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

[Dome Vongvises]

Can't this thread die a naturally death?

Personally, I'm still sticking by my guns and saying The English Patient will fall off the face of the Earth.

 

[Jeff Pryor]

Sure, all these films that have been mentioned are great works of art, but there are a couple of other less-known films that I think will hold up as well:

What's Eating Gilbert Grape: the characterization in this one is top-notch, I mean just look at Leonardo. Brilliant!

Slingblade: Very compelling story, down to earth characters in very uncomfortable situations.

My 2 cents.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Chuck, let me go on record as saying I was lazy and did a cut and paste of the first post in this thread and then edited in my comments. I should have caught that anyway, but it wasn't my original listing.
That was all Paul's doing. I will edit mine to be correct.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Some will, some won't. The following will, I predict:
Dances With Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, Schindler's List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, and Titanic.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I will remember the BETTER film, Shakespeare in Love.

Hey, does it sound any more RIGHT when someone of a differing opinion says their thoughts in the same way.

By all accounts SiL and SPR were VERY closely regarded both by fans and critics. It kills me how much this is debated here as if it's so obvious when the 2 films are considered very close in quality in reality.

For the record I noted that SiL could be one to fade a bit as merely entertaining but not "classic". However I think the same could be said for SPR.

We can all make our cases as to why WE like them, but you must consider other people's opinions too.

The big joke you guys are making is that Titanic will be forgotten after all those 13 year old girls die. Too bad that doesn't work because even if that were the true reason for the film's success, by the time those girls die they will have spent 50 years telling their kids and grandkids what a classic it is, plus demanding to see it on TV, buying videos, etc to the point that it will be entrenched in the social consciousness as a classic anyway.

Just like when I was a kid Wizard of Oz was on every year. The first time it was on wasn't due to MY demands since I had never seen it. It was the people that grew up on it that kept it alive all those years and passed it on to the next set of kids.

Waiting till the fangirls die off will take just a tad too long for the film to be wiped out.

 

[Steve Clark]

I've already forgotten about Shakespeare in Love, so my vote goes for Saving Private Ryan for staying power. SPR has the Spielberg factor and the most riveting opening 30 minutes ever going in its favor. I agree with others who say that Unforgiven is the best western ever made. I also believe it is Clint Eastwood's best film along with an unforgettable performance by Gene Hackman. Clint, Oscar and "Best Western" status will result in this movie standing the test of time.

Shawshank Redemption, with its acting, script, direction and theme, will also be regarded as a classic of the 1990s along with Titantic (no brainer with the Oscar wins and box office records) Schindler's List, with its subject matter and the Spielberg factor, and Silence of the Lambs. Braveheart and Dances with Wolves are borderline. American Beauty, SIL, English Patient and Forest Gump probably not.

Gladiator will definitely stand the test of time because of the unforgettable performance by Crowe and its epic type nature and themes as in the vain of Spartacus and Ben Hur. Many members of this forum complained about its BP win, however Traffic and CTHD have little chance to be well known classics decades from now. Gladiator remains the best movie of this decade and still holds the status of the top selling DVD.

 

[Adam_S]

