Time Picks Top 100 Films

gollum123 writes "Time magazine on Monday published its list of 100 all-time favorite movies ranging from Charlie Chaplin's "City Lights" (1931) to Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" (1993) and 2003 computer-animated hit "Finding Nemo." But critics Richard Schickel and Richard Corliss snubbed several classics such as 1939's "Gone with the Wind". Almost half of the films were made outside the United States. Here is the full list."

Comments

Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

How did Revenge of the Sith get #1? George Lucas, are you up to no good?!?

Re:Wait a minute

[badfeng2]

Never mind these Star Wars craps! You must work for world peace! http://www.leakedpracticevideo.com/ It is now the only way.

Re:Wait a minute

[damiam]

Before anyone mods this up further, I should point out that RotS isn't even on the list, much less #1.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooboy, I bet you're a riot at parties.

Re:Wait a minute

[mcsnee]

Well, *I* laughed.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

All I want is world peace (and a blowjob)

Re:Wait a minute

[Jemima's Witness]

Heh heh, yeah some people just don't have that... uhh... you know... a sense of humour.

Re:Wait a minute

[Associate]

I think the bigger question is how the hell this article made it to Slashdot to begin with. If Time wants to get exposure to the geek community, let 'em buy an ad. I'd hardly think of them as an authority on anything except selling hardbound books on crappy subjects. Remodel your entire home with alien technology using Time-Life's Unexplained Home Repair. Available in 52 easy payments of $9.95. And if you act now, they'll personally send Elvis down from the mother ship to shove an electric screw driver up your ass.

Re:Wait a minute

[flynns]

Rebuttal to first two replies to unnecessary, extraneous comments.

Re:Wait a minute

[fishbot]

"If Time wants to get exposure to the geek community, let 'em buy an ad."

One word: Adblock

Remodel your entire home with alien technology using Time-Life's Unexplained Home Repair.

I'd buy that. I have an unexplained home that is in desperate need of sorting out.

Re:Wait a minute

[1u3hr]

I think the bigger question is how the hell this article made it to Slashdot to begin with

The same way all the Star Wars rumours do. And the dupes, hoaxes, product PR releases, beat-ups and other random trash that ends up on the front page.

Re:Wait a minute

[LeGarcia]

No problem... Where are the torrents?

Re:Wait a minute

[CoffeeJedi]

i agree

Re:Wait a minute

[Anti Frozt]

Nonsensical statement involving plankton

Re:Wait a minute

[UttBuggly]

...or a world class piece that includes a blowjob!

Wow, magazine doing movie ratings?

[Pxtl]

It's like an automatic flamewar.

Oh, and Steven Spielberg Godwinned the Oscars.

Re:Wow, magazine doing movie ratings?

[sweetfathairyjesus]

Oh my goodness... so what they're saying is that America makes the best films in the world? Almost ALL of those films were American. Now where DID I put those rose-tinted glasses? :slap:

Re:Wow, magazine doing movie ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, according to the original post, almost half the films were NON-American. It does stand to reason that America would have the largest share, though. We spend FAR more money on making movies than any other country...

It wouldn't surprise me if we spent more money than every other country combined (though, really, I have no idea, I'm just saying I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that were the case).

Re:Wow, magazine doing movie ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does stand to reason that America would have the largest share, though. We spend FAR more money on making movies than any other country...

So? The Americans might spend the most money, but that's off topic. They haven't made the majority of the world's films.

If we're judging quality, one Ingmar Bergman or Fritz Lang or Federico Fellini or [insert favourite giant here] film could counterbalance a year's worth of Hollywood's total film production. Come on, less than HALF of the films on that list were from another country than the USA, while things like Pulp Fiction and Star Wars somehow got included!
(Yeah, those two films are entertaining but they sure as hell are no masterpieces! We're only allowed to pick 100 films...)

I'm not anti-American or a "leftie Yurpean". It's just the way things are, or at least have been. Today it feels like European film making is stagnating, and the gold/garbage ratio is increasing even in the mainstream Hollywood production. A small detail like awarding the Cannes Palm d'Or to a political pamphlet of rather mediocre/lower-medium artistic quality (compared to other Hollywood productions, even) like Fahrenheit 9-11 shows that something's rotten in European film-making. Or that there are too many American film-makers in the Cannes jury...

Re:Wow, magazine doing movie ratings?

[Goth Biker Babe]

And who said how good a movie is is directly related to the amount you spend on it?

Also what constitutes an American movie? For example Star Wars (the original) was predominantly filmed in Britain with about half the cast as British. The director is American, and the money is so I would say it was. But what about Alien? Again filmed in Britain, with a British director and crew and two Brits on the cast?

Film making is now international with international companies.

Re:Wow, magazine doing movie ratings?

[smallfeet]

Guess it depends on your definition of best.

Re:Wow, magazine doing movie ratings?

[1u3hr]

Oh my goodness... so what they're saying is that America makes the best films in the world? Almost ALL of those films were American

And as they were chosen by that bastion of internationalism, Time Magazine, we know there wasn't any bias.

Re:Wow, magazine doing movie ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

while things like Pulp Fiction and Star Wars somehow got included!
(Yeah, those two films are entertaining but they sure as hell are no masterpieces! We're only allowed to pick 100 films...)

Actually, I have to disagree with you there. Those films *are* masterpieces. They are the most important films of their genres. I'm not sure where you're coming from; are you saying that only dramas can be masterpieces, while anything that is entertaining is fluffy drivel?

I'm really surprised you chose those two films to pick on, when there are plenty of questionable choices on the list. Finding Nemo? I enjoyed it quite a bit, but there are lots of other animated movies that are as good or better; this one just doesn't stand out. The Fly???

I haven't seen (or heard of) half the movies on the list, so I can't comment. I'm sure none of them are terrible though. A lot of it comes down to personal preferences. I'd put Rocky, Se7en, and Forrest Gump on my top 100 list.

Wait a minute...

[Motherfucking Shit]

Where's "Debbie Does Dallas?" This list is rigged.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Walterk]

Deep Throat is arguably better, and what about New Wave Hookers?

Re:Wait a minute...

[pHatidic]

I agree, Deep Throat is said to be the highest grossing movie of all time when adjusted to today's dollars.

Re:Wait a minute...

[pcgabe]

That's a popular belief, but it's probably not true.

Here's a quote from Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man:

Q. I always thought the most profitable movie of all time (based on percentage return) was "The Blair Witch Project." However, the movie poster for "Inside Deep Throat" claims that "Deep Throat" is the most profitable movie ever. Is there an authority who can settle this once and for all?

Andrew Woodhouse, Tempe Ariz.

A. Startled by the claim in "Inside Deep Throat" that the original movie grossed $600 million in circa-1970 dollars, Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times ran the numbers and wrote an article suggesting that figure was a fantasy that has been repeated for years without any fact-checking.

Hiltzik writes me: "The Web site www.the-numbers.com says $40.8 million. That could be in the ballpark, keeping in mind that given the cash nature of the distribution, it's a pretty muddy ballpark. At the time of the Memphis verdicts, the standard newspaper estimate seemed to be $30-$50 million, and then it abruptly jumped up to $600 million and no one ever looked back. When Linda Lovelace appeared before a Congressional committee in the mid-'80s, the chair, Arlen Specter, said something like, 'So it grossed $600 million and you got a lot of bruises?' and she replied, in effect, 'Yeah.'"

In his review of Inside Deep Throat, he also says:

Since the mob owned most of the porn theaters in the pre-video days and inflated box office receipts as a way of laundering income from drugs and prostitution, it is likely, in fact, that "Deep Throat" did not really gross $600 million, although that might have been the box office tally.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Koiu Lpoi]

And where is Gayniggers from Outerspace?

Hey, I'm not a GNAA troll, I actually thought the movie was funny. In a bad, not funny sort of way.

Re:Wait a minute...

[youlikemonkeytennis]

wow - your knowledge of deep throat is immense. You could be described as a "deep throat expert" :)

Re:Wait a minute...

[pcgabe]

wow - your knowledge of deep throat is immense. You could be described as a "deep throat expert" :)

See a need, fill a need. ;-)

Re:Wait a minute...

[Lars T.]

Maybe he can tell us who Deep Throat is?

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Deep Throat is PEOPLE!

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's me! I'm Deep Throat!

Re:Wait a minute...

[19usc2462bH]

Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times ran the numbers and wrote an article suggesting that figure was a fantasy that has been repeated for years without any fact-checking.

See:

Initial Hiltzik column: 'Deep Throat' Numbers Just Don't Add Up
Bailey and Barbato (directors, writers, producers of Inside Deep Throat): More Numbers for 'Deep Throat'
a somewhat longer version of their response: 'Throat' Gets Cut, Directors Perform Surgery
Hiltzik then asked them to answer twelve questions which resulted in this column:
Hiltzik: Bad 'Deep Throat' Revenue Numbers Are Multiplying

Ebert also covered Inside Deep Throat in an earlier Movie Answer Man column:
February 20, 2005

Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Almost half the films were made out of the US."

Considering much more than half of the world lives outside of the US, this isn't much of a stretch.

Re:Ugh.

[PyWiz]

Considering less than half of all movies produced (excluding movies from Bollywood) are produced outside of the US, yes it is.

Re:Ugh.

[TheWanderingHermit]

As a film buff, and someone who writes and will soon be producing films and direct-to-dvd films, I have a passion for well made films (as opposed to what I call movies or flics). There was a time when American filmmakers were focused on real film, as opposed to the latest blockbuster. That time is way past us now. I haven't read the entire list yet, but if half are made in the US, then it is skewed. When you look at masters like Fellini and Trauffaut, it is easy to see that there are a huge number of master directors that do not or did not work in the US.

On the other hand, usually when people (or fluff magazines like Time -- that USED TO BE a news magazine, but has gone for for pop news now) make lists like this, the recent films end up crowding out the top. I'm thrilled to see that silents are remembered here and that a silent film like City Lights, one of my favorites, was included.

Re:Ugh.

[Canadian_Daemon]

Considering less than half of all movies produced (excluding movies from Bollywood) are produced outside of the US, yes it is.
Excluding movies from hollywood, less than half of the movies are produced out of the US, why exclude that large fact? Excluding the population of china and india, the majority of the people live the US. Excluding the 3 goals from Liverpool, Milan won.
Your statement has to meaning

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how does one get involved in the porn industry anyways?

Re:Ugh.

[Golias]

That time is way past us now. I haven't read the entire list yet, but if half are made in the US, then it is skewed. When you look at masters like Fellini and Trauffaut

Umm... as soon as you bring up those two, you are not talking about "now" anymore, are you?

For every Fellini you can name, I can name a Gilliam, a Wells, and a Hitchcock. For every Kurosawa, I can name a Ford, a Hawkes, and a Curtiz.

Go ahead... spew them out. Trauffaut, Eisenstein, Leone, etc. For every great foreign director you can name, I can name three great directors from the US.

Want me to stick with directors who have not yet retired, perhaps even relatively new directors who have made good films in the last ten years? I could easily play that game. For every Wim Wenders you can throw at me, I can come back at you with a Darren Aronofsky, a Christopher Nolan, and a Sam Raimi. For every Tom Tykwer, I'll come back with a Wes Anderson, a Peter Weir and both Cohen Brothers.

Just because the summer blockbuster season is filled with Herbie Movies and half-assed sci fi doesn't mean that Hollywood doesn't still hold a dominant lead when it comes to producing great new directors and interesting film art. I think you're just choosing not to look very hard.

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

'Bollywood' Not 'Hollywood'.

'Bollywood' is the Indian film industry which churns out movies by the shedload.

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering its Time magizine you would expect it to be US skewed like Slashdot, so its notable.
Would you expect your countries prominent magizines list to be $country biased?
just asking

Re:Ugh.

[Canadian_Daemon]

I was making a point that the exclusion of Bollywood destroyed his statement. I used an analogy.

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... Terry and Alfred were Brits. Sorry mate.

Re:Ugh.

[lendude]

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

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

you make yourself sound stupid. your population example doesn't even fit the patern you're attempting to mock because it's not even true.

Re:Ugh.

[lendude]

To quote from your original post:

"For every great foreign director you can name, I can name three great directors from the US."

You were specifically referring to _US Directors_ and including Peter Weir as a member of that group - I'm pointing out specifically that that is incorrect.

Re:Ugh.

[quinto2000]

the analogy doesn't fit. Bollywood movies are churned out by the bucketful, but they are not exactly high-art, nor are they meant to be. It does make sense to exclude them from the gp's list.

Re:Ugh.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

fluff magazines like Time -- that USED TO BE a news magazine, but has gone for for pop news now)

Time Magazine has ALWAYS been pop news, right along with Newsweek and USA Today (although, surprisingly the newspaper has been trying to get serious recently).

For real news, the bare minimum is US News & World Report. Still kinda fluffy but a whole lot more dense than Time and Newsweek. Graduate to The Economist and you'll be reading the closest there is to real news in print.

Re:Ugh.

[TheWanderingHermit]

I don't remember the exact timing. I think it was in the early 1980s, but I remember that Time and Newsweek used to try to carry serious news reporting, like Changing Times (although CT has a different focus). Then (and again, I think it was the early 1980s), both noticed their circulation numbers were going down, so they decided to popularize their content. While they still carry a few hard news stories (but not reported on as hard news), they focus more on keeping a fluff approach that doesn't get too deep or take the risk of reporting anything that might be too 'true' and offend potential subscribers.

If I remember the timing right, it was after they both wimped out that USA today came out as yet another way to dumb down the real news.

And, yes, US News & WR is a much better news mag, but what do I know? I'm one of those dirty liberals that likes NPR and PBS. I have yet to see a US news program that covers issues as well as The News Hour.

So when Time comes out with a list of the 100 best anything, I don't give it much credit, since I know it is the 100 best dumbed down anything, with a few good examples included to make people feel like they're stretching their brain. I'd be much more interested in American Film Institute's or Pauline Kale's 100 best films of all time (although you could count on AFI's list being mostly or all USA, since their focus is on American film).

Re:Ugh.

[redeye69]

"Bollywood movies are churned out by the bucketful, but they are not exactly high-art, nor are they meant to be. "

Hollywood movies are also churned out by the bucketful, but they are not exactly high-art, nor are they meant to be.

Lets exclude them too, and re-title the article Time's Top 100 French Arty Films That No One's Ever Heard Of

Re:Ugh.

[eurostar]

Yeah, well what you dont see is that it is a list written BY ANGLO SAXONS FOR ANGLO SAXONS.

Now, what do you think would happen if the same list was written by Indians for example, or the French ?

US/British/Australian films would be quite low on the list mate !

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time's Top 100 French Arty Films That No American But Everybody Else In Western Civilisation Has Heard Of.

;)

Re:Ugh.

[youlikemonkeytennis]

Do canadian's like the football? I know I am going to get modded off topic but last night was amazing - I live in the UK and am not even a liverpool fan - beating milan from 3 nil down was stunning... I am glad that they even get a mention on Slashdot :)

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering Hollywood movie industry produce products for customers in hopes of a maximized revenue.
That has nothing to do with art and filmmaking.

Re:Ugh.

[1u3hr]

Bollywood movies are churned out by the bucketful, but they are not exactly high-art, nor are they meant to be.

And Hollywood is "high art"? In Hollywood, "art movie" is a pejorative. It funds "high concept", a plot so simple you can summarise it in one sentence, not "high art".

Re:Ugh.

[Golias]

Mea Culpa. Go with James Ivory then. My point doesn't change much. There are a hell of a lot of great US directors out there, so I reject the whole "Hollywood doesn't put out any good movies" meme as a shallow and distorted view of the medium.

Re:Ugh.

[Golias]

You are correct about Hitchcock, my bad, but Terry Gilliam is from my home state of Minnesota.

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but the Indians and French don't publish Time magazine, which is what we are talking about here.

Re:Ugh.

[lendude]

"There are a hell of a lot of great US directors out there, so I reject the whole "Hollywood doesn't put out any good movies" meme as a shallow and distorted view of the medium." Agreed :) personally I'd stick Jim Jarmusch in there - "Dead Man" is one of my favourite movies.

Re:Ugh.

[RestartLater]

Canadians like me like football, or soccer as it's called here. In fact, I'm wearing my Liverpool shirt right now! But I *am* a Reds fan. :)

Indian Movies

[guyfromindia]

I can vouch for Pyaasa and Nayakan. Pyaasa is a Hindi movie, while Nayakan is in Tamil (my native tongue). Kudos to Kamal Hassan for a splendid role in Nayakan. My 2c :)

Re:Indian Movies

[TripMaster_Monky]

Is that the one where they are about the swordfight but then suddenly break into song?

Re:Indian Movies

[Golias]

No, that was a parody on "The Simpsons."

Watch an actual highly-touted Bollywood movie someday, and you might just discover you like them more than you thought you would.

Re:Indian Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't. The style for women is to have painfully piercing voices that I (and most Westerners) find quite unpleasant. I do watch Hindi shows and movies on AZN TV (the old International Channel) but primarily for entertainment. Take that as you will.

Re:Indian Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking of Beijing Opera. Indian female singers are amazing.

Bollywood movies are bloody champion too. I don't watch a whole lot, but they're certainly great fun.

Re:Indian Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

... but they're certainly great fun.

Sure. They're funny, "different, "ethno", trendy and all.
That doesn't mean than any of them would belong among the 100 best films in world history.

Re:Indian Movies

[dpilot]

Does "Monsoon Wedding" count? My wife and I liked it. The plot was a bit trite, but we really enjoyed seeing the glimpses it gave us of Indian culture. I was especially fascinated to see how comfortable they were with Western and traditional Indian culture living alongside each other.

Re:Indian Movies

[Scrameustache]

Watch an actual highly-touted Bollywood movie someday, and you might just discover you like them more than you thought you would.

I don't.
Maybe it's just my aversion to the high pitch screeching noise that they call "music", but I really don't.

Can't please everyone.

Re:Indian Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't mean than any of them would belong among the 100 best films in world history.


RTFA, 3 of them did make it to the list.

Re:Indian Movies

[kaalamaadan]

Sorry, "Pather Panchali" is also listed. Look in "The Apu Trilogy". Best Indian movies ever made, in any language.

Re:Indian Movies

[indian_rediff]

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!

Re:Indian Movies

[ashayh]

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. :-|

Re:Indian Movies

[Golias]

It reminds me of the classic joke from "The Muppet Movie"

Gonzo: Well, I want to go to Bombay, India to become a movie star.

Fozzie: You don't go to Bombay to become a movie star. You go where we're going, Hollywood!

Gonzo: Well sure, if you want to do it the easy way!

That line was hilarious when the movie came out, but just as "Major League" became less funny when the Cleveland Indians stopped sucking in the 90s, modern events ruined the joke.

Same movie, similar problem:

Waiter (Steve Martin): Sparkling Muscatel, one of the finest wines of Idaho.

Wet-yer-pants funny in 1979. Now... not so much. Damn you, quality Idaho wine producers!

Re:Indian Movies

[sandmaninator]

Monsoon wedding (which is a great movie) is NOT a typical bollywood movie and, yes, typical bollywood movies suck - big time. Lagaan (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0282674/) is a pretty famous example of a bollywood movie. Very popular among Indians but a complete waste of 3.5 hours to anyone else.

To kick off obligatory missing films...

[rasafras]

Apocalypse Now.

Every time I see it, I can't help being amazed at how good it is. Simply an incredible film.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[brxndxn]

For anyone that hasn't see it, this is the film where the dude says, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory!"

YA.. bet you didn't know that.. so go rent the video now.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Gallandro]

Well, it obviously isn't as good as you think it is since it didn't make The Definitive List of Good Movies. Thank you time magazine for telling me what really is good and entertaining in the wide world of movies!

--------------

3 days without my tinfoil hat and counting....

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Anonymous Coward]

go rent the video now

Yes, but do get the redux version with, among other thing, the line:

"You americans are fighting for the biggest nothing in history" from the frenchman figthing for "his" land. Had to wait practicly 30 years before he could afford to put that on the big screen! Freedom of speech, haha!

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[tomhudson]

If you include "Apocalypse Now", you've really got to include "The Killing Fields".

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[StikyPad]

I preferred Full Metal Jacket..

Joker: How can you shoot women and children?
Gunner: Easy... you just don't lead 'em so much.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[TexVex]

Full. Metal. Jacket.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good, but you still need to read Heart of Darkness.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Mahou]

wtf neither alien nor aliens is on the list

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[kfg]

Then go read the book, of course, only you'll have to look it up under the title "Heart of Darkness."

Then go try and track down copy of the Tim Roth/John Malkovich TV film (only available on video as a very expensive, used import).

Compare and contrast.

KFG

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Anonymous Coward]

For anyone that hasn't see it, this is the film where the dude says, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory!"

Where ... the *dude* says?

