Best Picture Winners of the 90s - Will they stand the test of time? (1 Viewer)

[Paul_D]

Whether you think Manhunter is better or not is really irrelevant. A lot more have seen Silence.

I just stuck that in there to get a few people riled up.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Gary said

So how does Citizen Kane fit into this criteria ??.. unless you are referring to "after the fact"...

See criteria number three.
I probably didn't make it clear about my criteria for standing the test of time. A movie has to meet at least ONE of those criteria. In the case of Citizen Kane, the mere fact that it gets mentioned in the AFI top 100 movies (being #1 also gives it that much of a boost), its placement in S&S, and notable film critics and their praise of it year after year will pretty much make sure that people through the ages will be aware of it.
As for The English Patient, I'm not at all making any thematic judgement on the movie at all, quite impossible considering I've never seen the movie. What I was basing my logic on as to why a movie like The English Patient won't stand the test of time (besides my base criteria) is basically I haven't heard much of anything about it since then. Ever since it won all those awards in the Oscars, the mention of the film pretty much dropped off the radar. I've mentioned it before in another thread that I akin such phenomena to Roger Maris' old homerun record of 61. Sure we know who Roger Maris is because he held a record for so many years. But with Mark McGwire breaking it in 1998, and maybe Barry Bonds breaking the record in 2001, who's going to remember Roger Maris? Ask a kid five years from now, and they might remember. But how about 20 to 30 years? Sure, the English Patient might've been a great movie and won lots of awards, but it will simply vanish into the myriad of other great movies that have come and gone since. The only way it will exist in the minds of movie goers today and tomorrow is if they keep running that episode of Seinfeld over and over and over and...
------------------
"I don't know, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." - Homer J. Simpson
My DVD Collection

 

[Hubert]

One simple answer. Only time will tell.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I'd throw my hat in to support Shakespeare in Love. I think it's a truly excellent movie. The original post made some good points about whether or not these movies will be remembered. I'd agree that movies like Forrest Gump or American Beauty might not age all that well.
Of the Ten winners from the 90's, I'd say the following few will still be remembered fondly in 25 years:
Silence of the Lambs
Schindler's List
Shakespeare in Love
Braveheart
Titanic (like it or not!)
------------------
Scott
Check out my Movie Reviews at Epinions. Help support my debilitating DVD addiction!
AOL IM: TheAngryJew29

 

[andrew markworthy]

With respect, I think it's a mistake to classify the Oscars as lowbrow/lacking in judgement, because they don't pick the best 'art' movie of the year. They generally make a pretty good job of picking the movie which is the best balance of appealing to *contemporary* taste and artistic merit. However, contemporary taste is a fickle thing, and some movies which were *huge* at the time fail miserably a few years later. Of the list given, I'd personally say that only Silence of the Lambs and Forrest Gump are likely to survive the test of time. SOTL is, after all the hype, a very good, intelligent thriller. One of the features of the film is how little gore there is, and yet at the end of the movie you feel you've been in a charnel house for the last couple of hours. Forrest Gump is likely to survive because it is a quirky movie with some charm (critics will eventually stop posturing over whether it's reactionary in its views).
IMHO, the other movies are (with the exception of Braveheart) far from bad, but I doubt if any of them will be seen as among the greats. I doubt if Schindler's List will be seen as a timeless classic. I find it hard not to be reduced to tears by sections of Schindler's List, but that is the subject matter, not the film itself. Trying to objective about it, I found sections of it rather over-stylised. Dances With Wolves, Titanic, American Beauty and the Unforgiven are forgettable, if competently made. Braveheart is dumbed-down history (and seriously inaccurate history at that). I also suspect that Shakespeare in Love will not stand the test of time. The jokes aren't all that funny (even when you know the historical/literary background), the plot is very corny (just try re-watching the end again to see what I mean) and it's too long.
Incidentally, the British BAFTA [British Academy of Film and Television Arts] awards are often felt to be more 'cerebral' than the Oscars. I thought I'd provide a list of the 'best film' winners for the 1990s to see if anyone agrees with this argument:
Gladiator (2000)
American Beauty (1999)
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
Full Monty, The (1997)
English Patient, The (1996)
Sense and Sensibility (1995)
Usual Suspects, The (1995)
Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
Schindler's List (1993)
Howards End (1992)
Commitments, The (1991)
Goodfellas (1990)

 

[John Spencer]

It was a decent enough case until they picked Gladiator for the 2000 best picture. So it's now a cerebral hack-em, slash-em period piece?

