As we get closer to the present, it’s harder and harder to have perspective on these films. Something that captivated us all one year could basically die in about a decade or two. Driving Miss Daisy is an example. So figuring out what is essential is more difficult than in other decades, but what is good and such is not. Even lacking the added hindsight, the 90s were a strange decade.
1990-1999
“Really? This was ‘the Best?’”
Dances with Wolves (1990)
Okay, so this isn’t as bad as I was concerned. It is basically everything good and terrible about Kevin Costner minus baseball. I don’t think this film deserves it’s three hours, and it’s borderline offensive that an hour has been added to it over the years. The concept of the film hasn’t aged well. The film is basically well made, and Costner doesn’t suck as the protagonist. That’s kind of the thing though, he is much better in other roles not directed by him. I wouldn’t call it a bad film, just bloated and pretentious. Though it’s epicness and scope might be larger than fellow nominees Goodfellas and Awakenings, it does not surpass those films in quality. Grade: C+
The Good
Braveheart (1995)
When I first saw this when I was 12, I thought it was one of the most awesome films I’d ever seen. Violent, inspiring, and well put together, it makes sense that it struck a chord with adolescent me. Adult me is less impressed now, partly because I’ve seen better war films. Also the “inspiring” moments feel cheesy now. It’s strange that a film so bloody could be the cinematic equivalent of nachos. I’m making more fun of it than I mean. It’s actually a pretty good film, if a smidge superficial. Grade: B-
The English Patient (1996)
So to me, this is the apex of the "Academy Award" genre. A doomed romance set during a war. It’s the most David Lean film not directed by David Lean. I wasn’t looking forward to this, but I gotta admit, it is pretty good. Thumbless Willem Dafoe might be my favorite aspect of the film. The doomed romance is tiresome, but the rest is enthralling and entertaining. Grade: B
The Great
Unforgiven (1992)
It took me awhile to get into westerns. I’m not sure why. It might be the machismo or the fact I find John Wayne ridiculous. I didn’t really start to appreciate westerns until late in college when I saw Destry Rides Again. Unforgiven helped solidify my enjoyment of the genre. The gunslinger reckoning with an evil sheriff storyline is old, but Eastwood injects new life into it with his direction and acting. Grade: B+
Forrest Gump (1994)
Yes it is schmaltzy and “feel good,” but that doesn’t keep it from being great. Though this could have become Driving Miss Daisy, Tom Hanks’s portrayal and Robert Zemeckis's direction keeps it from going that way. There are bipolar contingencies about this film: those who find it saccharine nostalgia and those who enjoy it as a piece of cinema magic. I guess I’m in the latter camp. I think this film's flaws are magnified over time for being the film that beat Pulp Fiction. All the 1994 Best Picture nominees were excellent so I kind of get the feeling that no matter which won, people would be hypercritical. Kind of like Rocky in 1976. Grade: B+
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
I’ve said it before that I am a fan of the old Bard. So it doesn’t bother me, like it does some, that this beat Saving Private Ryan. This has a bit more of that “Academy Award” stuff- troubled romance, period drama, etc. It is however downright delightful and fun. Centered on the first performance of Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare falls in love with a woman pretending to be a man. If you enjoyed your Shakespeare classes, you’ll love it. If you didn’t, you might still like it actually. I do remember pulling for this to win back in 1998, but now I think I prefer the also nominated Life is Beautiful over this and Saving Private Ryan. Grade: B+
American Beauty (1999)
I’m don’t know if I can adequately and objectively review this film like I can the others. When I first saw this as a freshman in high school it really spoke to me, so it has become one of those movies that I may be a bit blinded to its faults. A middle aged man having an existential awakening over an infatuation for his teenage daughter’s friend seems like a bad film. Alan Ball’s screenplay, however, is so well constructed and hilarious that you find yourself really getting into it. I’m a big fan of suburban malaise films, and I think this film is what started that love. Grade: A-
The Essential
Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Most of the time, I think of this as a horror film. There are days where I consider the “thriller” argument and then I remember the whole wearing a dress made of skin thing. Winner of picture, directing, actor, and actress and deservedly so. Sadly, I think the parodies and the sequels have diminished how good this film is for a lot of the audience. The story and the suspense are so captivating that the film will end and you’ll want to watch it again, despite how gritty and gory. Hannibal Lecter captured the imagination of audiences for decades to come. Grade: A
Schindler’s List (1993)
Spielberg’s epic and THE holocaust film. Just about everything about this film works: The direction, the performances, the selective use of color. A haunting film, you kind of need to be mentally prepared for it. It will stick with you after watching too. Grade: A
Come back Thursday for the 2000s!