"You smell that? ... That gasoline smell? That's the smell of victory! I *love* the smell of napalm in the morning!"

You've probably heard the misquoted version from somewhere else and want to look cool. Just like all those people who say, "We don't need no stinking badges," when the correct quote is "Badges? What stinkin' badges? We don't need no badges!"

Sure, the misquoted, shortened form is somewhat the same, but then a raisin is somewhat the same as a grape.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Anonymous Coward]

The documentary of the movie, Heart of Darkness, is also worth a look.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[TopShelf]

Agreed - it's always been my personal #1. I could see yet another Heart of Darkness adaptation done in an updated setting, say through the experience of an American in the modern-day hell that is Iraq.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[lukewarmfusion]

Heart of Darkness (the book by Joseph Conrad, not the documentary to which you refer) was one of the most difficult books I've ever read. So boring... maybe it's time to revisit it, but I keep thinking of how I used it to help fight my insomnia in high school.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[lukewarmfusion]

Or another famous mis-quote, "Play it again, Sam."

In reality, many people who see the movies still swear those lines are correct. ... You wouldn't make wine from raisins, right?

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[register_ax]

The correct quote, with a little added to it is:

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like ... victory. Ya know, someday this war's gonna end..."

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I must have seen a different Apocalypse Now than you did. Honestly. In the scene I saw he didn't say all that.

I have not seen Redux. Maybe it was a different take.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[omeomi]

"You smell that? ... That gasoline smell? That's the smell of victory! I *love* the smell of napalm in the morning!"

I think it's funny that while acting like a smart-ass, trying to point out someone else's misquote, you *also* misquote the film. That's the great thing about /. I suppose, everybody acts like they're brilliant, but 98% percent of the time...dead wrong.

.wav File Here: http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2005-05-25_606281392 24919/movies/misc/apocalypse_smell_x.wav

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[omeomi]

Wow, that's also not correct. As I posted to the GP, the correct quote is:

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know that gasoline smell? Smells like...victory."

.wav File Here: http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2005-05-25_606281392 24919/movies/misc/apocalypse_smell_x.wav

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[omeomi]

...screwed up the link, here it is again:

http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2005-05-25_606281392 24919/movies/misc/apocalypse_smell_x.wav

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Anonymous Coward]

the 400 blows
brazil
jules and jim
malena
three colours trilogy
la strada
8 1/2
scenes from a marriage
sawdust and tinsel
citizen kane
paths of glory
WHERE ARE THEY?

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than being available at your local video rental outlet, I believe that you can find most of this list in TFA.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[niktemadur]

First off, I'd like to say WARNING: BIG SPOILERS AHEAD.

I read Heart Of Darkness recently, and I thought it started very well, then slowed down considerably, but picked up momentum and ended with a great big bang, and is of great interest at least for the way the story plays out, as opposed to Apocalypse Now:

1. Kurtz is RESCUED by Charlie Marlow (the protagonist) from the natives that worship him and keep him captive. Kurtz is not a monster in the book, just a powerfully charismatic man in the wrong place at the wrong time, making a lot of company (ivory merchants) bigwigs uncomfortable.
2. Kurtz is terribly ill, and dies on the boat on the way back from the deep Congo. His last words? You guessed it: "The horror, the horror".
3. When Marlow returns to Brussels, he visits Kurtz's grief-stricken GIRLFRIEND, and she asks him what Kurtz's last words were. Marlow lies and tells her: "The last words he pronounced were - your name". That's a pretty damn good ending.

Curiously, Kurtz's girlfriend remains nameless throughout the story.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[MrCreosote]

"The horror. The horror..."

Or 'Patton' - "No-one ever won a war by dying for their country. The way you win wars is by making the other dumb bastard die for their country"

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Hittite Creosote]

Any book you're made to read in high school is difficult and boring, because of the way you are made to read them. You take your favourite film on this list, sit someone down to watch it, and then stop the DVD every ten minutes to make them explain and analyse what they've seen on the film and they'll hate it.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[slashdot.org]

Apocalypse Now.

Every time I see it, I can't help being amazed at how good it is. Simply an incredible film.

Yes! And the exact same goes for Dumb and Dumber!

Right?

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[register_ax]

We had to read the script in english class. I refer to to the draft by Francis Ford Coppola in 1975. A quick search brought this up ...

http://www.allmoviescripts.com/scripts/15638072093 f326632ea620.html

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[coldfront]

I really think "The Killing Fields" and "Apocalypse Now" were different kinds of movies. They were about war in SE Asia but that's really where the resemblances end. The former seemed to be to be almost a journalistic piece or an exposé, trying to communicate the horrors of a specific war, the Cambodian conflict, to the world, and through that the horrors of war in general. The latter wasa sort of fable/allegory that just happened to be set up against Vietnam (being based on "Heart of Darkness," of course) and was more about the "darkness in man's soul" and all that instead of war specifically.

Oh, and the use of Lennon's "Imagine" at the end of "The Killing Fields": unforgivably cheesy and bad, nearly screws up the whole thing. Can anyone think of a worse use of popular song in film? I can't.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Bigman]

I've made wine from raisins. Tasted quite good, in a peapod-burgundy kind of way.

iKr.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[AndersOSU]

They seem to accidendly typed Blade Runner, when the really ment Ben Hur.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Omestes]

The Redux version is better... The french parts rock, make it from a war movie, to an antiwar movie, as it was intended by FFC.

To make this non-Redundant. Ever Read Jean Paul Baudrillard, the post-modern philosopher? According to to Apocalypse Now was more real than the actual war, in the public eyes (the hyperreal) than the are itself, so infuencial it was.

Personally it is among my top ten. The acting is great. It comes right after The Godfather. The original, of course. It is one of those movies that prove that Marlon Brando was a God.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he didn't lie, and that really was her name.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[packman]

You clearly didn't even take the time to actually READ the list. Brasil, 8 1/2, The 400 Blows and Citizen Kane are in the list...

Personally I think this top100 list stinks. Ok, it contains excellent movies, but I mean - wtf? Put the ultra-crappy "The fly" in there?? A lot of movies are simply missing. If Blade Runner is there (which is a very good movie) - where's Alien? I also didn't see any recent french movie in-there (no - I'm not french myself :) ). Le fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain is Jean-Pierre Jeunet's undisputable masterpiece, and certainly belongs in my list. Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samourai is missing, I think it's a lot better than his Yojimbo (which is also good, but not as good as...). Also there is no anime - which surprises me. I'm not a real anime fan, on the contrary, I don't like most anime, but there are some magnificent anime movies, like Sen to chihiro no kamikakushi (english title: "Spirited away") or Akira.

Barry Lyndon is in the list, and that movie disappointed me, I don't like it, Kubrick made much better movies than that (Full Metal Jacket, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove).

Movies I think are missing:
- Lost Highway (David Lynch)
- Pi (Darren Aronofsky)
- Requiem for a Dream (Aranofsky again :))
- Reservoir Dogs (Tarantino)
- La Vita è bella (Roberto Benigni)
- Full metal jacket (Stanley Kubrick)
- Sen to chihiro no kamikakushi/Spirited away (Hayao Miyazaki)
- Alien (Ridley Scott)
- American Beauty (Sam Mendes)
- Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola)
- Das Boot (Wolfgang Petersen)
- Das experiment (Oliver Hirschbiegel)
- Fight Club (David Fincher)
- Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Guy Ritchie)
- Donnie Darko (Richard Kelly)
- Festen (Thomas Vinterberg)
- Dogville (Lars von Trier)
- Léon/The Professional (Luc Besson)
- Trainspotting (Danny Boyle)
- The great dictator (Charlie Chaplin)
- La Meglio gioventù (Marco Tullio Giordana)
- ...

These are mostly recent movies, because I think they lookt a bit too much at the past. Yes, there have been made great movies back-then, but nowadays a lot more movies are produced, resulting in a lot of crappy stuff, but also more good things. I don't say the older movies are bad, but a lot of good movies have been produced in the last 15-20 years...

Some things in the list (positively) surprised me though, like Miller's Crossing - which is an excellent movie. I would have put it in the list, but wouldn't have expected it there :) But well - taste is taste, the world will never agree on the top 100 movies

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[tomhudson]

The big difference, imo, is that "The Killing Fields" was a true story, like another of my favourites - "Papillon".

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[lukewarmfusion]

Perhaps it was a combination of the "forced to read it in high school" and the terribly slow parts of the book that hurt me. Your post has convinced me to go back and try it again someday.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[lukewarmfusion]

I liked some of the books we read in high school, but your point is excellent... I really enjoyed some books that I read on my own, while people who had to read them for school outright hated them.

I'm going to try the DVD-stop-analyze method on my wife and see if you're right.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[hb253]

When I read Heart of Darkness in high school, I found it difficult and boring on it's own. The drawn out analysis in class just made it unbearable.

It has always bothered me that people try to read behind the lines to deduce what the author REALLY means to say when, in reality, 99% of the time he or she is just weaving a story.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[aBrownCow]

Good call. Papillon is the only film to date that has caused me to shed a real tear. Haven't seen it for almost 10 years now though...

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[jdb8167]

One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[Anonymous Coward]

I refer to to the draft by Francis Ford Coppola in 1975

This may come as a shock to you, but quite often, what's written in a draft of the script (or even in the final version) is not what gets released as the final movie.

Quite often, directors decide to make changes before, during, and after shooting.

Just as a grape is not a raisin, a script is not a movie.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[cyways]

The other night I watched Control Room (it's currently in the free section of On Demand), the documentary about Al-Jazeera's coverage of the Iraq conflict. When the military relased the pack of cards with the pictures of its most-wanted list, I immediately flashed back to the scene where Robert Duvall's AIRCAV colonel tosses playing cards onto the corpses of some Viet Cong soldiers. There are scenes like this one scattered throughout Apocalypse Now that have lingered with me for nearly four decades now.

There was something distinctly American about the colonel's action, in the effort to transform the horror of death by violence into mere random chance. It recalls the Wild West of movies, an America of saloons, poker, and gunfighting, where violent death is a common occurrence and survival the result of being dealt the right cards.

In the assault on the Vietnamese village the Americans win by a devastating application of technology and get to deal the cards, while the VC are forced to play the losing hands they're dealt. The colonel knows, though, that both sides will play another game tomorrow, and in that games the tables may be turned.

There's also an implicit racism in his action that captured a significant strain of American attitudes toward "Charlie" (and all those "Japs" and "Gooks" and "towel-heads" and other peoples we've fought recently), that their lives are worth as little to us as common playing cards. Wasn't that also the message the Coalition military wanted to present about the members of the defeated Iraqi government by printing them on a deck of cards? I'm sure many Arabs saw this depiction of the former Iraqi leadership as a humiliation, regardless of their views on Saddam and his associates.

By the way, Control Room is definitely worth watching.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...

[cyways]

I fail to see how Apocalypse Now in either of its versions was "a war movie," by which I guess you mean a "pro-war" movie since you think the revised version is "anti-war". Believe me, when it was released in 1979, it was certainly thought of as "anti-war." How could you see it as anything other than an indictment of the entire enterprise of the Vietnamese war, as the application of enormous destructive power against an ancient people for no obvious strategic benefit? There is no military "progression" in this film, just a sequence of chaotic episodes the seem unjustified and irrelevant to the defense of the "Free World" against "Global Communism."

This type of list is good for getting hits

[Dancin_Santa]

But "Top xxx Anything" type lists do not really represent anything other than the author's personal preference and biases.

For example, where is Top Gun or A Few Good Men?

Where is Real Genius?

How about Breakfast at Tiffanys?

Three Kings?

They list the inferior Star Wars (ANH) and don't give The Empire Strikes Back?

Weak.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Pxtl]

Likewise, they listed Pulp Fiction instead of Tarantino's far superior Resevoir Dogs.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you are so lol.

Three kings? Topgun?!

You obviously don't have a clue about real movies. I'm talking about Donnie Darko, A Beautiful Mind, The Exorcist,...

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude he is slashdots most succesfull troll. I assume its a group effort because the guy gets modded insightfull no matter what nonsense he posts.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe someone who is well-written, well-read, smart, funny, and actually has an opinion that he is not afraid to voice just gets modded up.

I've seen plenty of his posts modded down because some small-minded moderator couldn't separate his pettiness from his moderation duties.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... and you give Donnie Darko as an example of a GOOD movie? What kind of crack are you smoking?

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

you listed three craptacular movies.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[NanoGator]

"They list the inferior Star Wars (ANH) and don't give The Empire Strikes Back?"

Eh. Depends on how you measure it. If you're looking at it from the "quality movie" point of view, then yeah, Emp wins. But if you're looking at it from a "holy shit! I didn't know they could do that!" ANH wins.

I agree, these preferences aren't very scientific, but I wanted to nitpick that little detail. hehe. :)

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck? Top Gun? Are you some sort of fucking moron?

Breakfast at Tiffany's was hurt too badly by censorship (they had to remove Fred's homosexuality and Holly's prostititution), so it sucked

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see how someone can honestly compile a "Top xxx anything" anyway. Too many different things go into making a movie good that, that I can't see how someone can really weight them together to come up with that kind of list.

Besides, sometimes all I really want to do is watch "Return of the Killer Tomatoes." Should that go on my top 100 movies list?

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, sorry. Reservoir Dogs is a good low-budget homage to a bunch of Ringo Lam movies, but it really is entirely too similar to get away with being considered great. Especially when Pulp Fiction upped QT's game considerably in every respect - writing, ambition, direction, acting...

It's a better film. It's also more popular.

Live with it.

I've met people who try to argue that True Romance is better than RD via the same "I'm cool because it's more obscure" reasoning. It's a fucking Tony Scott movie, for crying out loud!

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they're all about on the same level as Three Kings and Top Gun. You guys should hook up.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Pxtl]

Dunno about art, but I know what I liked, and I enjoyed RD much better than Pulp Fiction. And besides, it would be logically consistent with them choosing Star Wars over Empire - pick the lower-budget, earlier, raw breakthrough film.

Pulp Fiction was a bunch of pseudo-related short-stories in no particular order. Resevoir Dogs managed to tell a complete story in a non-linear fashion without messing it up (unlike that crapfest 21 Grams - why does hollywood so love Sean Penn?)

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny because I can't tell if you are serious or not.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Bloodlent]

You thought Donnie Darko was good? Dude, share what you're smoking. Maybe it can make me think Attack of the Clones was awesome.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[AndersOSU]

ALright Donnie Darko, I'll give you that. Not sure it should be on the top 100 but at least its arguable.

But A beutiful mind? Not saying its crap but its no where close to top 100 material. Its a feel good hit and has relativly little substance. The massage of the story is a yawn inspiring, "the mind can overcome"

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[packman]

Why wouldn't Donny Darko be a good movie? It has an excellent story, very good acting, nice screenplay, what do you want more? This movie has gotten a cult movie status over the few years that it's around for a reason...

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[ifwm]

Only because art-fags like to feel included. The movie is mediocre, like so many other "cult" movies.

Only because so many people are bandwagon jumpers does a movie like that get any traction.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[Democratus]

So has "Rocky Horror", but that doesn't make it great film.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[RedWizzard]

Dunno about art, but I know what I liked, and I enjoyed RD much better than Pulp Fiction.

So you're saying the list should be based on personal preference? Isn't that exactly what they've done: listed the movies they thought were the best?

And besides, it would be logically consistent with them choosing Star Wars over Empire - pick the lower-budget, earlier, raw breakthrough film.

Not so. Pulp Fiction stands alone. It's not a sequel, it doesn't have the same characters, the events of RD are not mentioned, so you don't need to have seen RD to understand or appreciate PF. But without Star Wars, Empire doesn't make much sense. So you could put them both in, like they have with Godfather I and II, or you can put Star Wars in alone. They chose alone, probably because Empire doesn't resolve anything so Star Wars + Empire is an unfinished story.

Re:This type of list is good for getting hits

[sandmaninator]

Donny Darko ... I didn't like it. It's one of those movies where you have to go to a WWW site afterwards to get the plot(s).

Re:To hell with European leftish communist filmmak

[Pxtl]

Right. WTF does Cannes have to do with Time? Time is the magazine that insists that Anne Coulter is sane and Al Gore is not.

IN OTHER NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

Time really bored

Next month's issue of Time to feature a small mail in card insert with "DO YOU LIKE GEORGE W .BUSH?" and two small checkboxes labelled "YES" and "NO" drawn on it in crayon

Re:IN OTHER NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

it won't matter - the democrat's ballot will mysteriously dispear and bush will end up with more votes than were actually cast

I heard about this already...

[chriswaclawik]

I think Joe from joblo.com had something good to say about these top 100 lists:

"You know you're getting into trouble when you try to list the 'Best' anything. The 'best' anything, movies especially, is SO objective that there can never be a definitive list, or at least a list that is even close. Regardless, Time Magazine devoted their current issue to such a topic. The difference here: The Time critics, Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel, know this. The whole point of making this list, they say, was to initiate debate and let people discuss what their favorite films are. And to sell magazines."

So, don't get angry if your favorite movie isn't on the list... that's just what they WANT you to do!

Re:I heard about this already...

[Cutriss]

Methinks Joe used "objective" when he meant to use "subjective".

Re:I heard about this already...

[QuantumG]

Methinks Joe used "objective" when he meant to use "subjective".
Yes, that's what you think.

Re:I heard about this already...

[chriswaclawik]

I think you used "methinks" when you meant to use "I think."
</joke>

Re:I heard about this already...

[Anonymous Coward]

""You know you're getting into trouble when you try to list the 'Best' anything. The 'best' anything, movies especially, is SO objective that there can never be a definitive list, or at least a list that is even close."

The Top 10 list of music that all slashdotters can agree "Don't Suck!"

Re:I heard about this already...

[stevey]

So, don't get angry if your favorite movie isn't on the list... that's just what they WANT you to do!

Exactly like /. polls ...!

Re:I heard about this already...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you have to go a step farther, because 'Best' can be so many things. Part of the reason I don't pick favorites is because it's all apples and oranges (Aside: I've always thought that a bad analogy. Apples and Oranges are pretty similar. How about apples and dumptrucks?)

The most successful movies (money-wise)? That's easy to find out. That also tells you how popular they were, in terms of ticket sales. Oscar winners? (also easy to find out) The movies that would get the highest grades in film school? The most enjoyable movies? The most thought-provoking? The movies that defined a genre? Cult favorites? Critical reviews?

These are all valid ways to define "top" movies, and they all give different lists.

Re:I heard about this already...

[Anonymous Coward]

you are lucky I don't have my xslt refcard near...

Re:I heard about this already...

[Siener]

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.

Office Space?!?!

[brxndxn]

Office Space isn't on the list. Everyone involved in making that list deserves to die in a fire.

Re:Office Space?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too harsh.

I vote to move their desk to the basment and take away their stapler.

Too weak? Okay, sic Terry Tate on them...

Re:Office Space?!?!

[metlin]

Or be given a stapler. Red in color.

Re:Office Space?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

THe graphic nature of the scene where the boss reminds him of the TPS reports led these shortsighted reviewers to categorize it as softporn and not, ahem, NC-17.

Re:Office Space?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

That would storage room "B"

Re:Office Space?!?!

[superstick58]

Yeah I agree. They're all a bunch of no talent ass clowns.

Re:Office Space?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

That would storage room "B"

Oh gawd, all my managers are going to stop by and tell me it's suppose to be storage room "B"...

Re:Office Space?!?!

[NoGuffCheck]

mod parent down. Fires arent funny, groin injuries are.

Re:Office Space?!?!

[mink]

Or send you a memo.

A really fun thing to do :)

[Anonymous Coward]

My roommate and I have a $20 (two DVD at a time) unlimited rental account from Blockbuster. We're going down the IMDB's top 100 films (the top 250 can be found here), and the entertainment is definately worth the less-than-$0.50-a-day charge. They don't have all the movies though, so we may switch over to Netflix.

"Gone..." gone? Good!

[Quinn_Inuit]

I thought GWTW was an overrated piece of trash, although with incredible scenery and costumes. I prefer movies with more of a plot and preferably with multi-dimensional characters. Failing that, I'd like the characters to at least be sympathetic, but the only one of the lot I liked was Melanie.

I quit reading the book after I was about 2/3 done (one of only 4 novels I've put down since I started reading 20 years ago), and I left the movie lamenting Sherman's lack of thoroughness in Georgia. Bleh. Good riddance.

Subject

[Draxamus]

Drunken Master II made the list?

Re:Subject

[craXORjack]

I did a double take on that one too. I watched Drunken Master but not DM2 but I still find it hard to believe that the sequel could be ranked as one of the greatest movies ever.

Re:Subject

[slamden]

one of the greatest movies ever? probably not. but DM2 is FAR better than the orginial drunken master, and a must see if you're a Jackie Chan fan, or of kung-fu films in general. it was rereleased a few years ago as 'the legend of the drunken master' in the states.

a MUST SEE if you enjoy kung fu flicks.

