Classic Modern Movies That Don’t Disappoint

[mortonbriar]

Get Low.

 

[gubbyduffer]

I am not a fan of much of what is considered the golden era of Hollywood. The cinematic style and acting is based I imagine from actors having worked in theatre. Gestures are overly dramatic, dialogue stilted and wooden, and scenes forcefully set and posed in a way so unrealistic, as to make much of it unwatchable to me. Watch nearly every tender embrace and kiss by any leading couple in film at the time. Its embarrassing.

You can see the beginnings of a new way of cinematic acting by young talent in the 50's from the likes of Brando and Dean. James Dean could have gone onto be an acting powerhouse, sadly it wasn't to be.

If Kirk Douglas, Gary Cooper and Cary Grant starred in a movie from the 50's where they went out on a boat to catch a giant killer shark that has been plaguing a sleepy seaside town during holiday season, it would be absolutely terrible.
Roll on 1975 and a new cinematic style with an upcoming visionary director and a modern(ish) classic is born.

Modern cinema IMO suffers due to risk averse major studios spending their large budgets on turgid comic book sequel, CGI laden formulaic crap. I would like to see mid and high level budgets go to the sort of riskier ideas that only directors such as Scorcese, Nolan and Ridley Scott seem to get.

Of all the actors across the decades, in major films, I haven't seen any hold a candle to Daniel Day Lewis. Mentioned on the last page is There Will Be Blood which I consider a modern classic. What a character study of nuance, emotion and menace.

I was a child of the 80's and have a nostalgia towards films of that decade so am wary of saying too many of them will be classics, however the one that I think works on so many levels, with a great story and performances so good that I wouldn't change a thing is Back to the Future.

 

[Briar Lee]

Bridges better than Wayne, lol.. Wayne, Hopper, Duvall now that’s a cast for a movie, but everybody is different

The John Wayne we all love is actually a 1880 Jesus Christ riding a horse with a fifth of whiskey and a gun.

He has perfect morals, except for whores and booze. He will always save the girl. He might slap Marueen O’Hara but she had it coming. The pretty young girl always goes to the young side kick. He swaggers instead of walks. He’s an icon.

Jeff Bridges played Rooster Cogburn.

An aging, alcoholic Missouri partisan ranger, who finds his humanity in a determined 14 year old girl.

And at every opportune moment Iris DeMint plays Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.

Then Rooster saves Mattie, and she’s ruined for men who don’t have true grit.

Think Mary Magadeline ever found another boyfriend, after Him?

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

I am not a fan of much of what is considered the golden era of Hollywood. The cinematic style and acting is based I imagine from actors having worked in theatre. Gestures are overly dramatic, dialogue stilted and wooden, and scenes forcefully set and posed in a way so unrealistic, as to make much of it unwatchable to me. Watch nearly every tender embrace and kiss by any leading couple in film at the time. Its embarrassing.

"Golden Age" timespan is up for debate, but you don't define it. But . . your critique is overgeneralized and frankly, pretty uninformed and beyond just a matter of taste. You can't have watched many of the scores of films available made in the USA and elsewhere from each decade of the 30s, 40s, 50s, for example (just using generally accepted decades from the "Golden Age" without getting into when it may have started or ended) in any reasonable way and come up with those faux complaints. If you are just talking about early "talkies" (not the "Golden Age") I can see the reaction, but sure doesn't sound like it.

Like movies, don't, it's all personal preference, but you are quite a ways off base with the beefs.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

If "classic modern" can be defined, I define it as this gem of a movie.

 

[bluegrassbrian]

I am not a fan of much of what is considered the golden era of Hollywood. The cinematic style and acting is based I imagine from actors having worked in theatre. Gestures are overly dramatic, dialogue stilted and wooden, and scenes forcefully set and posed in a way so unrealistic, as to make much of it unwatchable to me. Watch nearly every tender embrace and kiss by any leading couple in film at the time. Its embarrassing.

You can see the beginnings of a new way of cinematic acting by young talent in the 50's from the likes of Brando and Dean. James Dean could have gone onto be an acting powerhouse, sadly it wasn't to be.

If Kirk Douglas, Gary Cooper and Cary Grant starred in a movie from the 50's where they went out on a boat to catch a giant killer shark that has been plaguing a sleepy seaside town during holiday season, it would be absolutely terrible.
Roll on 1975 and a new cinematic style with an upcoming visionary director and a modern(ish) classic is born.

Modern cinema IMO suffers due to risk averse major studios spending their large budgets on turgid comic book sequel, CGI laden formulaic crap. I would like to see mid and high level budgets go to the sort of riskier ideas that only directors such as Scorcese, Nolan and Ridley Scott seem to get.