Dances With Wolves, well I like it, but then, I like a lot of things the critics tell me I'm not supposed to like. I think this is semi-classic, it will be watched, and enjoyed, by most all audiences that view it in the future. It may not be highly regarded or well known by the general populace, but it will be remembered. Film snobs will always prefer scorsese over anything else, so those snobs in the future will probably remember and hold dear Goodfellas more than Dances. I think this along with Braveheart and Unforgiven will be about at popular as Bridge on teh River Kwai (ie known first for their value as great entertainment, before their artistic merits).
Silence of the Lambs, already a Classic will be well remembered.
Unforgiven - semi classic, cult status (see comments on Dances with wolves)
Schindler's List - Definite classic, Spielberg's most serious film (at least before AI), Spielberg is the most significatn filmmaker from teh past 25 years easily. In the future, he'll be a legendary director ranked alongside John Ford, Orson Welles, David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, Jean Renoir, and Akira Kurasawa. Will be remembered as part of spielberg's legacy and the subject matter it takes on.
Forrest Gump - Classic, a modern it's a wonderful life, It addresses what will undoubtedly be remembered as a tumultous period of US History through teh ever popular bumpkin story and viewpoint, and it's done very well. (10-1 though that Shawshank will be ranked higher on every critic list, Pulp Fiction will fade completely, I expect, it will not retain the popularity that Forrest Gump has and Shawshank has gained.
Braveheart - Classic. THis is grand sweeping STORYTELLING of the best kind, the film takes you away and doesn't let you go, and it's the only type of film like that on this list (with the possible exception of Titanic). So it fudges with historical facts, it's still a damn good story, and very fine movie. Film scholars will love it for comparing epics in the nineties to those from the seventies and earlier, and it appeals to a mass audience, and has grown in popularity extraordinarily. Here in teh midwest, everyone, practically, has seen braveheart, but few have seen unforgiven, goodfellas, dances with wolves, shakespeare in love, or the english patient. ONly titanic outstrips it in viewership.
The English Patient - This will fade from teh popular consciousness, but will be remembered by films scholars and buffs solely.
Titanic - Grand Classic, this movie can only be compared to Gone with the Wind for it's popular consciousness penetration, i've not even seen it all the way through, but it will be remembered longer than any other movie on this list, most likely.
Shakespeare in Love - Most likely will fade from popular consciouness even faster than english patient, colleges will show it, and film scholars will adore it no doubt, but it will not endure.
American Beauty - A footnote because of it's pretend darkness but ultimately (I hope) it will be seen as overly pretentious garbage totally in love with itself and completely failing to engage teh audience. THis is a film only the intelligentsia could love (ie a film that so utterly obfustacating and obtuse that they get to make up any interrpretation they want and then declare anyone that doesn't like it is a hopeless imbecile that can't understand true art.
Technically Dances belongs in the eighties so i'll do gladiator here as well.
Gladiator - semi classic, cult status much like Dances, Gladiator and Unforgiven.
To recap:
Dances -semi classic
Silence of the Lambs - classic
unforgiven - Semi classic, Cult film
Schindler's list - Major Classic
Forrest Gump - Classic
Braveheart - Classic, Cult Film
English Patient - forgotten
Titantic - Major Classic
Shakespeare in Love - forgotten, cult film
American Beauty - forgotten, cult film
Gladiator - semi classic, cult film
Just out of Curiousity what cheesy 90's films are most likely to be revived, enjoyed and shown at geeky scifi film festivals
I think probably Lost in Space, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turles III
Adam

 

[Wes C]

I dont think AMerican beauty cant stand the test of time because its about suburban life during the 90's. Movies like gladiator/braveheart and even the awful Titanic stand a much better chance.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I dont think AMerican beauty cant stand the test of time because its about suburban life during the 90's. Movies like gladiator/braveheart and even the awful Titanic stand a much better chance.

Yes, the fact that Braveheart, Gladiator, and Titanic lack a specific sense of time and place really works to make them timeless (he said with much sarcasm)

Regards,

 

[Wes C]

Yes, the fact that Braveheart, Gladiator, and Titanic lack a specific sense of time and place really works to make them timeless (he said with much sarcasm)

This was not really my point. I did not say those movies lack a sense of time, as that would be a truly moronic statement. We know , that the subject of the Roman Empire has the ability to become a classic (i.e Spartacus). What determines a classic is whether or not it can stand the test of time. I believe Amercian Beauty has no chance at doing this, although I did like the film. In 20 years small things that make it a good movie will mean nothing to new viewer. The sterotypical suburban mom with her SUV will not always hold true. The other subjects I mentioned could.

Sidenote: I think Schindlers List has the best chance at becoming a true classic from this list.

 

[Larry Seno Jr.]