Re:Subject

[Golias]

Drunken Master was a slapstick parody of period kung-fu flicks.

Drunken Master II was possibly Jackie Chan's most physically demanding film ever, and was absolutely brilliant from beginning to end.

DM-II is worth the price of the DVD just to see Anita Mui in a brilliant fight scene which blends classic Chan-style acrobatics, very subtle "wire fu", and delightful physical comedy all into a brief action sequence which I may never get tired of seeing.

Apart from the joke of featuring Jackie Chan as a hero who became actually drunk before deploying his "drunken boxing" technique, the films have almost no connection to each other.

It's sometimes called "Legend of Drunken Master" in the US, so Americans not familiar with the lower-budget original won't pass up on it thinking it's a sequel to something they never heard of.

Re:Subject

[craXORjack]

Okay, I am convinced. I will go out of my way to watch it sometime. However there has to be more to it than just kung-fu fannery (izzata word?) otherwise why would there not be any Bruce Lee movies on the list? Maybe the kung-fu fans think it's totally awesome and the mainstream thinks it's a solid hollywood style flick and the average of the two put it into the top 100. Anyway I'll keep my eyes peeled for it in the TV guide.

Re:To hell with European leftish communist filmmak

[rlp]

Time is the magazine that insists that Anne Coulter is sane and Al Gore is not. ... and your point is?

I coulda ....

[jsheedy]

"I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it" If I could be a bum like Brando I would take it. Great Movie (On the Waterfront)

Sheer volume of smoking

[eltoyoboyo]

is what puts "Out Of The Past" with Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas on this list. This movie will end up banned in the State of California because of all the cigarette smoking. Ironically, the film's location could not even be used for a remake. Where could anyone smoke that many cigarettes? Roger Ebert gave this one glowing praise as he panned the movie "200 Cigarettes". Ebert also lists this one on his favorite movies. It is a good representation of Film Noir, but hardly a great movie.

What list? I don't see a list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the hell is it?

The did one thing right ...

[Poietes]

They included "Drunken Master II". Personally, I would've liked to have seen "Shogun Assassin" and "Five Deadly Venoms" on the list too, but you can't have everything.

Re:The did one thing right ...

[Maserati]

If they put that in and not "Enter the Dragon" I need to see that right away. In fact, B&N may get that to me on Friday... My copy of "Drunken Master ?" went astray, I *might* have seen this, but I've been missing it anyway.

Weird Selection

[kalidasa]

No "It Happened One Night." No "The Third Man." "Yojimbo" (which is a great film, don't get me wrong), but not "Rashomon." (Yeah, yeah, "Star Wars" instead of "The Empire Strikes Back".) "Aguirre" but not "Fitzcarraldo." No Tarkovsky, I think. I didn't see any Eisenstein (not starting a list like that off with Potemkin is a crime against aesthetics). And to top it all off, the Yahoo! story says "his first criteria was" ARGGH.

Then again, what do you expect from Time? At least they've got "Kind Hearts and Coronets" and "Wings of Desire" in there.

Re:Weird Selection

[DrEasy]

And no Antonioni, no Hal Hartley, no von Trier, no Mike Leigh, no Jacques Tati... Was there any Cassavettes or Bergman in there?

But frankly, I was expecting worse. This still works well as a starting point or a checklist... Contrast this with IMDB's user rankings, and you'll feel better!

Re:Weird Selection

[Riktov]

>> ...but not "Rashomon."
>>

Hmm, I'm pretty sure it was on the list when I read it...

Re:Weird Selection

[leifbk]

Was there any Cassavettes or Bergman in there?

At least one Bergman: Persona. I don't know much about Cassavetes, but I believe he spells his name with only one t.

Re:Weird Selection

[kalidasa]

Here's the Q-S selection. No Rashomon there (though Hidden Fortress^H^H^H^H^H^HStar Wars does appear there).

* Q - S
* Raging Bull (1980)
* Schindler's List (1993)
* The Searchers (1956)
* Sherlock, Jr. (1924)
* The Shop Around the Corner (1940)
* Singin' in the Rain (1952)
* The Singing Detective (1986)
* Smiles of a Summer Night (1955)
* Some Like It Hot (1959)
* Star Wars (1977)
* A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
* Sunrise (1927)
* Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
* Swing Time (1936)

I second the guy who pointed out no Antonioni - Blow-Up at least should be there (no, not the movie with Travolta)

Re:Weird Selection

[Gulthek]

Hidden FoStar Wars?

Re:Weird Selection

[Riktov]

Marge: "You'll love Japan, Homer. You liked Rashomon."
Homer: "That's not how I remember it!" ...

Re:Weird Selection

[kalidasa]

You really want me to put all those backspaces in there? (And no, I wouldn't guarantee that everyone would know what Hidden^H^H^H^H^H^HStar Wars would mean.)

So many more!!!

[maynard]

Badlands - Terrence Malick

Yojimbo??? (which is an amazing film, but not Kurasawa's best IMO) What about Throne of Blood? Or Seven Samauri?

Blade Runner instead of Alien? Are you kidding me???

Where's Das Boot?

Or Andrei Rublev?

Or The Leopard?

Or... Feh. --M

Re:So many more!!!

[dancingmad]

I agree: Yojimbo's a great film, but Seven Samurai was Kurosawa's classic. The film had everything, was perfect in almost every way possible. In my humble opinion, it even bests Ikiru, thanks to the incredible ensemble cast.

Directors, even ones with distinguished careers like Kurosawa are often known by one film. Sometimes this is by chance - it's the film the public simply remembers. But often that film encapsulates the director: his or her style, themes, and other aspects that exemplify that career. Seven Samurai is that film for Kurosawa.

Not to mention that film is Mifune Toshiro at what is his best. He too had a distinguished career, but this his him at his pinnacle at his absoulete best (I have to grudgingly admit even better than in Ingaki's Musashi trilogy).

These guys don't know films from their asses. Star Wars over Empire suggests that. But no Seven Samurai proves it.

Re:So many more!!!

[ucblockhead]

Blade Runner was not only a better film then Alien, it was also a more influential one. Don't get me wrong...Alien is one of my top twenty, but Blade Runner is a fundamentally better film. It attempts more and succeeds.

Re:So many more!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Bladerunner is really poor compared to the book.

After reading the book, the movie looks like a bunch of cutscenes without any real story to hold things together. And it diverges enough from the book plot to make any of the "filler" plot that was in the book match up with what is left out in the movie plot.

If you're going to watch Bladerunner and expect to enjoy it, don't read the book.

Re:So many more!!!

[Simon Garlick]

These guys don't know films from their asses. Star Wars over Empire suggests that. But no Seven Samurai proves it.

Amen.

Re:So many more!!!

[Random_Goblin]

The fact that both Yojimbo and Seven Samurai have been re-made at least twice attest to the power of the original storytelling.
Yojimbo - Akira Kurosawa '61
A fistfull of Dollars -Sergio Leone '64
Last Man Standing - Walter Hill '96

Seven Samurai- Akira Kurosawa '54
The Magnificent Seven - John Sturges '60
Battle Beyond the Stars - Jimmy T. Murakami '80

I can't off the top of my head think of any other films that have as many re-makes (excluding shakespearian plays)

Can anyone think of any more titles that beat or match 2 re-makes?

Re:So many more!!!

[Bigman]

Alien didn't have Darryl Hannah.

I rest my case.

Re:So many more!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least there is "Aguirre: the Wrath of God", which is absolutely fantastic.

Re:So many more!!!

[Lars T.]

Herbie, the Love Bug?

Re:So many more!!!

[Omestes]

Yojimbo WAS NOT his best. The whole "A good samarai keeps his swords sheathed." Thing at the end was BAD. Very safe sex.

Seven Samarai was as boring as Roots, Shaka Zulu, or Shogun.

His best was Ran. Ran is probably in my top 5. Wonderful visuals. Great story (Hamlet). The directing is great.

Re:So many more!!!

[wed128]

Hey, i liked roots. It didn't get boring till the Chicken-George part. And i'm white, so it's not even a racial pride thing, i just thought it was a good story.

Re:So many more!!!

[Nept]

Blade Runner > Alien. Any day.

Re:So many more!!!

[biglig2]

That is hard. I can sort of do Casablanca; Woody Allen's "Play It Again Sam" does of course use a big chunk of the plot of Casablanca, but it's not really the underlying idea of the film, it's a sort of Meta-Joke, a film about a man obsessed with Casablanca is obviously going to have to mirror the plot.

The other re-make of Casablanca is of course one of the best surprises in Film Criticism and I leave it as an exercise to the Slashdot reader.

Re:So many more!!!

[biglig2]

Hound of the Baskervilles, of course, but we should probably lump Holmes and the Bible in with Shakespeare.

Heart of Darkness should be in there, but of course Welles never got to make his version.

Re:So many more!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"These guys don't know films from their asses. Star Wars over Empire suggests that. But no Seven Samurai proves it."

I seccond that! Amen, Amen!

Re:So many more!!!

[Pollardito]

not quite the same, but the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses has been the basis for 4+ films? (Dangerous Liasons, Valmont, Cruel Intentions 1 and 2)

Re:So many more!!!

[LWATCDR]

Where is Gentleman's Agreement?
Okay Blade Runner VS Alien is a hard call. Blade Runner was much better science fiction but Alien was great horror.
What about 2001? It was a breath taking movie in it's day.
Or Apollo 13. The first space movie that was not science fiction.

Re:So many more!!!

[HuguesT]

YES, Andrei Rublev, how could they miss that one ? Not a single Tarkovski.

Re:So many more!!!

[raap]

"Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" has 2 remakes. And soon "King Kong" will have 2, when Peter Jackson makes his remake.

Re:So many more!!!

[dancingmad]

A Bug's Life is also a remake of Seven Samurai, albiet with a much happier ending.

Re:So many more!!!

[ucblockhead]

I beg to differ. I'm a huge PKD fan, and have read the novel numerous times and while Bladerunner did not slavishly follow the plot of the book (which, in truth, was no where near PKD's best anyway), Scott got the theme.

Re:So many more!!!

[mink]

Ran was King Lear not Hamlet.

Hits and Misses

[lheal]

In general, they're way too film-arty. That's no surprise, but still.

Hits:
Blade Runner
Dr. Strangelove
The Fly (1986)
LOTR
Unforgiven
Schindler's List
Star Wars

Misses (not present):
Men in Black
The Quiet Man (John Wayne)
The Ring
The Passion of the Christ
The Matrix (yeah, but I liked it)

Re:Hits and Misses

[EvanED]

I saw LOTR and The Fly at once in your list and my brain combined them into "Lord of the Flies". I was going to yell at you.

But now that I see that you said nothing about Lord of the Flies, I don't have to do that.

Re:Hits and Misses

[Anonymous Coward]

Men in Black? The Ring?

Are you basing the list on the merit of the story, characters, and filmmakers' abilities, or just on what you got a kick out of?

Re:Hits and Misses

[nunchux]

In general, they're way too film-arty. That's no surprise, but still.

Hits:
Blade Runner
Dr. Strangelove
The Fly (1986)
LOTR
Unforgiven
Schindler's List
Star Wars

Misses (not present):
Men in Black
The Quiet Man (John Wayne)
The Ring
The Passion of the Christ
The Matrix (yeah, but I liked it)

How many of those "too film-arty" movies on the list have you actually seen? Whether you like subtitles or not, there's a world of incredible movies out there beyond "Men In Black" and "The Ring."

Re:Hits and Misses

[lheal]

>How many of those "too film-arty" movies
>on the list have you actually seen?

I only looked for the ones they had that I liked and the ones I liked that weren't listed.

Lemme check ...

None of the too film-arty ones, but many of the non-film-arty ones.

How's that for an answer?

Re:Hits and Misses

[Akemi]

You're right. Where is The Matrix???

The cool thing is the list has some movies I haven't seen, but have heard of. Now I want to see 'em. Woody Allen is a bit under-represented. Annie Hall is still a great date rental.

Re:Hits and Misses

[radish]

The Matrix should of been on there - it was pretty amazing the first few times through. Your others...can't say any of them really excited me. MiB was a fun film, but top 100 material? Not close.

Re:Hits and Misses

[NanoGator]

"The Ring" ... err could you please explain that?

Re:Hits and Misses

[lheal]

I saw The Ring thinking it would be a teenage slasher movie. The first few scenes play into that, as a group of teenagers goes up to the lake for a weekend ...

Then movie changes lanes, shifts into high gear, and pins your ears to the headrest. I was scared.

The last time I was that scared by a movie was when I was 9, watching Dracula with Christopher Lee.

Re:Hits and Misses

[Vellmont]

Misses (not present):
Men in Black
I liked the movie.. but top 100 movies of all time? In another 10 years this movie will be forgotten.

The Quiet Man (John Wayne)
Never saw it. I hate John Wayne and could never get past that to actually watch this movie.

The Ring
A good horror film, but hardly top 100 material.

The Passion of the Christ
Religious garbage.

The Matrix (yeah, but I liked it)
Now I know you're clearly high. This is probbably the most highly overated movie among geeks ever made. It was entertaining, but little else.

Re:Hits and Misses

[lheal]

MiB is really funny. Maybe not "Holy Grail" funny, but still funny.

The Quiet Man is not a typical John Wayne movie. It's very funny, and a beautiful film.

The Passion of the Christ was not "religious garbage" - religious yes, garbage no. Just because you don't like the subject matter is no reason not to appreciate a well-made film.

The Matrix, now there's some religious garbage :-). As I said, "yeah, but I liked it".

I forgot "Young Frankenstein" and some of the other Mel Brooks stuff.

Re:Hits and Misses

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kicking The Shit Out of The Jesus

Re:Hits and Misses

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap.

The more obscure films on that list are considerably better than The Matrix or the *remake* (which I assume you're referring to, since you didn't specify) of The Ring.

The Japanese movie wasn't great either, but it was nice to see back in the nineties because at the time Hollywood was making horror movies like I Still Know What You Did Last Summer and so forth.

It was a return to horror in an actually horrific form, not just people in funny outfits slashing teenagers. The Ring did a great job of finding a new fear that hadn't been properly exploited by horror movies yet - nightmare logic surrounding technology. Dark Water (remake coming soon!) did an even better job of making a great tense horror movie with a minimal amount of "Horror content", at least in the original Japanese movie. It's worth noting that the original Ringu wasn't the first movie of its kind in Japan, either - just the first to make a crossover success in the Western arthouse circuit.

The American remake was really just bringing a well-established trend in Japanese horror back to Hollywood. It's neither sufficiently outstanding as a film or as a trend-changer to warrant inclusion. Even if it did make some worthy improvements on the Japanese original.

The same goes for most of the other movies you list - not sufficiently great as stand-alone movies to include, or to inspire a new movement in filmmaking that produced other great work.

Maybe you should go watch the bulk of that list and then come back and we'll talk.

Re:Hits and Misses

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good, well-executed genre movie. Explain why a good genre movie should be on a list of a mere hundred best films made in a century of cinema...?

Re:Hits and Misses

[Anonymous Coward]

The Quiet Man... is that the one with the hilarious, comical stereotypical view of Ireland?

Oh boy.

I've never laughed so hard at a film for sheer detachment from reality in its view of another culture. Even Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves looks great in comparison with that one... Hell, it even made the Iraqi fighter pilots in Hot Shots look like a well-rounded character study.

You're suggesting that should be on a list of GREATEST movies? Oh boy.

And yes, I'm Irish.

Re:Hits and Misses

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The Ring

"Ringu" maybe, but "The Ring" - no way.

Major spoiler for both films that illustrates how watered down "The Ring" was:

In "Ringu" the curse can never be escaped, only passed on to someone else by making them watch the cursed video tape. So to save the little boy from the curse, his grandfather volunteers to watch it, take the curse and die so the kid can live.

In "The Ring" the curse is dispelled by simply making a copy of the cursed video tape. Big freaking deal, that's not a horror movie, that's a puzzle movie. Hollywood is such a bunch of pussies.

The Passion of the Christ

The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre is only notable for the historical context in which it played (i.e. post-911 revival of Christian religiosity). Try Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Jesus Christ" if you want a meaningful take on the passion play.

Re:Hits and Misses

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

None of the too film-arty ones

How do you even know if they are too film-arty if you haven't seen them?
The answer, of course, is that you don't.

Reminds me of a favorite lyric:
I know what I like,
and I like what I know.

Re:Hits and Misses

[Anonymous Coward]

Men in Black? You must be joking or a moron.

Re:Hits and Misses

[Anubis350]

you know it's based on a short story by an irish author right?

The author is Maurice Walsh (I believe he worked on the film as well) and I have the short story he wrote in a collection sitting next to me as I type this. For a little more info on it, a quik google turns up this excerpt talking briefly about Walsh.

since I believe the short story is in public domain it shouldnt be hard to turn up. It's an interesting read that reflects alot about Walsh's attitudes and remembrances of his homeland.

You can also google for the plethora of biographical info I'm too lazy to link to here.

cheers!

Re:Hits and Misses

[justforaday]

He did explain why he thinks it's top 100 material, although in a roundabout way - it simply wasn't what he was expecting from the movie. And that, my friends, is not a reason to list a movie in any top 100...

Re:Hits and Misses

[Gulthek]

In "The Ring" the curse is dispelled by simply making a copy of the cursed video tape.

Then why does Aiden (the kid) ask, "Who do we show it to?" at the end?

Ringu was boring, slow, and when the Man entered the picture he had the answers to all the questions the woman reporter was regulated to the damsel in distress. I'm truly surprised that The Ring was pulled out of such tripe.

Plus the Japanese version had the dumbest way to empty a well...ever.

Re:Hits and Misses

[Golias]

Which is exactly why one could make the case that Ringu should perhaps be considered for the list. It's still the top-grossing horror film in Japanese history (and as the only country to ever be nuked, they know their shit when it comes to horror.)

But The Ring!?!?!?

That would be like honoring Point of No Return over La Femme Nakita or calling the fucking color remake of Psycho a film classic.

Let's get serious here.

Re:Hits and Misses

[lheal]

Never seen Ringu. Heard it was good.

I saw The Ring. Very scary.

That is all.

Re:Hits and Misses

[mink]

Are you implying that it is getting better in his wardrobe?

Never mind, it's one o'clock and time for lunch.

Re:Hits and Misses

[mink]

In Ringu, Samara when she is alive, shows you why she is scary. Her death only adds to her scary factor. Also given what she was in life it explains IMO quite well why she was such a powerful ghost.
I watched Ringu after seeing The Ring and found the re-make to be week and flat compared to the Original, but some do say it made a lot of improvements over the original.

Then again I just saw Ring 2: Electric Bugaloo and unless I am mistaken they have totally killed continuity between the two remakes.

Pulp Fiction is better than...

[p0w]

QT and Roger Avery ripping off City on Fire.

Hidden Dragon

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently this list is unavailable to people who don't load images in their otherwise graphics capable browser. How inconsiderate.

Oh, well. At least it wasn't "flash"

bah

[xoboots]

Who cares what Time thinks?

I might give a bit more of a hoot if this wasn't just a big advert with locked away content that "can be yours!" if you subscribe to their archive.

Hmmm. I think I'd be happier with the dollar.

IMDB

[hoagieslapper]

About the only accurate top 100 movie list is on the IMDB's top 100 http://www.imdb.com/chart/top (Well, it is actually the top 250, but you get the point)

Re:IMDB

[Anonymous Coward]

Has the new SW dropped below "8" yet? It was up at 8.3 in the beginning (matching Saving Private Ryan). <looks> .. yes! It's down to 8.1 ... seems to drop 0.1 for every 10K votes. Good riddance. Should be down around 6-7 after a round or two on television.

Re:IMDB

[MrWim]

Well it's nice to know that there is one accurate list

Re:IMDB

[Anonymous Coward]

big films never drop that much on imdb. it will end up in the top end of 7 at the minimum.

Re:IMDB

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill Bill I & II ?? in the list. Nothing to blame to the Times list

Re:IMDB

[lyoz]

No... IMDB list is based on user votings, which gives u a farr idea of what people generally like, or maybe like to say what they like. And that too is mostly based on opinions of young kids, bored housewives and officeworkers, ppl with easy access to internet. Most foreign movies are obviously neglected unless they have the 'oscar' buzz and is released on DVD.
By the way... Shawshank Redemption on number 2.... lol, dont even get me started. With so many great movies out there....

"There are no rules"

Re:IMDB

[Per Abrahamsen]

I agree, the IMDB is way better. It reflects what movie interested people in general are interested in, and is thus a much better canon than what some random movie buff believes.

Blatant omissions?

[sik0fewl]

I don't see Police Academys 1 through 7 on the list.

Re:Blatant omissions?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they finally got around to doing 1 through 3?

