Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know many of you will object and bring up the 70s, which had the likes of Taxi Driver, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the Godfather, Jaws, the Deer Hunter, Star Wars, etc. Some of you will say the 60s, which had films like The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, The Graduate, Spartacus, etc. Others will say the 50s, 40s or maybe even 30s, which all had tons of classic films and star power. But the 90s may stand out among them all for one important reason.
The 90s may have been the perfect balance of solid scriptwriting, acting, technology and diversity. Prior to the 90s, studios didn't have either the budget or the ability to create something as realistic as Saving Private Ryan. The movie was released 25 years ago and its visual effects are still as impressive as ever. The same could be said for the Matrix, which was released 24 years ago. If you compared the technological leap in filmmaking between the release of the first Stars Wars film in 1977 and the Matrix in 1999, the difference is as clear as night and day. Star Wars felt very cheesy and dated to kids of the 90s. I don't think the Matrix feels quite the same way to Gen Z.
While Hollywood was making great strides in terms of CGI and overall visual and sound presentation, very little was lost in terms of storytelling and acting. You had films like Schindler's List with a great story, acting and music. The Shawshank Redemption is still the highest rated movie on IMDB (but to be fair some recency bias will be at play there and IMDB rankings aren't the end-all-be-all). The Silence of the Lambs is considered one of the greatest psychological thrillers of all time. And as impressive as the visuals were in Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks' acting was equally impressive. There are so many more great movies from a storytelling, acting and cinematography perspective such as Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, American History X, Braveheart, etc. The list is too long.
Today's filmmaking probably has more diversity than the 90s as far as what gets made, but not so much in terms of what is successful at the box office. The mid to late 00s was essentially the end of the romantic comedy as we know it. The 90s was a good blend of romantic comedies (Sleepless in Seattle, Jerry Maguire), light-hearted Robin Williams movies (Patch Adams and Mrs. Doubtfire), period pieces (A League of Their Own, Schindler's List), Big Blockbuster action films (Bad Boys, the Matrix, etc.), political thrillers (The Tom Clancy movies, the Pelican Brief, etc.), heart-wrenchers about serious issues (Philadelphia), Coming of Age movies (The Sandlot, My Girl), inspirational movies (Rudy). Such a great diversity of movies.
Another great thing about the 90s is that you still had some of the talented old guard still making movies. I'd say Jack was still in his prime until the mid 90s.
I think an argument could also be made for the 80s, especially in the Action and Teen genres.
But you make good points. I think what really sets the 90s apart is that it was the last time Hollywood tried hard to make unique movies for a universal audience. Ever since (and especially now), movies seem to be made for niche audiences (so not universal) or are the same plot/characters repeated over and over and over (superheroes, sequels, prequels, remakes, etc).
At least in the last 5-10 years, I think this can be attributed to smart devices. Hollywood can go niche because people often stream specific things to watch alone. In the 90s, even when a movie went to VHS it still had to please the entire household since not everyone had their own device. The era of broad appeal is largely over.
I think an argument could also be made for the 80s, especially in the Action and Teen genres.
But you make good points. I think what really sets the 90s apart is that it was the last time Hollywood tried hard to make unique movies for a universal audience. Ever since (and especially now), movies seem to be made for niche audiences (so not universal) or are the same plot/characters repeated over and over and over (superheroes, sequels, prequels, remakes, etc).
At least in the last 5-10 years, I think this can be attributed to smart devices. Hollywood can go niche because people often stream specific things to watch alone. In the 90s, even when a movie went to VHS it still had to please the entire household since not everyone had their own device. The era of broad appeal is largely over.
This is a good point. I think these niche markets have also made filmmakers a bit lazy. For example, you could just make a movie about police brutality that's not really good and yet receive tons of critical praise for it. Nobody will really care that the acting and story are trash. It's more important that you shed light on a sensitive and important topic.
The 90s is also the end of great orchestral film scores. Most movies now have a music supervisor who chooses songs for the movie and maybe throws in a few of his/her own original creations.
The score of a movie is as important as all of its other elements. Years later and this scene still brings tears to my eyes. And the score is a big reason for that.
One can make this argument for any decade since the 1960s, but the 1970s usually wins, for good reason. It's about content, not VFX (digital or otherwise). The actors back then were better, and today's actors generally concur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
While Hollywood was making great strides in terms of CGI and overall visual and sound presentation, very little was lost in terms of storytelling and acting.
I can't agree with this. Sure, some great movies were had in the 1990s. But that decade has its share of garbage like any other. Here are dozens of examples.
I think Armageddon should be on the list, but it isn't. The film's single worst aspect is its MTV video-esque editing, which renders it unwatchable for me. This was something that crept up in the '90s.
The decade is stocked with inferior sequels representative of every active franchise at the time (and some revivals), from Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers to The Next Karate Kid. And there was Gus van Sant's wholly unnecessary Psycho remake, and Jan de Bont's equally useless remake of The Haunting. Then came the return of Star Wars with the atrocious The Phantom Menace. And Junior. And Spawn. And The Phantom. And Showgirls.
Lest you brand me a hater, I don't agree with every choice. Leprechaun is an underrated horror-comedy that I like a lot, and it's there.
One can make this argument for any decade since the 1960s, but the 1970s usually wins, for good reason. It's about content, not VFX (digital or otherwise). The actors back then were better, and today's actors generally concur.
I can't agree with this. Sure, some great movies were received in the 1990s. But that decade has its share of garbage like any other. Here are dozens of examples. The decade is stocked with inferior sequels representative of every active franchise at the time (and some revivals), from Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers to The Next Karate Kid. And there was Gus van Sant's unnecessary Psycho remake, and Jan de Bont's equally useless remake of The Haunting. Then came the return of Star Wars with the atrocious The Phantom Menace. And Junior. And Spawn. And The Phantom. And Showgirls.
I think Armageddon should be on the list, but it isn't. The film's single worst aspect is its MTV video-esque editing, which renders it unwatchable for me. This was something that crept up in the '90s.
I think it's best to judge an era by the the diversity and quality of its best movies than by its worst. Most people will never see even 1% of all films made in a year so it's almost impossible to make any judgments about the quality of the average movie. I would agree that the 90s has more garbage films than the 70s simply because there were more films being made period, including straight to DVDs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
