Slashdot Mirror

In general, indian movies suck. However good gems do come along once in a while. Watch Pushpak or Shatranj ke Khilari or (almost) any movie by Satyajit Ray. Some of them are really good.

I'm guessing you listened to that high pitch screeching noise at home... to get really irritated, you must listen to it in a cinema hall! But increasing 'sophistication' of music and usage of better sound tech means that fewer movies are made like that. :-|

In general, indian movies suck. However good gems do come along once in a while. Watch Pushpak or Shatranj ke Khilari or (almost) any movie by Satyajit Ray. Some of them are really good.

I'm guessing you listened to that high pitch screeching noise at home... to get really irritated, you must listen to it in a cinema hall! But increasing 'sophistication' of music and usage of better sound tech means that fewer movies are made like that. :-|

The Indian movies in this list are:

The Apu Trilogy - which is actually three individual movies made from one book - it is the life of Apu from childhood to adulthood. Made by Satyajit Ray, the first one, Pather Panchali, followed by Aparajito and Apur Sansar, are absolute classics. I have seen a few of his movies, and being Indian, have always had a pervertedly negative image of the director (Why? Because, in my childhood innocence, I thought that the director was USING the poverty of India and capitalizing on it, only to make fame and money for himself). It is only recently that I saw these three movies, on DVD, and found them to be riveting! I haven't seen a trilogy that has been as well made - including the Star Wars 4-6 trilogy.

Nayakan: This is a true story of a gang lord who lived in Bombay, India - it is about how he escaped from Madras, spoke mostly Tamil, and how he settled in Bombay and became the underworld king, all the while being adored by the poor from the slums. A most fascinating depiction of Vardaraj Mudaliar (the original ganglord) by Kamalahasan (the redoubtable Tamil actor who has essayed roles that would make ANYONE wonder - how'd he dare to do that)?

Pyaasa: The great Guru Dutt directed and acted in this masterpiece about a poet and his struggles. I would have thought that his Kagaz Ke Phool deserved to be recognized as his best creation - but this is equally good.

At the very least, Time has proved that it is not a purely US centric publication - having dragged the whole world into this controversial list :-)

A mini plug for my blog - to ask people to please come visit!

The Indian movies in this list are:

The Apu Trilogy - which is actually three individual movies made from one book - it is the life of Apu from childhood to adulthood. Made by Satyajit Ray, the first one, Pather Panchali, followed by Aparajito and Apur Sansar, are absolute classics. I have seen a few of his movies, and being Indian, have always had a pervertedly negative image of the director (Why? Because, in my childhood innocence, I thought that the director was USING the poverty of India and capitalizing on it, only to make fame and money for himself). It is only recently that I saw these three movies, on DVD, and found them to be riveting! I haven't seen a trilogy that has been as well made - including the Star Wars 4-6 trilogy.

Nayakan: This is a true story of a gang lord who lived in Bombay, India - it is about how he escaped from Madras, spoke mostly Tamil, and how he settled in Bombay and became the underworld king, all the while being adored by the poor from the slums. A most fascinating depiction of Vardaraj Mudaliar (the original ganglord) by Kamalahasan (the redoubtable Tamil actor who has essayed roles that would make ANYONE wonder - how'd he dare to do that)?

Pyaasa: The great Guru Dutt directed and acted in this masterpiece about a poet and his struggles. I would have thought that his Kagaz Ke Phool deserved to be recognized as his best creation - but this is equally good.

At the very least, Time has proved that it is not a purely US centric publication - having dragged the whole world into this controversial list :-)

A mini plug for my blog - to ask people to please come visit!

The Indian movies in this list are:

The Apu Trilogy - which is actually three individual movies made from one book - it is the life of Apu from childhood to adulthood. Made by Satyajit Ray, the first one, Pather Panchali, followed by Aparajito and Apur Sansar, are absolute classics. I have seen a few of his movies, and being Indian, have always had a pervertedly negative image of the director (Why? Because, in my childhood innocence, I thought that the director was USING the poverty of India and capitalizing on it, only to make fame and money for himself). It is only recently that I saw these three movies, on DVD, and found them to be riveting! I haven't seen a trilogy that has been as well made - including the Star Wars 4-6 trilogy.

Nayakan: This is a true story of a gang lord who lived in Bombay, India - it is about how he escaped from Madras, spoke mostly Tamil, and how he settled in Bombay and became the underworld king, all the while being adored by the poor from the slums. A most fascinating depiction of Vardaraj Mudaliar (the original ganglord) by Kamalahasan (the redoubtable Tamil actor who has essayed roles that would make ANYONE wonder - how'd he dare to do that)?

