The Lack of Agreed Upon Film Classics Since 1995

[Mister Mets]

It seems that in the last 25 years, there's a lack of agreed upon classics, the movies that will be on multiple best of lists.

The early 1990s had some all-time classics in quick succession. We had Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, and Schindler's List. In one year alone, we had Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction.

The last 27 years do not appear to have been as kind. There are some prominent films that are regularly considered among the best ever (Titanic, The Dark Knight, The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring) but there's not as many.

In a 2014 Hollywood Reporter list based on opinions of people in the industry, Goodfellas was in 19th place, Silence of the Lambs was in 22nd place, Schindler's List was in 10th place, Forrest Gump was in 14th place, Pulp Fiction was in 5th place and Shawshank Redemption was in 4th place. No film from the 2000s was in the Top 40.0

So what's going on here? Have films gotten worse? Is the audience more divided so there's less of a consensus? Am I imagining things? Or is it something else?

[thwhtGuardian]

It seems that in the last 25 years, there's a lack of agreed upon classics, the movies that will be on multiple best of lists.

The early 1990s had some all-time classics in quick succession. We had Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, and Schindler's List. In one year alone, we had Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction.

The last 27 years do not appear to have been as kind. There are some prominent films that are regularly considered among the best ever (Titanic, The Dark Knight, The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring) but there's not as many.

In a 2014 Hollywood Reporter list based on opinions of people in the industry, Goodfellas was in 19th place, Silence of the Lambs was in 22nd place, Schindler's List was in 10th place, Forrest Gump was in 14th place, Pulp Fiction was in 5th place and Shawshank Redemption was in 4th place. No film from the 2000s was in the Top 40.0

So what's going on here? Have films gotten worse? Is the audience more divided so there's less of a consensus? Am I imagining things? Or is it something else?

I think you're imagining things, there are plenty of films from the last 25 years that regularly make critics and regular viewers "best of" lists. Off the top of my head I'd say there is near universal acclaim for films like The Gladiator, No Country for Oldmen, The Departed, Up, Pan's Labyrinth, Get Out, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, Dunkirk, Lady Bird, Little Women, 12 Years A Slave, Winters Bone and films like Mad Max.

[Comic Lore]

So what's going on here? Have films gotten worse? Is the audience more divided so there's less of a consensus? Am I imagining things? Or is it something else?

More than one thing can be true. Movies are worse as Hollywood started embracing IPs and stopped developing new ideas the way they used to. A lot of things that would have been green lit years ago have died a silent death in the face of big budget franchises that are seen as a safer and more profitable bet.

When we were kids (I assume you're older) everyone saw everything that was considered good. We had a shared reality based on the 3 networks. What 50+ year old hasn't seen I love Lucy, Threes Company, Dallas, Hill Street Blues, Gilligan's Island, CHIPS, L.A. Law, Lost in Space, Casablanca, Robin Hood with Erol Flynn, Rocky, Pretty in Pink, Ferris Buller's Day Off, Gremlins, Friday the 13th, the Natural, Porky's, Top Gun, Terminator, Beverly Hills Cop, The Sound of Music, Jaws, and Charlie Browns Christmas?

Didn't matter the Genre, we all had the same handful of gatekeepers telling us what was worth our attention.

[Comic Lore]

I think you're imagining things, there are plenty of films from the last 25 years that regularly make critics and regular viewers "best of" lists. Off the top of my head I'd say there is near universal acclaim for films like The Gladiator, No Country for Oldmen, The Departed, Up, Pan's Labyrinth, Get Out, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, Dunkirk, Lady Bird, Little Women, 12 Years A Slave, Winters Bone and films like Mad Max.

This list helps my point, I think. Near Universal Appeal is a bit of a stretch. Gladiator was one I didn't like so I checked it's only 78%/87% on RT. Once Upon a time in Hollywood is only 85%/70%.

More importantly a lot of the movies you listed are smaller box office and spread out over many platforms. They will never be seen by most people so it will be very difficult to make a top 100 movies of all time list consensus. In the future the old top 100 list will change when no one watches the Maltese Falcon or Indiana Jones anymore as they won't be featured any more on the strangle hold that was the broadcast networks of old, but if you look at those lists, movies are staying on them because of the generations of people who grew up in a smaller pool of options still talk about them and get others to check them out, Because they make so many top 100 lists.

It's a circle.

[godisawesome]

I think that we’re still getting classics - it’s just that multiple genres have significantly raised their game, arguably closing the gap with the more “stodgy” films that used to be “classics” because *both* critics and audiences loved them.

