Better films from 1998 (not in order of my favorites, but how they pop up in my mind):
- Saving Private Ryan
- The Thin Red Line
- Life is Beautiful
- American History X
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
- A Bug's Life
- The Truman Show
- Gods and Monsters
- Affliction
- Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
- Central Station
- Rushmore
Add yours.
3========D
Some good stuff there, but no. SIL doth teach the torches to burn bright.
shareRushmore would be my favourite from that lot but there hadn't been anything like Shakespeare in Love for quite a while and there hasn't been anything like it since, though Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999) made me laugh nearly as much.
shareElizabeth!
shareAmerican History X vs. Life is Beautiful. That's how the oscars should havew gone.
An offer you can't refuse.
[deleted]
The Thin Red Line was my favorite of 1998.
sharei videotaped myself taking a dump back in 1998. that was better than this film
shareHey, aburn-1, so we see what your taste in film is like and can judge your opinion accordingly.
shareHey, aburn-1, so we see what your taste in film is like and can judge your opinion accordingly.
I've seen Godzilla (utter piece of garbage is too kind an assessment) and Lethal Weapon 1, which is enough for a lifetime. IMHO, you've got lousy taste in films. To each his own, and I trust I'm entitled to my opinion.
shareThere were no better films than Shakespeare In Love.
shareThe Big Lebowski.
shareUh, sorry, OP, but I cannot take your view seriously (please, The Truman Show, A Bug's Life, Fear and Loathing in Las Vega, Lock, Stock, etc. - you can't be serious). In my view the best film of 1998 was The Thin Red Line, but I fully understand why there was no chance it would be awarded the Oscar - it is a flawed film, Malick is not popular among the Hollywood set and it is definitely not a Hollywood film. For that reason, I see Shakespeare in Love as a suitable choice. Saving Private Ryan was a mediocre film at best, and I cannot believe the whining that goes on about it (starting with Spielberg's immature and unsporting sulking at the Oscars). The Normandy landing scene was an instant classic, but the rest of the film simply didn't hold up. The script was poor, the plot trite, the characters one dimensional, and the ending OH SO pat and trivial. Band of Brothers was a much better tribute to those who sacrificed in WWII. Shakespeare in Love was from start to finish a brilliant and inventive film. The script was fantastic and the acting flawless. It was a lighthearted, yet serious look at one of the great genius' of English literature, and even thought, and consideration of such things as love, artistic inspiration, fate and chance, etc. etc. All of that was seemlessly woven into the plot. Stoppard also managed to add in many very funny touches that gave a 20th Century ethos to the situation (and one should not forget that Shakespeare is replete with anachonisms). Also, the plot uses multiple devices that were typical in Shakespeare's plays, such as the cross-dressing to disguise oneself, for a man to escape danger and for a woman to be able to do somethnig her gender was not permitted to do at the time (acting). I even love the touches like the theater owner who is seduced by being offered the "vital" part of the apothecary, or the man opening and closing the play having a speech impediment. I can understand someone preferring other films, but I simply don't get why people keep calling this wonderful film "BEEP" and insisting that every piece of garbage made that year was better (why not the Spice Girls' Movie?).
share