movies that were far ahead of their time

big brother 9big brother 9 Posts: 18,152
Forum Member
✭✭
What movies were so advanced when first released?
Which movie has aged better than anything else?

For me it has to be wizard of oz, the colours were amazing for that time amd date. It still looks relatively recent and is a classic.

Running man aswell seemed so far ahead of its time.
«1

Comments

  • thedarklord _thedarklord _ Posts: 565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    2001: A Space Odyssey
  • DirtyBarrySpeedDirtyBarrySpeed Posts: 1,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Destination Moon.
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There are a few which seem ahead of their time..and stand up to repeated viewing...

    The Shining, Halloween, Bladerunner, Fargo, Goodfellas..
  • boddismboddism Posts: 16,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Minority Report- first time we saw touch screen technology, seemed v cool and futuristic when the film came out, now on our iPhones!!

    JUrassic Park- nearly 20 yrs old & the CGI still stand up against CGI of today.

    KIng Kong (1933)- the special effects ie: kong-Dino fight are pretty spectacular when you consider theyre 80 yrs old!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYWSOzFMZjg

    Star Wars- really the grand daddy of all sci fi movies today, almost archetypal & its references are found in multitudes of sci-fi/CGI films today.
  • Eddie BadgerEddie Badger Posts: 6,005
    Forum Member
    Forbidden Planet - made in the 50s and still looks amazing. It was a huge influence on SF to come.

    Licence to Kill - A darker, grittier Bond that maybe came too soon after Roger Moore for audiences to accept.
  • stvn758stvn758 Posts: 19,656
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If you didn't know anything about Blade Runner and it was released today you'd still say how ahead of it's time it feels and looks.
  • homer2012homer2012 Posts: 5,216
    Forum Member
    Jurassic park
    The matrix
    Back to the future
    Terminator
    Robocop
    Antz
    Grease
  • big brother 9big brother 9 Posts: 18,152
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stvn758 wrote: »
    If you didn't know anything about Blade Runner and it was released today you'd still say how ahead of it's time it feels and looks.

    thats so true, it always amazes me how some films can stand the test of time and others dont
  • Peter VenkmanPeter Venkman Posts: 1,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Back to the Future

    Jurassic Park: CGI looks better than today's movies.

    Psycho: I don't think 1960 was ready for this kind of film.

    Jaws
  • Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Peeping Tom .

    it's funny how Hitchcock got away with Psycho but Peeping Tom was reviled , I think Hitchcock took the curse off it by promoting it in his blackly-comic way .
  • The_SmegThe_Smeg Posts: 252
    Forum Member
    the exorcist
    star trek
    Jaws
    Starship Troopers
    Children of Men
  • Ted CTed C Posts: 11,730
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Interesting someone mentioned Psycho, because I was watching Hitchcocks The Birds yesterday on blu ray, and I think this movie could also qualify in this category, for a few reasons.

    The notion of nature turning against man was not really a new concept at that time, there had been plenty of sci-fi/monster movies with giant creatures of all sorts, but yet the notion of seemingly harmless, everyday birds suddenly attacking was a departure.

    And if not done right it could have been extremely silly. But Hitchcock was very skilful in the way he built the tension and established the violent nature of the birds. And often it was extremely subtle, such as the sequence in the schoolyard as the birds slowly gather on the climbing frame.

    Plus he knew how to keep the pressure on, ramping up the frequency of the attacks until they became unbearable...I always remember watching the film for the first time on TV way back in the 70's...and the scene where the farmer is found with his eyes pecked out literally gave me nightmares. And here Hitch uses 3 very quick edits/zoom's to show the horror, which takes you by surprise...and made all the more disturbing because the scene had no music, so nothing to tip you off that something is about to happen.

    And then the whole aspect of the lack of explanation for the attacks...I know some people have a problem with this and the ending, but I feel that this adds to the sense of paranoia of the characters, as they start looking for possible reasons and theories why it is happening, and in the scene where people are taking shelter in the diner this paranoia increases to a level that Hedren's character is suggested as the cause of the attacks.

    And not only would Hitchcock have probably been one of the few directors at that time who could have got away with that ending, but audiences were completely taken by surprise as well. I think it's consistent with the rest of the movie, in that it throws up many suggestions and theories as to why it happened, allowing the audience to make up their own minds.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,532
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Metropolis.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    2001: A Space Odyssey
    First film I thought of when I saw the thread title
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    Interesting someone mentioned Psycho, because I was watching Hitchcocks The Birds yesterday on blu ray, and I think this movie could also qualify in this category, for a few reasons.

    The notion of nature turning against man was not really a new concept at that time, there had been plenty of sci-fi/monster movies with giant creatures of all sorts, but yet the notion of seemingly harmless, everyday birds suddenly attacking was a departure.

    And if not done right it could have been extremely silly. But Hitchcock was very skilful in the way he built the tension and established the violent nature of the birds. And often it was extremely subtle, such as the sequence in the schoolyard as the birds slowly gather on the climbing frame.

    Plus he knew how to keep the pressure on, ramping up the frequency of the attacks until they became unbearable...I always remember watching the film for the first time on TV way back in the 70's...and the scene where the farmer is found with his eyes pecked out literally gave me nightmares. And here Hitch uses 3 very quick edits/zoom's to show the horror, which takes you by surprise...and made all the more disturbing because the scene had no music, so nothing to tip you off that something is about to happen.