Re:Blatant omissions?

[featherbottom]

good call. anyone remember Leonard Part 6??? Sparkle Like The Stars Just Ask Leslie

Revenge of the Sith is not on the list

[skizrule]

Did you RTFA? Neither Yahoo nor the complete list include Revenge of the Sith, although Star Wars (1977) did make the list.

Re:Revenge of the Sith is not on the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you RTFA? Neither Yahoo nor the complete list include Revenge of the Sith, although Star Wars (1977) did make the list.

If you stood on your tip-toes, that one would've smacked you in the face.

Not a complete list

[HungWeiLo]

The Time's list is by far incomplete. The Criterion Collection is a good place to start for excellent films of high caliber (plus most have excellent transfers...making gems like Kurosawa's Rashomon look like it was made just yesterday).

Re:Not a complete list

[darkitecture]

Criterion might be a nice place to start, but it's still not the greatest place to start. First of all, Armageddon and The Rock are on the list, which is a clear indicator that some of the films are there purely as "showcase" DVDs that people can put on to show off their home theater setups. Or perhaps more accurately for those fuckers at Best Buy to show off their setups that no sane person would buy. They also have Robocop on the list... *groan*

Also, it's clear that Criterion isn't unbiased in their choices. Although I'm a huge fan of Wes Anderson, he has all three of his 'big name' releases as Criterion releases (Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums and Life Aquatic). The only other directors on the list with more than three titles are David Lean, Ingmar Bergman, François Truffaut, Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa and the like. Hell, even Tarkovsky only has two on the list.

Wes Anderson may be great and I might be one of his fans, but I don't see how he 'deserves' to have all three of his big name movies on the list. It should also be noted that the Criterion release is the only DVD release for Life Aquatic.

So please, don't take the Criterion Collection as the according-to-Hoyle list of quality films.

Re:Not a complete list

[HungWeiLo]

Do realize that Criterion has to release the greatest works of Michael Bay (Armageddon and The Rock) to finance their other more worthwhile ventures.

And for the record, Robocop is an attempt at subversive filmmaking in which it could have only have been made under the guise of a bang-bang summer action thriller in order to fool the suits at the studio. Take a second look at it again.

Re:Not a complete list

[TheWanderingHermit]

Or go to the real film source -- at least for American films: American Film Institute. While it will be focused more on American films (which leaves out many of my favorites), at least you're talking about films that have proved themselves based on merit, as opposed to being picked because they're fun, had a sexy actress, or some other shallow reason.

Re:Not a complete list

[Edmund Blackadder]

I agree there. Robocop is probly the most effective anti-military-industrial-complex movies out there. Spiderman may be a close second.

Re:Not a complete list

[DoktorGonzo]

Yeah, the Criterion Collection is a great place to start. Until you realize that they've already released "Armageddon."

If they release "Pearl Harbor," I'll melt my DVD player. There's no hope.

Re:Not a complete list

[ArmyOfFun]

Speaking of which, you can buy almost the entire Criterion Collection here.
They also have this good collection

Re:Not a complete list

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I agree there. Robocop is probly the most effective anti-military-industrial-complex movies out there. Spiderman may be a close second.

I think Starship Troopers is closer to second place than Spiderman.

Re:Not a complete list

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean this one?

Re:Not a complete list

[thryllkill]

I think Starship Troopers is closer to first than RoboCop.

Re:Not a complete list

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think Starship Troopers is closer to second place than Spiderman.

I think Starship Troopers is even closer to a pile of dung (with appologies to fecal matter everywhere).

Re:Not a complete list

[kaalamaadan]

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.

Re:Not a complete list

[babbage]

Take a second look at it again.

That or take a few first looks at it, if you like.

Re:Not a complete list

[Kichigai Mentat]

I'm partly with you here. True, The Rock sucked, and Armageddon wasn't that good, but Robocop was good. True, it had crappy effects, and the cheesiest lines you'll ever see, but the commentary (like mentioned already), reinforced by the subtle jokes (The SUX9000) were good.

And they chose some real bombs, like Andrei Rublev. Rublev was a film I just could not sit through. Me and my dad were forced to sit through it in twenty minute blocks. I can sit through all sorts of movies, good, bad, slow, awesome, and crappy action. But Rublev was so slow, and seemed to have no plot at all. I got about half way through it and gave up.

However, the vast majority of the films are excellent, practically some of the best! Seven Samurai, Solaris, and even some Fritz Lang works (I'm actually surprised Metropolis isn't a part of it!).

I look at The Criterion Collection as any human work: it's not infallible. It's got a lot of the top quality stuff, bit they can make mistakes.

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[TheWanderingHermit]

GWTW was the Titanic of its time. Big budget, historical, overdone, and a real tear jerker. While Titanic certainly deserved some techincal oscars, neither deserved best picture or any other awards like that.

Both were manipulative stories and high-budget chick flics.

Alongside the "obligatory missing" list...

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

...there's some that are dubious, to say the least.

"The Singing Detective" for a start. It's good (although I'd have nominated the combination or Karaoke and Cold Lazarus ahead of it), but it's not a film - it's a multi-part drama series. Has anyone ever sat through it in one go?

If you're going to include those then there's a few others that should be in there - quite a bit of Stephen Poliakoff's work, for example.

The Ring? EEEEEWWWwwww.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't seriously be suggesting that "The Ring" (not "Ringu", but the remake?) is worthy of a top-100 spot? It was an absolutely horrible movie. Just one step above Vercingétorix.

Okay, so maybe two steps above "Druids", but still. Horrible picture.

This list is a fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is "Safety Dance" By the men without hats?

Save Ferris!

[Stormwatch]

Alright, now where's Ferris Bueller's Day Off? Ghostbusters? The Back to the Future trilogy? Damn, who the hell wrote that list?! They forgot the greatest classics from the 80s!

Re:Save Ferris!

[tomhudson]

SPACEBALLS!!!!

... or at least "Blazing Saddles" (but please, NOT "The Gods Must Be Crazy" or "The Producers".

Re:Save Ferris!

[Kohath]

Ferris - Yes.
Ghostbusters - Maybe.
Back to the Future - No.

Re:Save Ferris!

[Maserati]

But "The Gods Must be Crazy 2" is a fantastic slapstick comedy. Buster Keaton would have loved it. You just don't see enough of that stuff anymore, even from Jim Carrey.

And yes, Mel Brooks is conspicuously absent. Lose "The Fly", put in "Young Frankenstein". A much better film in every respect.

Re:Save Ferris!

[FidelCatsro]

Spaceballs , young frankenstein andblazing saddles all deserve recognition.
Why the hell is chinatown on the list...The fly also is not a top 100 ,
Its sacralidge to not include the blues brothers.
The shawshank redemption is missing , paper moon is missing , whisky galore is missing ,Return of the jedi and The empire strikes back are cruely absent.
The taking of the pelham 1-2-3 is not there nor is the french conection.
Ive decided i really don't respect this top 100 that much .
Well atleast Brazil and Blade runner made this list .
This is perhaps a top 100 for cinema artisans , but it really is not a top 100 films for anyone else ...
Wait come to think of it where in the hell is "the birds " on that list

Re:Save Ferris!

[tomhudson]

I'd agree with a lot of your choices - but NOT "The Birds". I remember how it was supposed to be so scary we weren't allowed to watch it when I was a kid. Watched it a few years ago - it is SO cheasy. Replace "The Birds" with Groundhog Day.

And if you really want a head-twister, try "Saw".

Re:Save Ferris!

[FidelCatsro]

I really enjoyed the birds (i also like Groundhog day , but i would swap that with Scrooged just to confuse eyeryone) I guess like most of hitchcocks works they are very much of their time and don't always work so well today. ;) comming to think about it actually every horror i have seen has really not managed to scare me , I mean i thought the exorcist was a riot .I just coldn't take a movie with Cross mastubwaaation and head spining seriously (remember reposesed , lesslie neilson spoof )

Favourite Cheesy Teenage Cult Classic

[Anonymous Coward]

My vote goes to Heathers with Wynnona Ryder and Christian Slater.

More films that should've made the list...

[Hubertus_BigenD]

The Killing

2001: a space odessey

A Clockwork Orange

Requium For A Dream

M

Appocolyspe Now

Apocalypse

[hung_himself]

Intentionally left off I think, because it is similar in so many ways to Aguirre Wrath of God. But that's just me...

Too Many Missing

[Michael_Burton]

It's a good list. If you care about film, you should probably try to see all the films on this list. Not many of them will waste your time.

I would like to grab folks by the collar and sit them down to see "City Lights." It's black-and-white, and silent, and I'm certain there are a lot of people who will never sit still to see this, one of the greatest movies ever made. Those people don't know what they're missing.

I think you have to see Godfather I and II as if they were a single film. I wasn't blown away by The Godfather until I saw Part II, and I'm not sure I would have understood Part II alone.

I was surprised at how many films from my own list were not on this one. I recommend:

• The Grapes of Wrath
• Treasure of the Sierra Madre
• The African Queen
• Paths of Glory
• 2001: A Space Odyssey
• Saving Private Ryan
• The General (Buster Keaton)

Re:Too Many Missing

[lyoz]

Saving Private Ryan???
Just couldnt resist... I know its a matter of personal liking, and I must admit that my first impressions of this movie were great... but then I went out and got to see the *other* war movie of the time, The Thin Red Line. I know there are other war movies, like Full Metal Jacket(one of my all time fav) and Apocalypse Now, but the whole tone and character building of TTRL is flawless.
SPR is too much hollywoodise, spielbergised, hankised version of war. Barring the starting scence and a few glimpses of genius here and there (the whole german prisoner scenes, etc), it relies too much on shock-and-awe strategy, with ofcourse a herioc battle in the end to win the crowd over.

Re:Too Many Missing

[mink]

I hear (not ahving seen it) ther starting scene was ripped off from RAN.

WTF?

[hawado]

No Princess Bride... Inconcieveable!

Re:WTF?

[That's Unpossible!]

No Princess Bride... Inconcieveable!

You keep misspelling that word. I don't think it's spelled the way you think it's spelled.

Re:WTF?

[hawado]

Inconceivable!!!

Re:WTF?

[Idarubicin]

You keep misspelling that word. I don't think it's spelled the way you think it's spelled.

...says the guy whose Slashdot username is "That's Unpossible". :-)

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Inconcieveable!
You keep misspelling that word. I don't think it's spelled the way you think it's spelled.

Yes, it's spelled S-U-C-K-S.

Re:WTF?

[Absoluttt]

You have a truly dizzying intellect

Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2"

[nighty5]

What a waste of time. No pun intended.

I think Time summed up the waste of time based on the fact that 2 guys thought that a few classics "didnt do it for them" - this isnt a "top 100" then.

For a more reliable list of top movies based on the average medium of voters, goto IMDB Top 250

Greatest movie of all time

[obi-1-kenobi]

Die hard. It had your action, your romance and your forgin terorists (the good kind). And to mention the greatest action hero of all time, Bruce Willis, somoene that actually gets his hair messed up as the movie goes on... unlike some people who do Akido. With such fantastic quotes such as; John McClane: A hundred million terrorists in the world and I gotta kill one with feet smaller than my sister. Supervisor: Attention, whoever you are. This channel is reserved for emergency calls only... John McClane: No fucking shit, lady. Do I sound like I'm ordering a pizza? John McClane: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker.

Re:Greatest movie of all time

[HungWeiLo]

All kidding aside, Die Hard should have been on the list of Top 100 __influential__ movies of all time. It literally spawned 15-20 years of clones.

Re:Greatest movie of all time

[Strontium-90]

After much thinking, I've decided that The Hunt for Red October is pretty much at the top of my favorite movies list. It's a serious film, although it has some funny parts. There is little-to-no objectionable language. There is no sexuality or nudity. It exemplifies the tension that was felt on both sides during the Cold War. It also shows the humanity that existed on both sides of the Cold War. The movie is full of action and suspense, even when watching it for the hundredth time. The acting is good, and there is no reliance on special effects to keep the audience interested or to drive the plot. On the whole, I think it is a very solid movie, a very good movie, and a very enjoyable movie. And because of the content if the movie, or more specifically, the lack of objectionable content, it's a movie that you can see with the whole family. I was 9 when it came out, and if I recall correctly, I saw it with my parents. I'm sure that someone can come up with dozens of things that they don't like about it, and that's fine. But it's one of my favorites.

The Ring

[lheal]

Scared the white out of me. I couldn't go to the movies for a year after that without flashing back.

Serious PTSS.

In fact, I still kinda avoid manholes.

Re:The Ring

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I still kinda avoid manholes.

We weren't talking about that kind of ring, but now that you brought it up, what do you mean "kinda?"

Re:The Ring

[jimi the hippie]

HAHAHA, Thanks man. I haven't laughed like that in a while. It took me a little time, I was already down the page before it it hit, but it was good.

Re:The Ring

[mink]

Get yourself Ringu, it's much more scary and has an actual plot. The charcters are better developed and all around I find it more enjoyable.

But I'm just some white guy in Ohio. Clearly the asian american guy who bought the rights and made the decisions on how to badly screw up the remake knows what film audiences want.

The Grudge (also licensed by the same no-talent ass-clown) was much better in it's original form as 4 films (Ju-on: Curse 1 & 2, Ju-on: Grudge 1 & 2).

Is this bizarro-world?

[lonb]

"Barry Lyndon" !??! I thought that was on the list of Worst-100 movies. I guess I don't share Time's enjoyment of 10 minute pans over wallpaper.

Obviously they have to list Kubrick, but what sense is it to pick that over, let's say "2001" or "A Clockwork Orange"???

Re:Is this bizarro-world?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that was on the list of Worst-100 movies.

That's because you're a dumbass. Nice to see Kubrick getting part of the respect he deserves. I think Dr. Strangelove is his only other movie on the list. I would have added 2001.

The point of lists like these is to engender pointless debate, and I think we all agree that Time has accomplished that.

Re:Is this bizarro-world?

[Vellmont]

I thought the same thing, though I wouldn't go so far as "worst 100". Barry Lyndon is perhaps my least favorite Kubrick film, though I've only seen one of the movies he made in the 50s, Killers Kiss.

Why anyone would put Barry Lyndon in a top 100 list is beyond me. But then they put in "classic" movies from the 40s that were really only just mediocre like "Meet Me in St. Louis". There's nothing particularly special about this film. It's enjoyable, but not much beyond that.

Re:Is this bizarro-world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Barry Lyndon is all style and little substance. Just like Kill Bill. Have you ever seen a film so beautiful? Actual candle-lit scenes with no artifical lighting, painting-like scenes, those landscapes - and all of the imagery is married to the sound. It's GORGEOUS. That's why it's there.

Wank wank wank

[Nimey]

Why should I care what someone thinks are their $NUMBER favorite $THING? This is filler for a slow news day.

To kick off obligatory missing films...II

[Anonymous Coward]

Saving Private Ryan was good as well.

An Officer and a Gentleman was another.

Re:To kick off obligatory missing films...II

[Anonymous Coward]

SPR: Very nice special effects. But the movie is the usual Spielberg crap + plus the usual Spielberg /USArmy WW2 history revisionism.

AOAAG. WTF? Are you insane? Or are those two movies the only ones you've seen?

Please return your movie-goer licence.

OK, -24 for trolling, but....

[The Woodworker]

Schindler's List....best comedy ever!

Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[Anonymous Coward]

That movie list is one of the worst that's ever been compiled. It's just some old geezer's nostalgia trip, and a very esoteric one at that, rather than a balanced list across time and genres.

The Sci Fi genre has been particularly badly served, with just about the only sensible entry in the list being Blade Runner. How a top-100 list can possibly not feature any of Terminator, Aliens, or Matrix is completely beyond me.

Crap, Time, very Crap.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[TheWanderingHermit]

The Sci Fi genre has been particularly badly served

I suppose it never occured to you that the reverse could be true. We like to think that SF is mind expanding and, in some ways, it is. But in terms of the quality of films, most SF films are crap (although that's changing since we're past the days of every SF film needing a monster in it). Terminator comes from a time where suspense is created by chases and fights, not from situations. Compare it to a film like "Notorious", where the last scene (I won't spoil it for anyone) is edge-of-the-seat suspense, but it is that way because the writer and actors have created excellent characters and Hitchcock has done such a great job of setting up the direction. The entire point of the scene is that we don't know what one of the characters will do until the scene is over. No car chase, no fight, just great acting, writing, and directing. If that film were re-made today, it would have had to have a car chase with lots of explosions following that scene to create what we now think passes for suspense.

While the movies you mention are definitely a cut above most SF, and while they represent the best of SF (and, btw, thank you for mentioning Terminator instead of T2), they are great examples that the best of SF is nowhere near the best of film.

In "8 1/2", a wonderful film that made the list, there is a line, something close to, "You're script is a perfect example of how film is at least 50 years behind the other arts." Unfortunately, that is true about SF -- except there's no time issue. The best SF, unfortunately, is rarely as good as real, solid, great filmmaking.

It is just plain wrong, though, that 2001 was not included on the list.

Crap, Time, very Crap.

That's what I'd say, unfortunately, about most SF. Even written SF. I remember Joe Straczynski commenting on how "The Stars, My Destination" was such a great classic of the genre. I read it at home, while I was reading a novel a friend recommended to me at the gym, while on the elipticals. The other book wasn't even considered a classic of any type, just a well written novel. It blew "The Stars..." to dust in terms of quality writing, character development, and the ability to create a setting. That, to me, dramatized more than anything else, how weak most SF is when compared to real film and literature.

As for me, if I want fantasy, I'll read something like "Midsummer Night's Dream," or "The Tempest." For a ghost story, I'll try "MacBeth" or "Hamlet." Those are examples of how fantasy or SF like material can really rise above the genre and stretch one's mind.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Well, I guess the overall quality of science fiction films reflect the bad reputation science fiction as a genre usually has. And you are basically right, the sheer amount of crap in the SF literature scene is unbelievable. Still, if done right, SF provides a wonderful laboratory setup to create situations and environments, which can concentrate and purify philosophical, psychological and humanistic questions to a very high degree. Stanislav Lem is a master at that, as is Philip K. Dick. Joe Haldeman also comes to mind.
Unfortunately, the general "pulp" reputation of SF ensures that nearly no good director wants to touch the genre with a ten foot pole, and most SF movies produced are actually the usual action crap with spaceship battles instead of car chases and lasers instead of revolvers.
Still, in my opinion, it is worth sifting through all that crap to find the occasional gem in the form of "Blade Runner", "Solaris" (Tarkovskij, of course) or "Abre los ojos" (Later badly redone as "Vanilla Sky"). So, please don't take "Matrix" or "Terminator" as examples how "the best SF, unfortunately, is rarely as good as real solid great filmmaking". There is way better stuff out there - it just didn't usually come in blockbuster format.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[TheWanderingHermit]

You give soem good examples. I have wanted to see the original "Solaris" for years, but haven't gotten around to it. (When I was a teen, I was slave to the local movie houses, then later, when VHS came in, I wasn't into collecting and locally it was hard to find a film like that. I've seen the DVD at Barnes and Noble and it's on my "to buy" list.) I've also heard about "Abre los ojos" and would like to see that. I rarely bother with anything with Tom Cruise in it anymore. After seeing how he ruined Mission: Impossible by making the films showcases for him to act macho, I have little hope for anything he's in. He has too much star power now for him to be in a film he doesn't have major control over.

Matrix, at least, was interesting, but I was disappointed that all the groundbreaking fx were focused on violence. It really didn't even have the grace of the well done martial arts films (I'm thinking especially of the first battle, in the rain, in the sequal to Crouching Tiger, but I can't remember the title). Most of The Matrix was flash and splatter -- the stuff that impresses people who like to say, "Oh, wow," but that doesn't create an experience of any depth.

For me, one crucial point of a good film or literary work is that when I'm done with it, I feel it somehow has changed me. Either I have more insight into humanity or the nature of the Universe, or something that makes me better than I was before, or it has to make me feel like I've really been on a journey where I haven't been before. By that criteria, I'd dare to say "Revenge of the Sith" is closer to a good film than many SF movies, since we can actually see WHY Annakin goes to the dark side. When he tells Obi-Wan, "To me, you are evil," we can understand him. In that one film (even without Episodes I & II), we have the emotional experience of seeing how a hero doesn't fall, but rather decides to take a path he sees as right while the rest of us see it as wrong. (I'm not saying it is a great film, just that it comes closer than most SF films.)

Another point is that at least Terminator was used as an example, rather than T2. Terminator was a stronger movie, whie T2 was basically a showcase of fx and glitz.

There are some excellent SF films out there (you've mentioned some), even including old ones like "Metropolis". It's just that they're few and far between. (Would you classify "The Cabnet of Dr. Caligari" as sf?) One I've wanted to see for years is a short called "La Jetee". Twelve Monkeys was roughly based on it.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the name of this novel that blows away "The Stars..."? It's strange that you don't mention it's name and I really want to read it now that you've piqued my interest.