 

[Paul_D]

The Full Monty - Best Film?!??!

Ok.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Awakenings - I get chills just thinking about it. Compelling performances by both Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro

Agreed. This should have been DeNiro's third Oscar (and probably would have been, if Hoffman and Day-Lewis hadn't won back-to-back best actor awards for playing disabled people). Incredible work. Anyone who isn't moved by DeNiro watching Penelope Ann Miller walk across the parking lot...is probably incapable of being moved.
Best of the 90s? I find it difficult to boil it down to one. Goodfellas is a strong contender. Heavenly Creatures, The Age of Innocence, and Crash (yes, Crash--on Ebert's 'Best of the Decade' wrap-up show, Martin Scorsese himself agreed with me on this one) are also high on my list.
--Jefferson Morris

 

[TheLongshot]

I didn't mean that I thought it deserved Best Picture. It isn't BP material. What I was saying, was that those 3 films are my personna; favourites of the decade - awards or lack of aside - and that I hope they will mature to become cast-iron modern classics.

Ok. Believe it or not, there were a lot of people lobbying for it to be nominated. While it was good, it wasn't that good.
Jason
------------------
My DVD Collection

 

[rhett]

I thought De Niro was robbed for "Awakenings", performances just don't get better than that.

I also thought "Heat" was unfairly snubbed at the Oscars. It was an epic heist movie if there ever was one.

 

[Josh_Hill]

With the exception of English Patient, I would say that yes, they will all stand the test of time very well.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I think the key is to see how some of these films have already held up. Remember that Kane was nothing till about 10 years later when it suddenly clicked into greatness/classic status. So for some of these we can already see this happening.
1990 - Dances With Wolves - remembered but probably not critically regarded as classic, call it semi-classic
1991 - The Silence of the Lambs - already implanted as classic. Hannibal's opening BO tells you that. Just say the name Hannibal Lector to anyone and it's like saying "Psycho" to them.
1992 - Unforgiven - Semi-classic as one of Clint's best by the average account. Great lines or characters help a film become classic, this has the "We all got it coming, kid" and the "I've killed women and children. I've killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you done to Ned"
1993 - Schindler's List - already classic
1994 - Forrest Gump - I think classic too, character is just too memorable and already quoted in pop culture too much. Just try to order shrimp at a seafood place without wanting to quote it. God help you if you come across a box of chocolates.
1995 - Braveheart - maybe not classic because it doesn't quite have the catchy pop culture stuff to it, nor is it as affecting as Schindler's List, but beloved by many people so I think it will still get good ratings as a ABC Sunday Night movie 10 years from now.
1996 - The English Patient - no, this just didn't stick in popular culture enough. It will be liked still but not remembered as a classic.
1997 - Titanic - I think already classic due to it's overwhelming presence in pop culture. Think about this, the real Titanic is also legendary, the first film is pretty well-remembered, this one is the BO champ by MILES, and it is referenced like crazy. "King of the world" is not fading anytime soon.
1998 - Shakespeare in Love - the film is amazing, not sure if it will stick as classic or not though. It will always be well-respected but perhaps a bit easier to forget. Hard to say though, such a great, fun romance gives it the shot at lingering like Harry Met Sally has.
1999 - American Beauty - Tough call, probably not. An excellent film but a bit hard to catch into pop culture and collective memory. Could earn critical classic status though, especially as the first dark film in ages to win an Oscar.
2000 - Gladiator - more forgotten than Braveheart. People will like it but I think it will look average in 10 years when it's not "new and fresh". Scott already surpassed it's visual style with Black Hawk Down for example.
Pulp Fiction has already started to stick. Shawshank too.
Any films that linger in the IMDb top 100 after at least 5 years release start to look like real classics.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Seth, you fool
Titanic was 1997 (it beat L.A. Confidential)
and English Patient was 1996!!!
Take care,
Chuck
Edited for grammar and comments below.
Why did Josh bring this back up? I thought about starting my "In Defense of Titanic II" thread until I realized that I started the first one in response to this I need to let it go...and I will, right after this:
I know many people actually attribute it's success to young girls seeing it over and over for Leo. But that defies all intelligent thought. While it is certainly a contribution, it's not even a major portion of it's proceeds. Girls LOVED She's All That as well. And how much did it make??
Take the most vociferous and rabid of cultural fanbases: Star Wars. Make them wait 16 years for a movie. Make it a prequel with good, popular actors, and add in groundbreaking effects. Build this to a fever pitch over a 6 month period. Unleash it on the world. Watch as the money rolls in at a fever pitch for several months. When the dust settles, you are almost at a cool billion. And you are HALFWAY to what Titanic made...with no huge opening weekends or major prerelease hype.
Not discussing the films merits at all (but I will if you want), only the business of movies. Young women do NOT account for it's success. That's a cop-out. Everyone (well, almost everyone) saw this. Let's take a quick look.
To make 1.8 BILLION dollars, you have to cross ALL boundaries: age, race, gender, political or otherwise, cultural, etc. That success comes from something. It wasn't the dialogue, or the effects, or the acting, as critics are quick to point out. The success came from the story and it's presentation. It came from the movie's ability to connect with an audience - the only thing that REALLY matters. And Cameron does that far better than most directors. Because of that, this movie will last. It defied all critics/pundits at release time. And I believe it will continue to do so. I don't expect people to like it. That's a personal preference. I just ask that you understand the plethora of reasons for it's success. The numbers speak for themselves, and they are frightening.