Pyaasa: The great Guru Dutt directed and acted in this masterpiece about a poet and his struggles. I would have thought that his Kagaz Ke Phool deserved to be recognized as his best creation - but this is equally good.

At the very least, Time has proved that it is not a purely US centric publication - having dragged the whole world into this controversial list :-)

A mini plug for my blog - to ask people to please come visit!

The Indian movies in this list are:

The Apu Trilogy - which is actually three individual movies made from one book - it is the life of Apu from childhood to adulthood. Made by Satyajit Ray, the first one, Pather Panchali, followed by Aparajito and Apur Sansar, are absolute classics. I have seen a few of his movies, and being Indian, have always had a pervertedly negative image of the director (Why? Because, in my childhood innocence, I thought that the director was USING the poverty of India and capitalizing on it, only to make fame and money for himself). It is only recently that I saw these three movies, on DVD, and found them to be riveting! I haven't seen a trilogy that has been as well made - including the Star Wars 4-6 trilogy.

Nayakan: This is a true story of a gang lord who lived in Bombay, India - it is about how he escaped from Madras, spoke mostly Tamil, and how he settled in Bombay and became the underworld king, all the while being adored by the poor from the slums. A most fascinating depiction of Vardaraj Mudaliar (the original ganglord) by Kamalahasan (the redoubtable Tamil actor who has essayed roles that would make ANYONE wonder - how'd he dare to do that)?

Pyaasa: The great Guru Dutt directed and acted in this masterpiece about a poet and his struggles. I would have thought that his Kagaz Ke Phool deserved to be recognized as his best creation - but this is equally good.

At the very least, Time has proved that it is not a purely US centric publication - having dragged the whole world into this controversial list :-)

A mini plug for my blog - to ask people to please come visit!

The Indian movies in this list are:

The Apu Trilogy - which is actually three individual movies made from one book - it is the life of Apu from childhood to adulthood. Made by Satyajit Ray, the first one, Pather Panchali, followed by Aparajito and Apur Sansar, are absolute classics. I have seen a few of his movies, and being Indian, have always had a pervertedly negative image of the director (Why? Because, in my childhood innocence, I thought that the director was USING the poverty of India and capitalizing on it, only to make fame and money for himself). It is only recently that I saw these three movies, on DVD, and found them to be riveting! I haven't seen a trilogy that has been as well made - including the Star Wars 4-6 trilogy.

Nayakan: This is a true story of a gang lord who lived in Bombay, India - it is about how he escaped from Madras, spoke mostly Tamil, and how he settled in Bombay and became the underworld king, all the while being adored by the poor from the slums. A most fascinating depiction of Vardaraj Mudaliar (the original ganglord) by Kamalahasan (the redoubtable Tamil actor who has essayed roles that would make ANYONE wonder - how'd he dare to do that)?

Pyaasa: The great Guru Dutt directed and acted in this masterpiece about a poet and his struggles. I would have thought that his Kagaz Ke Phool deserved to be recognized as his best creation - but this is equally good.

At the very least, Time has proved that it is not a purely US centric publication - having dragged the whole world into this controversial list :-)

A mini plug for my blog - to ask people to please come visit!

The Indian movies in this list are:

The Apu Trilogy - which is actually three individual movies made from one book - it is the life of Apu from childhood to adulthood. Made by Satyajit Ray, the first one, Pather Panchali, followed by Aparajito and Apur Sansar, are absolute classics. I have seen a few of his movies, and being Indian, have always had a pervertedly negative image of the director (Why? Because, in my childhood innocence, I thought that the director was USING the poverty of India and capitalizing on it, only to make fame and money for himself). It is only recently that I saw these three movies, on DVD, and found them to be riveting! I haven't seen a trilogy that has been as well made - including the Star Wars 4-6 trilogy.

Nayakan: This is a true story of a gang lord who lived in Bombay, India - it is about how he escaped from Madras, spoke mostly Tamil, and how he settled in Bombay and became the underworld king, all the while being adored by the poor from the slums. A most fascinating depiction of Vardaraj Mudaliar (the original ganglord) by Kamalahasan (the redoubtable Tamil actor who has essayed roles that would make ANYONE wonder - how'd he dare to do that)?

Pyaasa: The great Guru Dutt directed and acted in this masterpiece about a poet and his struggles. I would have thought that his Kagaz Ke Phool deserved to be recognized as his best creation - but this is equally good.

At the very least, Time has proved that it is not a purely US centric publication - having dragged the whole world into this controversial list :-)

A mini plug for my blog - to ask people to please come visit!

