Your Best Old Movies, At Least 30 Years Old.

[JBDuke]

JBDuke, absolutely great list. The only things I'd quibble on are a few films I would only give an 8 or 9 to, rather than a 10. But there aren't any "Really, you thought Caddyshack 2 was a great movie?!?" items on that list.

Another that I think has been overlooked in the recent past(though just barely over 30 years old) is Amadeus. What to me is also pretty remarkable about the film, is that I can't think of another great movie told from the point of view of the villain of the story(and the acknowledge villain from the start).

Amadeus is a 9/10 for me, but I think the director's cut version might earn it that extra point. I saw that a couple of years ago, and it fixed some of the things that bothered me in the original.

You're right about the rarity of movies told from the villain's point of view. I guess, depending on how you want to characterize "villain", a lot of gangster/crime movies are told from that perspective. Is Michael Corleone a good guy or a bad guy? Henry Hill from "Goodfellas"? Lots of films noir like "Double Indemnity" have bad people as the main characters. Others: "Memento" (sorta), "A Clockwork Orange", "Sweeney Todd", "The Shining" (if you argue it's more about Jack than Danny), "Taxi Driver" (I guess that depends on how you perceive Travis).

[Faustus]

JBDuke, absolutely great list. The only things I'd quibble on are a few films I would only give an 8 or 9 to, rather than a 10. But there aren't any "Really, you thought Caddyshack 2 was a great movie?!?" items on that list.

Another that I think has been overlooked in the recent past(though just barely over 30 years old) is Amadeus. What to me is also pretty remarkable about the film, is that I can't think of another great movie told from the point of view of the villain of the story(and the acknowledge villain from the start).

Not sure if you'd really call this a movie (other than filmed versions of it) but Shakespeare's Richard III sorta fits the bill of the villain's point of view

Is 'Animal House' 30 years old yet?

Big Audrey Hepburn fan here and 'Roman Holiday' goes on my list.

And whenever Ted Turner shows it (which is surprisingly often) I always stick around to watch the dining car scene in 'North By Northwest'. Why can't I be as suave as Roger O Thornhill?

[Stray Gator]

Amadeus is a 9/10 for me, but I think the director's cut version might earn it that extra point. I saw that a couple of years ago, and it fixed some of the things that bothered me in the original.

You're right about the rarity of movies told from the villain's point of view. I guess, depending on how you want to characterize "villain", a lot of gangster/crime movies are told from that perspective. Is Michael Corleone a good guy or a bad guy? Henry Hill from "Goodfellas"? Lots of films noir like "Double Indemnity" have bad people as the main characters. Others: "Memento" (sorta), "A Clockwork Orange", "Sweeney Todd", "The Shining" (if you argue it's more about Jack than Danny), "Taxi Driver" (I guess that depends on how you perceive Travis).

Another classic film noir that is told from the villain's point of view, but which I don't recall having been listed by anyone here, is The Postman Always Rings Twice.

[rasputin]

One that I forgot to mention in my earlier post is Orson Welles' masterpiece, Touch of Evil. I understand that when the movie came out (in the late '50's), the studio had butchered it in the editing process, over the strong objection of director Welles. He wrote a lengthy memo protesting the editing, and making very particular comments about how the movie should be restored to the way he had edited it. That restoration was eventually done and is now available, and the result is an astonishing movie in almost every respect.

[JBDuke]

... Is 'Animal House' 30 years old yet? ...

Prepare to feel like a geezer - "Animal House" is 39 years old this year. It was released in 1978.

[Olympic Fan]

In 1998, the American Film Institute ranked the 100 greatest American films ... what's interesting about the list is that includes just seven films made after 1987 (30 years ago now) -- and none of them cracked the top 64 films.

http://www.filmsite.org/afi100filmsA.html

I like the list, although I have a few quibbles -- Dances With Wolves? Really?

But I thought I'd offer it as a place to measure your likes/dislikes with the consensus ...

For a slightly different take, see the revised 2007 AFI top 100 (no Wolves, thank God):

http://www.filmsite.org/afi100films_2007.html

I'm really interested to see Ford's masterpiece The Searchers jump from 96 to No. 12 in nine years

[Faustus]

Prepare to feel like a geezer - "Animal House" is 39 years old this year. It was released in 1978.

Yes. Geezerhood accepted. Thanks. Already past the point in life when I say "I can remember when ------ only cost ------ cents."

[Faustus]

P.S. As long as I'm well into senility, as a small side event, how about Worst "great" movies? Such as: how in the world did Oliver! win Best Picture back in the mid-60s? Even the music was bad.