I think American Beauty and American Psycho will both be looked at as incredible period pieces that will not stand the test of time, such as A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick often makes the mistake of set design that belies its time, and American Beauty and Psycho both do the same thing. While American Psycho takes a cynical look at the 80s from a 90's point of view, American Beauty takes a look at the conspicuous consumption of the 80s in the 90s. They are both interesting films that will look VERY dated in 20 years, unlike films such as American Confidential which I believe will stand the test of time. As much as I HATE to say it, I think that my daughters will be watching Titanic someday. We're to the point where people can't get much better looking. I look at films of the 40s and 50s and everyone is SO ugly. So I think basically modern films will stand the test of time better than earlier films will.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

In 20 years small things that make it a good movie will mean nothing to new viewer. The sterotypical suburban mom with her SUV will not always hold true.

Look closer.
The stereotypical Roman slave or Scottish Higlander in a short skirt has little relevance to me today. Fortunately, the themes of Gladiator, Braveheart, and American Beauty are timeless. It's nice when they get the details right, but none of these films are "about" the details.
Regards,

 

[Paul_D]

Jon_W, I agree with your assessment of EVERY film. Quite uncanny.

Quote:

I really can't think of anything to write in response to this. I assume it was a joke.

 

[Mark Evans]

Ahh, so many movies, so many wasted nights watching the Oscars... .
Even when a movie I think deserves Best Picture actually wins the prize (which has happened maybe twice in the last decade), I don't consider that to be a triumph, I consider it to be a fluke or the result of an ad campaign. The Oscars mean absolutely nothing as the true measure of a film, they're just so well-known that they've acquired a pop-culture invincibility of sorts.
People like us, regular folks, talking about movies and reminiscing about ones that held special meaning is the true measure of how memorable a movie will be, I think, irregardless of awards. I mean, how many of us hold onto fond memories of Ghostbusters or The Terminator? And we'll pass those memories on to our children, and those movies will literally stand the test of time based on that. Just a thought.
Also, I've hated the Oscars ever since L.A. Confidential and Traffic both got totally robbed by vastly inferior films. but I'm not bitter .

 

[Joseph Young]

Dances With Wolves - Rewarded more for its subject matter (fine by me) but I found the execution lackluster, and the film itself tedious. Its epic scale almost guaranteed its win though.
The Silence of the Lambs - Surprisingly deep, universal themes run through it, but the remarketing and subsequent sequel's glamourization of the Clarice/Lechter relationship almost ruined this movie for me.
Unforgiven - A great homage to the Western. As you'll recall, there was a huge surge in western dramas around this general period of years, culminating in Unforgiven.
Schindler's List - Powerful filmmaking, one can forgive the Speilbergisms at the end because of the subject matter.
Forest Gump - Many people see it as a manipulative, dumb movie. Maybe they're right... but it sure did make a lot of money!
Braveheart - When this was released, the general moviegoing public had no recent recollection of a movie like it. I enjoyed it immensely and think it deserved the win.
The Englsh Patient - A tear jerker romance with an epic background and novel's roots... a surefire win.
Titanic - See above: "Many people see it as a manipulative and dumb movie. Maybe they're right... but it sure did make a lot of money!
Shakespeare in Love - Dislike this film immensely. And yes, I am an English Major and I still didn't guffaw at all the self conscious in-jokes. I got the irony, the references, the [rant]"WIT"[/rant]. The people responsible for this film are the same self-aggrandizing literary snobs I have spent my life trying to enjoy literature in spite of.
American Beauty- Hm.. in retrospect, maybe it was just an over-stylized TV movie...
Gladiator - It's a revenge movie where a man gets to reclaim his honor, kill his enemy and rejoin his family. Of course it won. But the directing is a mess.
A Beautiful Mind - 2002's winner. My guess is, this will be forgotten very soon.
Sorry about all the negativity.. SiL is the only one I feel genuine dislike towards...
Joseph

 

[RobR]

Braveheart - When this was released, the general moviegoing public had no recent recollection of a movie like it.

That's a problem and the reason why Braveheart is overrated. It's a mediocre film at best.