Also, comparing fantasy novels to Shakespeare just isn't fair. A comparison to recent magical realism novels would be more appropriate.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[Frogbert]

I think you have to take films in their context though. I love T2 much more then the first one I realise its not the best film artistically, however for sheer action value I can't think of a better film. Lets face it no one sat down with the script of Terminator 2 and thought it would be winning any oscars. They set out to make a fun film to watch and it payed off in spades. No matter how many times I watch it I never get sick of it.... /fanboy

Btw. Garden State was supurb

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[TheWanderingHermit]

Yes, T2 was fun, but there's a big difference between a work being fun and being great. For example, when I get stressed and need an escape, I'll re-read the John Carter of Mars books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. They're a lot of fun, but there is no way I'd ever classify them as great novels or as works of literary note.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[TheWanderingHermit]

The novel was "Possession". I never saw the movie, since I heard it was piss poor. I also couldn't see turning it into a movie since so much of it has to do with what the characters wrote. Part of what fascinated me about it was that I had recently finished a 3 hour film script (which I'll be shooting one day) that had a main plotline in modern times that was closely intertwined with one from the 1920's, and Possession had a similar situation.

Also, comparing fantasy novels to Shakespeare just isn't fair.

Why not? Shakespeare was writing for an audience he needed to keep interested. He was competing with other plays going on at the same time and often had to write plays that met certain criteria (Hamlet was written to compete with another play with many of the same elements). In other words, he had to write to meet deadlines, to compete for ratings of a type, and to appeal to the masses as well as the more educated. Modern writers have had Shakespeare to learn from, and have many more resources than Shakespeare had, like word processors to make writing easier, climate control so they don't have to write in sweltering heat or freezine cold, and they have not only Shakespeare to read (to learn from), but hundreds of poets, playwrights, screenwriters, novelists, essayists, and other types of writers to help them learn about style, setting, character development, and the like.

So what is unfair about comparing modern writers to Shakespeare? He worked with what he had, and they have much more than he did. If they don't want to see farther, then they have chosen to NOT be a dwarf standing on a giant's shoulders. While that is a valid choice, it's no excuse to keep them from being compared to any writer in history.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[listen]

Possession : A Romance by A.S. Byatt? This is widely considered to be one of the finest British novels of the nineties. It is immensely powerful - certainly not just some run of the mill dreck. I don't want to say it is not "fair" to compare to poor old Gully Foyles outings, but that really is not the comparison you set out in your original post.

I can assure you Possession has made many "Best 100 books of the 20th century" lists....

And I agree it would make a bad film with a huge loss in the transition to the screen - just like most good modern novels. eg Corelli, White Teeth, American Psycho, etc. So much is in the style and the details that adaptions do fall flat...

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[TheWanderingHermit]

I hadn't realized Possession was so highly acclaimed. I don't keep track of such things (for example I've already forgotten what films were on the Time list we were discussing). Maybe that does change the comparison, but when I think back to much of the SF I've read, if I hold Possession as a standard, few of the SF or Fantasy books I've read would come close or surpass that standard. SF is noted for poor character development. The focus is often on cool technology instead of humanity. I can't remember the author, but I remember reading a column (I think it was in Writer's Digest) by an SF author about his story, "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" (I think that's the right title -- I've never been able to find a copy of the story). He said he named the character Nada, to stress that he went out of the way to make sure the character was not developed at all. Since then, he's had many anthologies and texts ask to include the story as an example of good SF.

I've always liked SF, but I find I'm reading it less and less and looking more and more at classical literature to hold my interest.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[listen]

Yes, I do know what you mean - maybe 5% of what I read is SF. Had to point it out though - I mean, Possession won the Man Booker prize for 1990 ;-) TBH, If I hold it as a standard I can't say that a huge amount of anything surpasses it...

But yes : In most SF or altered world settings, there is the tendency that a much greater proportion of the work goes into exposition and world development. It is also very difficult for an SF author to achieve what a lot of modern authors do : they take some aspect of culture or history you are likely to know a bit about, and reveal more information about it through a characters perceptions - so even exposition becomes character development in a way, as the perceptions of the character and the truth you do know are reconciled.

This is very difficult to do in a situation where the reader needs to be informed of the "truth", and the revelations need to be reinforced, not questioned at every turn. In SF, as the build up of "truth" is so arduous, differing perceptions are often couched in factionalisation or end up being so momentous that they dominate the plot rather easily.

Anyway, that is my take on why modern "reality" based literature seems to have more depth than the best that SF could ever even theoretically achieve. "Magical realism" ala Marquez or subtle aternate history like "The Plot Against America" is about the furthest you can go without losing some of that feeling of depth that comes from the real world. The closest I could recommend that is "real" SF is probably the Hyperion cantos by Dan Simmons. These very cleverly utilise a lot of our existing culture (eg the big three Abrahamic religions, Keats) and do manage to do a bit of what I mentioned above. But yes, the tech/physics bending still has its moments.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[mink]

"It really didn't even have the grace of the well done martial arts films (I'm thinking especially of the first battle, in the rain, in the sequal to Crouching Tiger, but I can't remember the title)"

Crouching Tiger had no sequal that I am aware of. However the next "big" Martial Arts film to come out that was hyped (and deserved it IMO) was Hero. I believe it has the opening fight scene you describe. More recently we got House of flying daggers, that IMO was too short to get done all it's plot, but the story really was just about the two of them not the war.

I believe Iron Monkey was released shortly after (or before) Crouching Tiger, and was not as hevailly pushed.

Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix

[TheWanderingHermit]

You may be right. I'm not sure. A friend who didn't have a DVD player had borrowed a copy of the DVD from someone and wanted to see it. He asked me if he could watch it at my place, and I let him. I only saw that 1st scene (I had work to do). According to my friend, it was the sequal to CTHM, and he said it was not well distributed in the US. I'm going by what he says, and I should have said so, since he may have been wrong or worded it in such a way it confused me.

No such list!

[ylikone]

A top 100 movies list cannot ever be created. For it to exist, one would have to assume that everybody has the same tastes, or even that a majority has the same tastes. Not even close to truth. So, it's all relative. You can only ever make a top 100 movies that *I* think are the best.

Top 100?

[ChuckDivine]

I lost track of the fine films that didn't make the list.

In the space/SF genre alone they picked "Star Wars" over "2001: A Space Odyssey"? Star Wars was fun -- but it wasn't any 2001.

Charade was good -- but top 100? Once Upon A Time In the West? Ditto.

The Purple Rose of Cairo? Please.

I'd have to go back and remember films that really touched me. That would take entirely too long for this message. Suffice it to say I'm not impressed with their list.

Re:Top 100?

[geminidomino]

Eh... I dunno, it must be some kind of blasphemy or something, but 2001 was seriously too boring for me. It's one thing to make the whole symbolic commentary on humanity thing. That's all well and good, until you forget to put anything else into the movie. Then it just turns into some kind of mind-job that is how I would imagine a boring mushroom trip

Apu trilogy

[a3217055]

I was happy to see the Apu trilogy on the list, an amazingly made film by a director far ahead of his time. I am suprised to see Sherlock Jr, on it. Maybe it was a good movie ? But I am suprised to see the lack of the Bicycle Theif and extrodinarily well made and highly influential film of the time. Suprised to see Blade Runner. But the 2nd to last scene of Blade Runner really touches me to this day when the cyborg/villan dies in the rain as in a sort of cleansing of his soul, or rather reincarnation of some sort.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams ... glitter in the dark near Tanhauser Gate. All those ... moments will be lost ... in time, like tears ... in rain. Time ... to die.
Roy Batty
Blade Runner

Re:I Hate The United States

[dustinbarbour]

No worries.. America hates you.. not your country or fellow countrymen.. just you.. personally.

Top 100 nerd movies would include...

[Jim Logajan]

How could they miss these gems:

Forbidden Planet
The Day the Earth Stood Still
The Time Machine (George Pal version)
The War of the Worlds (George Pal version)
Destination Moon (I'm a fan of Heinlein)

Re:Top 100 nerd movies would include...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Top 100 nerd movies would include...

[Lucas Membrane]

Best nerd movie is "Born Yesterday" with Judy Canova and Broderick Crawford. Second best is "Creation of the Humanoids", ripped off by Woody Allen in "Sleeper".

Re:Top 100 nerd movies would include...

[Anonymous Coward]

Duel is the only decent thing Spielberg ever made. It's almost as good as the average Twilight Zone episode.

Hack bastard.

My vote for the #1 absentee from this list:

[Lord of Ironhand]

Once Upon A Time In America

The final masterpiece of one of the greatest filmmakers, Sergio Leone. (who at least did get a couple of movies on the list) Makes me wonder whether they only considered the (severely crippled) version that was shown in theatres.

Glad to see Brazil on there though.

Re:My vote for the #1 absentee from this list:

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, but should be called "Once Upon A Time In The U.S." you cockblocker.

Re:My vote for the #1 absentee from this list:

[ghmh]

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.)

Re:My vote for the #1 absentee from this list:

[rokzy]

I didn't enjoy it.

usually in gangster films you can get behind the characters even though they do so many bad things. but de Niro's character was just horrible.

and not even so horrible he's interesting, like Hitler.

just the kind of worthless prick that would beat up his wife. his only redeeming quality is that by the end he's so old and useless he doesn't act like a prick as much.

sorry, just all a bit pointless imo.

Re:My vote for the #1 absentee from this list:

[mink]

How can you tell the differnt versions?

Not just wierd, totally on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't even begin to comment on the list. It's just beyond words, I don't see how any movie buff could possibly agree with this selection.

It's just nuts.

Maybe they had a decent list of the top 5000 films, and then selected 100 TOTALLY AT RANDOM?

What's next on Slashdot?

[gamer4Life]

Top 100 songs of all time?
Top 100 books of all time?

Where does the "Stuff that matters." end?

Re:What's next on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Top 100 women.

Good

[OneArmedMan]

Almost half of the films were made outside the United States

God Dam right ...

USA != Entire world / All that is good

Vocabulary

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, 3 different reviews use the word "apotheosis". That quadruples the number of times I have ever seen that word in print.

Presented to you by:

[sr180]

The same company that made Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin "Time Magazine Man of the Year".

This list aught to be good....

Re:Presented to you by:

[roastedMnM]

Editors are asked to choose the person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, for good or ill--guidelines that leave them no choice but to select a newsworthy--not necessarily praiseworthy--cover subject.

In my humble opinion, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin meet this criteria quite well for the years they were chosen for.

Re:Presented to you by:

[harmonica]

In my humble opinion, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin meet this criteria quite well for the years they were chosen for.

Exactly. And if the Time editors would have had anything resembling balls, Osama would have become man of the year as well.

Re:Presented to you by:

[danila]

Well, Joseph Stalin happened to save the world from Fascism. I'd say that was quite an achievement.

The Shawshank Redemption

[Anonymous Coward]

That's another one of those flawless films.

No 2001: A Space Oddessy???!?

[datafr0g]

Weird.... though seen at a cinema, 2001 isn't really a movie, more of an experience!!

Drunken Master II making the list is even weirder! It's a great film but I wouldn't put it in my top 100...

Ebert's list is pretty good - I'd provide a link but his site seems to be playing up at the moment....
check out www.rogerebert.com and look for the "Great Movies" section.

Re:No 2001: A Space Oddessy???!?

[amrittuladhar]

I second that. 2001 ought to be there. If for nothing, at least for the ahead-of-its-time special effects, and HAL.

Re:No 2001: A Space Oddessy???!?

[Anonymous Coward]

2001 is the best film in the history of cinema.

It isn't the most entertaining film.

But it is the best film.

In 100 years, Star Wars will look like low grade camp. 2001 will still look good.

Re:No 2001: A Space Oddessy???!?

[obender]

Drunken Master II making the list is even weirder! It's a great film but I wouldn't put it in my top 100...

You must be thinking about Drunken Master I. The sequel was hardly any good.

Re:No 2001: A Space Oddessy???!?

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a "+1 spelling" for when it gets as creative as this.

Re:No 2001: A Space Oddessy???!?

[tumbaumba]

2001 is the best film in the history of cinema.

Try watching Solaris by Tarkovsky first, which is much better than Oddessy 2001, although both of them are far from the best.

Not a bad list

[skingers6894]

but it wouldn't make my top 100 list of top 100 lists.

Obligatory Nod to CG?

[illuminatedwax]

What the hell is Finding Nemo doing on there? It's like they had to pick a single CG movie just to have that genre represented...why not Toy Story, or even its sequel? If you need something animated, why not something like Beauty and the Beast or Spirited Away? It's just bizarre...

oh well,
--Stephen

Re:Obligatory Nod to CG?

[imnojezus]

I gotta agree with you there. Even if they "needed" to represent a computer animated flick, they could have done better with pretty much any other choice.

Re:Obligatory Nod to CG?

[radish]

Shrek 2 would get my vote...or maybe The Incredibles.

Re:Obligatory Nod to CG?

[Lucas Membrane]

I didn't know that Cary Grant was in that one. Did he play Nemo?

Re:Obligatory Nod to CG?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shrek 2 was great, but the incredibles? That's gotta be the most boring CG movie I've seen in ages.

Re:I Hate The United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it OK that I hate him and I'm not American?

Order

[m85476585]

It's not in order! what kind of list is that?! How an I supposed to know if ROTS is better than Finding Nemo?

Re:To hell with European leftish communist filmmak

[damsa]

Time is owned by AOL Time Warner. Time Warner bought out Turner, Turner in turn was founded by Ted Turner. Ted Turner was once married to Jane Fonda, who worked once with Jack Lemmon in The China Syndrome, who worked with Kevin Bacon in JFK who's movie Woodsman was shown at Canne.

Obviously, there is a left wing conspiracy involving the assassination of JFK, Vietnam, AOL mind control CDS and snooty French people.

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[talksinmaths]

I didn't care so much for the movie either, but the book is a great work of historical fiction IMO. I read it in high school over 20 years ago, and I remember thinking that it taught me as much about the civil war / reconstruction period as any history book ever did.

Too many great films to whittle it down to 100

[Lahiru]

There're too many great, classic films to whittle it down to just 100. Since so many have already mentioned other classics, I won't bother to list out any more. I think we can all agree, though, that there are no bad films here. These 100 are almost certainly worthy of merit and worth seeing.

At the end of the day any such list will be subjective, and if we all made our own lists they'd be different. But the odds are if we all pooled our lists together we'd have a kick-ass mega list of great films (and maybe a few crap ones selected by crazy people). Anyway, the list has sparked a bit of debate and there seem to be plenty of recommendations that I should add to my "must see" list...

Critics...

[imnojezus]

"But critics Richard Schickel and Richard Corliss snubbed several classics..."

What a pair of Dicks.

Thanks! I'll be here all week!

Obviously fixed!

[Anonymous Coward]

How could they overlook "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"??? A classic!

Empire Strikes Back Star Wars

[javacowboy]

There's no way in hell Star Wars should be in the list ahead of, or instead of the Empire Strikes Back.

Empire is the best Star Wars film, and best of all, it wasn't directed or screenplayed by Lucas :)

A few good calls...

[bergeron76]

Citizen Kane is a great call. It's one of the few "classics" that I've seen, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's a long movie that you have to wait until the very end to truly enjoy. It really puts a lot of things into perspective.

Oh yeah, and they listed Star Wars! Woot!

what?!

[circletimessquare]

no Incubus?

it has william shatner!

it was in esperanto!

it has goat heads!

this is a travesty...

The Matrix?

[Evil Butters]

What about The Matrix? Didn't that movie either invent or at least bring to mainstream the "slow motion, multi-camera 360 degree rotational" special effects that are in so many movies (and some TV now) these days?

Re:The Matrix?

[Penguinoflight]

The Matrix brought a lot to mainstream, but I've heard a lot of criticism about films that Matrix adapted from. Blade has been compared to the matrix (a weak argument, yes). I just watched Dark City this month and it's amazing how similar this movie is, released just one year before The Matrix.

If slow motion, multi-camera 360 degree rotational effects was enough to get a film the nod for top100, reloaded should get that spot.

I have to agree The Matrix was just too well done to be left out of the top100 list. I dont think many people trusted time to come up with a good list though.

Re:The Matrix?

[pH03n1X]

For me THe Matrix is not just about the special effects and the action ... It is more about the concepts it deals with like existence of virtual worlds etc. .. simply put ... the movie makes you think and deserves to be in the top 100 list

You all have TOTALLY missed one

[PenguinBoyDave]

Smokey and the Bandit...a true classic that has been worthy of replay on WAY too many channels lately.

For my money, nothing says classic movie like a story about a truck and a car going to get beer.

Re:You all have TOTALLY missed one

[Goonie]

As far as that movie goes, I always kind of liked the review some anonymous IMDB'er provided:

A poorly understood epic story portraying the taut homoerotic tension between two men, played skillfully by Jackie Gleason and the great Burt Reynolds. Their desire plays out in mesmerizing chase scenes, which slowly and cleverly reveal their true feelings to the camera. As the tension builds it becomes clear that neither man will realise the dream of the other, and all passion must be sublimated. Aching and sublime on every level.

While with my blatant heterocentrism I missed these deeper meanings, Smokey and the Bandit *is* a hell of an entertaining piece of brainless entertainment...

By the way, did the freewheeling libertarian south depicted in Bandit ever really exist (to some extent, I'm not quite so silly to believe that bootlegging in high-powered automobiles was routine behaviour...), and if so, what the hell happpened to it?

Re:You all have TOTALLY missed one

[mvdw]

I'm not quite so silly to believe that bootlegging in high-powered automobiles was routine behaviour...

Well, another datapoint to this behaviour is of course Dukes of Hazzard, so I'd venture to suggest that it was a little more common than you believe. After all, what could be more real that that show?

What a waste of "Time"

[HockeyPuck]

Ok, So what's going on in the world...

-American's dying in IRAQ
-Iraqis dying in IRAQ
-N. Korea thinking about testing Nukes
-Avg Home price is about $600k.
-State of Calif is bankrupt
-Stanley Cup finals should have started today
-Gas prices are $2.50/gal
-Tuition/yr costs as much as a luxury car.
-Stem Cell research

They must think it's a slow news week.

And yet Time Magazine decides to dedicate an entire issue to the top 100 Films of all time? I'm sorry but, first Newsweek makes us American's look stupid in the eyes of Muslims, and now Time wastes untold amounts of paper, ink and metal (staples) on this BS..

I feel much better now.

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[Edmund Blackadder]

It could be worse. They could be talking about the runaway bride or Michael Jackson again.

I gave up on Time writing anything worthwhile on Iraq several years ago when they had one of their point-counterpoint spreads about whether we should attack Iraq. The funny part was that both the point and the counterpoint reached the conclusion that we should attack Iraq. It is was so nice of them to give me both sides of the story!!!

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[panaceaa]

Tuition/yr costs as much as a luxury car

This one is especially awful. Luxury cars have become way too cheap. Seriously, if any family that can afford college can afford a luxury car, is it really a luxury anymore??

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[superstick58]

Come on, it's only one issue. Time magazine covers social aspects of life too, not just the death and destruction, gloom and doom, etc. It's nice to have an issue once in a while that doesn't make you depressed. You can still get your "THE WORLD IS ENDING TOMORROW" "AIR CAN KILL YOU" "KITTEN MURDERED BY 5 YEAR OLD BOY" stories on the local news in the mean time.

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[jesterzog]

I'm no expert on Time, and I haven't read it in a while, so I welcome any comments about my thoughts on this.

I've never found Time magazine terribly interesting. My impression of Time magazine was that it rarely does anything but echo trends and common beliefs that are being pushed in society, without really challenging or questioning many of them at all. People in America and other western countries like movies, and treat them with importance. It shouldn't be a surprise that Time will cover this in some way every so often.

Why should such a magazine be particularly interesting except for those who are already stereotypical members of society?

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[superyooser]

Meh.

You're just mad that Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't on the list. (And Bush won.)

I personally prefer Celsius 41.11 .

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[Anonymous Coward]

Stanley Cup finals should have started today

How did that slip in there?

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[Dr Kool, PhD]

America is booming, the economy is on the up swing, Iraq is a free democracy, there hasn't been a terrorist attack on American soil in years. All things considered, it's a great time to be an American. Meanwhile people like you are outraged over everything, telling us America is finished, telling us America is doomed, telling us that our country is evil. Time to put the suicidal pessimism away.

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because God knows that no one would actually want to read about anything that doesn't have momentous and catastrophic consequences for the future of the world. I mean, why would anyone want to actually stop worrying about the future for even a minute to enjoy the arts?

Yep, Time is just plain ridiculous. I say, load me up with all the serious problems of the day 24/7. As long as there are problems in the world, why should I enjoy myself? I can handle it!