(This is a great time of year on Turner Movie Classics, though, showing Academy Award films. But I bet even Turner refuses to air Oliver! And AMC, usually a garbage network of late, is cleverly running Groundhog Day over and over and over today...))

[rasputin]

P.S. As long as I'm well into senility, as a small side event, how about Worst "great" movies? Such as: how in the world did Oliver! win Best Picture back in the mid-60s? Even the music was bad.

(This is a great time of year on Turner Movie Classics, though, showing Academy Award films. But I bet even Turner refuses to air Oliver! And AMC, usually a garbage network of late, is cleverly running Groundhog Day over and over and over today...))

Doctor Zhivago. Ecccchhh.

[cato]

I think Woody would be grateful to hear such a description, considering he has been directing major films for OVER 50 years, approximately half of the existence of cinematography.

50 years? I thought that was the age difference between Allen and his daughter-wife.

[mgtr]

I am somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned The Bank Dick. I am a sucker for WC Fields, but his movies were primarily just a vehicle for Fields to "do his thing," with little regard for script or direction. While the preceding was his most popular movie, true aficionados generally prefer Its a Gift, because it contains classic Fields bits.

[JBDuke]

P.S. As long as I'm well into senility, as a small side event, how about Worst "great" movies? Such as: how in the world did Oliver! win Best Picture back in the mid-60s? Even the music was bad.

(This is a great time of year on Turner Movie Classics, though, showing Academy Award films. But I bet even Turner refuses to air Oliver! And AMC, usually a garbage network of late, is cleverly running Groundhog Day over and over and over today...))

Doctor Zhivago. Ecccchhh.

So, a little perspective here. First, "Doctor Zhivago" did not win the Best Picture Oscar in 1965 - that award went to "The Sound of Music". "Zhivago" was nominated, and in my opinion, it's easy to see why. It is a stupendously beautiful film. David Lean and his cinematographer, Freddie Young made three gorgeous movies in a row - "Lawrence of Arabia", "Doctor Zhivago" and "Ryan's Daughter". Young won the Cinematography Oscar for all three of them. "Zhivago"'s score is also beautiful. Maurice Jarre won three Oscars for his scores, all collaborations with David Lean - "Lawrence", "Zhivago", and "A Passage to India". For my movie dollar, a movie that looks great and sounds great is off to a strong start. On top of that, it's a compelling story with complex characters in a time of great upheaval in Russia. Now, I'm admittedly a sucker for epics, and I don't shy away from romances, either, so if those don't appeal to you much, "Zhivago" might not suit your tastes, but I love it.

As for "Oliver!", I agree that it wasn't the best film of 1968. I think that was a particularly strong year, and I have three 10/10 films that I would place well ahead of "Oliver!": "The Lion in Winter", "2001: A Space Odyssey", and "Romeo and Juliet". That being said, I don't think "Oliver!" is a bad film. I disagree with you about the music, as I enjoy several of the songs. I think there are several strong acting performances, and that the sets and costumes were amazing. I know musicals aren't everyone's thing, and "Oliver!" doesn't have the amazing songs of, say, "The Sound of Music". But I think it's far from bad. I rated it 8/10.

[JBDuke]

One other note about "Oliver!", which may explain why it was selected by the Academy in 1968...

The late 60's was a turbulent time in many aspects of American culture, including in the major motion picture studios. The old guard that had grown up in the business during the Golden Age were generally running the studios and in some cases still tried to keep doing things the way they had been doing them for decades. But the success of less traditional films and the wave of cultural revolution at the time forced many changes in the business. 1968 was the year that the industry finally scrapped the old production code and started using the G/PG/R/X rating system, for example.

If you look at the Best Picture winners of the 1960's, you see the last great musicals of the studio system in great prominence: 1961's "West Side Story"; 1964's "My Fair Lady"; 1965's "The Sound of Music"; and finally, 1968's "Oliver!". Others nominated but not winning during the decade: "The Music Man" (1962), "Mary Poppins" (1964), "Zorba the Greek" (1964), "Doctor Doolittle" (1967), and "Funny Girl" (1968). Studios continued to turn out some really good musicals for the next few years - as example, "Hello, Dolly" (1969), "Fiddler on the Roof" (1971), and "Cabaret" (1972), were all nominated for Best Picture. But after that, musicals became pretty rare, and a musical wouldn't win the Best Picture Oscar until "Chicago" in 2002 - a 34 year gap after "Oliver!".

I suspect that some of the votes for "Oliver!" came from the Academy's "old guard" trying to hold onto one of the last examples of the types of films they used to make. That all got thrown out the window with "Midnight Cowboy", the 1969 winner and the only Best Picture winner to receive an X rating. That and the other changes in Hollywood led to a flowering of great films in the early to mid 1970's.

