Is the 90s the golden era for Hollywood?
>>214209319Nah that'd be the 70s
>>214209319Cinematography was perfected in the 90s
where's heat
80s>90s>70s>00s>60s
Okay. Let's see:Clueless - shitFight Club - mediocreTitanic - shit Aladdin - mediocreSilence of the Lambs - okayScream - mediocreTerminator 2 - mediocreToy Story 2 - mediocreBatman Forever - shit Romeo + Juliet - shitBlade - okaySpace Jam - shitForrest Gump - shitJurassic Park - good Ghost in the Shell - good (not Hollywood)The Lion King - mediocreBlair Witch Project - shit American Pie - shitPulp Fiction - goodHome Alone 2 - shit Wow, a pretty shitty decade.
>>214209346Really? The 70s had like ten well known movies. The 90s had hundreds. The 60s and 70s really were the dark ages of movies between the classic and modern era.
>>214210663you could puts 70s, 80s, and 90s in any order as first three. Those are films' strongest decades I think. Then next comes 00s and 60s or 60s>00s, agreed.
>>21421076670s destroy 90s. >>21421077760s is easily stronger than 90s.
>>214210766>The 60s and 70s really were the dark ages of moviesthis thread has a spicy smell
>>214210732What's a great movie in your opinion?
>>214210815Mostly non-American ones. For example Chungking Express. But my good is basically 8-10 depending on my mood.
The 80s is basically the start of real movies cause everything before then SUCKED
>>214210766The top three decades are 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
>>214211048It's the start of slop.
YesThe '90s was demonstrably the peak of cinema
>>214210802Depends how you compare. I think they really need top 100s for each year but we could start with 50. And for that 1970-1972 is shockingly awful. Maybe even through 73 I forget. But you would be damn lucky to get a strong top 100 for 1970-1973 combined whereas one single year from the 90s could possibly be strong competition for that. Every year has their precious little top 10 or 20. That gets us literally nowhere.
>>214210732wow you're a twat
>>214211121Any year from the 70s is stronger than any 1990s year.
>>214209319Half of those movies are literally shit
>>214209319No, its closer to the point where they ceased to produce anything worthwhile beyond a few auteurs like Lynch.
>>214211098Nice list, very comfy
1900-1940s - proto cinema 1950s-1970s - peak cinema1980s-2000s - fun cinema2010s-2020s - stopped watching mainstream movies cinema
>>214209319If you’re a zoomer
was the 90s the last era of good mid budget action films?
>>214211155My ass. I'll let you pick. 1970-1972. And its big lists. Youre not gonna dangle one or two movies and say they're better than anything from that year in the 90s so it's a better year. Or you can but if so let's be clear about it.
>>214211155This is not going to go well for you I promise.
>>214211559inb4 "those are all le slop, my obscure french movies are much better"
>>214210732>Pulp Fiction - goodlmao
>>214209319pure sovl
>>214211640This. It's not good. It's a masterpiece.
>>214211257Van damme says that yes
>>214210732Silence of the lambs and Pulp fiction are shit and Jurassic park is okay but otherwise mostly agreed.
>>214211690mostly disagreed
>>214210732Pretty shit takes ngl.>>214210966Oh, you're one of those people. Makes sense.
>>214211640you probably can't even articulate why you think it's bad
>>214211559I will never understand why people enjoy sentimental cheesy crap like Forrest Gump or Shawshank Redemption. I haven't seen The Client, but from this list I actually enjoyed Pulp Fiction and Leon.
50s>60s>70s>80s>90s>10s>20s
>>214211917This is somewhat biased. Old movies are watched mostly by people actually interested in movies, new movies by all kinds of casuals and nostalgic millennials.
>>214211917>top 75sNow try top 1,000. Seriously.
>>214211917>that massive quality drop in the 80s
there's a literal era for hollywood already called the golden agePre-Code Hollywood > New Hollywood > Blockbuster Era > Contemporary Hollywood > Hays Code Era
>>214212074The only massive quality drop I see is the 2020s. I've never been an OLD GOOD NEW BAD kind of guy, but holy shit, this decade has been depressing.
>>214211724It's not bad it's just okay. I like it for the "moments" it has, I love the characters. It's shot pretty great. There's nothing to it though. The Bonnie Situation is bad it's really corny you can cut the last 40 minutes of the film out. Following The Golden Watch, it's like there's an addendum of thematic meaning rather than enhancement or reinforcement of what came before. There are ATTEMPTS at some sort of coherence. It's vaguely about coincidence, if there's meaning in the chaos, what choices people make when faced with unforeseen circumstances, if those "choices" are even done in accord of free will. That's all sprinkled in there I guess but it's nothing special, easy to grasp (because Samuel L Jackson fucking yells out what the movie is about in monologues) and I don't think there's a single unique or poignant insight you can pull from between the lines. As a film it's full of itself with all the puffed up, self-indulgent... pulpy!!! dialogue but for what?? It's not clever, it's just a decent, fun movie that goes on too long.
>>214212074Halloween is a piece of shit and so is the entire franchise. Relatively speaking. Friday the 13th may be a piece of shit but at least the franchise is good. So I take that entry to just kinda be a place holder for the franchise or maybe just whichever sequels best.
>>214209319No, but most of my favourite films are non-american anyway so I don't really care.
>>214211917you can literally see it all fall apart in the 00s, franchises, comic books, nerd culture
>>214212153filtered
Flubber with Robin Williams is ground zero. It all goes back to Flubber.
>>214211917>If only you knew how bad things are going to be
>>214212220To prove whether or not Halloween is a piece of shit. I think it can be done.
>>214212101By the time of the 80s it's pure millennial nostalgia. 90s is the same. 00s is franchise slop, Pixar cartoons.
>domestically, it's the second highest grossing October movie from the 90s, behind Pulp FictionI love this 1998 movie
>>214211858you had to be there.
Clueless - 8/10Fight Club - 9.5/10Titanic - 9.5/10Aladdin - 8.5/10Silence of the Lambs - 9/10Scream - 8/10Terminator 2 - 10/10Toy Story 2 - 8/10Batman Forever - 7/10Romeo + Juliet - 8/10Blade - 7.5/10Space Jam - 4.5/10Forrest Gump - 8/10Jurassic Park - 9/10Ghost in the Shell - 7.5/10The Lion King - 8.5/10Blair Witch Project - 5.5/10American Pie - 6.5/10Pulp Fiction - 10/10Home Alone 2 - 7/10
>>214213213This is surprisingly accurate. Wouldn't go that high for Pulp Fiction, but everything else is pretty much spot on.
>>214210966>dude look at that quirky azn waifu staring at the wall so kino
for me it's 60s samurai movies
90s movies clear anything after them. But the pre 90s. That’s the good shit.
>>214213213>>214213256If you go by mainstream audience scores then yes, but those same audiences rate spiderverse 10/10
>>214213566The mainstream audience doesn't think that highly of Romeo + Juliet (6.7 on IMDB), Batman Forever (5.4), Clueless (6.9) and Scream (7.4), considering an IMDB-rating under 7.5 is like 3-3.5 stars.
>>214209319Only 6 of these are good. The golden era was unquestionably 40s and 50s. It fell off hard by 68 and the french faggot wave.
>>214209319>tranime>hollywoodget a load of this faggot
>>214212153>I take that entry to just kinda be a place holder for the franchise or maybe just whichever sequels best.It's just how many people on the site have watched the movie in descending order from the top left