“Quality” is now strong enough across enough the board that the more thoroughly subjective tastes of different audiences matter more to reception of quality films, and we’re just seeing that professional critics can’t really gauge the larger audience’s opinions anymore. Professional critics simply feel safer choosing from a more more nostalgic period where they could more accurately defend their films with audience support.

Saving Private Ryan showed that the military genre couldn’t be written off anymore, and Gladiator showed that for the swords and sandal films, while both The Dark Knight and Black Panther are good enough that films snobs should shut the hell up about the superhero genre being unworthy. And of course there’s already the famous rumor that the Animated Picture category was created to prevent anything like Beauty and the Beast being a contender in Best Picture ever again.

I think the 90s is when we saw the divergence between a time where critics and audiences were closely enough aligned for classics to be clear to critics - and now we’re well into a time where, well, “Oscar bait” films are their own genre because it’s clear they’re genuinely not “better enough” to claim an edge over genre films they way they used to, and its’ mostly just pandering to professional critic demographics rather than actually doing a great job.

[Jokerz79]

We haven't had any "classics" in the last 25 years because it takes time to become a classic. We'll know what society thinks is a classic from that era in the next 10 to 20 years.

There are a lot of contenders IMO. Both Classics and Cult Classics.

[Mister Mets]

More than one thing can be true. Movies are worse as Hollywood started embracing IPs and stopped developing new ideas the way they used to. A lot of things that would have been green lit years ago have died a silent death in the face of big budget franchises that are seen as a safer and more profitable bet.

When we were kids (I assume you're older) everyone saw everything that was considered good. We had a shared reality based on the 3 networks. What 50+ year old hasn't seen I love Lucy, Threes Company, Dallas, Hill Street Blues, Gilligan's Island, CHIPS, L.A. Law, Lost in Space, Casablanca, Robin Hood with Erol Flynn, Rocky, Pretty in Pink, Ferris Buller's Day Off, Gremlins, Friday the 13th, the Natural, Porky's, Top Gun, Terminator, Beverly Hills Cop, The Sound of Music, Jaws, and Charlie Browns Christmas?

Didn't matter the Genre, we all had the same handful of gatekeepers telling us what was worth our attention.

I am a bit younger, but the lack of gatekeepers may be a major factor in the explanation.

I've been thinking of some possibilities.

#1- The audience is divided so there are less recent consensus picks. You like action? There's the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Daniel Craig James Bond, and Mad Max: Fury Road. You want the continuation of the 1990s indie directors? There's Kill Bill, Boyhood, and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Do you prefer films by women? There's Nomadland, CODA, Power of the Dog, Lady Bird, etc. Do you prefer films by and about African Americans? There's Judas and the Black Messiah, Get Out, Fences, Moonlight and much more. Do you want historical prestige pictures? There's The King's Speech, Gosford Park, There Will be Blood, Lincoln, etc.
#2- There are artistic compromises for various reasons, with the focus on superhero films, the advent of streaming services, a desire to get films to play in international markets, etc.
#3- Serialization means it's hard to pick one representative example of a top franchise. What's the best MCU film? What about the best Lord of the Rings? So this leads to a lack of consensus, even if as many people might consider at least one MCU film to be on the level of Pulp Fiction.
#4- Are critics more diverse? Perhaps the apparent consensus of the past is due to gatekeeping by an establishment that prized stories by New Hollywood directors about straight white men? Maybe the reputations of Shawshank Redemption and Unforgiven would decline in favor of Boyz N the Hood or The Piano?
#5- The golden age of television has taken some of the cache and critical attention of movies.
#6- Critics and the culture pay more attention to foreign films, and with a much larger pool of films in the cultural conversation, it's harder for an American film to really take off.

I think you're imagining things, there are plenty of films from the last 25 years that regularly make critics and regular viewers "best of" lists. Off the top of my head I'd say there is near universal acclaim for films like The Gladiator, No Country for Oldmen, The Departed, Up, Pan's Labyrinth, Get Out, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, Dunkirk, Lady Bird, Little Women, 12 Years A Slave, Winters Bone and films like Mad Max.

I don't think it's on the same level. Take a look at the lists. You're much more likely to see Silence of the Lambs than Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or Goodfellas over The Departed.

Aggregates can matter. Individual critics/ magazines might have unconventional choices, but these will be more spread out rather than showering a handful of films with love and attention.