The Indian movies in this list are:

The Apu Trilogy - which is actually three individual movies made from one book - it is the life of Apu from childhood to adulthood. Made by Satyajit Ray, the first one, Pather Panchali, followed by Aparajito and Apur Sansar, are absolute classics. I have seen a few of his movies, and being Indian, have always had a pervertedly negative image of the director (Why? Because, in my childhood innocence, I thought that the director was USING the poverty of India and capitalizing on it, only to make fame and money for himself). It is only recently that I saw these three movies, on DVD, and found them to be riveting! I haven't seen a trilogy that has been as well made - including the Star Wars 4-6 trilogy.

Nayakan: This is a true story of a gang lord who lived in Bombay, India - it is about how he escaped from Madras, spoke mostly Tamil, and how he settled in Bombay and became the underworld king, all the while being adored by the poor from the slums. A most fascinating depiction of Vardaraj Mudaliar (the original ganglord) by Kamalahasan (the redoubtable Tamil actor who has essayed roles that would make ANYONE wonder - how'd he dare to do that)?

Pyaasa: The great Guru Dutt directed and acted in this masterpiece about a poet and his struggles. I would have thought that his Kagaz Ke Phool deserved to be recognized as his best creation - but this is equally good.

At the very least, Time has proved that it is not a purely US centric publication - having dragged the whole world into this controversial list :-)

A mini plug for my blog - to ask people to please come visit!

The Indian movies in this list are:

The Apu Trilogy - which is actually three individual movies made from one book - it is the life of Apu from childhood to adulthood. Made by Satyajit Ray, the first one, Pather Panchali, followed by Aparajito and Apur Sansar, are absolute classics. I have seen a few of his movies, and being Indian, have always had a pervertedly negative image of the director (Why? Because, in my childhood innocence, I thought that the director was USING the poverty of India and capitalizing on it, only to make fame and money for himself). It is only recently that I saw these three movies, on DVD, and found them to be riveting! I haven't seen a trilogy that has been as well made - including the Star Wars 4-6 trilogy.

Nayakan: This is a true story of a gang lord who lived in Bombay, India - it is about how he escaped from Madras, spoke mostly Tamil, and how he settled in Bombay and became the underworld king, all the while being adored by the poor from the slums. A most fascinating depiction of Vardaraj Mudaliar (the original ganglord) by Kamalahasan (the redoubtable Tamil actor who has essayed roles that would make ANYONE wonder - how'd he dare to do that)?

Pyaasa: The great Guru Dutt directed and acted in this masterpiece about a poet and his struggles. I would have thought that his Kagaz Ke Phool deserved to be recognized as his best creation - but this is equally good.

At the very least, Time has proved that it is not a purely US centric publication - having dragged the whole world into this controversial list :-)

A mini plug for my blog - to ask people to please come visit!

Glad to see City of God. But where's

La Vita è bella
Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain
Séraphin: un homme et son péché
Y tu mamá también
Irréversible
Carandiru

And there's plenty more. I'd also like to point out how I'm disappointed that not one of Oliver Stone's movies is there.

Glad to see City of God. But where's

La Vita è bella
Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain
Séraphin: un homme et son péché
Y tu mamá también
Irréversible
Carandiru

And there's plenty more. I'd also like to point out how I'm disappointed that not one of Oliver Stone's movies is there.

Glad to see City of God. But where's

La Vita è bella
Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain
Séraphin: un homme et son péché
Y tu mamá también
Irréversible
Carandiru

And there's plenty more. I'd also like to point out how I'm disappointed that not one of Oliver Stone's movies is there.

Glad to see City of God. But where's

La Vita è bella
Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain
Séraphin: un homme et son péché
Y tu mamá también
Irréversible
Carandiru

And there's plenty more. I'd also like to point out how I'm disappointed that not one of Oliver Stone's movies is there.

Glad to see City of God. But where's

La Vita è bella
Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain
Séraphin: un homme et son péché
Y tu mamá también
Irréversible
Carandiru

And there's plenty more. I'd also like to point out how I'm disappointed that not one of Oliver Stone's movies is there.

Glad to see City of God. But where's

La Vita è bella
Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain
Séraphin: un homme et son péché
Y tu mamá también
Irréversible
Carandiru

And there's plenty more. I'd also like to point out how I'm disappointed that not one of Oliver Stone's movies is there.

This is definitely sweet news, but I'm just stunned that it came from a French court!

