Really depends on your age, I guess. For me, anything made in 1990 and later is new(ish) and everything before that is old. I imagine if you were born in the 2010s, even 90s movies feel very old.
1995 was 30 years ago.
In 1995, 30 year old movies would have been made in 1965, and in the 90s we would have absolutely considered movies made in the 60s to be "old".
So, I'd say yes, movies made in 1995 could be considered old.
The plot of Austin Powers revolves around thawing a man who has been frozen for 30 years, from 1967 to 1997. Only 2 years to go before we reach 30 years from that movie's release.
Time is relative. A 5 year old piece of software is ancient. A 100 year old stone church is very recent. If you find a stone axe that isn’t at least 10 000 years old, you can toss it back where you found it.
Based on when I was young, I basically thought of anything from before I was born as "old". Not consciously, just that everything from "my" decade seemed modern, and everything else was old.
Even now, movies from 20+ years ago look old, even though I remember them being super new when they came out. The Matrix had aged pretty well, but it defintely looks old. I thought LOTR was timeless, but I rewatched it recently and did start to feel it was showing it's age (but none the worse for it!).
A while back, someone told me. If you read a book from the 19th century, you won't call-it an "old book", so why would a movie from the 1950's be an old movie. And indeed, even in movies, there is some master piece which came out a while ago and are still relevant today (Seven Samurai, the Godfather or the Good, the bad and ugly immediately come to my mind) and tons of movie which while not being a recent release are still fun to watch today.
I absolutely would consider a book from the 19th century an old book, just as I'd consider the movies you mentioned as old movies. But a great movie is a great movie regardless of age.
i like this comment a lot :) and that someone made a rlly good point.
i feel the same way with games. i feel a lot of pressure to buy better gaming specs but then spend my time playing games like half life, doom, and command and conquer. also pixels and polygons are so much prettier than realism
If, after 30 years it still has a lot of cultural relevance, I'd think of it as a "classic" movie.
If it doesn't, if it hasn't aged well and/or faded into obscurity, I think it's fair to think of it as an old movie.
Probably around '95, I would have been watching Star Wars for the first time. It didn't feel like an old movie to me then and it still doesn't to this day. Other movies from that same era haven't aged quite as well and felt "old" to me.
Looking at some of the top movies from '95, some of them are just as enjoyable or relevant today as they were when they released, others feel dated and not relevant to me today.
It's going to depend on your personal tastes and experiences of course. I can also sprinkle in a lot of platitudes like "you're only as old as you feel" and "one man's trash is another man's treasure"
I think there's also room for some overlap. There's classic movies that also feel dated. I think some movies can be both old and classics. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn't agree that, for example, Casablanca, isn't old, but I think that just about everyone agrees that it's also a classic. Where the line is is pretty murky.