The Lack of Agreed Upon Film Classics Since 1995

[Mister Mets]

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.)

The main question is "Why aren't movies from the last 25 years rated better than films from years past?"

The thread title is about agreed-upon classics. It's more about what can be measured with some objectivity rather than just individual taste.

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.

Gatekeepers seem to like Last Jedi (to be fair, so do I.)

That said, it's a complex comparison if we're comparing a new episode in an ongoing series versus the first episode in a different series. There isn't a contingent of Benoit Blanc fans claiming the character doesn't match previous appearances.

[godisawesome]

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)

“Underperforming” here doesn’t mean “failure” - it means failed to meet expectations as a solo film, and in a different sense that it contributed to massive overall decrease in performance for the overall trilogy.

Make no mistake - all Star Wars films but Solo made a billion in the Disney era. Star Wars as franchise is still a blockbuster.

But it needs to be acknowledged that The Force Awakens was special, Rogue One was special, and The Last Jedi coasted more off TFA’s success to than it did its own quality, and that it’s a lot much more similar to the often derided Rise of Skywalker than its defenders want to say. TROS was also a billion dollar film in spite of being made under duress with massive rewrites and with it being popular for professional critics to complain about it.

TFA busted records all across the board, and then a film that had professional critics and “gatekeepers” cried to the heavens was greater in every way lost a third of its audience, and lead to LFL having chaos making the next one even before it was released and even more people lost interest.

TLJ is a decent dumb blockbuster.

But TFA was not a dumb blockbuster, and a lot of TLJ’s supposedly more “artistic” decisions are what devalued the ST from “special” to dumb blockbuster.

And if TROS gets to still be mocked for under performing and disappointing, it needs to be acknowledged that **** started with the previous film.

Gatekeepers seem to like Last Jedi (to be fair, so do I.)

That said, it's a complex comparison if we're comparing a new episode in an ongoing series versus the first episode in a different series. There isn't a contingent of Benoit Blanc fans claiming the character doesn't match previous appearances.

That actually I think backs both our points a little bit… though I’ll argue it actually favors mine a lot more in a holistic sense.

Knives Out being an original, intended-to-be-stand-alone film means it fits a paradigm that both professional critics and mainstream and geeky audiences understand perfectly - the fact that Benoit Blanc functionally couldn’t be written out of character and that we all knew the story was a single mystery made all our standards the same.

Honestly, Knives Out *IS* a classic - and I’d argue there’s actually a weird example of my conviction that critics still struggle with genre in that it’s not immediately recognized as a total classic; professional critics still feel the need to qualify it as a “murder mystery” film instead of giving it the sort of respect of a Best Picture nomination when I think it clearly should have been given that honor.

But I’m not surprised that you want to argue that TLJ is a film “gatekeepers” should honor (and I mean thta with more affection than any sarcasm that might come through, for the record.)

TLJ is a pitch perfect example of how I think professional critics are actually being pandered to with “artistic” choices rather than actually looking for quality - TLJ treats internalized conflict from self-centered persons as so much more important than either external conflict or internal conflict from selfless characters that it basically mocks the latter two…and it also values white male pain more than objectively more traumatized women and POC, which is also pandering to professional critics and, of course, white dudes (and usually middle aged ones nostalgic for their teenage angst).

It’s also a film that should be evaluated within a larger story, in which manner it should be seen as a failure for both the nine-film Saga and the three film story of Rey (who is written abysmally and almost “abusively” by the film.

Like… I can see someone try to defend Luke’s story as more artistic, even if it hijacking the film from the other characters means it should be evaluated as a failure for the larger story.

But everything involving Kylo and Rey should be acknowledged as trashy, poor, sexist and shallow as hell - enough that no one should defend it except as a guilty pleasure.

…But its a story of an introverted self centered white guy who angsts a lot, and critics and gatekeepers aren’t ready to admit that’s what intrigues them, rather than Driver’s actual acting or Johnson (shitty) writing.

[numberthirty]

One guy's take?

A lotta that list in the initial post?

Calling it "Whack..."?

That would be putting it lightly.

Past all of that?

Once you get past the point in question?

There are some "Extra Crispy..." elements coming into play.

The entire "Meta..." aspect of the first Scream film?

It is pretty classic(never mind the degree to which it was truly groundbreaking...) and about a light year away from "I would like a bucket of Original Recipe, please..."

[numberthirty]

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.

Along that line?

There are enough "Outside Of The System..." options that some of the films that might have been potential "Classics..." in the old system just happen on a smaller scale where they may never be classics now.

To me?

There is a solid argument for that the film The Proposition is not just a classic.

It may very well be the finest Western I have ever seen.

The fact that it was released on a far smaller scale may wind up meaning that it will never be seen that way.

Bone Tomahawk?

It is in the same neck of the woods, will probably never be a classic for the very same reason.

[BeastieRunner]

Memento, Fellowship of the Rings, WALL-E, Shrek, Brokeback Mountain, the Dark Knight, and the Hurt Locker are all preserved in the Library of Congress. So is Matrix, Selena, Saving Private Ryan.

I don't like half of them but they are definitely classics. I don't like half of what's in the LoC either, but not a single one in there I would argue against being a classic.