BTW: What the bloody hell is with Slashdot accusing registered users of being freakin' scripts! Seriously, have you seen Invasion of the Body Snatchers so many times that you fear human beings are actually being replaced by shell scripts!? What the hell!

but come on man

ID4??!?! that movie was so craptacular. have you gone back and watched it since it came out? it reeks with lameaty..

Ghost busters?! Raiders of the lost ark!?

oh man. GALAXY QUEST!!!! that little girl was hot but come on...
did you like anaconda too? wild things?

seems like your mostly going after trumped up blockbusters there. you want a really solid movie? go rent hud with paul newman. its an absolutely perfect 60s golden age american movie.

The list immediately lost credibility with me, when my favorite movie, The Shawshank Redemption was omitted. #2 on IMDB's top 250, but not even on the top 100 of Time's list? Makes some wonder if a media conglomerate like Time Warner might have had some other motivations (DVD sales?) in their choices.

The greatest of Indian directors, Satyajit Ray, has no representation in the Criterion Collection, because Sony (I think) holds the rights, and they won't do anything about digital restoration, while also preventing anyone else doing it.

It's actually a quote from the 1976 movie Network.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/
It's actually a good movie, worth the watch if you can find it.

I went through that IMDB list and counted just over 70 of those I haven't seen. Some I may have missed and counted them as "not watched" as I was too lazy to translate their titles to english. I did recognise a few of them like "Battleship Potemkin and Motorcycle Diaries. On the other hand, thankfully, I have only squirmed through 5 of these http://imdb.com/chart/bottom. Three of them I endured before my kids acquired a taste for good movies (or they could go watch the crap ones by themselves). "Chicken Park" wasn't on the list, though I only could watch it on video for about 15 minutes.

The problem is also not only subjectivity, but fashion. Films go in and out of fashion with critics. A few good examples:

Birth of a Nation (1915): No single movie has ever had a greater impact on the way films are made. The first true movie epic, and it topped most best movie lists for years and years. There is a snag however: The heroes of the movie are the KKK. Oops. Most critics were willing to look past this initially, but by the 70's it had fallen from favour. My opinion: By not having this movie in a a top 100 list, you are denying a very important part of film history. That said, the problems with the subject matter cannot be ignored, so it would be in the bottom 50 of my list.

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928): From the time it was made to the 70's it was often in the top 10 in these kinds of lists, since then people seem to have forgotten about it. My opinion: It's a brilliant movie and it would be in my top 10.

Last Tango in Paris: It Often made the top 5 in the 70's and 80's because it was so daring for the time it was made. It didn't age well and you won't find it on most top 100 lists at all anymore. My opinion: Not only is this not a great movie, it is down right bad. The only reason it ever made these lists was because of the politics of the times it was made in.

The problem is also not only subjectivity, but fashion. Films go in and out of fashion with critics. A few good examples:

Birth of a Nation (1915): No single movie has ever had a greater impact on the way films are made. The first true movie epic, and it topped most best movie lists for years and years. There is a snag however: The heroes of the movie are the KKK. Oops. Most critics were willing to look past this initially, but by the 70's it had fallen from favour. My opinion: By not having this movie in a a top 100 list, you are denying a very important part of film history. That said, the problems with the subject matter cannot be ignored, so it would be in the bottom 50 of my list.

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928): From the time it was made to the 70's it was often in the top 10 in these kinds of lists, since then people seem to have forgotten about it. My opinion: It's a brilliant movie and it would be in my top 10.

Last Tango in Paris: It Often made the top 5 in the 70's and 80's because it was so daring for the time it was made. It didn't age well and you won't find it on most top 100 lists at all anymore. My opinion: Not only is this not a great movie, it is down right bad. The only reason it ever made these lists was because of the politics of the times it was made in.

The problem is also not only subjectivity, but fashion. Films go in and out of fashion with critics. A few good examples:

Birth of a Nation (1915): No single movie has ever had a greater impact on the way films are made. The first true movie epic, and it topped most best movie lists for years and years. There is a snag however: The heroes of the movie are the KKK. Oops. Most critics were willing to look past this initially, but by the 70's it had fallen from favour. My opinion: By not having this movie in a a top 100 list, you are denying a very important part of film history. That said, the problems with the subject matter cannot be ignored, so it would be in the bottom 50 of my list.

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928): From the time it was made to the 70's it was often in the top 10 in these kinds of lists, since then people seem to have forgotten about it. My opinion: It's a brilliant movie and it would be in my top 10.

Last Tango in Paris: It Often made the top 5 in the 70's and 80's because it was so daring for the time it was made. It didn't age well and you won't find it on most top 100 lists at all anymore. My opinion: Not only is this not a great movie, it is down right bad. The only reason it ever made these lists was because of the politics of the times it was made in.

