Well that's not the full quote, I said I believe most of the best films of all time come from that era, in that context it would be fair to infer I was giving my own personal opinion. I stand by that too, and this is all IMO.
... right, I know that you were giving your opinion, and that is fine. Your opinion just struck me as curious, but I appreciate the explanation that you gave.
I find most movies from the 80s and early had poor-very poor production quality, very cliched, etc, the 90s is where film making really came into its own, special efforts appeared natural, story telling became more adventurous, cinematography matured. The list of great movies from that era is ridiculous. Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, forrest gump, good fellas, the first matrix, the big lobowski, american history x, dazed and confused, the green mile, fifth element, reservoir dogs, office space, t2.
I concur that special effects improved dramatically in the 1990s. Most of the special effects in 1980s films, such as
Blade Runner and
Ghostbusters, are embarrassingly hokey and artificial-looking. Conversely, I viewed
Jurassic Park in the theater again in 2013 as part of the film's twentieth-anniversary 3D release, and the dinosaurs really hold up—I do not feel that they are any worse than those in
Jurassic World (2015). The difference is that
Jurassic Park constitutes great science fiction, whereas
Jurassic World (which I viewed twice, once in 3D and once without) is an insulting abomination in my opinion. Of course, having Steven Spielberg as a director helps; 1993 constituted quite a year for him with both
Jurassic World and
Schindler's List—and consider his versatility in triumphing with such different movies.
Similarly, I viewed
Space Cowboys again in the fall of 2012 (a 2000 release, but one filmed in 1999), and the special effects really hold up—the outer space scenes remain hauntingly beautiful.
However, one could argue that the reliance on special effects has made most action movies preposterous and mindless.
Pulp Fiction (which I viewed in the theater again in August 2013, after first seeing and studying it in college in 1999) and
American History X are great;
Forrest Gump may be great, but I have not seen it in over fifteen years, so I need to view it again. I consider
The Matrix, which I viewed in the theater in October 2013, "good."
Fight Club, which I saw in the theater in September 2013 and July 2016, offers an incredible concept and incredible commentary, but on both occasions, the film's central conceit did not end up working for me, and I ultimately considered the movie merely "decent." It is a fascinating film, though.
As for cliches, to me, what makes a film cliched is the film itself, not the era. Every era has cliched movies on the one hand and daring storytelling on the other. As for cinematography, again, I feel that it comes down to the movie rather than the era. That said, over the last, say, thirty or thirty-five years, too many movies have overloaded closeups and thus end up looking like television.
Anyway, I respect your viewpoint.
As for Wayne's World being one long Saturday Night Live skit, that's pretty much the perfect description of it. If I hadn't seen it I'd say check it out on netflix or whatever, but wouldnt bother paying money to see it at the cinema.
Yeah, I instead ended up seeing the original
Sabrina (1954) in the theater again, in order to check my assessment of it. And that reminds me that I need to view the 1995 remake of the same name in order to compare ...
reply
share