 

[Eric Thrall]

In 1998, I felt that Life Is Beautiful deserved Best Picture. In fact, of the four I've seen from that year (Life Is Beautiful, Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, and Shakespeare In Love), I think SiL is the least deserving of the bunch.

I'd still like someone to tell me how anyone on earth could have believed Gwyneth was a man. That was very hard to overcome - and may have tainted the movie for me. If this was a low-budget independent film or something, I would have suspended my disbelief, but in a major studio effort, I shouldn't need to do that - they should have done better with the costume, or hired a woman who could successfully pull of a masculine appearance. I was squirming every second she was on the screen and people were not screaming "Hey - you're a woman!"

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Whether they stand the test of time or not, being a best picture winner seems to at least have enough cachet to keep a film circulating on video. There are only three best picture winners going back to 1940 that have not yet been released on R1 DVD: Schindler's List (1994), The Greatest Show on Earth (1953), and Mrs. Miniver (1943). Part of the trick to standing the test of time is being seen.
Also, I would gladly re-watch any of the best picture winners from the 90s before I would ever want to see Cimarron.
Regards,

 

[Paul Richardson]

Titanic will cease to be remembered when the women who were 13 in 1997 start to die off.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Paul,

That's about 70 years longer than most movies. See my above comments. I was a 22 year old male, and I saw it 5 times in the theater.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Jon_W]

Dances With Wolves - I think this film has held up very well. Jury is still out on whether it will be a classic.
The Silence of the Lambs- Classic. This one should stand the test of times. I know I can watch it over and over agian.
Unforgiven - I never really clicked with this movie, although I think it is well done
Schindler's List - classic
Forest Gump - Forest has already lost something since 1994. I doubt this will hold up
Braveheart - hard to tell. I think this is a film that is well made and will hold up.
The Englsh Patient - To me this is a classic
Titianic - The Ben-Hur of our time. Bad acting and all. This will be a hated classic if that makes any sense.
Shakespeare in Love - no classic. Will not be remembered. Good movie.
American Beauty- too soon to tell anything
0Gladiator- The Sound of Music of our time. People will look back and ask what the Academy was smoking.
IMHO

 

[Andrew_Sch]

I've got to disagree with you on Unforigiven and Braveheart . Unforgiven is as yet the best modern western ever made (by that I mean after the "golden era" of the Duke and young Clint) and Braveheart is just a damn good movie. I think American Beauty will definitely be remembered. It firmly established Kevin Spacey as a bona-fide great actor and struck a nerve with just about everyone who saw it.
The three biggest travesties on the list are Dances With Wolves, Shakespeare In Love and Titanic . Goodfellas , Saving Private Ryan and LA Confidential were all superior films that were robbed due to the Academy's obsessions with the almighty box office, cheesy romance, and Miramax. Just compare the films with there counterparts and ask yourself,"Which will I remember more twenty years from, the winner or the one that got robbed?"

 

[Josh_Hill]

2001- LOTR: Will stand the test of time....forever.