We constantly read that the "Golden Age" of the movies is long gone. Maybe it was the 30's, when viewing figures were at their highest, maybe it was the 40's with film noir, maybe the 70's with countless cult classics. Or are we only now getting the best output from cinemas - with directors becoming more creative and adventurous, and actors honing their craft. What do you think, do you care?

The best films are made every year. A handful of genuine classics always slips by despite the best efforts of ignorant producers and apathetic audiences. Always have done, always will.

Agreed. Watch TCM, and see some of the crap that was made pre-1950.

The 'best' films are neither made now or then. Some good, some bad, some masterpieces every year.

Great movies are being made all the time. All that changes is how many and how popular they are.

Films used to be better when I were a kid.

There was a great film made in 1977 but, if you move forward 22 years to 1999, you'll clearly see a considerable drop in standards . . .

Oooh I don't know...I think the rot set in in 1983.

The decline definitely started around then . . .

I do love the teen 80's movies! They rock somewhat.
I am loving that whole new Charlie Kaufman, Butterfly Effect, The Forgotten, Fight Club fucking with your mind movies that are getting popular now.
And the odd comedys... I Heart Huckabees

I'm pretty damn sick of the blockbusters...and the endless parade of war movies, e.g Troy, Alexander, Kingdom of God....
man it's all seen one battle seen them all...
The prebattle speeches were best in Braveheart...
but MOSTLY...Henry V th, Shakespeare...that St Krispins day one always makes me weep!

I watch mostly forgein films anyways.
luvs nix

Where in a golden age right now.

I think every decade, and every country, churns out the sublime and the awful.

For me the last 10 years has been a golden age because with the advent of DVD I can see so many amazing films that I never normally would get to see....and they mainly seem to be from Asia.

Some movies appeal to the day when they were released, some movies get better over time as the message stays the same and some movies are timeless. It is hard to say that a specific age had the best films when you look back in retrospect. I still find myself falling for old and new films alike. "Pulp Fiction" is certainly not a recent film and yet I still thoroughly rate it, the same can be said for "The Godfather" and so many more. Sometimes it is the director that inspires such quality in movies; Kubrick for instance, and the Coen Brothers. Everything is subjective in movies but I can never say that one era was better than another.

The golden age of the studio is over and done with, definitely. Just look at the crap they're green-lighting these days -- Are We There Yet?, The Pacifier, Alone in the Dark, Son of the Mask. But we've seen a wealth of quality cinema produced outside the confines of Hollywood, so the art form is alive and well. I hesitate to call it a renaissance of auterism, but, certainly, there are some highly-skilled directors working today who, in time, may some day be whispered of in the same breath as your Altmans, Coppolas, Scorseses, and whomsoever.

Again, this poll hasn't given me an option I can outrightly vote for!!!

But I think the golden age died when they stopped making movies in two parts so you could get up and stretch you legs half way through.

ooooh, pretty colours...

pretty colours are nicey nicey mmmmm

Luverly swirly shapes

Wonder what was in these pills...

Mmmmmm nicey nicey

trouble is there is a market for those sort of films. some people just aren't interested in 'film' as such, they're happy to just while away a few hours watching whatever is in front of them, and don't care if it's pushing boundaries/re-shaping genres etc... so while there's money to be made in the trash market they'll unfortunatley keep churning them out. speaking of which I hear there is a follow up to 'Saw' sorry personal gripe.

They're doing the same thing to the film industry that they did to the music industry, mass produced, plasticised, commercial, crap with only about 3 storylines that they rehash over and over again

wahay! Which one of you is the caveman?

While there's plenty of brilliant films around, I can't think of any films I like from earlier than the 70s... Just about every film I've seen from the days of black and white, or early colour, they've been utterly dreadful.

Get out there and see some films!

I'm kind of envious...he still has the joys of Hitchcock, Pressburger & Powell, It's A Wonderful Life, Night Of The Hunter, Keaton & Singin In The Rain to experience

Not even that far back, classics from the 60's too... Steve McQueen and Paul Newman. Get stuck in lad! Oh and don't neglect the Westerns

And the best Bond films, Peter Sellers films and Carry Ons

Ahhhh Peter Sellers. Genius. He never found the role though. He came close with Strangelove, but never to his full potential. What a sad waste.

I'm not really opposed to either era of filmmaking. I do feel that I enoyed more of the movies that came out when I was child, but that I was also of a younger age then so I'm sure my opinion was slightly less versified than it is now. The thing I think is missing with a lot of the movies that are out now is a sense that the script writers tried to present an original or solid idea. Naturally I go right for Star Wars with this one. I think that filmmakers should approch thier movies as Lucas did with A New Hope. There he had little money and relied on a good story to carry the viewers attention. The same coudl be said with more modern movies like Clerks. It had excellent writing and cost $22,769 to make.
Bottom line with a movie should be: "What's the point of the story, and why is it worth telling?"

I think the success of Star Wars (originally) is more down to the design and special effects, and tapping into a well worked formula. In no way was the story individual - its a reworking of Kurowsawa's Hidden Fortress - and Lucas admits to using Joseph Campbells book "The Heros with a thousand Faces" constantly when writing the Star Wars script, using its study of universal myths to create the plot.

Lucas' inability to plot and write (and direct) a film can easily be seen in the last 2 films (Eps 1 & 2).

Having said that, I would happily call it a classic if only for the bench mark it set for design, effects and marketing. And it was a major part of one of the "Golden Ages" which saw Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, Carpenter etc at their peak.

Get thee to a video store and rent the collective oeuvres of Hitchcock, Kubrick (especially Dr. Strangelove), Orson Welles, John Ford, David Lean, Elia Kazan, Billy Wilder, etc, etc, etc.

And the ironic thing about that is that Lucas post Star Wars, sued people for plagiarism.

The whole Death Star Trench Run was lifted from 633 Squadron.

He tried to stop Battlestar Galactica!!!!

Eggs?

I don't think that the time period in which it was made can dictate whether a movie be good or bad.

I wouldn't say the golden-age of movies is over at all-the only thing is that nowadays you gotta filter through a lot of crap to find the good stuff.

Have you seen some of the crap they used to produce for drive-ins? Or many non-Ealing British comedies before the mid-60s? Undemanding films for undemanding audiences have always been the mainstay of the film industry, and probably always will be. Thankfully, that doesn't seem to prevent the odd good film slipping through the cracks.

I love some of that drive-in crap. You ain't lived unless you seen Village Of The Giants!!!