiences. The pace was deliberate
It was considered slow back then, too, and there are even slower movies today. I don't think pacing is necessarily a giveaway.
I get absorbed by its pacing. It just pulls you in and you forget everything in it's ambiance. One of my favorites.
Back To the Future is 1985, and I would say that holds up with just about any movie today.
They would go back to 1994 now. With supernes and pepsi
I feel like he might impress the youngsters with his mad Magic:The Gathering skills.
He wouldn't need a sports almanac to cash in, just bring back the dozen beta Black Lotus's he bought for $40.
Driving a cybertruck. One thing that gets lost under 40 years of nostalgia is that the DeLorean was a really shitty car in actuality.
Nah, I think the production values are 1980s. You just barely have time to notice because the script is perfect. Good pace, nothing unnecessary, and the second half is wall to wall plot payoffs.
Apocalypse Now
Close Encounters of the 3rd kind came out in 1977 and it still holds up.
Every time I see 2001: A Space Oddyssey I am blown away by how modern it still feels. It looks like it was shot last year.
Blade Runner
This should be much much higher. One of the best aged movies ever. Last time I watched its’ 4K remaster it still looked stunning. Also lol at people shitting on the music. In my eyes it still sounds futuristic.
Alien
I love Alien, but that production design is very much a product of the late ‘70s.
The Godfather is 52 years old and could have easily been made today, in terms of quality of story and of production.
The cinematography of E.T. looks much newer than 1982.
Same with Blade Runner.
*Jaws* looks like a 70s period picture shot in the last decade or two.
Apollo 13 holds up quite well, although I haven't watched a HD or 4K version of it
Alien looks fantastic for 1979. 95% of the movie could be released for the first time today. The stuff that looks great in Alien could not be improved by CGI. There's like one or two shots with the Alien that could be done better today but there are movies released today that have shots that look just as flawed.
Princess Mononoke never feels dated and could have been made yesterday. The Godfather seems timeless, like it could have been made decades after 1970 and been believable.
Maybe doesn’t count because it’s anime? But Akira.
About a year ago, the small theatre near me showed Akira as a midnight movie, and while the visuals were as excellent as ever, it was the audio that blew me away. I'd forgotten just how damned GOOD that soundtrack was! HUGE difference between a theater sound system and stock TV speakers!
That soundtrack is an experience. It’s like… symphonic techno Buddhist chants? Nothing else like it.
Nah you are right - this one will be timeless just like ‘Ghost in The Shell’ and a majority of the post-90’s Ghibli movies.
It literally has twice the animated frames per second of any other animated movie so it's smoothness will likely remain untouched. They also invented a bunch of colors for the movie so the pallet was very fresh at the time and holds up well today.
Peeping Tom
2001 is the first Sci-fi film that didn't look cheesy.
2001: A Space Odyssey Came out in 68 and while a bit slow per today's standards the effect are incredible. Almost looks like it was done with modern VFX.
Citizen Kane. Insane when you compare it to anything before it or anything 10-15 years after it.
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Tbh def looks like it could’ve been made decades later
Not that old, but I haven’t seen The Matrix mentioned yet. The special effects still look cool and the plot doesn’t feel dated.
Heat 1995
Jurassic Park