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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[Scott Taylor]

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.

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.

With Shakespeare its a real crap shoot. There are probably at least two dozen film versions of Hamlet, at least, but the only one that I really enjoy is the 1940s version with Sir Laurence Olivier. I've watched a couple of MacBeth interpretations but not the Denzel version. Hard to imagine it topping the Kurosawa version from the 1950s.

Part of this is the director. Directors who came out of the tragedy of two world wars and a depression might have more to say on certain subjects than more younger directors who have relatively less tragic life experiences.

[ChrisIII]

The Welles version is a bit of a mess, in particular because he overdid the accents.

Welles himself is sort of an interesting story. He had a lot of ambition but it was often tempered with studio interference (especially after Hearst's backlash against KANE), him overdoing things or things just not coming together (Like his version of Dead Calm)


Regarding SOLO's failure it's sort of an interesting thing because in many ways it's the most traditional of the Disney films-male lead, most experienced director (Well, after the switcheroo), and by the guy who wrote most of the OT alongside Lucas. I know Pheobe Waller Bridge's droid got some backlash but it didn't really dominate the film.

Part of the problem I think was perhaps releasing it so soon after TLJ and it's backlash.