Of all the actors across the decades, in major films, I haven't seen any hold a candle to Daniel Day Lewis. Mentioned on the last page is There Will Be Blood which I consider a modern classic. What a character study of nuance, emotion and menace.

I was a child of the 80's and have a nostalgia towards films of that decade so am wary of saying too many of them will be classics, however the one that I think works on so many levels, with a great story and performances so good that I wouldn't change a thing is Back to the Future.

I couldn't disagree more about Douglass and Grant. Maybe you haven't seen their best work, or enough of film from the 30s - 50s that would disintegrate the cliched notions of acting from that era. I'm a child of the 80s too.

 

[Briar Lee]

"Golden Age" timespan is up for debate, but you don't define it. But . . your critique is overgeneralized and frankly, pretty uninformed and beyond just a matter of taste. You can't have watched many scores of films available made in the USA and elsewhere from each decade of the 30s, 40s, 50s, for example (just using generally accepted decades from the "Golden Age" without getting into when it may have started or ended) in any reasonable way and come up those gems for complaints.

Like movies, don't, it's all personal preference, but you are quite a ways off base with the beefs.

Without plunging into debate about the acting styles of the Golden Age, with the best modern age movies you can watch with the sound off and forget you aren’t in the middle of the scene.

It’s not perfect reality. The leading lady never has to take a piss. Nobody farts.

And there’s no Gary Cooper on the street waiting for high noon, no Humphrey Bogart on the African Queen, and no Rita Hayworth dancing with Fred Astaire. There is a loss of glamour.

But the modern movie puts you in the scene, not watching a screen.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

Without plunging into debate about the acting styles of the Golden Age, with the best modern age movies you can watch with the sound off and forget you aren’t in the middle of the scene.

It’s not perfect reality. The leading lady never has to take a piss. Nobody farts.

And there’s no Gary Cooper on the street waiting for high noon, no Humphrey Bogart on the African Queen, and no Rita Hayworth dancing with Fred Astaire. There is a loss of glamour.

But the modern movie puts you in the scene, not watching a screen.

I'm not sure I understand all that and won't argue, but I disagree heartily that so-called "non-modern" movies don't put you "in the scene". Sure some styles of movie back in the day were more "glamour" but many were gritty (see "Noir"), many were pretty serious dramas, some were outdoor on a scale never done before, some were all studio, and so forth.

I don't agree that I am somehow more detached or less engaged watching a movie of any period in history that I enjoy (and even some that aren't my favorites).

 

[K.E. Powell]

I'd be hard pressed to further cement my reputation as something of a pedant, but "modern classic" is a oxymoron that is hard to define. Most of the movies people are listing here are two or three decades old or more; many aren't even from this century!

Still, I sort of get what you're driving at, but I'm going to try to list a few films that are ten years old or fewer. I feel that is close enough to modernity, at any rate.

The Tragedy of MacBeth: truly an amazing version of the Bard's tragedy. The cinematography in particular is utterly brilliant. It manages to feel true to the source material and yet fresh with an identify of its own, which is no meager feat when adopting a play that is several centuries old.

Marriage Story: one of the best written and best acted portrayals of the ugly dissolution of a marriage put on screen. Raw and emotional, but never cynical.

Silence: one of Scorsese's most overlooked works. A wonderful exploration of religion and purpose that covers a often-neglected point in history.

Moonlight: there's little more that I can say about this film that hasn't already been said. It's a beautiful exploration of masculinity and sexuality and how that intersects with race. It's one of those films that, for lack of better words, makes you feel more human after watching it.

Spiderman: Into the Spider-verse: I'm a pretty big nerd, but even I am sick to death of staid and low-risk superhero films. But this one is the exception. The animation is like nothing before it or since, and it really captures what can make superhero comics so magical when done right. It's also delightfully funny and a lot of fun.

 

[bangzoom]

Coen Bros..
Never disappoints..

 

[renfield]

Alien.

Slow, deliberate pacing to start. More questions than answers to start. Then an ever accelerating pacing. Great use of sound to build ambience. Great use of color. A great cast. A perfect melding of sci-fi, suspense and horror. No overt theme except simple survival.

On a big screen with a good sound system it delivers every time.

 

[gubbyduffer]

"Golden Age" timespan is up for debate, but you don't define it. But . . your critique is overgeneralized and frankly, pretty uninformed and beyond just a matter of taste. You can't have watched many of the scores of films available made in the USA and elsewhere from each decade of the 30s, 40s, 50s, for example (just using generally accepted decades from the "Golden Age" without getting into when it may have started or ended) in any reasonable way and come up with those faux complaints. If you are just talking about early "talkies" (not the "Golden Age") I can see the reaction, but sure doesn't sound like it.