[Faustus]

...and looking like a good chance for a Musical winning Best Picture coming up, too. 'La La Land' I thought was very enjoyable. Maybe not Best Picture, though, but perhaps another example of a nostalgic feel-good escapist story striking a receptive chord during highly divisive and turbulent times. Much like a Ginger Rogers-Fred Astaire Depression/WWII Era musical, except, well, not Ginger Rogers, Fred Astaire, or terribly memorable melodies. Nice spirit, though.

Far from 30 years old, fairly recent in fact, but on the musical subject, I truly liked 'Topsy-Turvy', a wonderful film about W.S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan and all the goings-on in the creation of 'The Mikado'. It actually did win a couple of Oscars, I think, if obviously not Best Picture. But in fact it's an extremely well-made film, I thought: witty, engrossing, excellent cast, and if you like Gilbert & Sullivan, wonderful music.

I seem to have diverted matters from the Favs from over 30 years ago topic - sorry...

[davekay1971]

I tend to steer for the more recent portion of the "everything before 1987" frame

Movies that pop into my head as being my favorite from before '87, not really in a particular order

Action/Adventure/War
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Jaws
The Longest Day (although the book was better)
Das Boot
Mad Max: The Road Warrior

Sci-Fi
Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars:ANH
Alien and Aliens
Blade Runner
Terminator

Horror
The Shining
Exorcist
The Thing (just for the ending alone)

Drama
The Mission
Godfather and Godfather Part II

Comedy
Caddyshack
Ghostbusters
Eddie Murphy's top 3: Trading Places, 48 Hours, and Beverly Hills Cop
Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Kids/Family
Cinderella
The Jungle Book
101 Dalmations
Fantasia
Peter Pan

I Know It's Crap But It's My Crap
Big Trouble in Little China (Jack Burton is one of the most quotable characters ever)
Conan the Barbarian
Drunken Master
Enter the Dragon

[YmoBeThere]

The Longest Day (although the book was better)

Maybe a different thread, but I'm struggling to come up with a book turned into a movie that I wouldn't say the book is better.

[rasputin]

Maybe a different thread, but I'm struggling to come up with a book turned into a movie that I wouldn't say the book is better.

All the President's Men is one, IMO.

[fidel]

Maybe a different thread, but I'm struggling to come up with a book turned into a movie that I wouldn't say the book is better.

Out of Africa is close to a tie, and thats saying something.

[brevity]

Maybe a different thread, but I'm struggling to come up with a book turned into a movie that I wouldn't say the book is better.

Maybe a better thread.

Forrest Gump: average movie, below average book. Come at me, boomers.

[Olympic Fan]

Maybe a different thread, but I'm struggling to come up with a book turned into a movie that I wouldn't say the book is better.

Oh, come on ... this is incredibly simplistic -- and wrong.

Without bringing up the entire genre of "novelizations" (novels written after the fact based on the movie), I can think of dozens and dozens of films that were better than the books they were based on -- sometimes better than the very good books they were based on.

One example would the The Shawshank Redemption, based on a very fine novella by Stephen King. But the film has far deeper and more realistic characters.

I guess you could quibble that's a novella not "a book".

But allow we to offer another.

If you've ever read Peter George's 1958 cold-war potboiler Red Alert, you'd know it has nothing like the depth and the humor of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece Dr. Strangelove.

Then there is John Ford's masterpiece The Searchers, based on a novel of the same name by Alan Le May. To bring things around full circle, there was a 2013 book also called The Searchers by William Frankel that explores the historical basis for Ford's film (a real 1836 kidnapping) -- it's a better book that Le May's novel, but not nearly as good as Ford's film.

Or Die Hard, a great action movie, based on a 1979 potboiler by Roderick Thorp -- Nothing Lasts Forever.

And while I love Philip Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, I much prefer the film Blade Runner. I could say the same about Clockwork Orange, a great book by Burgess, but a better film.

I would argue that Gone With the Wind, Jaws and The Godfather are three iconic movies that are better than the very popular novels upon which they were based.

I will concede that it's hard to think of a "great" book that turned out better as a movie -- there are very good adaptations of some masterpieces (Wuthering Heights, David Copperfield, Moby Dick, The Red Badge of Courage, Catch-22), but none are as good as the book. Hollywood has never come close to capturing the great American novel (Huck Finn) on screen.

But there are tons of mediocre to poor novels that have become fine films. And there are a lot of good "pop" novels that were even better on screen.