Movies you think were ahead of their time.

gargus

gargus

Banned
What are some movies you watch and think they were way ahead of the curse for their time. Ones that brought something to film that no one else did that later still has a big impact.

Ill go way back with a couple starter examples.

Vampyr from 1932. If you watch it all you can definitely compare it to something of like david lynch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIHbod_zNWg&feature=related


A trip to the moon from 1902. Granted its not like a normal real movie and more like a very elaborate play but its still an amazing piece of work considering its 108 years old. The special effects and trickery were fantastic for its time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JDaOOw0MEE
 
Man With A Movie Camera. For the late 20's/early 30's the concept and effects were spectucular... although hasn't really stood the test of time imo... although there are many people who may not agree with me.
 
damn thats a good question i guess the one flick i can think of is the dark crystal.jim henson was always above the curve when it came to making adult themed childrens entertainment and thats one movie thats always stuck out in my mind as amazing. though im not sure if he did the whole thing or just the puppets but i think he did it all.

the only people i see doing anything remotely like that is pixar and even then.
 
[quote name='joe2187']The Third Man:

The greatest Noir film ever made, it's chaotic and beautiful use of perspective in certain scenes, and it's crazy camera angles that make you nervous, to it's unorthodox soundtrack, and the ending is probably one of the most memorable of all time.[/QUOTE]
Brilliant. fucking. Post.

:applause:
 
Here are a few off the top of my head:

The Thing (John Carpenter's version)
Metropolis
Guess whos coming to dinner (with Sidney Poitier)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Night of the Living Dead
War of the Worlds (the older version, Not the Tom Cruise one)
 
What about it had to be ahead of it's time because movies were ahead of their time for many different reasons, some will argue they were or were not based on this.

Back to the Future series
Soylent Green sounds like it was, haven't seen it yet
Saving Private Ryan
the first Matrix
Truman Show
Wizard of Oz
Forrest Gump
Manchurian Candidate
The Thing
the first Jurassic Park
King Kong
In the Mouth of Madness
12 Monkeys
Exorcist
Planet of the Apes
Terminator 1&2
 
I mean no disrespect to anyone whom listed it above--but saying 'Jurassic Park' without any explanation brings up thoughts like "Why?" Perhaps you refer to the integrity of its theatrical sound--or to its computer-generated imagery?


[quote name='joe2187']The Third Man: The greatest Noir film ever made, it's chaotic and beautiful use of perspective in certain scenes, and it's crazy camera angles that make you nervous, to it's unorthodox soundtrack, and the ending is probably one of the most memorable of all time.[/QUOTE]


This.



On a related note, I nominate 'M'.

LangM.jpg


The film still feels modern. Lang brilliantly used sound to create atmosphere and lure emotions. And, Peter Lorre as "Hans Beckert" set a standard for all future film psychopaths to follow.
 
[quote name='Chase']I mean no disrespect to anyone whom listed it above--but saying 'Jurassic Park' without any explanation brings up thoughts like "Why?" Perhaps you refer to the integrity of its theatrical sound--or to its computer-generated imagery?
.[/QUOTE]
CGI
Totally understandable, which is why I asked what about it had to be ahead of its time because films may have only done a single thing to qualify.
 
Jurassic Park's CGI is still leaps and bound above a lot of CGI that followed for equally big movies. Like The Mummy, which is probably the biggest movie to feature terrible CGI. That stupid "stretchy mouth" effect (creature lets out a scream, mouth stretches vertically in unintentionally comical fashion) that is singlehandedly the worst CGI gimmick ever. Seen in countless movies since, like Legion, etc.

For me, I only like movies that take the option of having the tangible instead of the intangible. For example, comparing Aliens to Pitch Black. Both had alien creatures, but the Alien was absolutely horrifying because it was real (a physical prop/actor), whereas Pitch Black wasn't scary at all because you knew every creature was totally fake.

The scene where Hicks checks above the droptile ceiling in Aliens creeps me out every time. More than Tom Skerrit in the airduct in the previous movie. fucking masterful.
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']Jurassic Park's CGI is still leaps and bound above a lot of CGI that followed for equally big movies. Like The Mummy, which is probably the biggest movie to feature terrible CGI. That stupid "stretchy mouth" effect (creature lets out a scream, mouth stretches vertically in unintentionally comical fashion) that is singlehandedly the worst CGI gimmick ever. Seen in countless movies since, like Legion, etc.

For me, I only like movies that take the option of having the tangible instead of the intangible. For example, comparing Aliens to Pitch Black. Both had alien creatures, but the Alien was absolutely horrifying because it was real (a physical prop/actor), whereas Pitch Black wasn't scary at all because you knew every creature was totally fake.

The scene where Hicks checks above the droptile ceiling in Aliens creeps me out every time. More than Tom Skerrit in the airduct in the previous movie. fucking masterful.[/QUOTE]


Thats because cgi stuff even the best done stuff is only good in moderation and only when its used properly. If you have bad cgi or to much of the viewers brain knows it fake and it subconciiously removes you from having a sense of reality to it and takes the viewer out of the movie realm.

But even practical effects were that way. The alien outfit in the original movie looking fucking stupid when you saw it full on, but it was scotts directing that made it so menacing because he never really showed it and used shadows to his advantage. Then again I hate it when you flat see the monster, like in jeepers creepers, I loved the monster in it and thought he was cool but man at the end when you see him standing right in the spotlight it ruined the whole movie for me.