We haven't had any "classics" in the last 25 years because it takes time to become a classic. We'll know what society thinks is a classic from that era in the next 10 to 20 years.

There are a lot of contenders IMO. Both Classics and Cult Classics.

There is some stuff that has an immediate impact. Schindler's List made the AFI Top 10 a few years after its release. The AFI Top 100 in 1997 included Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas and Forrest Gump.

[Scott Taylor]

We haven't had any "classics" in the last 25 years because it takes time to become a classic. We'll know what society thinks is a classic from that era in the next 10 to 20 years.

There are a lot of contenders IMO. Both Classics and Cult Classics.

This is true. It takes some time and generational changes for a movie to really earn its longevity. You can look back at movies that were super popular or even that won best picture and find some of them laughable today. Then there are movies that were very popular and considered classics at the time but haven't aged well due to their racist tendencies, etc. All of that is seen after the passing of much time.

Classics pass the test of time, in other words. Many of us here loved the Joker movie. In 30 years, will anyone still talk about it or the Dark Knight or will they just be set aside as a phenomenon of their time? Same could be asked about Parasite, and all of the superhero movies. We won't know in our lifetimes if any of those end up being classics.

But I do think that the best adaptation of a work is more likely to become an instant classic. Hard to see Peter Jackson's LotR movies even getting topped, and to me they are instant classics. In my opinion, the most recent adaptation of Little Women was the best we have ever seen and is an instant classic. DeCaprio's Gatsby was the best version ever, in my opinion. But the recent Call of the Wild? A dog.

[FFJamie94]

Honestly, I'd argue there are still movies considered "Classic".
It's just in the 70's there was a different kind of classic to that of the 80's.
I'll go as far as to say that the classics of 00 are much closer to that of the 80's.

When I think of millennium classics, I think of.
Lord of the Rings trilogy
Kill Bill
The Dark Knight
Spider-Man 1/2
Shrek
Hot Fuzz
X-Men 2 (to a certain extent)

Heck, in the 90's you got Pulp Fiction and Titanic.

And if we're extending it to World Cinema, you have
Oldboy
Cache
(I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them off the top of my head).

For me, a classic is something that has to stand at least 10-15 years, so right now, we'll see what films get that honour from the 10's later in the decade.

I'll say right now, we have more modern classics than classics from the 70's. It's just the 70's classics seem to be a lot better regarded.

[thwhtGuardian]

I am a bit younger, but the lack of gatekeepers may be a major factor in the explanation.

I've been thinking of some possibilities.

#1- The audience is divided so there are less recent consensus picks. You like action? There's the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Daniel Craig James Bond, and Mad Max: Fury Road. You want the continuation of the 1990s indie directors? There's Kill Bill, Boyhood, and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Do you prefer films by women? There's Nomadland, CODA, Power of the Dog, Lady Bird, etc. Do you prefer films by and about African Americans? There's Judas and the Black Messiah, Get Out, Fences, Moonlight and much more. Do you want historical prestige pictures? There's The King's Speech, Gosford Park, There Will be Blood, Lincoln, etc.
#2- There are artistic compromises for various reasons, with the focus on superhero films, the advent of streaming services, a desire to get films to play in international markets, etc.
#3- Serialization means it's hard to pick one representative example of a top franchise. What's the best MCU film? What about the best Lord of the Rings? So this leads to a lack of consensus, even if as many people might consider at least one MCU film to be on the level of Pulp Fiction.
#4- Are critics more diverse? Perhaps the apparent consensus of the past is due to gatekeeping by an establishment that prized stories by New Hollywood directors about straight white men? Maybe the reputations of Shawshank Redemption and Unforgiven would decline in favor of Boyz N the Hood or The Piano?
#5- The golden age of television has taken some of the cache and critical attention of movies.
#6- Critics and the culture pay more attention to foreign films, and with a much larger pool of films in the cultural conversation, it's harder for an American film to really take off.



I don't think it's on the same level. Take a look at the lists. You're much more likely to see Silence of the Lambs than Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or Goodfellas over The Departed.

Aggregates can matter. Individual critics/ magazines might have unconventional choices, but these will be more spread out rather than showering a handful of films with love and attention.


There is some stuff that has an immediate impact. Schindler's List made the AFI Top 10 a few years after its release. The AFI Top 100 in 1997 included Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas and Forrest Gump.

Is the question "Why aren't movies from the last 25 years rated better than films from years past?" or "Are there no more classics?" because those are two separate questions.

