re: Are older movies truly better?

Look at how many of them are based on good books. Directors today don't follow the books. Too much ego involved. They would rather go off on a tagent and look like a genius when often they don't.

Example: The Firm. Good ending in the book. Chase all over the Gulf Coast. Yet the movie totally ignores it and gives us a stupid ending that pleased no one.

Or Troy. Hell, HOMER, one of the greatest writers of all time gave you the script. You just had to follow it. Instead the directors come up with their own version that sucked balls and was boring as hell. Whole point of Illiad was tragedy. Tragedy of pride, tragedy of death of Achilles, tragedy of flaunting the gods. All of it disappeared and the movie sucked.

An even more modern example. Silence of the Lambs. The attraction of of the movie was the chemistry between Hannibal and Clarise. We move to the sequels. The stories are all about the blood, violence, and gore when the first movie didn't really focus on those things. Guess what? No one watches the sequels twenty years later.

quote:

---

The best movies of today can match up against the best movies of any era. A lot of people are just too hip/nostalgic/biased to admit that

---

Oh really. So what movie in the last 15 years could match up with the Godfather I and II?

quote:

---

Acting in older movies (pre-70s or so) is extremely overrated.

---

Ah yes, Lawrence Olivier was overrated. So was Spencer Tracey. Who plays a better tough guy? Stallone or Lee Marvin? Let me guess, you'll probably say MM and Hugh Grant probably play romantic comedies better than Cary Grant. And we haven't even gotten around to Charleton Heston or Paul Newman.