Jump to content
IGNORED

What recent-ish films will be considered classics in the future?

Peter Hitchens

By Peter Hitchens
in Film, TV & Radio

 Share

Recommended Posts

Timmo

Timmo

Posted
Posted

I thought Amelie was a bit rubbish, if beautiful. Many love story films seem to be like that though, where the 'happy' ending is the hero running off with someone they don't know at all. I liked the photo booth side-story, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeko

Cheeko

Posted
Posted

I was thinking about this last night, I think that when people look back on the period from 2000 till now it'll actually be the TV series that are hailed as classics, I think cinema has been at a bit of a stalemate for a while whereas series like Sopranos, The Wire, Six Feet Under, 24, Battlestar etc have really turned a corner for the format.

Okay sure, there's good films as mentioned like There Will be Blood, but they're great examples of their genre but not groundbreaking. Special effects have been the most recent breakthrough but films like Benjamin Button are more a refinement of the technology rather than the Tron and Jurassic Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andsom

Andsom

Posted
Posted
I still don't understand this ("..." and "Oh man, where to start?" are not good explanations).

Well, why don't you fire on over to Rotten Tomatoes and read one of the many, many reasons why people hold it in such high regard? It's one thing to watch a film and dislike it because you didn't connect with it etc, but it's a completely different thing to pretend that it's so bad you can't possibly understand why anyone could like it. Especially a film as universally praised as this. I think you're just being a bit stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ravern

Ravern

Posted
Posted

While there are films that are acclaimed now that will remain so, like There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men, I don't think these will be seen to the extent that Blade Runner is now (especially TWBB). Wall-E will be watched and acclaimed for decades to come. The problem is that while I think that some films that are frowned upon now (Eyes Wide Shut, Shortbus) will get greater and more positive recognition from proper critics in the future, I don't think they'll become significantly more popular among the public.

Fight Club and Pulp Fiction are still going up in the estimation of "film fans", certainly. The Matrix also deserves a mention here. But the thing is, "film fans" in this sense is largely synonymous with Despinites who read Empire magazine. I don't think this type of critic or film watched will think much higher of modern classics like TWBB in the future than they do now. All that will happen is that they will go up in readers' polls as people feel obliged to say that they like them, as they'll be going up in serious critical estimation. I always find it extremely strange that Empire top films lists contain this strange mix of artistic and popular films. Look at their recent top 10:

1. The Godfather (1972)

2. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

3. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

4. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

5. Jaws (1975)

6. Goodfellas (1990)

7. Apocalypse Now (1979)

8. Singin' in the Rain (1952)

9. Pulp Fiction (1994)

10. Fight Club (1999)

This is a mix of actually quite difficult artistic films that are rightly lauded (The Godfather, Apocalypse Now), films that are quite shallow but still entertaining (Star Wars, Raiders), and films that walk a good line between the two (the rest). Blade Runner, incidentally, was 20th.

Also note the incongruity with the Empire readers' top directors:

1. Steven Spielberg

2. Alfred Hitchcock

3. Martin Scorsese

4..Stanley Kubrick

5. Ridley Scott

Hitchcock comes second and yet has no film in the top 25. FF Coppola, who has two in the top 10 films, finishes 15th.

In conclusion, there are films that I think will be more critically acclaimed (Eyes Wide Shut, TWBB, No Country...) but they'll only go up in populist film goers estimation due to this acclaim, rather than a wider appreciation.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hulot

Hulot

Posted
Posted
Also note the incongruity with the Empire readers' top directors:

1. Steven Spielberg

2. Alfred Hitchcock

3. Martin Scorsese

4..Stanley Kubrick

5. Ridley Scott

Hitchcock comes second and yet has no film in the top 25. FF Coppola, who has two in the top 10 films, finishes 15th.

Is it not more likely that those who voted for a Hitchcock films chose only their most dear one, so as to free up space for films from other filmmakers? Under such circumstances, the Hitchcock vote would have been split between Vertigo, Psycho, Rear Window, Shadow of a Doubt and a number of other masterpieces, not to mention those Hitchcocks which are merely excellent, or those which are passable but have something about them. The same applies in reverse for Coppola: the first two Godfather pictures, Apocalypse Now and The Conversation, yes, but the rest of his oeuvre is more contentious and divisive, bringing his position on the directors table tumbling down if one takes into account the productivity to hit ratio of Hitchcock, Scorsese, et al.

This 'one film per director' voting defeats the purpose of an objective all-time list, but it's perfectly understandable, and I wouldn't take Hitchcock's aggregate ranking as an indication that those who assembled this list had anything pseudish or pretentious about them - after all, everyone likes Hitchcock, right?

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
Ravern

Ravern

Posted
Posted
. The problem is that while I think that some films that are frowned upon now (Eyes Wide Shut, Shortbus) will get greater and more positive recognition from proper critics in the future

So I'm still waiting on Shortbus. But with the other one:

http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/film/4ce2b7f5aa12a

http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-50-best-films-of-the-90s-2-of-3,86361/ no. 26

In another few years it'll be even more acclaimed. Why? Because it's great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N. Taal

N. Taal

Posted
Posted
I think Tree Of Life is one that will gain in respect and understanding over the years.

It was voted one of the top hundred feature fictions in Sight & Sound's recent poll of critics. Malick's film is an astonishingly crass, leaden, sententious concoction of quasi-Thoreauvian claptrap, fuckwit symbolism and complacent preening; taking all of that into account, it should have absolutely no trouble holding its critical perch for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept