When i wanted to rate this movie ,I said to my self :
with which standards I should rate it : the standards of 1958 or 2009 ?
I would like to know how people rated this movie in 1958 ?
every thing depend on other things
...................................mosash .......
Why not just enjoy the movie as is, regardless of the year it was released? If you didn't like it, then it wasn't your cup of tea. If you enjoyed it, then it did its job.
shareIt was released in major cities during the Thanksgiving weekend of 1958 and full scale release followed. In less than 8 weeks the film made over 6 million dollars for Columbia...that's a HUGE chunk of change in the late fifties....sort of close to 100 million today...
I would say that this is a good indication that the movie was really well received back then...rating this 1958 movie against, say, one of the Lord of the Rings films for example, is like the old comparison of apples to organges.
http://www.woodywelch.com
I think the year it was released does matter. Movie fans of today are used to CGI spec. effects and would unfairly rate this movie's Spec.FX as cheesy when for the time it was state of the art.
I saw it as a youngster in 1958 or 59 and thought it was a fantastic movie. Of course having fallen in love with Kathryn Grant influenced my opinion.
I saw it in 1960 (movies had a longer theatrical run back then). It was the first movie I ever saw on a big screen in a theater, and I was suitably impressed.
I still manage to watch it every few years or so, and I'm still impressed. It's not just nostalgia, it's a damn fine film that still holds up.
Plus, I think that Kathryn Grant induced early puberty on me :)
In fact, I think I'll watch it again tonight...
Thanks , mumpymorte
I believe that Fifties & Sixties , are magical world , what ever you watch .
I saw it in a theatre in 1958 and jumped out of my seat at the first appearance of the cyclops. He's still my second favorite movie monster (nobody bumps Kong)and I have him as my desktop image at work. I'm surprised at how many 20 and 30 somethings recognize him.
Remember, the generation after this one is going to consider CGI as cheesy as many CGI-ers consider stop motion.
Grendel 1950
I watched it in 1958. I loved it then. I love it now.
shareI want to the show (20 Cents) in 1958. Dug it than, dig it now! It's on the right side of my office stacked with other SyFy and Horror flicks.
My rating for 2012..19
My rating for 1958...it was swell!
Okay, I'm admittedly fond of this film for sentimental reasons, as it was the first movie my dad took me to JUST for me. (At the Rockne Theater in Chicago, soon after it came out.) And, of course, I was completely overwhelmed by it.
So yeah, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the film.
But, realistically speaking, I've never grown tired of it, I've never found that I've outgrown it.
Yes, it's rather a juvenile-oriented film, but what's wrong with that? Isn't MGM's "Wizard of Oz"? Aren't a lot of Disney animated films? If a film is good enough it transcends its genre and demographic, and this one certainly did. It was, after all, a fairy tale (if an Arabic one), and certainly Harryhausen's most juvenile film (with the possible exception of "3 Worlds of Gulliver," which can't hold a candle to this one). There's something in this film for everyone, it's a fairy tale for the ages.
And if people nowadays can't see the wonder in this film (and many others) because it's not "realistic" enough, given CGI nowadays, then there's something lacking in their own ability to put reality on hold, it isn't a reflection upon the film.
If they're no longer able to suspend disbelief and enjoy old films, then I seriously feel sorry for them.
I should leave this comment right there, but I can't, since I've inadvertantly opened another can of worms. Take the worst monster movie you know, and realize that we used to sit wide-eyed looking at our old little black and white tv screens and be terrified of them. Why? Do you honestly believe we were that much more gullible back then? No, it was because we were willingly suspending disbelief, we were willing to believe that these fake-looking critters by your standards were real, and scary. And, believe it or not, WE knew they were fake-looking, too! But we got into the stories, and were willing to overlook the shortcomings in order to enjoy the moment. We wanted the thrills, we weren't after the criticisms! These kinds of movies are supposed to be FUN! AND scary!
Just because the technology of the time was less realistic than it is now, yet we were still capable of being scared out of our wits by, say, "It! The Terror from Beyond Space," and it doesn't mean we were total idiots. But the fact that we could get immersed in the story despite its shortcomings, where nowadays you seem to pride yourself on the fact that you can't, might say something about you, and your own inability to suspend disbelief.
Everytime I hear someone younger laugh at one of our older generation for having been gullible enough to get sucked into this stuff back then, I laugh right back...and feel sorry for them.
Of course, none of that should have much to do with this movie. It's a classic.
I'm always late to these discussions but yes, I saw this movie when it was originally released in 1958 at the grand old age of 11. It warped and distorted my whole life ... but also got me into stop-motion animation which ultimately led to a very long and lucrative career with a professional film/video firm.
How it measures up with today's films is apples and oranges. The cyclops was, of course, my runaway favorite because of how much personality Harryhausen was able to inject into a 16" slab of rubber and steel ... its "slow burn" whenever hit with a spear, as if making up his mind whether or not to be enraged, its deliberately awkward stride, brilliant sound-effect bellow (would still love to know how it was done), its obsession with hoarding glittery treasure, and so on.
But most of all you can sense the art that went into movies like these. Today's CGI seems so effortless it has gained a ho-hum quality, and tiny errors in the animation can destroy the effect far worse that the occasional jerkiness of by-guess-and-by-God hand animation. The flaws can actually work for you ... in the 1933 King Kong, finger pressure on the model's fur caused it to ruffle from frame to frame, and made the creature look like it was bristling with rage, a very unexpected but effective side effect!
At any rate, I confess to being among the old guard who saw it during its original release, loved every moment of it ... and thanks to DVD, still do!
I saw it at the theater while in junior high-long time ago. I'm 66 now and enjoy it just as much today as I did then. I am a model builder and have built two models-one reisn, one vinyl- of the cyclops. They each come with two heads-one one horned, the other two horned. I'd love to get the dragon.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
Yes, I saw it in late '58 or early '59 at a Saturday matinee. I sat in the front row for three complete showings and left the theatre only when my parents came looking for me around 7 in the evening.
You can't compare the fx in this movie to fx of today that have taken a quantum leap beyond what artists were capable of in the fifties.
A certified fantasy classic that has influenced dozens of movie makers for over half a century.
To God There Is No Zero. I Still Exist.