You sure this isn't just an elaborate version of a tabletop RPG game based on 24?

Gattaca
Brazil (included fortunately)
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey (as you mention)
Solyaris (too slow for some but certainly a classic)
Or the more esoteric, like
Naked Lunch
The City of Lost Children
or
Pi

I think the catch with sci-fi in cinema is unlike more conventional subject matter aside from dialog and good writing you also need to create an entirely new and believable world and thats not something a lot of people are capable of doing...especially on such a large scale.

You saw the latest Star Wars? Tell me the actors didn't seem like they were talking to a green-screen a lot of the time? For my money Blade Runner is still the #1 most believable (morally, philosophically, visually) world created to date, but Gattaca was also a impressive piece of noir. I believe every one of those films are as good as their terrestrial counter-parts and more ambitious.

Gattaca
Brazil (included fortunately)
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey (as you mention)
Solyaris (too slow for some but certainly a classic)
Or the more esoteric, like
Naked Lunch
The City of Lost Children
or
Pi

I think the catch with sci-fi in cinema is unlike more conventional subject matter aside from dialog and good writing you also need to create an entirely new and believable world and thats not something a lot of people are capable of doing...especially on such a large scale.

You saw the latest Star Wars? Tell me the actors didn't seem like they were talking to a green-screen a lot of the time? For my money Blade Runner is still the #1 most believable (morally, philosophically, visually) world created to date, but Gattaca was also a impressive piece of noir. I believe every one of those films are as good as their terrestrial counter-parts and more ambitious.

Gattaca
Brazil (included fortunately)
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey (as you mention)
Solyaris (too slow for some but certainly a classic)
Or the more esoteric, like
Naked Lunch
The City of Lost Children
or
Pi

I think the catch with sci-fi in cinema is unlike more conventional subject matter aside from dialog and good writing you also need to create an entirely new and believable world and thats not something a lot of people are capable of doing...especially on such a large scale.

You saw the latest Star Wars? Tell me the actors didn't seem like they were talking to a green-screen a lot of the time? For my money Blade Runner is still the #1 most believable (morally, philosophically, visually) world created to date, but Gattaca was also a impressive piece of noir. I believe every one of those films are as good as their terrestrial counter-parts and more ambitious.

Gattaca
Brazil (included fortunately)
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey (as you mention)
Solyaris (too slow for some but certainly a classic)
Or the more esoteric, like
Naked Lunch
The City of Lost Children
or
Pi

I think the catch with sci-fi in cinema is unlike more conventional subject matter aside from dialog and good writing you also need to create an entirely new and believable world and thats not something a lot of people are capable of doing...especially on such a large scale.

You saw the latest Star Wars? Tell me the actors didn't seem like they were talking to a green-screen a lot of the time? For my money Blade Runner is still the #1 most believable (morally, philosophically, visually) world created to date, but Gattaca was also a impressive piece of noir. I believe every one of those films are as good as their terrestrial counter-parts and more ambitious.

Gattaca
Brazil (included fortunately)
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey (as you mention)
Solyaris (too slow for some but certainly a classic)
Or the more esoteric, like
Naked Lunch
The City of Lost Children
or
Pi

I think the catch with sci-fi in cinema is unlike more conventional subject matter aside from dialog and good writing you also need to create an entirely new and believable world and thats not something a lot of people are capable of doing...especially on such a large scale.

You saw the latest Star Wars? Tell me the actors didn't seem like they were talking to a green-screen a lot of the time? For my money Blade Runner is still the #1 most believable (morally, philosophically, visually) world created to date, but Gattaca was also a impressive piece of noir. I believe every one of those films are as good as their terrestrial counter-parts and more ambitious.

Gattaca
Brazil (included fortunately)
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey (as you mention)
Solyaris (too slow for some but certainly a classic)
Or the more esoteric, like
Naked Lunch
The City of Lost Children
or
Pi

I think the catch with sci-fi in cinema is unlike more conventional subject matter aside from dialog and good writing you also need to create an entirely new and believable world and thats not something a lot of people are capable of doing...especially on such a large scale.

You saw the latest Star Wars? Tell me the actors didn't seem like they were talking to a green-screen a lot of the time? For my money Blade Runner is still the #1 most believable (morally, philosophically, visually) world created to date, but Gattaca was also a impressive piece of noir. I believe every one of those films are as good as their terrestrial counter-parts and more ambitious.