One might view Silence of the Lambs as being better than Once Upon A Time In Hollywood( though I'd argue they were wrong) or Goodfellas over the Departed(again, I'd pick Departed any day of the week) but that's a separate question from "Are films like the Departed and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood considered 'classics'?" One is a question of taste while the latter is something can be measured with some slight objectivity(ie. are they still shown regularly on TV years after they were in the cinemas? Do other film makers compare their films to these films/ were they inspired by films from the last decade.)

[Username taken]

It seems that in the last 25 years, there's a lack of agreed upon classics, the movies that will be on multiple best of lists.

The early 1990s had some all-time classics in quick succession. We had Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, and Schindler's List. In one year alone, we had Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction.

The last 27 years do not appear to have been as kind. There are some prominent films that are regularly considered among the best ever (Titanic, The Dark Knight, The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring) but there's not as many.

In a 2014 Hollywood Reporter list based on opinions of people in the industry, Goodfellas was in 19th place, Silence of the Lambs was in 22nd place, Schindler's List was in 10th place, Forrest Gump was in 14th place, Pulp Fiction was in 5th place and Shawshank Redemption was in 4th place. No film from the 2000s was in the Top 40.0

So what's going on here? Have films gotten worse? Is the audience more divided so there's less of a consensus? Am I imagining things? Or is it something else?

Movies haven’t gotten worse. There are a lot of great movies that come out every year that still receive near universal acclaim (as someone mentioned movies like Moonlight, Get Out, Whiplash, Dunkirk, The Irishman, No country for old men etc still get widespread acclaim). Moonlight in particular is one of the best films I’d ever seen regardless of race or sexuality, it’s a very powerful film.

I think part of it is changes in the overall industry. A lot of critically acclaimed movies that would have been released in theatres are going straight to streaming which is still a fairly controversial practice.

[Gaastra]

I can see films like coco and up as classics. Films like frozen and wreck it ralph are pretty loved. Moana has been one of the highest watched films on disney plus since launch day and is still in the top list! Tangled is still big and is really popular in places like japan.

Spirited away has been rereleased in american theatres every Halloween for the last 7 or so years!

Even star wars can't brag to that getting a theatre release every year! And this is an anime film in american theatres!

Love them or hate them the despicable me films are pretty liked films. (Other than 3 and minions of course. Less said about 3 the better.) The first is still the best.

[godisawesome]

I truly believe that genre films getting as good as they did has thrown off professional critics just as much as it’s become an obsession of executives.

It used to be that certain genres could be relied on to always fall underneath a certain set of standards, allowing film scholars and critics who weren’t interested in those genres to discount them automatically from competition - but even back then, there was always a certain falsity to it. The Wizard of Oz was always actually a bit better than Gone With The Wind, for instance, and the distance between the two has only grown as time has gone one.

Nowadays, your mainstream and hardcore audiences hold even their genre films to standards that professional critics and film scholars still seem to struggle to really comprehend as much as they used to. Sometimes, the truth becomes undeniable - like how the role of Joker is now a 2-time Academy Award winning one.

But if you asked your “cultural curators” why, say, Knives Out was a film with only positive reception and yet The Last Jedi wound up hurting its own franchise and underperforming in spite of their love of it, even though they’re both Rian Johnson films that critics liked, I think they’d be lost - the idea that Star Wars has standards in writing, characterization, and narrative that TLJ failed to reach would confuse them, or reveal that they are just as liable to being pandered to as the plebeians they don't think can identify classics.

[choptop]

I think you're imagining things, there are plenty of films from the last 25 years that regularly make critics and regular viewers "best of" lists. Off the top of my head I'd say there is near universal acclaim for films like The Gladiator, No Country for Oldmen, The Departed, Up, Pan's Labyrinth, Get Out, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, Dunkirk, Lady Bird, Little Women, 12 Years A Slave, Winters Bone and films like Mad Max.

lll never undaunted why movies like Get Out and lady bird are considered that good....

[Gaastra]

But if you asked your “cultural curators” why, say, Knives Out was a film with only positive reception and yet The Last Jedi wound up hurting its own franchise and underperforming in spite of their love of it,

Billion is "underperforming?" Man, most studios would love that underperforming! Not a fan of last jedi but even i can't say a billion club film "underperformed" with a straight face!

Solo on the other hand (ironic people liked it) thanks to its high budget and clone wars movie you can say that! Isn't clone wars the lowest selling star wars theatre film? (Not counting the second clone wars fathom events darth maul "film".) (It was just a few show episodes about dath maul released to theatres as a movie)