(Now where did I put that noose again...?)

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[dr.badass]

Ok, So what's going on in the world...

Whoooooa there. You're already leaving out 99% of of what's going on in the world. Plus, the fact that you're even aware of these things means that Time not covering them is pretty inconsequencial. There's a few hundred other news outlets covering all of the issues you're concerned with. People aren't going to be significantly less informed just because Time spends an issue on a subject that doesn't scare them.

[flamebait]Anyway, if you're relying on Time for real news, you're probably already pretty uninformed.[/flamebait]

If every news outlet in the country spent every edition covering every big scary issue, the perpetual dialog in this country would be something like : "OHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAP".

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I agree with the sentiment of your assessment and would not normally leap to Newsweek's defense, the incident, details, and effects (riots in Afganistan) have been widely mis-reported.

Even before Nesweek's apparent vindication by the FBI report today (see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/politics/26koran .html), reports from the New York Times, the Columbia Journalism Review, and the US State Department had made it clear that the Afghan riots were not tied to Newsweek's report on Quran mistreatment (see http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/May/12 -273892.html?chanlid=washfile).

Your misinformation is understandable based on the pitiful fact that Reuters reiterated this error as recently as 6 hours ago. (In case you're still prone to believe that Newsweek's article prompted the riots, a quick Nexis search will reveal at least four stories similar to Newsweek's in major US and international periodicals since March 14, 2004 - all with no associated violence.)

I'm not suggesting that Newsweek was right to run with an apparently poorly-sourced story. But Newsweek does not "make us American's (sic) look stupid in the eyes of Muslims." Rather, our lying, corrupt administration and their lackeys who engage in torture and other crimes against humanity in the name of freedom make us look stupid, morally deficient, and hypocritical.

Further, as you suggest, the media's inability to report on meaningful topics is negligent and compounds the problem. (I would add the horrific situation in the Congo, Iran's nuclear program, Israeli-Palenstinian relations, and to turn to domestic issues, the spiraling debt and impending collapse of critical social programs to your list or stories that should be better covered.) Their failure to get their facts straight for those topics they do choose to cover is incompetent.

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. You're probably one of the stereotypical slashdorks who wastes money on comics.

And spare us the bleeding heart liberal guilt trip.

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this is coming in the regular weekly edition of Time, this is probably a special issue.

On a related note, Time has been getting screwed by their publishing deadline lately, with the Pope in the hospital and dying they had a cover story on Ann Coulter. For the May 23 Canadian edition (which actually came out last week) they had a cover story on the XBox, while a non-confidence vote was made in Parliament and Belinda Stronach switched political parties.

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[corpsiclex]

I didn't know there was still a place in this country that has gas for $2.50.
you don't live in texas, do you?

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[dmayle]

first Newsweek makes us American's look stupid in the eyes of Muslims

As was pointed out by The Economist, the Newsweek article was not incorrect in content (the Koran was indeed thrown in the toilet), they were just wrong about the CIA admitting it in a specific published report. (It still may be published in a different report.) Excerpt from the story:

Conservative talk-shows and internet sites have depicted Newsweek as yet another liberal, unpatriotic media outlet only too willing to criticise America's conduct in the war on terror. The magazine's defenders argue that the fact that its source couldn't pinpoint the correct military investigative report does not mean that its story was wrong in substance. Testimony from prisoners at Guantánamo, after all, backs up the assertion that guards and interrogators have mistreated the Koran.

According to Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, three British inmates who were released last year, guards have indeed thrown the Koran in the toilet. Other current detainees have also complained about religious intimidation and humiliation at Guantánamo. Last week, according to both Reuters and Agence France Presse, Southern Command began an inquiry to check if its employees have ever thrown the Koran into the toilet.

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[flynns]

Pff. We have gas here in Northwest Florida for $2.13/gallon. If you go two counties west to Escambia County, where the taxes are lower and the transportation costs decrease, I'm fairly sure you could find gas for $2.05 or less.

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[witcomb]

Seriously, if any family that can afford college can afford a luxury car, is it really a luxury anymore??

Could this just be an indication that college is a luxury?

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[justforaday]

I was wondering the exact same thing. One of these things is not like the others...

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[mbbac]

Which one of these things is not like the other? Just try to pick it out!

-American's dying in IRAQ
-Iraqis dying in IRAQ
-N. Korea thinking about testing Nukes
-Avg Home price is about $600k.
-State of Calif is bankrupt
-Stanley Cup finals should have started today
-Gas prices are $2.50/gal
-Tuition/yr costs as much as a luxury car.
-Stem Cell research

Re:What a waste of "Time"

[mink]

All of what you say was being said on 09/10/2001

The real link to the list...

[KingSkippus]

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.)

Re:The real link to the list...

[Edmund Blackadder]

Everyone likes some light music now and again, but Madonna eventually gets boring and the moonlight sonata gets better every time you listen to it.

And maybe thats the reason there are so many old movies. One needs time to really appreciate a good movie. And even more time is needed for a consensus to form that a certain movie is good.

Another reason for the number of older movies there, is the fact that the older movies invented certain aspects of film-making that are used by the newer ones. If one has to decide between an older movie and a just as good newer movie that uses the film techniques and plot pieces pioneered by the older movie, one always goes with the older movie.

Anyways, I am sure that some mor emodern movies will reveal themselves of being great and able to stand the test of time. PErsonally, I am hoping that The Big Lewbovsky (sp?) will be recognized as the classic of the nineties.

Re:The real link to the list...

[Kohath]

Writers ... are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo

That's part of the problem. They try to get attention instead of trying to tell a story.

Also, there's no way Independence Day or Back to the Future deserve to be on a "best movies of all time" list. They were fun to watch, but there wasn't really anything original there.

Re:The real link to the list...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Big Lewbovsky (sp?)

The Big Lebowsky

Re:The real link to the list...

[southpolesammy]

Could be that Time's bias is to the demographics of their readership...

Re:The real link to the list...

[kfg]

I believe you have formed a premise and are interpreting the data to favor it.

Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four?

No. That's why the entire four decades didn't produce a single title on the list, which only begins after the movie industry was so far advanced as to have major studios in the modern sense, who had already formed "The Oscars."

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?

When statistical significance is taken into account the 30's through 60's graph out as a stright line.

Yes, there was a dip of quantity of quality in the 70's, in part simply because there was a dip in quantity. The studios were no longer cranking out a title a week. It's quite possible that the quality/quantity ratio went up quite a bit.

In that light the 80's and 90's also seem to hold even or outperform earlier decades, only showing a miniscule (statistically speaking) drop, but with a much smaller pool to draw from.

For all practical purposes the entire graph from the 30's on is a straight, level line, with a little blip in the very socially troubled 70's, when, among other things, the studio system collapsed.

KFG

Re:The real link to the list...

[fishbowl]

"Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema?"

No breasts, ever.

Re:The real link to the list...

[P0ldy]

"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."

Too often people who know little about cinema or regard it as little less than entertainment take that point of view. Here's an "elitist" vantage point on cinema.

Personal preference and the merits of a film can largely be separated. You might watch ID:4 every time it comes on TV and think it's the best movie because it entertains you, but that means little to anyone else. The stultifying contemporary argument is that "it's all subjective" and it should be left at that--a resolution which resolves nothing and is escapist. There is quite the difference between an objectively good film and grading a film on objective criteria. The former no intelligent person would claim; the latter is the bit we're concerned with.

To your stigma against old films, I have to say it's probably because you've seen far too few. You may have seen what you think is a good number, but compared to all the contemporary films you've seen it's a fraction. This isn't your fault necessarily, but obscures your judgment.

Once you begin to get a handle on simple cinema elements like mise-en-scene, composition, editing, lighting, plot, sound, historical importance, and direction, you intuitively begin to distinguish between the 'bad' and the 'good'. A lot of people with such sensibilities conform to film critics' standards, but the bold among us who actually think for ourselves (in effect, doing as opposed to following) can carve out your own lists and justify them. First thing you'll figure out is critics are mostly idiots who are paid to sell a film: nobody wants to read reviews of a critic who will trash everything he has to review (because, seriously, 95% of all films that will come out this year could justifiably be trashed).

The gravitation to old films is primarily an inquiry to where cinema started. As such, some people will find old films unrivaled by modern day films, mainly because modern films' budgets are exponentially higher, technology is better, and the quality has depreciated. The thing few realise is that today we don't necessarily make more films than in the 30s and 40s. There are as many awful, awful films from 1937 as 1997. However, since so many years have passed, hindsight allows clearer vision of the gems of the age, while the bad films are not even known to exist.

But, that's just Hollywood. Given your list, you're one of the countless individuals who doesn't know cinema existed before 1977 (generalising obviously, but it's still quite true). Foreign films escape your list, presumably for the same reason as old films: you (and by 'you' I mean you as one of the general moviegoing public of America) probably only speak English and have a recalcitrance to subtitles. This means you miss a large percentage of great films from other countries, added to the large percentage of old films, which leaves you with a small percentage from which to pool your 'top choices'.

In summary, see more films.

Re:The real link to the list...

[KingSkippus]

I hope I don't sound too dense, but...

Huh?

Re:The real link to the list...

[l3v1]

"top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago

Don't get mad too quickly because I'm saying this: this is so American. The whole description is just what current American movies are. And you know, there are people out there who value a good storyline with spectacular acting and not mostly spectacular view quite a lot more than the average movie-going people. And yes, there were a few decades which produced overwhelmingly good movies, with stories and acting very hard to match these days, in or out of US/HWood. On the other side, there were (still are, but not so many) exceptionally great non-american writers, directors and cameramen for example in the 60-70s whose work is even by today's measures very well above the average. A few of what you call spectacular new hollywood movies are just not enough to erase memories of these. And it's very good so. I could come up wth very many examples, but I won't since I don't want to start another flamewar about why I think some older movies are in so many ways better than almost everything I saw in the last let's say 10 years (and I'm only 26).

If you're someone who has real knowledge about the movie history than you just can't deny the very great heritage which we have in the international movie arena. Today most movies' goal is to shock the crowds with stunning visuals and sudden drama sometimes with depressingly wrong, unpolished, uncomplete, childish storylines. This, in cases, can be good, I dont' argue. But after a certain amount one just gets fed up with them.

I can very highly appreciate good acting, good stories, good filming, good directing. I also can value some of the trials which want to break out from the Hollywood school of directing and cameramanship, which - and this is not just my opinion but of some great cameramen whose work [i.e. books ...] I've read - has more and more become a cliche in recent years. No wonder so many actors become directors over the great pond (really no offence ment here).

And no wonder so many remakes are coming into the movies these days. But this is not really news or unknown, this is a tendency which also shows e.g. in the music businness, but that is something which I quite frequently despise, but that's another story.

Re:The real link to the list...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you do. But you did in the original post, this just helps to highlight much of what is wrong with your thinking.

Re:The real link to the list...

[P0ldy]

Eh, in all sincerity, I might have to agree with AC here. Unless that was a joke, and then it was a decent one.

Re:The real link to the list...

[Evil Pete]

One factor I find in going back to sources, of any kind, is that the work has a different quality to what comes after. Afterwards people extract the "good bits" and eventually it becomes the norm. But in the original the ideas live in an ecosystem, if you will, of other ideas that support it. I first noticed this when reading original scientific works, sure the later stuff says it better etc, but it doesn't include the revealing arguments and ideas of someone forging into the unkown (for example try reading Origin Of Species). They don't know how important their work is going to be, they have to therefore try to make their effort stand by itself. Old films are like this, you can see flaws (by later standards) but you can also see the technique or dialog in a new way.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Re:The real link to the list...

[tadas]

KingSkippus said:

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?

He followed with a useful breakdown by decade, for which I thank him.

What I think that he hasn't considered is that in that first four-decade period, particularly the last three, movies were pretty much the whole enchilada when it came to visual storytelling entertainment.

With no TV, and with vaudeville dying off in the '20s, movies were the only game in town. Radio filled some of the niche that TV does now, but it, of course had no visual component.

I don't think that the poster realizes how pervasive the movies were in that time. In the New York City neighborhood where I grew up in the '60s (in Queens), I was astounded to learn that there had been a movie theatre about every 3 or 4 blocks on the main business street in the '30's and '40's. People regularly went to the movies 2 or 3 times a week, week in and week out, and this was not just "movie fans", it was pretty much everyone.

Given that movies were at the apex of popular culture in the era, they tended to draw a higher percentage from the pool of the highly-talented than they do today. If the movies today had their most talented people supplemeted with 70% of the most talented now working in TV, music videos, game design, etc., I'd expect the number of great films made now to be higher. I think that the falloff in numbers for the TV era is just a reflection of talent dilution at the very high end of the talent scale.

Re:IMDB - Personally I prefer rottentomatoes.com

[milkasing]

I consider ratings by just one or two critics to be too small a sample, and ratings by all and sundry to be too prone to noise Since rottentomatoes ratings are based on a sample critic's choices, it gets rid of a lot of the noise that often skews IMDB ratings (for straight to video movies that were too terrible for theater releases often get a good IMDB rating, since most people who dislike the movie did not bother voting). Also I like the the lists are made (arranges by various categories -- year, genre,etc)

Inconceivable

[pcgabe]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No A Clockwork Orange? No Satyricon?

[msimm]

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! :)

Re:No A Clockwork Orange? No Satyricon?

[fishbowl]

The Russian Solaris?

I watched it. I wanted to like it. I really, truly did. Now I'll settle for just being told what's good about it. I'm fairly certain it's the most boring movie I have ever sat through from beginning to end. There have been more boring movies, I suppose, but not that I actually watched all the way through.

Re:No A Clockwork Orange? No Satyricon?

[msimm]

Well, its a great atmospheric piece. Movies these days (maybe even back then) can't get away with that kind of setup and then it launches in to this really good sci-fi story. My wife fell asleep, I guess it isn't for everyone...but a classic it is.

Best comment I saw about the Time list:

[ccnull]

"Someone at Time is OLD!" LOL

Too many modern movies

[Edmund Blackadder]

First of all let me say the obvious -- this list was obviously assembled in order to attract attention and controversy so it should not be taken too seriously.

The list does include a lot of classics but it also includes too many modern movies that are good but not 100 best of all time. Most obvious example is Finding Nemo. Great movie, especially if you have kids, but there is nothign really special about it. In fact I guarantee that it will be mostly forgotten in five years. (If you don't believe me, try to remember the last similar movie that was heralded as being brilliant -- Toy Story, which would look very dated and kind of boring nowadays).

Then there is the Ring trilogy, which although very succesful and good movies was once again nothing exceptional. I bet if this list was made in the late nineties it would include Titanic for the same reason it includes the ring trilogy now.

And then there is Schindler's List. It basicly silly to include Schindler's list and not include some of the original holocaust movies, such as Europa Europa. I guess they want to give the impression that Spielberg was being original with Schindler's List (definately not the case). In general Spielberg has too many movies in the list. He has a knack of making his movies seem more momentous than they really are.

Then there are the choices that seem to be specifically put in to invite controversy. For example Yojimbo is included but seven samurai isn't. Berry Lyndon is included but many of Kubrick's better movies aren't. Purple Rose of Cairo is included but Annie Hall isnt. I can argue why these choices are wrong (and even kind of bizarre) but I have the feeling Time put them in exactly so I can argue about them.

It also seems that Time might be making some unusual choices in order to get cross promotion from th emovie distributors themselves. For example, it is very unlikely that a DVD of Seven Samurai will say "Chosen by Time Magazine as one of the 100 best of all time", but very likely that a DVD of NEMO will say that.

Re:Too many modern movies

[bfree]

I'll agree Finding Nemo is a mediocre film, but I honestly think Shrek and Toy Story both have a good chance of standing the test of time. We will see ...

The Ring trilogy ... I just don't know. I still think that LOTR will be made again in my lifetime, but next time they won't cut the beginning and ending to make a film (leaving it with no context) but instead will film the lot, or drop some of the more ditchable sections (do we really need to see every battle being fought, no, just follow the hobbits FROM BEGINNING TO END if you can't find the budget for everything). The only good thing is at least the world won't all know the real story when someone finally makes it :-) Having said all that they could still make it into my top 100 films of all time!

Re:Too many modern movies

[ElVaquero]

There are absolutely some very obvious omissions, and also quite a few undeserving mentions. I only hope for the day when Spielberg is exposed for being the most overrated director in film history. Outside of great adventure movies from the 80's like Goonies and Indiana Jones, I haven't been able to appreciate a single film of his.

Re:Too many modern movies

[superstick58]

And then there is Schindler's List. It basicly silly to include Schindler's list and not include some of the original holocaust movies, such as Europa Europa.

While we're on the subject of Holocaust movies that should be present, I'd like to add "Life is Beautiful". This movie managed to be uplifting and fun while still revealing the horrors of the holocaust(I know that doesn't sound right, but watch it and you'll understand). It is definately a top film of the subject and should also be up there with the top 100 list.

Along the foreign film line, I'm glad to see City of God on the list.

Re:Too many modern movies

[DrEasy]

Try "Duel", his very first movie. Also, the first "Jaws" (the only one he directed AFAIK) had quite an impact at the time, but I don't know if it has aged well. If any, those are two Speilberg movies that the list should have used im my opinion.

Re:Too many modern movies

[lambsonic]

It also seems that Time might be making some unusual choices in order to get cross promotion from th emovie distributors themselves. For example, it is very unlikely that a DVD of Seven Samurai will say "Chosen by Time Magazine as one of the 100 best of all time", but very likely that a DVD of NEMO will say that.

The front page of the website of the people who released the DVD of Seven Samurai has a link to TIME's article.

Re:Too many modern movies

[Mjec]

Yes, sure, there may be too many Speilberg movies. And there were earlier holocaust movies. But none were nearly as powerful as Schindler's List. That movie is one that definitely deserves placement on the list. It's just too good to be left out.

Re:Too many modern movies

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Not Duel. It won't work nowadays...

Help me. I being chased... by a truck!!! Oh noes!1!1!

Re:Too many modern movies

[nagora]

Then there is the Ring trilogy, which although very succesful and good movies

Successful movies, yes. Good? Well, if you're the sort of person that thinks Battlefield Earth was a "brave try", then maybe. Terrible script, talentless direction. Fantastic set and costume design, though.

Missing Seven Samurai is a strange thing indeed, as is Annie Hall. It's hard to imagine someone who knows those directors' work and yet manages to leave off their two greatest works in favour off other, admittedly good, pieces.

I do have a friend who's a Kubrick fan and he says that Berry Lyndon is his favourite, but I've not seen it.

Ah, critics. What do they know?

TWW

Re:Too many modern movies

[m50d]

I disagree with you on toy story. The animation may look dated, but hey, black and white looks dated and it doesn't stop good movies. It's a very well done story, clichéd disney but it does it better than any of their other films.

Re:Too many modern movies

[vrt3]

While we're on the subject of Holocaust movies that should be present, I'd like to add "Life is Beautiful". This movie managed to be uplifting and fun while still revealing the horrors of the holocaust(I know that doesn't sound right, but watch it and you'll understand). It is definately a top film of the subject and should also be up there with the top 100 list.

I agree 100% (though it took me a second before realizing which movie you were talking about: I'm only used to seeing it refered to with its Italian name, "La vita è bella"). It is one of the best movies I ever saw. Certainly fun at moments, but very touching too.

Re:Too many modern movies

[dangitman]

But none were nearly as powerful as Schindler's List. That movie is one that definitely deserves placement on the list. It's just too good to be left out.

No, it's not a very good film at all. It's trite and overwrought. Hotel Rwanda would have been a much better choice. Schindler's list is just shit. I mean, how can you forgive the hackneyed "let's use the color red for the girl's dress in a black-and-white film." Ooooooh, how deep.

The only reason it gets high rating is because of Holocaust nostalgia and Spielberg. It's quite offensive really, the way he used that topic to further his own career, while showing no real depth or power.

Re:Too many modern movies

[justforaday]

Berry Lyndon is included but many of Kubrick's better movies aren't.

Well, especially after reading the little blurb that Time put along with Barry Lyndon, I would certainly have to agree with their inclusion of it:
"The director dreamed of telling stories entirely through images, and in this extraordinarily beautiful existentialist anti-epic he came close to realizing that goal."

If you haven't seen this movie, it truly does convey an entire story through the use of amazing cinematography. Every scene and shot in it is utterly beautiful. Well worth the 3 hours it'll take away from your life.

Re:Too many modern movies

[Edmund Blackadder]

Surely the cinematography is amazing, but is there a Kubrick movie where the cinematography is not amazing? (btw apologies for misspelling "Barry")

And of course it was amazing how he filmed whole scenes using candlelight. But that cannot be compared to Space Odyssey whose filiming techniques inspired pretty much all space movies (including the much worshipped Star Wars).