Gattaca
Brazil (included fortunately)
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey (as you mention)
Solyaris (too slow for some but certainly a classic)
Or the more esoteric, like
Naked Lunch
The City of Lost Children
or
Pi

I think the catch with sci-fi in cinema is unlike more conventional subject matter aside from dialog and good writing you also need to create an entirely new and believable world and thats not something a lot of people are capable of doing...especially on such a large scale.

You saw the latest Star Wars? Tell me the actors didn't seem like they were talking to a green-screen a lot of the time? For my money Blade Runner is still the #1 most believable (morally, philosophically, visually) world created to date, but Gattaca was also a impressive piece of noir. I believe every one of those films are as good as their terrestrial counter-parts and more ambitious.

Gattaca
Brazil (included fortunately)
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey (as you mention)
Solyaris (too slow for some but certainly a classic)
Or the more esoteric, like
Naked Lunch
The City of Lost Children
or
Pi

I think the catch with sci-fi in cinema is unlike more conventional subject matter aside from dialog and good writing you also need to create an entirely new and believable world and thats not something a lot of people are capable of doing...especially on such a large scale.

You saw the latest Star Wars? Tell me the actors didn't seem like they were talking to a green-screen a lot of the time? For my money Blade Runner is still the #1 most believable (morally, philosophically, visually) world created to date, but Gattaca was also a impressive piece of noir. I believe every one of those films are as good as their terrestrial counter-parts and more ambitious.

The Internet Movie Database has a really good list, which is lent further validity because it was voted on by thousands and thousands of readers, rather than just two.

I own many of these titles, and have seen most of them.

This was a brave, but subjective attempt.

I think a better measure would have been the influence each movie had on the following generations of film. Such as how many re-makes was made of it.

For instance, "Star Wars" in my opinion was a remake of "The Hidden Fortress", but Star Wars got a mention and not Hidden Fortress. Sure the list of movies are of the "Best", which sorta makes them immune to critisizm, but a better measure would have been "greatest".

The one is subjective, and the other objective.

I think they wanted to at least touch on all the best directors that film-school fancy-pants students will recognise just so that they can get the support from the largest group possible.

Only one Fellini? Only one Terry Gilliam? ONLY ONE Korosawa!? No Matrix!!!

-sigh-

At least they listed "Lord of the Rings", but not "Harry Potter"? Hmm... I'm sure children's opinion should count as well!

Sorry, but IMDB's top 250 list is still my authoratative measure of "good". (Even if I disagree personally)

I'm sure Peter Weir will be surprised to find he's been co-opted as an American - he's an Australian. Peter Weir @ www.imdb.com

You're looking at the wrong list. Try this one.

Duel. A really good early Spielberg movie. I am obviously interested in cars but the original Gone in 60 Seconds was good as well. Knowing the history and the process of making the film is just as good as the movie itself.

Glad to see Brazil on there though.

Hear, Hear. That was the only film that gave the list any creditability.

Make sure you see the full version of the movie, not the 're-edited for Americans' version. (The Criterion Collection boxed set has all the different versions plus great commentary.)

No A Clockwork Orange? No Satyricon? Not even the original (Russian) Solaris? Or 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Thanks God they go Finding Nemo in there. Otherwise I might have to doubt their credibility! :)

No A Clockwork Orange? No Satyricon? Not even the original (Russian) Solaris? Or 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Thanks God they go Finding Nemo in there. Otherwise I might have to doubt their credibility! :)

No A Clockwork Orange? No Satyricon? Not even the original (Russian) Solaris? Or 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Thanks God they go Finding Nemo in there. Otherwise I might have to doubt their credibility! :)

No A Clockwork Orange? No Satyricon? Not even the original (Russian) Solaris? Or 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Thanks God they go Finding Nemo in there. Otherwise I might have to doubt their credibility! :)

Okay, here is the real link to the whole list. Note that the list isn't ranked (there is no "number one" movie...), it's just an alphabetized but otherwise unordered list.

I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies. Here's the breakdown by decade:

• 2000's: 5 movies
• 1990's: 10 movies
• 1980's: 12 movies
• 1970's: 9 movies
• 1960's: 15 movies
• 1950's: 16 movies
• 1940's: 15 movies
• 1930's: 12 movies
• 1920's: 6 movies

Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four? Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema? Were the '70's through '90's really worse than the '40's through '60's?

I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense to me that the best movies are getting progressively fewer and further between as time goes on. In general, movies that I consider "top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago. Writers can better relate to the culture I grew up in, they are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo, technology has greatly expanded the realm of the possible in movie-making, actors are much more real than they used to be, etc. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but hopefully you can see my point.