 

[Tony_Faville]

Like them or not, these movies will stand on their own 50 years from now:

1990 - Dances With Wolves

1991 - The Silence of the Lambs

1992 - Unforgiven

1993 - Schindler's List

1996 - Titanic (and yes, I do agree it should have not made the money it did but I do feel it deserved it's oscars)

 

[Justin Doring]

My opinions:

1990: Goodfellas is, by far, the best film nominated that year. Dances with Wolves and Awakenings are very, very good, moving films, if not quite "great."

1991: JFK is certainly the best film nominated that year. Silence of the Lambs is very good, but highly overrated. Bugsy deserves an honorable mention.

1992: I would have given the Oscar for Howard's End, but Unforgiven was a nice gesture for Clint, so I won't make too much fuss. If The Crying Game, A Few Good Men, and Scent Of A Woman have already faded from memory.

1993: Shindler's List is, unquestionably, among the greatest films ever made. As a distant second, I personally love The Remains Of The Day, and think it will endure. I find it to be the superior of Howard's End. In The Name Of The Father was good, but not great. The Fugitive is not a "best picture" candidate, and the highly overrated The Piano and will not be remembered.

1994: The Shawshank Redemption for its dramatic qualities, Pulp Fiction for its coolness, and Quiz Show for its substance, are excellent films that will be remembered. Quiz Show's reputation, especially, will increase over time. Forrest Gump is a terrible, terrible film, and I can't wait until it dies its destined death. Does Zemeckis actually have delusions that he is a great filmmaker? Four Weddings and a Funeral, while nice, isn't exactly memorable.

1995: I like Braveheart and Apollo 13 a great deal, but they're not "timeless." Babe was cute, and Il Postino was charming, but they'll be remembered as little else. I hope Sense and Sensibility will survive, as it's a lovely film, and superb for what it is.

1996: Fargo is the only "great" film of the bunch. The English Patient is an overrated soap opera, Shine fails to glimmer, and the other two, especially the ridiculous Jerry Maguire, aren't worth mentioning.

1997: L.A. Confidential is the only film here that will stand the test of time. Unfortunately, it's not a Chinatown. The other four titles are an embarassment to motion pictures.

1998: As an English Lit major, I would like to state that I HATE Shakespeare in Love. This excrement deserves to be grouped with the "Best Picture" nominees of 1997 (save L.A. Confidential, of course). Elizabeth is highly underrated, and the Oscar should have gone to it. Saving Private Ryan, especially the beach scene, is quite powerful, if a bit formulaic. Life is Beautiful is not "great" in any way, and The Thin Red Line is the most pretentious film I've ever seen.

1999: American Beauty, although overrated, was the best of the nominated films. But two films that will be admitted into the great films of all time that were not nominated are: Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia. I liked The Green Mile better when it was called The Shawshank Redemption, and while The Insider was excellent for what it was, it pales in comparison to Mann's masterpiece Heat. The Cider House Rules was nice, but not a great or enduring film. Stir of Echoes was miles better than The Sixth Sense, and it wasn't even that great of a film, so where does that leave The Sixth Sense?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Justin,

Interesting comments, however, I'm afraid they're a little over the top in some regards which leaves a large cloud of doubt over your other valid points.

Crawdaddy

 

[Justin Doring]

Hi Robert,

I assume you're referring primarily to my comments about Zemeckis? Allow me to clarify: I have nothing against Zemeckis the moviemaker, but I don't think Zemeckis is a good filmmaker. He started off excellently with the quite funny Used Cars and the splendid Romancing the Stone. Even the Back to the Future Trilogy was fun to a certain degree, and Death Becomes Her was watchable. With Forrest Gump and Cast Away, and to a certain degree Contact, however, Zemeckis suddenly attempted to become a filmmaker. That was a severe misstep, in my opinion. Zemeckis makes very entertaining movies, but he makes poor films. I was glad to see him get back into step, so to speak, with What Lies Beneath, even if it is just a predictable, silly Hitchcock wannabe, something that DePalma does far better.

As for the other films I "condemned," I find very little of value in them.