Inception, Wolf of Wall Street, La La Land, Knives Out, and several Marvel Movies will be on classic lists sooner than later. Fight Club, Clueless, Truman Show, No Country For Old Men ...

There's as many in the last 27 as in the previous 27 years ... Cinema has been pretty good lately.

If RT becomes our classic metric won't, pretty much all the MCU be in there?

[thwhtGuardian]

The main question is "Why aren't movies from the last 25 years rated better than films from years past?"

The thread title is about agreed-upon classics. It's more about what can be measured with some objectivity rather than just individual taste.

Gatekeepers seem to like Last Jedi (to be fair, so do I.)

That said, it's a complex comparison if we're comparing a new episode in an ongoing series versus the first episode in a different series. There isn't a contingent of Benoit Blanc fans claiming the character doesn't match previous appearances.

And that's much, much different than "Are films from the last 25 years classics". And the qualifications I mentioned like, "are films from from the last 25 years still getting TV play" "Do they get referenced in other pieces of pop culture" and "do new directors and writers site them as inspirations?"

Films like Gladiator still get frequent tv play. "Are You Not Entertained!" has been referenced in shows in all kinds of shows from the Simpsons and Family Guy down to children's shows, so it's still part of the cultural zietgiest in that respect. And from a technical standpoint the motion blur technique used to achieve the look of the fight scenes has become a standard now. On top of that, there were dozens of articles analyzing the film's legacy from all the major entertainment news magazines and sites when the film turned twenty.

So yeah, definitely a classic by any definition of the word.

Will it ever be rated a top ten film of all time by the likes of AFI, Variety or Hollywood Reporter? Probably not, but there's no shame in that. And the same could be said for many of the other films I listed earlier.

[Tofali]

Memento, Fellowship of the Rings, WALL-E, Shrek, Brokeback Mountain, the Dark Knight, and the Hurt Locker are all preserved in the Library of Congress. So is Matrix, Selena, Saving Private Ryan.

I don't like half of them but they are definitely classics. I don't like half of what's in the LoC either, but not a single one in there I would argue against being a classic.

Inception, Wolf of Wall Street, La La Land, Knives Out, and several Marvel Movies will be on classic lists sooner than later. Fight Club, Clueless, Truman Show, No Country For Old Men ...

There's as many in the last 27 as in the previous 27 years ... Cinema has been pretty good lately.

If RT becomes are classic metric won't, pretty much all the MCU be in there?

Aren't most genre movies judged on metrics within their own genres? I feel like movie critics had to evolve with the change of the movie landscape. Some genres might have almost perfect RT scores but that doesn't mean outside its own genre they can be allowed to compete for a position in any of these top 100 curated lists because the curator themselves have a distinct point of view of what movie should be on that list depending on the criteria they have created.

[BeastieRunner]

Aren't most genre movies judged on metrics within their own genres? I feel like movie critics had to evolve with the change of the movie landscape. Some genres might have almost perfect RT scores but that doesn't mean outside its own genre they can be allowed to compete for a position in any of these top 100 curated lists because the curator themselves have a distinct point of view of what movie should be on that list depending on the criteria they have created.

I would posit that it has less to do with a change in landscape and more to do with the minority getting louder voices via the internet and now, social media.

For example, I go on VUDU and all the MCU films have 4 point something user ratings (VUDU users), red tomatoes (critic aggregator), and full popcorn containers (Fandango verified purchase audience score). And about half of them are 4.5 or higher, red tomatoes with the ribbon, and golden popcorns. That would be evidence against the lack of agreed upon classics in my book as the thread starter suggested.

Yet you come on CBR Forums and it's got numerous threads 50/50 and now more like 60/40 (or worse) about how terrible the MCU has always been.

[thwhtGuardian]

I think an interesting list to look at when considering the question is AFI's 100 years...100 Movies list as they did two lists and they were ten years apart which shows how views changed with time.

In the original 1998 list you only had one film in the top twenty that was produced in the 90's( Schindler's List) and then you had to go all the way down to 72nd place to find the next 90's film( Forest Gump), at 75 you had Dances with Wolves and the last film to place from the 90's was at 84th(Fargo)

Then 10 years later in 2007/08 you got some changes, Schindler's List is still the only one from the 90's in the top 10 but it moved from the 9 spot to 8th, and instead of the next best film being 72nd you get Fellowship of the Ring at #50 (which is from 2001 by the way so a film past the 90's that's a classic) at 71 you get Saving Private Ryan which wasn't out yet when the last list was made, and Shawshank Redemption made the list this time at 72, and the the 6th Sense jumps in at 89 and Toy Story becomes a new addition #99. On top of that, some 90's films that made the list the last time didn't this time, Dances with Wolves which was a critical darling in the 90's faded into obscurity and sadly Fargo dropped off as well.

AFI hasn't done a list since 2008, but I'm betting that if they were to do one now we'd see a few titles from the 2000's and 2010's make that list for certain.

[AndrewCrossett]

You'd have to decide on how old a movie has to be to qualify for the title of "classic"... I'd say at least ten years.