I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated. It's a little bit like saying that Beethoven is the best composer of all time when you know that if you start rooting through everyone's CD collections, you'll find tons more McCartney/Lennon and (sigh) Madonna. I'm not saying that I don't like old movies at all; one of my personal favorites is 12 Angry Men (didn't make the list), but I'm just talking about in general.

Some of my top choices (by entertainment value, not necessarily culturally significant) that didn't make the list would have to include, in no particular order (all links go to IMDB):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (leaving this one off is, in my humble opinion, the most egregious sin), Rat Race, The Usual Suspects, Independence Day, Ghost Busters, The Majestic, Airplane!, The Professional, The Shawshank Redemption, Back to the Future, Toy Story, Mr. Holland's Opus, Galaxy Quest, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Primal Fear, The Matrix, Superman, ...

(I'll stop boring you with my list now.)

Okay, here is the real link to the whole list. Note that the list isn't ranked (there is no "number one" movie...), it's just an alphabetized but otherwise unordered list.

I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies. Here's the breakdown by decade:

• 2000's: 5 movies
• 1990's: 10 movies
• 1980's: 12 movies
• 1970's: 9 movies
• 1960's: 15 movies
• 1950's: 16 movies
• 1940's: 15 movies
• 1930's: 12 movies
• 1920's: 6 movies

Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four? Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema? Were the '70's through '90's really worse than the '40's through '60's?

I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense to me that the best movies are getting progressively fewer and further between as time goes on. In general, movies that I consider "top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago. Writers can better relate to the culture I grew up in, they are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo, technology has greatly expanded the realm of the possible in movie-making, actors are much more real than they used to be, etc. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but hopefully you can see my point.

I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated. It's a little bit like saying that Beethoven is the best composer of all time when you know that if you start rooting through everyone's CD collections, you'll find tons more McCartney/Lennon and (sigh) Madonna. I'm not saying that I don't like old movies at all; one of my personal favorites is 12 Angry Men (didn't make the list), but I'm just talking about in general.

Some of my top choices (by entertainment value, not necessarily culturally significant) that didn't make the list would have to include, in no particular order (all links go to IMDB):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (leaving this one off is, in my humble opinion, the most egregious sin), Rat Race, The Usual Suspects, Independence Day, Ghost Busters, The Majestic, Airplane!, The Professional, The Shawshank Redemption, Back to the Future, Toy Story, Mr. Holland's Opus, Galaxy Quest, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Primal Fear, The Matrix, Superman, ...

(I'll stop boring you with my list now.)

Okay, here is the real link to the whole list. Note that the list isn't ranked (there is no "number one" movie...), it's just an alphabetized but otherwise unordered list.

I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies. Here's the breakdown by decade:

• 2000's: 5 movies
• 1990's: 10 movies
• 1980's: 12 movies
• 1970's: 9 movies
• 1960's: 15 movies
• 1950's: 16 movies
• 1940's: 15 movies
• 1930's: 12 movies
• 1920's: 6 movies

Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four? Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema? Were the '70's through '90's really worse than the '40's through '60's?

I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense to me that the best movies are getting progressively fewer and further between as time goes on. In general, movies that I consider "top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago. Writers can better relate to the culture I grew up in, they are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo, technology has greatly expanded the realm of the possible in movie-making, actors are much more real than they used to be, etc. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but hopefully you can see my point.

I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated. It's a little bit like saying that Beethoven is the best composer of all time when you know that if you start rooting through everyone's CD collections, you'll find tons more McCartney/Lennon and (sigh) Madonna. I'm not saying that I don't like old movies at all; one of my personal favorites is 12 Angry Men (didn't make the list), but I'm just talking about in general.

Some of my top choices (by entertainment value, not necessarily culturally significant) that didn't make the list would have to include, in no particular order (all links go to IMDB):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (leaving this one off is, in my humble opinion, the most egregious sin), Rat Race, The Usual Suspects, Independence Day, Ghost Busters, The Majestic, Airplane!, The Professional, The Shawshank Redemption, Back to the Future, Toy Story, Mr. Holland's Opus, Galaxy Quest, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Primal Fear, The Matrix, Superman, ...

(I'll stop boring you with my list now.)

Okay, here is the real link to the whole list. Note that the list isn't ranked (there is no "number one" movie...), it's just an alphabetized but otherwise unordered list.

I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies. Here's the breakdown by decade:

• 2000's: 5 movies
• 1990's: 10 movies
• 1980's: 12 movies
• 1970's: 9 movies
• 1960's: 15 movies
• 1950's: 16 movies
• 1940's: 15 movies
• 1930's: 12 movies
• 1920's: 6 movies

Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four? Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema? Were the '70's through '90's really worse than the '40's through '60's?