    And then the whole aspect of the lack of explanation for the attacks...I know some people have a problem with this and the ending, but I feel that this adds to the sense of paranoia of the characters, as they start looking for possible reasons and theories why it is happening, and in the scene where people are taking shelter in the diner this paranoia increases to a level that Hedren's character is suggested as the cause of the attacks.

    And not only would Hitchcock have probably been one of the few directors at that time who could have got away with that ending, but audiences were completely taken by surprise as well. I think it's consistent with the rest of the movie, in that it throws up many suggestions and theories as to why it happened, allowing the audience to make up their own minds.

    Excellent post, Ted. Sums up my feelings about The Birds. Heck, I had nightmares for days about the scene with the guy with his eyes pecked out.:eek: It's an excellent example of how the film is far better than the (Du Maurier) novel. In the novel, there's no explanation as to why the birds turn on humanity, other than a severe winter. The novel is far more claustrophobic than Hitchcock's film but ends on a similar note of desperation.
  • David_HillDavid_Hill Posts: 3,073
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Truman Show
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    re: The Truman Show, The Matrix, Peeping Tom.

    Ahead of their time at the time perhaps, but now they seem oddly dated.

    Perhaps it's because each acts as a warning to dangers that have become too commonplace - dangers we've maybe become too complacent about.
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Licence to Kill - A darker, grittier Bond that maybe came too soon after Roger Moore for audiences to accept.

    Gotta agree with that. If License to Kill was released today, I think it would be a massive blockbuster. At the time, it seemed nobody wanted a darker, more aggressive Bond who dealt with real-world villains. Now it is expected.

    It was dark, gritty, violent, had a Bond who was both vicious and had real relationships with the people around him, a Bond who got hurt, a villain who was just a normal nasty criminal, a story with an emotional centre to it. All the things they expect such a film to have today, but were rejected as "not Bond," at the time.

    Dalton was always my favourite Bond and Licence to Kill one of my favourite films. I always seemed to be in a small minority, though.
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Helbore wrote: »
    Gotta agree with that. If License to Kill was released today, I think it would be a massive blockbuster. At the time, it seemed nobody wanted a darker, more aggressive Bond who dealt with real-world villains. Now it is expected.

    It was dark, gritty, violent, had a Bond who was both vicious and had real relationships with the people around him, a Bond who got hurt, a villain who was just a normal nasty criminal, a story with an emotional centre to it. All the things they expect such a film to have today, but were rejected as "not Bond," at the time.

    Dalton was always my favourite Bond and Licence to Kill one of my favourite films. I always seemed to be in a small minority, though.

    I must admit when I heard Daniel Craig talking about his gritty, new harder edged Bond that I had heard it all before with Timothy Dalton and Licensed to Kill. Also that the Bond Girls were going to be more assertive etc. And to be fair Licensed to Kill delivered on all of that. Perhaps there was too big a contrast with Roger Moore's Bond I'm not sure?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,363
    Forum Member
    Jesus Christ Superstar - The Movie.
    Made in the 70's it is bizarre but absolutely timeless. Fantastic singing by all and I know plenty of young people who love it.
  • Eddie BadgerEddie Badger Posts: 6,005
    Forum Member
    Helbore wrote: »
    Gotta agree with that. If License to Kill was released today, I think it would be a massive blockbuster. At the time, it seemed nobody wanted a darker, more aggressive Bond who dealt with real-world villains. Now it is expected.

    It was dark, gritty, violent, had a Bond who was both vicious and had real relationships with the people around him, a Bond who got hurt, a villain who was just a normal nasty criminal, a story with an emotional centre to it. All the things they expect such a film to have today, but were rejected as "not Bond," at the time.

    Dalton was always my favourite Bond and Licence to Kill one of my favourite films. I always seemed to be in a small minority, though
    .

    I thought Dalton was a great Bond and think it's a shame he only did two movies. He had an air of danger about him. There is a scene in The Living Daylights where his contact is killed and the look in Dalton's eyes was truly frightening - this was not a Bond you wanted to mess with.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,832
    Forum Member
    Victim (1961)

    At a time when homosexuality was still a criminal offence, this treats the subject matter with a maturity that not many films could match today.
  • widgerwidger Posts: 722
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LIZALYNN wrote: »
    Jesus Christ Superstar - The Movie.
    Made in the 70's it is bizarre but absolutely timeless. Fantastic singing by all and I know plenty of young people who love it.

    Not sure about this, the rock opera was and still a fantastic show with both Andrew Lloyd-Webber and Tim Rice at their creative peaks.

    The film, however, is a rather ponderous effort. It is very very camp in places, poorly shot and doesn't add anything to the music. Basically it is characters just walking around and miming.

    Stick to the audio and leave this boring spectacle alone.
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    re: The Truman Show, The Matrix, Peeping Tom.

    Ahead of their time at the time perhaps, but now they seem oddly dated.

    Perhaps it's because each acts as a warning to dangers that have become too commonplace - dangers we've maybe become too complacent about.

    I wouldnt even say they were ahead of their time at the time; just repackaged in a way that appealed to the audience of the day. All that Matrix, Truman type stuff had been done decades earlier in some format or another. I gues the only bragging rights the Matrix could get away with is in the FX department.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,806
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Blair Witch Project. Not so much for the film in itself (use of b/w, 'found footage' and improvisation were not exactly new concepts) but for its in-genious use of the internet to create the PR buzz that generated un-believable word of mouth.
Sign In or Register to comment.