@robbybedfart:
When there has to be an advanced caveat to explain why you're going to go see something, and you rationalize up front that its bad, it means there's a problem. "I think Negima is a good comic, if you can getpast the first 40 chapters, the love triangles, and the lolicon aspect."
Yet the art, combat, characterization, and the later minimizing of those aspects gets me though it and allows it to be a series I can recomend… but it starts pretty bad, and that caveat is there. Those things keep it from being something I can recomend to everyone.
And Scott Pilgrim's biggest problem was the same as Princess and the Frog. Terrible advertising.
Pulp Fiction? Tho even that was as far back as 94.
Often times these movies aren't recognized fully till some time later, but yeah. Its hard to hang with the very very best, the top 20 films made in the last 70 years, and thats a ridiculous standard to hold anything to.
The Pixar movies are hitting that standard, its just hard to tell because they keep doing it again and again and make it look easy, and they still have the "shiny new cgi cartoon" feel. Give em another 10 or 20 years and they will be absolutley the consistent best of the era.
But "very good" shouldn't be out of reach so often. I'm a huge Jackie Chan fan. I've seen almost all of his movies. Two or three of them are fantastic in every aspect they try to deliver on (comedy and combat). Another dozen are fun once. And then there's like 50 incredibly shitty ones. The man has done a lot of terrible stuff.
If your going as far back as 94' you have to think about Shawshank too.