I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense to me that the best movies are getting progressively fewer and further between as time goes on. In general, movies that I consider "top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago. Writers can better relate to the culture I grew up in, they are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo, technology has greatly expanded the realm of the possible in movie-making, actors are much more real than they used to be, etc. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but hopefully you can see my point.

I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated. It's a little bit like saying that Beethoven is the best composer of all time when you know that if you start rooting through everyone's CD collections, you'll find tons more McCartney/Lennon and (sigh) Madonna. I'm not saying that I don't like old movies at all; one of my personal favorites is 12 Angry Men (didn't make the list), but I'm just talking about in general.

Some of my top choices (by entertainment value, not necessarily culturally significant) that didn't make the list would have to include, in no particular order (all links go to IMDB):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (leaving this one off is, in my humble opinion, the most egregious sin), Rat Race, The Usual Suspects, Independence Day, Ghost Busters, The Majestic, Airplane!, The Professional, The Shawshank Redemption, Back to the Future, Toy Story, Mr. Holland's Opus, Galaxy Quest, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Primal Fear, The Matrix, Superman, ...

(I'll stop boring you with my list now.)

Okay, here is the real link to the whole list. Note that the list isn't ranked (there is no "number one" movie...), it's just an alphabetized but otherwise unordered list.

I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies. Here's the breakdown by decade:

• 2000's: 5 movies
• 1990's: 10 movies
• 1980's: 12 movies
• 1970's: 9 movies
• 1960's: 15 movies
• 1950's: 16 movies
• 1940's: 15 movies
• 1930's: 12 movies
• 1920's: 6 movies

Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four? Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema? Were the '70's through '90's really worse than the '40's through '60's?

I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense to me that the best movies are getting progressively fewer and further between as time goes on. In general, movies that I consider "top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago. Writers can better relate to the culture I grew up in, they are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo, technology has greatly expanded the realm of the possible in movie-making, actors are much more real than they used to be, etc. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but hopefully you can see my point.

I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated. It's a little bit like saying that Beethoven is the best composer of all time when you know that if you start rooting through everyone's CD collections, you'll find tons more McCartney/Lennon and (sigh) Madonna. I'm not saying that I don't like old movies at all; one of my personal favorites is 12 Angry Men (didn't make the list), but I'm just talking about in general.

Some of my top choices (by entertainment value, not necessarily culturally significant) that didn't make the list would have to include, in no particular order (all links go to IMDB):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (leaving this one off is, in my humble opinion, the most egregious sin), Rat Race, The Usual Suspects, Independence Day, Ghost Busters, The Majestic, Airplane!, The Professional, The Shawshank Redemption, Back to the Future, Toy Story, Mr. Holland's Opus, Galaxy Quest, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Primal Fear, The Matrix, Superman, ...

(I'll stop boring you with my list now.)

Okay, here is the real link to the whole list. Note that the list isn't ranked (there is no "number one" movie...), it's just an alphabetized but otherwise unordered list.

I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies. Here's the breakdown by decade:

• 2000's: 5 movies
• 1990's: 10 movies
• 1980's: 12 movies
• 1970's: 9 movies
• 1960's: 15 movies
• 1950's: 16 movies
• 1940's: 15 movies
• 1930's: 12 movies
• 1920's: 6 movies

Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four? Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema? Were the '70's through '90's really worse than the '40's through '60's?

I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense to me that the best movies are getting progressively fewer and further between as time goes on. In general, movies that I consider "top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago. Writers can better relate to the culture I grew up in, they are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo, technology has greatly expanded the realm of the possible in movie-making, actors are much more real than they used to be, etc. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but hopefully you can see my point.

I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated. It's a little bit like saying that Beethoven is the best composer of all time when you know that if you start rooting through everyone's CD collections, you'll find tons more McCartney/Lennon and (sigh) Madonna. I'm not saying that I don't like old movies at all; one of my personal favorites is 12 Angry Men (didn't make the list), but I'm just talking about in general.

Some of my top choices (by entertainment value, not necessarily culturally significant) that didn't make the list would have to include, in no particular order (all links go to IMDB):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (leaving this one off is, in my humble opinion, the most egregious sin), Rat Race, The Usual Suspects, Independence Day, Ghost Busters, The Majestic, Airplane!, The Professional, The Shawshank Redemption, Back to the Future, Toy Story, Mr. Holland's Opus, Galaxy Quest, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Primal Fear, The Matrix, Superman, ...

(I'll stop boring you with my list now.)