"Agreed upon classics" are rarer now because a) nobody agrees on much of anything, b) the kinds of films that we now consider classics are not very commercial in today's world, and c) there is a lot of crap flooding the zone which gets more attention.

But just on the back of the envelope, and using a pretty high bar, I would consider the following films from 1995-2000 to meet a pretty objective definition of classic. Obviously there will be disagreements (I personally dislike a couple of these movies and am ambivalent about several others.)

Apollo 13 (1995)
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
The Birdcage (1996)
Boys Don’t Cry (1999)
Braveheart (1995)
Chocolat (2000)
The English Patient (1996)
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Fargo (1996)
Fight Club (1999)
Gladiator (2000)
Good Will Hunting (1997)
The Green Mile (1999)
Independence Day (1996)
Jerry Maguire (1996)
Life Is Beautiful (1998)
Magnolia (1999)
The Matrix (1999)
Men In Black (1997)
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Titanic (1997)
Toy Story (1995)
Toy Story 2 (1999)
Trainspotting (1996)

[Powerboy]

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 think there is also a time factor. Go back 50, 60, 70 years. There's the movies still watched and talked about and all of the others we don't remember. 25 years is maybe not enough for that to happen. Plenty of people remember all sorts of movies from 1995, the great to the ordinary to the mediocre. As time goes on, more and more will be forgotten and the remaining will be those truly memorable movies that most people agree upon, partly because they are the only ones people can think of.

[Mister Mets]

Thanks for the responses. I'll note this is all based on a weird sense of what other people like, and you may very well come to different conclusions on that question.

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.

Interesting point about major adaptations having cache. That helps Lord of the Rings.

I've heard a different argument that it's better to adapt lesser work because the best novels or plays or whatever work in that particular medium. The flipside is that stronger novels and plays have more great characters and moments. On this question, it'll be interesting to see the reputation of Denzel Washington's Fences or Macbeth in twenty years. The source material was exceptional, and reviews are decent.

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.

I'm a fan of many of these movies, and some will be appreciated in a different context. It'll be rare to have a best of list that includes the first Spider-Man and Cache.

That said, I'm not sure we really have evidence that Hot Fuzz is as well regarded as any of the big three 1994 films (Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, Shawshank Redemption)

Along that line?

There are enough "Outside Of The System..." options that some of the films that might have been potential "Classics..." in the old system just happen on a smaller scale where they may never be classics now.

To me?

There is a solid argument for that the film The Proposition is not just a classic.

It may very well be the finest Western I have ever seen.

The fact that it was released on a far smaller scale may wind up meaning that it will never be seen that way.

Bone Tomahawk?

It is in the same neck of the woods, will probably never be a classic for the very same reason.

It could be interesting to consider what could improve the reputations of films like The Proposition or Bone Tomahawk.

Sometimes a work that's been around for a while becomes popular for whatever reason. Shawshank Redemption was on the right cable channel. It's a Wonderful Life accidentally went public domain.

Memento, Fellowship of the Rings, WALL-E, Shrek, Brokeback Mountain, the Dark Knight, and the Hurt Locker are all preserved in the Library of Congress. So is Matrix, Selena, Saving Private Ryan.

I don't like half of them but they are definitely classics. I don't like half of what's in the LoC either, but not a single one in there I would argue against being a classic.

Inception, Wolf of Wall Street, La La Land, Knives Out, and several Marvel Movies will be on classic lists sooner than later. Fight Club, Clueless, Truman Show, No Country For Old Men ...

There's as many in the last 27 as in the previous 27 years ... Cinema has been pretty good lately.

If RT becomes our classic metric won't, pretty much all the MCU be in there?

The RT can't be our classic metric because too many movies have good reviews.

In addition, it doesn't measure how much people really love something. It's about measuring whether people like it, so a mild like is equivalent to believing something is the best of the decade.

That said, there is a correlation between really high rotten tomatoes scores and film reputations.

Aren't most genre movies judged on metrics within their own genres? I feel like movie critics had to evolve with the change of the movie landscape. Some genres might have almost perfect RT scores but that doesn't mean outside its own genre they can be allowed to compete for a position in any of these top 100 curated lists because the curator themselves have a distinct point of view of what movie should be on that list depending on the criteria they have created.

Best of Lists are often diverse. Even if a genre is underrepresented, there will be some examples in a typical Top 100.

It's a fair point that curators have their own point of view, although many of the lists are from multiple perspectives, and if several critics really like something, it'll help its reputation.

[krazijoe]

Mad God is almost an instant classic. If you haven't seen it, DO. You will either love it or hate it but if you understand stop action, you will love this movie.
Personally, I think one of the best movies the past decade is Rogue One but I bet many critics would scoff at me. But best of is so subjected, especially with today's internet environment..

[Frobisher]

Don't know if many younger people will remember this, but in the 90s nostalgia was better than it is now and we used to reflect on how the adventure films of the 1980s and the big budget art films of the 1970s would never be surpassed by a more commercialised Hollywood.

[Gaastra]

Dances with Wolves which was a critical darling in the 90's faded into obscurity.

I don't know it's remake made tons of money! Course they changed the name to "avatar" but still did pretty well for a remake!