Special effects | Film, Music, and Radio | Club Dahlia

Scarlett said:

Sometimes I love watching old movies just for the interesting (or nonexistent) special effects. I think that it's all by the standards of the time. For the 1940s I think no special effects were necessary for a film to be good. By today's standards, a newer film needs to have effects that at least match others to be good. I guess it depends on what takes you of the film too. Bad special effects in newer films will distract me from the story, but not so much in older films where I expect it more.

I agree, Scarlett…I, too, enjoy old movies for their lack of special effects.  In such classics, the strength of the film and its plot relies solely upon the qulaity of its actors and their interpretation of the script.  The quality of these films relies more heavily upon nuanced elements of the characters--their expressions, their timing, their gestures and body language--as well as their chemistry with other actors in the film.  There just seems to be so much more "substance" to a classic film with little or no special effects;  some of today's films have nothing but special effects and yet a very thin, unconvincing story line.  I think I just tend to prefer films with a good story and superb performances by actors.  An example would be The King's Speech.  No special effects…just solid acting with a meaningful story. 

It's fun watching something like "The Mummy" or "The Monster from the Swamp" where the heroine is running as fast as she can and the "monster" is chasing her very slowly yet he is always just behind her!