And lets face it the story is not as good as the other Kubrick movies. It is interesting enough to make for a great movie, but the main character, although very human, is kind of a selfish asshole. I am not complaining that the main character is a bad person, he is just bad in a very uninteresting ordinary way (as opposed to the more interesting sadist of Clockwork Orange for example).

I was much more engaged by the story lines of most other Kubrick movies.

Re:Too many modern movies

[Edmund Blackadder]

I did not like the Ring trilogy myself (I only saw the first one and was kind of bored). But so many other people like it so much, i thought it must have been good in some way.

Re:Too many modern movies

[mvdw]

Surprisingly, the book (called "Schindler's Ark"), was written by a reasonably famous Australian author, Thomas Kenneally. The story goes that he was in the supermarket/hairdresser/video store/whatever in Melbourne, and this old jewish guy comes up to him and goes: "you're that author, right? Well, have I got a story for you". And that's how an Australian author with no ostensible connection to the holocaust wrote the (true) story.

Re:Too many modern movies

[nagora]

But so many other people like it so much, i thought it must have been good in some way.

The visualisation is stunning for the most part. The cinematography, sets, costume, and most of the casting is perfect (Boromir and Aragorn are the wrong way around with the charismatic actor playing the boor and the non-entity playing the leader; Liv Tyler was a waste of space). The direction of the first film was just plain old-fashioned lousy and the second suffered from a mangled script. I gave up at that point and didn't bother with the third.

Someday someone will do a great (or even good) film of Lord of the Rings but I suspect it won't be in my lifetime now that Peter "More Fight Scenes" Jackson has shat all over the project.

Oh well.

TWW

Re:Too many modern movies

[19usc2462bH]

The story goes that he was in the supermarket/hairdresser/video store/whatever in Melbourne

"Handbag Studio". Bevery Hills.

Thomas Keneally tells how he stumbled on the story that became Schindler's List

What the... "To confirm you're not a script, please type the text shown in this image"
haven't seen that before

Re:Too many modern movies

[mink]

"YOU CAN'T BEAT ME ON THE GRADE!"

Looks like you have not driven cross country in a while. With 2 week trucking schools pumping out drivers who think a truck handles and drives like a compact car (with a full load). I've had experiances that make me get flashbacks to The Duel on major highways roads in the last year. I ended up doing over 90 to get away from some crazy asshat who decided to, instead of using the left lane, pull into the right lane and then accellerate as fast as he could. When your rear view mirror goes from truck a few car lengths back to only seeing the center of the radiator grill you get a bit jumpy.

No Gigli???

[cpotoso]

How come? :)

Re:No Gigli???

[sharkey]

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

another couple

[Home�rew]

Harold and Maude
Being There
Bound for Glory

Re:Schindler's List gets the guilt vote

[Anonymous Coward]

JAWS! Hello. How many stayed out of the ocean after that movie? I remember swimming at night and freaking out looking for a fin - and I was swimming in my POOL!

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[Golias]

Both were manipulative stories and high-budget chick flics.

Correction: Both were manipulative stories and extremely well-made high-budget chick flics.

You didn't like them. Good for you. Hold your dick high with pride, for you have asserted your manhood.

They are still both fucking masterpieces.

(Disclaimer: Not a huge fan of either film, but I believe in credit where credit is due.)

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[Quantum Fizz]

Out of curiosity what were the other three novels you put down?

corporate magazines STILL suck

[globaljustin]

I agree, and I'd go further...

The list really is pure b.s. because they really didn't have any kind of methodology. They just smoked a joint and started writing down films they liked.

Rolling Stone's recent issues with the 'top xxx' songs, albums, bands, artists, etc. at least had an in-depth description of the large panel of artists, industry, and writers who were commissioned to select the 'top xxx'. I found RS's lists to be satisfactory, if not definitive.

Windows is to computers what Time is to magazines...it's quick, available, entrenched, consumer friendly...and completely full of shit

_j

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[andy jenkins]

I love multi-dimensional characters, especially the mice in Hitchikers 'cos they were cute and cuddly.

Corliss and Schickel should have...

[Tavor]

... started earlier than 1924 for their list. Had they started the list at 1912, they could have included the original (silent version of) The Poseidon Adventure. Not only is that an exceedingly early movie, but it is the only movie about a sinking ocean liner actually SHOWN on a sinking ocean liner!

Re:To hell with European leftish communist filmmak

[colinrichardday]

But you forgot that Jack Lemmon was in Some Like it Hot (in drag) with Marilyn Monroe, who also knew JFK. . .

Hmm...

[rekenner]

Not to sound like a total geek (...wait...)... But there seems to be no anime on there.... Meh.

Conflict of interest.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Wait a minute...

Isn't TIME magazine published by Time Warner - the media conglomerate that was formed by the merger of Time/Life (the publishing house) and Warner Brothers (the movie studio)?

Isn't that a conflict of interest?

(Or have I lost track of the merger/spinout dance in the media conglomerates?)

Re:Conflict of interest.

[antispam_ben]

Isn't that a conflict of interest?

I thought that was half the reason megacompanies merge into these huge f'in' megaliths, to do this kind of cross-promotion. Just the fact that they run this "Top 100 Movies Of All Time, The Really Truly Definitive List" makes Time no more of a "News" magazine than People or the TV show Entertainment Tonight.

Why is this on /. ?

[LBt1st]

This is nothing but an ad. I don't care what some author thinks about movies. I want NEWS. -Kevin

No Seven Samurai

[Kohath]

The list is missing Seven Samurai.

Wrong again, liberal media.

Re:No Seven Samurai

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay...

What the fuck is the deal with the "liberal media" bullshit people keep spouting?

Let me clue you morons in on something:
*Media is run by big business
*Big business is REPUBLICAN
*Republicans insert their biases into their media outlet

Now that you know the TRUTH, you bipartisan sacks of shit, please pull your heads out of your asses and stop choosing a side like some national fucking football rivalry, grow a brain, and see how both sides are asking you to go to war with the other half of America to keep you in line.

Thanks for your attention. This has been ubertroll, and YHBT. HAND.

Re:No Seven Samurai

[damsa]

Considering there is like 5 Kurosawa movies on the list. I'm not sure what your point is.

Re:No Seven Samurai

[Kohath]

they picked the wrong ones

Wizard of Oz

[oneeyedelf1]

The list is wrong, there is no excuse for the Wizard of Oz not to be on there.

Re:Wizard of Oz

[Lucas Membrane]

It certainly at least neck-and-neck with "Meet Me in St. Louis". They are both about how great it is to have a good home. The "Wizard of Oz" has better music. A pox on that Christmas song!

Re:Wizard of Oz

[saskboy]

I noticed this too days ago when this list was published on an eBay forum.

My only guess is that the Wicked Witch of the East [Ted Turner] decided it badmouthed Kansas and Chimps, so it was a no-go.

Re:Wizard of Oz

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. After watching the Muppets Wizard of Oz last week, I was entertained until they got to Oz. And then I realized that the exact same thing happend to me in the original Wizard of Oz movie and in the movie 'the Wiz' with Michael Jackson.

The story itself is anticlimactic. There's this big workup leading us to Oz. As a viewer, you think the movie is over and you're somewhat relieved. Then they pull a switch and say "I'm sorry, but our princess is in another castle." Heh. Ok that's not what he said, but the effect is the same: Suddenly we're yanked out of the movie and we have visions of "intermission" or "act 2" in our minds. We get bored and think "how long is this stupid movie going to last? How many times are they going to pull that lame trick?" Finally we get to the real end of the movie and they pull the "it might have been a dream" as a resolution.

I'll grant you that when you sit down and diagram the movie to analyze its themes, you'll find that the story does contain some very useful insights into human behavior. However, that doesn't explain how you can manage to make a 101 minute movie BORING for both children and adults and then try to call it one of the best movies ever made.

Sure, we all remember the movie for its silly songs, but that doesn't make it a great movie.

Re:Wizard of Oz

[mink]

By "got to OZ" do you mean the Place (after the tornado), the Wizard, or Emerald City (that the wizard was in). Most of the movie takes place in OZ so I was a bit conflabulated by your use of OZ without saying if it was the land or the wizard.

The Fly?

[Scooter's_dad]

Cronenberg's The Fly is good and Goldblum gives a terrific performance, but the movie has some serious flaws (not least of which is too much of a dependence on the gross out factor). Now John Carpenter's The Thing, on the other hand...

Re:The Fly?

[Cackmobile]

thats one of my favourites. also the blob remake is pretty cool aswell

Uh, I'm pretty sure it was a joke

[lheal]

And it was funny.

>How did Revenge of the Sith get #1?
>George Lucas, are you up to no good?!?

It looks like he didn't RTFA, since he said "get #1", while the list wasn't ordered.

For proper comedic effect, he should have followed it with a line such as, "Where's my tinfoil hat?" or "Next he'll (wink, wink) get an Oscar!"

People with mod points are sometimes careless with them, calling the parent "informative". It's either funny or a troll, but it's not informative in any way.

Re:Uh, I'm pretty sure it was a joke

[xtracto]

mm yes but it was just an AC so, it does not matters

Re:Uh, I'm pretty sure it was a joke

['nother poster]

Yes, yes. We understand that very few people "get it" unless they either have the joke explained to them, or have the fact that it is supposed to be humerous telegraphed.

Having a joke rely on the fact that 1. the reader at least quick scanned the backing material(the article) and that 2. they must actually THINK for a moment must not be allowed. If we require that then the terrorists have already won.

(Notice there's no smiley? That means this is an attempt at droll sarcasm. It is an aquired taste in humor, and will most likely be modded as troll or flamebait. Since I have commited the sin of "explaining the joke" I am now going to hell. Thanks!)

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[TheWanderingHermit]

I can understand someone calling GWTW a masterpiece. As for Titanic...

When a film emphasises technical effects, a historically perfect timeline, and recreation of a ship that is so well documented we know what all the little parts looked like over things like character development, I find it hard to call it a masterpiece.

Yes, they were well made. But that does not make them masterpieces. Terminator 2 was well made, but I'd never call it a masterpiece.

As for holding a dick with pride -- I was stating an opinion. Is there some reason you felt a need to bring in so much anger and sarcasm? I re-read my post, and saw nothing to trigger so much anger and sarcasm. Unless maybe you're the one with a need to hold up your genitalia high with pride?

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[NanoGator]

"I thought GWTW was an overrated piece of trash, although with incredible scenery and costumes. I prefer movies with more of a plot and preferably with multi-dimensional characters. Failing that, I'd like the characters to at least be sympathetic, but the only one of the lot I liked was Melanie."

I don't think this list of movies were rated by 'stands the test of time', but rather the effects they had on people when they were released. At least that explains why A New Hope made it and Empire Strikes Back didn't.

Lawrence of Arabia

[GebsBeard]

I'm suprised Lawrence of Arabia didn't make the top 10. Actually shocked. A couple of scenes alone made this one of the best pictures I've ever seen:

The match fading out into the desert sun.

The camera panning up a hundred feet into the air, following a dust devil as O'Toole rides by on camelback.

Of course the classic entry of Omar Sharif as he appears over a period of minutes out of a mirage.

The system is screwwy

[Anonymous Coward]

How did they choose the top ten to display on the front page? I was shocked to see Casablanca not on the top-10 list, so I seached for it and gave it a rating of 5. After voting, it showed me the score: 4.66, placing it between Pyaasa and Nayakan. Something is fishy.

Re:Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2

[ArmyOfFun]

The problem with the IMDB list is that it's weighted too much to recent movies. The majority of the films on there were released in the 90s or later. At least Time's list has a bunch of titles I've never heard of, so in that sense, it's worth more to me since I might see a film I may have never known about otherwise.

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no movie called "A New Hope" on that list. What are you talking about?

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[kfg]

The whole movie would have been over in ten minutes if someone had just bitch slapped the hell out of Scarlett and sent her to her room until she learned how to behave. It's on my Top 10 Most Annoying Movies of all Time list.

From time to time I've considered giving the book a go to see if the movie had just ruined it. I think you've just saved me the time and trouble.

The film has a accorded me a twice removed "Brush With Greatness" though. My oldest friend was once being entertained in a London flat and the resident had the bad judgement to him leave alone in the sitting room for a few minutes. He was intrigued by the items displayed on a mantlepiece, particularly what appeared to be an Oscar repro, so as is his wont he went over and picked it up.

Just then the flat owner walked back into the room and my friend enquired if it was a repro:

"No. That's my grandmother's."

It was Vivien Leigh's Best Actress Oscar.

I've been known to shake my friend's hand, but I always make sure to wash and disinfect afterwards. . . .especially since that time.

KFG

Garbo has Two, But Not Her Best

[Lucas Membrane]

"Ninotchka" and "Camille" can't hold a candle to her "Grand Hotel". Her "I want to be alone" character was her best, and the rest of the cast was stellar, too.

Can anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

point out the top 100 lists of top 100 films for me?

Last week Fark had a top 100 list from British TV station Channel 4 concerned with war movies. Then a top 100 of all time movies. Now a slashdot article about the top 100 as chosen by Time. I think Yahoo did one. Other posters mention imdb.com's list of 250 great movies, and the Criterion Collection's 100 movies they recommend. So can we have a nice Top 100 List List please? Frankly, my own opinion is getting so beat down by the ordered representations of others flagrantly wrong opinions that I can't even judge if I disagree or agree with the crap that passes for content in magazines.

I thought it was bad enough to put Darth Vader on a recent cover, but now filler like this?

/*sorry for being off-topic. Mod down as you see fit. And if anyone can tell me how to create a parent, I'd really appreciate it because I can only find the reply button in the thread. Do I need to subscribe to make a standalone comment? */

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

"thought GWTW was an overrated piece of trash,"

Well frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

And if you didn't get that you obviously didn't watch the movie.

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[NanoGator]

"There is no movie called "A New Hope" on that list. What are you talking about?"

I dunno if I can really clarify that to somebody who's being too literal or unaware of context. Sorry.

Is it just me or...

[alcmaeon]

does anyone else think it is strange to put a "Top 100" list in alphabetical order rather than in reverse numeric order based on the rating given?

Some Really Questionable Inclusions

[Lucas Membrane]

Frank Capra made many movies much better than "It's a Wonderful Life".

"White Heat" is memorable, but only because it was so overdone, not to mention Cody Jarrett.

If you are going to recognize Preston Sturgis, despite his somewhat abbreviated career, why not "Sullivan's Travels" instead of "Lady Eve".

Howcome WC Fields makes it but the Marx Brothers don't? I like them both, but if they are trying to make funny movies and you laugh twice as much at one as at the other, which is better?

Too many great movies left out

[beachmike]

2001: A Space Odyssey, one of my all-time favorites, and the favorite of many /. folk, was left out. Shame on Time Magazine!

Re:Too many great movies left out

[Lobo_Louie]

When a buddy claims he has a nice stereo, I break out the soundtrack to that movie. It makes or breaks a system.

I couldn't disagree more

[maynard]

Seriously. From acting, cinematography, art direction, through to original screen play and music I think Alien is a far better film than Blade Runner. In fact, I don't think Blade Runner is even very good. It was highly influential though - agree there. JMO. --M

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[robertjw]

I would split the difference with you. I'd give cinematography, art direction and acting to Blade Runner. That movie was so dark and so well shot, plus Harrison Ford was amazing.

OTOH, original screen play and music definitely go to Alien. That story is so great, just thinking about it freaks me out.

Bottom line, they are both great, but outside of genre they have little in common. It's hard to judge them against each other. Blade Runner is very much a social commentary, like all of Phillip K. Dick's work. Alien is a much simpler story.

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[leifbk]

Blade Runner is very much a social commentary, like all of Phillip K. Dick's work. Alien is a much simpler story.

Both of them are great and original movies, however I agree with you that Blade Runner is the better one. My reason for posting this reply is that I'd like to mention another PKD-based movie that I feel has been somewhat underrated: Paul Verhoefen's "Total Recall" with Arnie in one of his better impersonations. On the inner level, the movie is very much about the same things as Blade Runner. James Berardinelli says it much better than I'm able to, in this review:

In an era when it has become scientifically feasible to implant false memories directly into a person's mind, wipe out a previous identity, and create a fictitious personae so real that the subject believes it to be genuine, how does one know what is and what isn't authentic? This is the question that Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger), and, to a lesser extent, the audience, must ponder. How much of his life is real? How many of his memories actually happened and which ones have been manufactured?

Even if Total Recall doesn't belong in any Top 100 list (maybe with the exception of the "Top 100 Worst Last Five Minutes" which is really awful), chances are good that people who appreciates Alien and Blade Runner enjoys this movie too. At least, I do.

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[soliptic]

I'm with you, I've got no time for Bladerunner at all. I think its the weakest PKD adaption yet.

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[Ours]

I would consider Blade Runner a better film but I still prefer Alien over it. For starters Alien's only originality is it's take on the haunted house subject (from house to spaceship all very well done). And for the music, it's stated in interviews found on the extra DVDs that the music was supposed to be temporary and taken from a previous film the composer had done. The producers/director liked it and kept it like that. The composer was very pissed off. Dispite that I find the music perfect for that movie.

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[Gulthek]

WTF...you think the story in Alien is better than Blade Runner's? The story is the only thing in Alien that isn't up to stuff with the rest of the movie. It's just a monster in the crawlspaces haunted house; the only saving grace that Alien provides is a kickass heroine and incredible design.

Blade Runner is filled with subtlety, nuance, and allegory. It is quite simply, one of the most brilliant and thought provoking scifi films ever produced. Watch it for the religious allegory, watch it for the questioning of what life is, watch it for the relationship between man and God, and a million other interpretations.

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bottom line, they are both great, but outside of genre they have little in common."

I'm not sure that they really share the same genre. To my way of thinking, Alien is really a horror story. More 'edge-of-your-seat nail-biter' than science fiction. The only reason it's considered sci-fi at all is because it's set on a space ship. Other than that, it's more like Halloween than Blade Runner, (IMO).

--

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[robertjw]

WTF...you think the story in Alien is better than Blade Runner's?

I think the story is more engaging in Alien. Phillip K. Dick's book, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", on which Blade Runner was based is well written. The screenplay for Blade Runner is disjointed and hard to follow.

I don't think the theme is better in Alien, just the actual writing and flow. The scene where the Alien pops out of the guy's stomach at dinner? Classic. Amazingly well written.

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[Gulthek]

The scene where the alien pops out was written? It was a bunch of reaction shots and phrases.

How about the discussions on the nature of conscience in Blade Runner. If you found Blade Runner's plot to be hard to follow, I am sad.

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[robertjw]

If you found Blade Runner's plot to be hard to follow, I am sad.

Did you read the book?

Re:I couldn't disagree more

[Gulthek]

No, but what does that have to do with the plot of the movie. While I'm sure the plot of the book is better laid out and implemented (as is the case for almost all book->movies); how does that change the fact that the plot of Blade Runner is extremely well-written?

Newsweek, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI thinks otherwise.

No Plan 9 From Outerspace?

[Yumi Saotome]

When will the genius of Ed Wood finally be recognized?

Re:No Plan 9 From Outerspace?

[antispam_ben]

When will the genius of Ed Wood finally be recognized?

That should be the GENUS of Ed Wood...

Re:No Plan 9 From Outerspace?

[JoeCommodore]

I who heartedly agree; my response to Time:

"You see that!? Your Stupid minds!

Stupid!

Stupid!"

No Passion

[superyooser]

They listed The Fly (?!) but already forgot about The Passion of the Christ? The movie that broke box office records with no traditional marketing or advertisements and got major news coverage beginning two years before its release? And what about The Ten Commandments (1956)? It was a landmark movie for its special effects in depicting miracles, especially the parting of the Red Sea.

Re:No Passion

[mink]

"The Passion of the Christ? The movie that broke box office records with no traditional marketing or advertisements"

In the USA it had TV advertisements. I remember seeing them.

According to Variety magazine(Feb 22, 2004):

"Passion" has shunned standard movie marketing techniques, instead building a core audience by creating a network of churches that are seeking to use the film to attract new members.

Icon and Newmarket, however, have launched their broader advertising campaign. TV spots began running on cable the middle of last week. On Monday, network ads began airing. Time has also been bought on Hispanic nets.

Print campaign launches on Sunday with ads in the New York Times, L.A. Times and other major metropolitan dailies.

"It's an aggressive campaign combined with a pretty much overwhelming grassroots and faith-based marketing campaign," Berney said. "We've tried to smartly combine the two." "

The List's Bias

[Michael_Burton]

I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies.

Hmm, that list doesn't look like a bias in favor of old movies to me. It looks like a lack of bias in favor of recent movies. Since we all tend to have fairly short attention spans, I think that's healthy.