Jurassic parks cgi stuff wasnt so much (to me atleast) beyond anything else. Because ilm did the effects and have been doing effects for tons of movies from back in star wars days till newer movies today. The cgi was just their best in that movie even by their standards today because the blend of practical effects and cgi was used properly. The cgi wasnt used with live actors awhole lot really, close ups with people were mostly practical effects so you never had to see them coexist for very long. But it was spieldbergs last good movie before he started making obscenely boring shit.
 
Terminator 2: Judgment Day without a doubt. One of the most perfectly crafted movies I've seen (I won't say perfect as every movie has some sort of flaw) and the $100 or so million was used very wisely so the film holds up really well today in every aspect.
 
scarface. not so much as special effects. but i thought the character was ahead of his time.

also the original toy story was pretty impressive for its time, animations wise.
 
Forbidden Planet.

For 1956 or so I thought the special effects were pretty good. And it's got Robby the Robot!
 
I think Dr. Strangelove was ahead of its time in a number of ways; Peter sellers played 3 roles in that, something that was copied heavily in lame Eddie Murphy films decades later. Despite the lame copy-cats, Dr. Strangelove was just a fantastic film.

Psycho (1960) was way ahead of its time in terms of sexuality on screen. While tame by today's standards, it really pushed the envelope at the time.
 
I never understood this saying. If they do something new it doesn't mean its ahead of its time, it just means they tried something new. I'll never understand this saying.
 
[quote name='AvidWriter']I never understood this saying. If they do something new it doesn't mean its ahead of its time, it just means they tried something new. I'll never understand this saying.[/QUOTE]

Ahead of its time, in this case, would be something between "Progressive" and "Advanced". In this circumstance, it means that the movie does things that nobody else had done yet, that become popular with other people doing the same thing later on.

You are correct. Doing something new does *not* make something ahead of its time. When it is imitated later on, though, it often is.


Blade Runner.. that movie was also ahead of its time thematically with all the cloning and robots, and the question of humanity in engineered beings.
 
[quote name='AvidWriter']I never understood this saying. If they do something new it doesn't mean its ahead of its time, it just means they tried something new. I'll never understand this saying.[/QUOTE]

I've always taken it to mean trying something that doesn't gain popularity until at least five years later.

For example - Pulp Fiction is a movie that was not ahead of it's time. While it was certainly fresh and original, when it came out everyone recognized it as a huge success and a ton of movies almost instanly started copying it's narrative and style. It completely belonged in the mid 90s.

In comparison I'd say Psycho was ahead of it's time. A movie that starts as a bank heist and ends as a horror movie? Killing off the main character, a major hollywood star? These are all elements that we recognize in modern movies, but I don't know of any 1960 movies that did it, much less did it half as good as Hitchcock.
 
RoboCop. Corporations run everything and are wrecking the planet, news is all sensationalist, crime is rampant, and Detroit is and will always be a run down shithole.
 
[quote name='hankmecrankme']RoboCop. Corporations run everything and are wrecking the planet, news is all sensationalist, crime is rampant, and Detroit is and will always be a run down shithole.[/QUOTE]

Flint < Detroit. They should just rename the city to Thunderdome.
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']Flint < Detroit. They should just rename the city to Thunderdome.[/QUOTE]

Complete with busted hooker that looks like Tina Turner. Even Mad Max would be scared.
 
Avatar. It was just so brilliant I don't think people really understood it. Its complexity required me to watch it through four times before I finally got it. I think most people would need to mature another few years before seeing it because it's a mind-bender.
 
A lot of the ones I'm seeing on here are awesome movies, but people seem to be equating "Good" with "Ahead of its time".
"The Good, The Bad and The Ugly", for instance, is one of my favorite movies, but it's hardly ahead of its time. You can't ignore the fact that it was the third entry in a series. A Fistful of Dollars has the distinguished honor of being the first true spaghetti western (up until that point one could argue they had all just been imitations of American westerns), and For a Few Dollars More unleashed Sergio Leone's decompressed, poetic film style---but when you really think about it TGTBATU just kind of expanded on that a little more.

For something to be truly ahead of its time, I feel like it needs to be a lone or rare example of something amongst it's contemporaries that largely went unnoticed at the time, but became a fixture to future generations.

Metropolis begat Dark City, Dark City begat Inception...It's a facile comparison, since Metropolis influenced a lot more than just Dark City, and Inception was influenced by a lot more than Dark City, but hey---people can write masters theses on this stuff., and I don't have that kind of time.
 
[quote name='camoor']I've always taken it to mean trying something that doesn't gain popularity until at least five years later.

For example - Pulp Fiction is a movie that was not ahead of it's time. While it was certainly fresh and original, when it came out everyone recognized it as a huge success and a ton of movies almost instanly started copying it's narrative and style. It completely belonged in the mid 90s.
.[/QUOTE]

I think we like to post something as being ahead of its time even if is just simply innovative or revolutionary. Pulp Fiction fits this I guess. If something had not been done before we love to say it was ahead of its time. Someone brought up Toy Story. Going further back, I would have to think early Disney cartoons/films were ahead of their time or at least innovative/revolutionary. I don't know anything about the history of animation though.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']
Lloyd.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Haha amazing. I haven't seen that in YEARS totally forgot about it!

Jurassic Park is up there for me, still better looking CGI that alot of films since its release. Blade Runner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top