Like movies, don't, it's all personal preference, but you are quite a ways off base with the beefs.

My critique isn't that overly generalised. I admit it's just my viewing preference. It's pretty much unarguably that the likes of Brando and Dean changed cinema. The presentation of films and the acting within them has changed massively over the decades. Here's an article below that says just that. I just prefer a more modern grittier style where you feel part of the scene rather than clearly watching actors wander round to hit their assigned mark, pause briefly and deliver their line, and then waiting statuesque for another actor to deliver theirs. It looks fake to me.
For Better or For Worse: How Acting Has Evolved Since the 1930s - http://blog.colaborator.com/main/article/for-better-or-for-worse-how-acting-as-evolved-in-1930s-40s

 

[Gimlet]

What is a classic movie?

Or indeed a modern one. They've only existed for 130 odd years.

 

[keith929]

Brando,Sheen,Duvall,Fishburne,Hopper and Harrison Ford ?
All my favorites in one place.

 

[gamzultovah]

Hacksaw Ridge.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

My critique isn't that overly generalised. I admit it's just my viewing preference. It's pretty much unarguably that the likes of Brando and Dean changed cinema. The presentation of films and the acting within them has changed massively over the decades. Here's an article below that says just that. I just prefer a more modern grittier style where you feel part of the scene rather than clearly watching actors wander round to hit their assigned mark, pause briefly and deliver their line, and then waiting statuesque for another actor to deliver theirs. It looks fake to me.
For Better or For Worse: How Acting Has Evolved Since the 1930s - http://blog.colaborator.com/main/article/for-better-or-for-worse-how-acting-as-evolved-in-1930s-40s

Yes it was, simplistic and overgeneralized, and now a cite to a not much article which doesn't have anything to do with your original point and this crap about "wander round to hit their assigned mark, pause briefly and deliver their line, and then waiting statuesque, blah, blah, blah . . ." That doesn't even describe the vast majority of films made, period.

You just don't know what your are talking about and clearly have seen few films from the 30s, 40s and so forth. If you want to think Brando and Dean changed cinema, more power to you. They certainly influenced it like many before and after.

But your criticisms of actors from the "Golden Age" - (which most would agree includes the 50s and 60s and your boys) just aren't reasonable or accurate.

Films aren't homogeneous, actors aren't homogeneous in any year or decade.

Just limiting us to the 30s there are literally dozens of actors in hundreds of films that prove your statements kind of silly. They aren't filmed "plays". The actors aren't wooden, stilted, lol.

Rather than a list of folks, most of whom you've probably never seen in a movie, that would fill the page, just a few names of folks that were every bit or frankly much more the measure of Brando or Dean as actors: Kay Francis, Barbara Stanwyck, Irene Dunne, Greer Garson, Mae Whitty, Margaret Rutherford, Ronald Colman, Sydney Greenstreet, Errol Flynn, Edmund Gwenn, Henry Travers, William Powell, Claude Rains, Jimmy Cagney - that's probably enough of a cross section of incredible talent. If you watch Kay Francis and your thoughts are hitting marks and "wooden" you don't have pulse.

I'd encourage you to sample many, many more movies. No greater pleasure. Enjoy the stars you like, but don't level nothing critiques when you don't know what you are talking about in the direction of legions of film legends and pioneers.

 

[Ash Cooper]

 

[warren]

I kinda envy you folks with the ability to suspend reality for a couple of hours. And, method actors, Brando is one, simply run me out of the theater. I want an actor/actress who is believable, simply reacting to what is happening in the scene. Not some guy with a mouth full of cotton, mumbling. Method acting is too much method and not enough "natural" reacting. I want folks who can react, naturally, to a line or emotion from the other actors. I guess I want reality in movies. My wife and daughter tried to get me into Star Wars and other space stuff by telling me they were just westerns set in the future. My head simply can't accept space movies no matter how well they are done. Ron Howard's best movie excepted.

 

[warren]

Want a scene from an "old" movie that puts you into the movie? The scent from GWTW of the dead, dying, wounded and maimed in Atlanta does it for me. Every time! And most of the "bodies" in the scene are manikins. Even knowing it was simply a movie, it causes my eyes to widen.

 

[warren]

Duvall is an American treasure. Even in his less than stellar movies he seems to perform at his best. I don't believe he's ever "phoned it in."