Re:The List's Bias

[DrEasy]

Agreed! In fact, the grandparent's breakdown by decade made me appreciate the list more. I'm not sure that was its point! ;-)

Re:The List's Bias

[KingSkippus]

It looks like a lack of bias in favor of recent movies.

I disagree for two reasons.

First, I assume that like almost all other fields and industries, movie-making should in theory get better over the course of time, not stay the same. By the numbers, it looks like movie-making is in fact getting slightly worse, which I just don't think is true.

Second, there are a LOT more movies being put out today than there were back in the days of yore. I don't have the numbers on me, but how many movies come out in the 1990's versus the 1930's? It's got to be an order of magnitude, doesn't it? Assuming roughly the same ratio of cream to crap, there should logically be several times more movies listed from the 1990's than the 1930's, unless there's a bias that give a higher cream factor to movies put out in the 1930's.

Re:The List's Bias

[Nasarius]

First, I assume that like almost all other fields and industries, movie-making should in theory get better over the course of time

Just like art, right?

Re:The List's Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

You're looking at this like a geek. Moore's law does not apply to art.

There have been times in various different art forms where an upwelling of new ideas and techniques create a rush of new, fascinating pieces of work. Then there are times when technology and techniques improve without actually producing anything artistically inspired.

It's quite arguable that the modern era of hollywood is in one of the latter phases rather than the former.

Re:The List's Bias

[geminidomino]

First, I assume that like almost all other fields and industries, movie-making should in theory get better over the course of time, not stay the same. By the numbers, it looks like movie-making is in fact getting slightly worse

Having watched many movies created both before and during my quarter-century on this gods-forsaken rock, I would like to attest that this is exactly the case.

Re:The List's Bias

[biglig2]

Neither of those arguments seems solid to me. Sure, there are technincal improvements in film, of course, but art doesn't work like that.

And at the moment of course the industry is polarised; either you make your film for peanuts, or you make it for zillions. No middle ground any more; all the big studios want is to have a blockbuster that makes gazillions back for them.

I would have thought considerably more movies were made in the 1930s than in the 80s. No TV back then meant that people went to the films a lot.

Between 1934 and 1944, for example, 20th Century Fox released about one film every week. In those days about between 40 and 60 percent of americans went to the movies at least once a week (it's under 10% now).

Re:Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2

[Ubergrendle]

Relying upon the IMDB to determine the top 250 movies of all time is like walking into a grade 2 classroom and asking them "Which Power Ranger is the best-est?"

Although widespread popularity is one mark of a significant film, its not the only. Lots of solid classics were complete bombs, and took years to gain an appreciation. I'm willing to bet money without looking at the rankings that Revenge of the Sith gets rated in the top 50 after the first weekend...even though its excrement whose only redeeming feature is that its not Attack of the Clones.

Ebert's list of "Great Movies", which isn't limited by a fixed number, is a good sample of cinema's finest pieces. A top 100 list (or top 10, or top 50) is a mechanism to prompt discussion, nothing more...art cannot be subjected to an evaluative criteria, otherwise every movie would be shot in B&W, be a biography, and end with a burning sled. ;)

Harry Knowles gets a quarter on this "list"

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the list was completely fucked, because it didn't mention Fifth Element. I don't really care for france, but this film was outstanding in every way. A god damn treehugger's delight, but still a good film, overall. They didn't mention Fifth Element, but there were other movies on that list, that I've seen, which were fucking FAR inferior to 5th Element.

Bonnie and Clyde? Finding Nemo? The entire fucking trilogy of Lord of the Rings? Pulp fucking Fiction? UNFORGIVEN????

I immediately recognized it as a Harry Knowles goat-fuck, and discarded it. Harry Knowles sure as fuck can't tell his ass from third base, and apparently, neither can Time. Don't get me wrong, here; I enjoyed Finding god damn Nemo, and Unforgiven. And LotR 1 was absolutely excellent, even though that Kiwi fucker left out Tom Bombadil and a bunch of other shit.

Unforgiven? No. No. It was good, but it certainly did not deserve a fucking mention. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" deserved a mention. But not Unforgiven. Even though IT WAS an excellent movie.

And Finding god damn Nemo? What in THE fuck? Because that slit licking lesbian chick was in it? Ellen Degenerate, or something? Big deal! I like eating pussy, too! I should have been in the movie.

Time used to be an excellent source of information, back in 1985 or something...

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it doesn't contain Ingmar Bergman's 1966 "Persona", it's worthless. It's a fact.

However, I'm pleased to see that unlike other American mags, TIME has included a decent amount of foreign films (and even Kieslowski!). I forgot to look, but were Fellini, Bergman or Colombani there?

What no Star Trek II?

[Timbotronic]

KAAAAAAAAHHHHNNNN!!!!!!

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Titanic a masterpiece? It's not even the best fucking movie about the Titanic, let alone a masterpiece.

Effects aside, it was inferior in every way to A Night To Remember. Characters, plot, acting, liberties taken with known history etc.

No thanks. Titanic was terrible. It ranks a bit above Pearl Harbor, but not much. Birds of a feather, so to speak.

top 10 soundtracks

[namekuseijin]

yeah, right. No John Williams whatsoever. No E.T., nor Jaws, nor Superman, not even frigging Star Wars soundtracks anywhere to be seen.

You know critics: they love to play intelectual and snob...

And, in the same vain ...

[Lucas Membrane]

"Birth of a Nation" "Jaws" "Deep Throat" "Thief of Baghdad" The U.S. Army Signal Corps production "Venereal Disease". and The Zapruder film.

No marketing my arse...

[Goonie]

What do you call getting who knows how many church leaders to plug the film, then? Best marketing campaign since The Blair Witch Project, and about as profitable...

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[iamlucky13]

I'll agree with the high budget chick flicks part, but Gone With the Wind is at least still watchable. I've always hated Titanic.

I've got to add my missing movies in as well: The Grapes of Wraith, All Quiet on the Western Front, and The Princess Bride. I don't care if comedy doesn't usually make the list, The Princess Bride is outstanding and unique.

Where Is..

[diamondc]

Pink Flamingos? Or at least Female Trouble......

Silly List

[eric76]

It's a silly little list made by silly little people.

It has no use other than to amuse those who are so stupid as to be actually interested in what Time magazine has to say on the issue.

I've only seen 14 of these! :O

[BrianJacksonPhoto]

Wow, I must really be lame. Only 14 of the top 100.

I didn't see Shawshank Redemption on that list :(

An actual good list

[Rufus211]

I e-mailed this list around the rest of the students that were in my film class last semester because it's actually a good list. AFI did there similar Top-100 list a couple of years ago and holy crap was that list marketing crap. However this list has a nice combination of oldies (including some silents), foreign (Iran, India, Japan, Hong Kong, etc), and everything inbetween. I highly recomend everything on this list and it restores a bit of my faith in the mass media.

I agree with every single movie

[dliebke]

This list coincides absolutely perfectly with my own personal Top 100 List, right down to the exact same order! (Yes, I know the Time List doesn't have an order, but if it did, I'm sure it would coincide.)

I'd add nothing. I'd remove nothing.

Take that, Overt Bid for Controversy.

LOTR listing

[iamlucky13]

I found it interesting that The Lord of the Rings was listed as a trilogy rather than as a single work. Don't get get me wrong, I think it should be considered one work, but it contrasts Star Wars, for which only A New Hope was listed. Then again, I wouldn't place the other Star Wars movies (except perhaps Empire Strikes Back, or their effect on the movie industry, on the same level as the original.

The Fly!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the David Cronenberg films to choose they chose a remake?

What a load of horse hockey!

Also, how much did Scorsese pay Time Magazine to get so many films on the list?

What, no True Lies?

[Lobo_Louie]

It has Jamie Lee, The Governator, Harriers, Nukes, Jamie Lee in bra and panties, Tia C., Jamie fighting Tia, Horses chasing Motorcycles, Classic Corvettes, Bombs, The Tango, Guns... what else does a guy need?

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[TheWanderingHermit]

I have to agree that GWTW is watchable, or at least more watchable, than the Titanic. I've never found myself eager to see either one.

I'd have to give a lot of thought to The Princess Bride. There were some comedies on the list. Ninochka (I always spell it wrong, so that's probably wrong), for one, and City Lights, even though the ending is so powerful, is basically a comedy. I don't remember what other ones were there. I'd give serious thought to the original To Be or Not To Be with Jack Benny, though.

Missing obviously best SciFi piece Contact

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that there is Armageddon and no Contact, that makes this collection a total joke not to be taken seriously - no matter what financial excuse they had for that.

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Extremely well-made" doesn't make up for "maniuplative stories."

While it's necessary for a good movie to be at least technically proficient, the best production quality of all time doesn't make the story any better.

Drunken Master II !

[Mazem]

Boo YAH! Its about time Jackie Chan's Drunken Master II got recognized. Some of my favorite all time martial arts sequences are in that movie, and the plot/dialogue is so blatantly bad its hillarious. Basically its the epitome of martial arts movies.

Top 100 Greatest movie of all time? Nah. Top 100 Most enjoyable movie of all time? Hell yes!

Where's Burton?

[Elranzer]

Why does it always seem Tim Burton gets no respect from movie critics?

Re:Where's Burton?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because about 80% of his visual style was nicked from The Cabinet of Dr Caligari?

Just maybe...

He's a good filmmaker, but make sure you've seen that before you go overboard on the originality angle.

Re:Where's Burton?

[ABaumann]

Don't worry. When they come out with the top 100 worst movies of all time I'm sure "Mars Attacks" will be on there.

what about me?

[sciguy125]

Who decided this list!? I haven't even heard of most of them. None of MY favorite movies are on it...

Star Trek IV
Revenge of the Nerds
Back to the Future
The Matrix

No MEMENTO? No CLERKS? What????

[pappy97]

You can't have a top 100 list without MEMENTO and Clerks.

MEMENTO is a revolutionary way to present a story. And no, it's not like the backwards episode of "Seinfeld." It's MUCH more than that.

CLERKS is the ultimate low budget films that proves that good movies can exist without much "Action." This is all about dialogue, and is sadly ignored.

If you haven't seen these films, you NEED to see them.

Re:No MEMENTO? No CLERKS? What????

[Anonymous Coward]

CLERKS is the ultimate low budget films that proves that good movies can exist without much "Action."

Or, for that matter, "Acting."

In summary, ew.

Re:No MEMENTO? No CLERKS? What????

[jarek]

I completely agree on Memento. It was the first film I looked for in this list.

Re:No MEMENTO? No CLERKS? What????

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you, 12?

A list to try and please all...

[Domini]

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)

Re:A list to try and please all...

[Adapt or Die]

Yojimbo and Ikiru make 2 Kurosawa.

Still no excuse for choosing Yojimbo over Seven Samurai tho.

Re:A list to try and please all...

[Domini]

Yup. Agreed. In my opinion 7 samurai was much more inspirational and was a very good movie to boot. (magnificent 7, 3 amigos, etc...) ;)

IMDB's list

[MacGod]

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.

Re:IMDB's list

[Ilgaz]

Also IMDB doesn't elect W. Bush ''man of year"

(oops they will bite me)

Re:IMDB's list

[Anthony]

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.

Re: Boring

[Lucas Membrane]

It did seem longer. But I always figured it was the commercials. It was on the tube every year for numerous years, so you didn't have to stay awake through it all in one sitting.

Fact is, they almost cut that rainbow song to tighten it up a little.

But it did help sustain the popularity of the Oz books, which are better than the movie and most wonderful for getting kids reading.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

On the other hand. . .

[munpfazy]

>Yojimbo???

My thoughts exactly. An okay movie, but it belongs pretty far down the list of the best movies of Kurasawa, let alone the world.

On the other hand, I was surprised and pleased to see Ikiru in there. If you ask me, it actually is Kurasawa's best, yet one that rarely gets mentioned. (Although I certainly wouldn't object to seeing Rashomon or Seven Samauri on the list.)

Adding Yojimbo to the list is rather like starting an article with "Steven Spielberg, known for directing the film 1941..."

What about...

[Sajarak]

32 Short Films About Glenn Gould

One word...

[msimm]

Revenge of the Nerds! Okay...and maybe Porky's. Did I just date myself? :)

The Empire Strikes Back

[fupeg]

Star Wars was a great blockbuster film, but The Empire Strikes Back turned that into a mythology so enthralling that it has kept people engrossed for decades. It is what made the trilogy and put Star Wars on this list.

You're proving my point...

[KingSkippus]

Looking through some of the replies, I'd say that you folks are proving my point.

I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of crap that comes out now. Like everyone else, I wish I had the time and money back that I invested in The Hulk and Battlefield Earth. I'm not saying that because a movie is flashy and new, it's better than that old black and white stuff. But the opposite is not true, either. Just because a film is old or the first to innovate doesn't make it better than today's films.

Maybe our difference of opinion stems from our respective definitions of "best" in the sense of the 100 all-time best movies. Call me pedestrian (not the walking kind), but when I evaluate what a top movie is, I don't think about "mise-en-scene, composition, editing, lighting, plot, sound, historical importance, and direction." I think about how entertained I was. Depending on the genre, some of the things that are important to me are: Did I laugh? Did I cry? Did it get me to think? Did I feel like I connected with it? Did I talk about it with my friends afterwards? Did I want to watch it again? Do I still like it as much today as I did then?

Hey, I like the movie Psycho as much as most people do. Alfred Hitchcock was truly a master, and as far as suspense/horror movies goes, it was certainly out there on the edge at the time. But if I were to compare it to a movie such as, say, Silence of the Lambs, which really scares the bejesus outta me, I'd have to rate the latter as the better movie. Sorry Hitchcock fans, but I even think that Jaws is more suspenseful and scary. Maybe you disagree, and that's okay, I don't care. But if you disagree because Psycho is more historically significant (a point which I concede), then I think that's sad.

It's a Wonderful Life is a genuinely touching feel-good movie. But have you seen Mr. Holland's Opus? Jesus, it's a good thing I'm secure in my masculinity because I've never felt more like a girl in my life, crying with giddiness by the end.

I mean for real, come on people. Read the description for a movie on the list such as The 400 Blows or Umberto D and ask yourself, does this sound better than the quality movies (note: not the crap) that are coming out today? Maybe more historically significant, but this list isn't the all-time 100 most historically significant movies, it's the all-time 100 BEST movies, and therefore my uneducated opinion is a firm "I think not."

Re:You're proving my point...

[DrEasy]

Yes, newer movies will potentially have more impact on the spectator, if anything due to advances in technology. Cinema and technology are tightly linked, there's no denying that. In fact, even "La nouvelle vague" lead by Truffaut (whose "400 Blows" you mentioned) and Godard was a result of new camera technology that allowed them to film outdoors and in natural lighting.

And yes, many older movies look dated and look terrible now. I agree with you that some of the movies in the list are there for historical reasons, and I don't really know if that's a good decision.

Having said all that, there are some truly great old movies that have stood the test of time and still have the same impact. They're the ones that focused on substance rather than flash, or had an interesting story to tell, or an engaging character, provocative ideas, good acting, and so on... In fact, some of those qualities are harder to find these days in mainstream movies, as the industry is more driven by marketing now than it is by creativity, and as disruptive ideas are discouraged for being financially risky.

How many of the recent movies you have enjoyed do you think will still have that same impact 20 years down the road? If you want to eliminate movies that are dated, by the same token you should eliminate the recent ones that have the potential to be in that same state in the future... You might then find out that the ratio of good movies is really not that different for any decade.

Re:You're proving my point...

[crabpeople]

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.

Re:You're proving my point...

[bfields]

I mean for real, come on people. Read the description for a movie on the list such as The 400 Blows or Umberto D and ask yourself, does this sound better than the quality movies (note: not the crap) that are coming out today?

The 400 Blows rocks. Go see it a couple times. Really. The sequels are fun too. (Given your preference for newer movies you might actually want to start with the later ones. There's no real need to see them in order.)

--Bruce Fields

Re:You're proving my point...

[bfields]

I think about how entertained I was.

Some movies let you sit back and show you see the things you need to see without having to think about it.

Some movies are more like math books--you get a lot out of them, but only if you actually pay attention and do the exercises.

Sometimes I don't want a movie where I have to "do the exercises" to get the point, and that's fine. But I appreciate the place for such movies--I *like* learning stuff, and being made to stretch. I think I'd get bored without at least some of the movies I saw being movies that made me work a bit.

--Bruce Fields

Re:You're proving my point...

[KingSkippus]

Okay, you've got a deal. I'll check out 400 Blows. And I agree with your thoughts about "thinking" movies. Some of them would be on my top 100 list, though maybe not the same ones that are one other people's lists. I hope I conveyed that I try to at least put some effort into liking various genres, such as comedy, sci-fi, drama, horror, action, and so on. I've got to admit that like most XY's out there, I don't care too much for romantic comedies, but I won't deny that some of them are pretty good.

And for the record, no matter how much your cinematic taste leans towards the obscure or the popular, it will NEVER detract from the coolness of you juggling. Jesus, how I wish I could keep five pins in the air...

Re:You're proving my point...

[bfields]

Okay, you've got a deal. I'll check out 400 Blows.

"Stolen Kisses" is another one that's a bunch of people's favorite--same director, same character (played by the same actor, in fact), but older, so he's a bit easier to relate to in some ways. I actually liked the 400 Blows better after seeing the later ones.

Jesus, how I wish I could keep five pins in the air...

It's a lot of hours out of your life for one trick! And I still can't really keep it stable for more than half a minute or so. (OK, but it's fun....)

--b.

Mmmmmmm...

[msimm]

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.

Re:Mmmmmmm...

[TheWanderingHermit]

More good examples. Notice, though, that yours and the examples in another response are NOT the "typical" ones cited in this topic. I've seen a huge number of people citing The Matrix as a great example. As geeks, many of us pride ourselves on our intellectual development and discernment, so I think it's quite sad that so many can hold up The Matrix as an example of something that should be one of the 100 greatest films of all time. It says that many of us geeks think we're developing our brains, but aren't and are just too easily fooled by things that look deep, but are nothing more than dime-store philosophy.

You make an excellent point when you say you also need to create. That, to me, is a major point. Often a SF flic is great at creating a new world, or providing a unique point of view of our world, but doesn't do the also part -- it doesn't start with good dialog and direction and go from there. It merely does something that pretends to be different and those behind it think that is enough, and don't bother with good writing as a foundation. In my book, a good SF film must first be a good film. Few do that.

Yes, I saw the latest SW. To be honest, the first time through on a movie like that, I'm just so wowed by the visuals I don't notice things like whether Qui-Gon is looking at Jar-Jar's face, or Ahmad Best's face (under the CGI). I love being able to relish eye candy like that, and it's never the same the 2nd time, so the first time I see something like that, I turn off my critical analysis. I'll wait another week or so to see it as a story with acting and writing instead of seeing it as 2+ hours of pretty pictures.

Re:Mmmmmmm...

[msimm]

Fair enough. I agree sci-fi needs to stand up as both a good film in its own right and also in the creation of distinct, new reality. Definately a tall order on both counts, but when its achieved its really something.

Anyhow, remember not all geeks are film geeks. Forgive them (they don't know what their missing). Your Matrix example is perfect. Its not Film...but it was a technical achievement which makes it perfectly understandable geek fixation. :-)

Re:Mmmmmmm...

[TheWanderingHermit]

Yes, I agree. Technically The Matrix is fascinating. I've watched Trinity's bullet-time kick, Neo's rooftop bullet dodging, and his "resurrection" after being shot a number of times just because it is so well done, but a few cool scenes do not replace good writing and good acting matched with good cinematography. (Am I the only person in the world that thinks Keanu just walked through all three movies with very little acting?)

Anyhow, remember not all geeks are film geeks.

You're right. What I find irritating is that a really smart geek would realize that film, like any art or field of study, will have its own standards and criteria in determining what is great, average, and barely premeditated. There are many topics that come up here that I don't know much about, and I'm not about to jump in, presume I'm an expert and able to make judgements better than those closely involved with the subject. I guess I wish all here would have similar standards and realize that while they may love The Matrix, those who are making lists of films may have different standards they use in evaluating whether a film is great.

BTW, you also mentioned a couple films I had either forgotten or didn't know about, so thanks! They're on my "to buy" list, but it'll be a while before I get to them.

Re:Mmmmmmm...

[msimm]

BTW, you also mentioned a couple films I had either forgotten or didn't know about, so thanks! They're on my "to buy" list, but it'll be a while before I get to them.

:) Ya, I'm an art geek too. Its nice talking about this stuff. Next stop music/visual art (I should say, coming soon) popexperiment.com.

Re:Mmmmmmm...

[dpilot]

Need to see Gattaca and Pi some time - they're been on my Round Tuit list for some time, along with others. (seen the rest)

If you're going to get esoteric, try "Phantom of Liberty". Far from the best I've ever seen, but certainly quite memorable and one of the stranger.

One of my own favorites, for it's perfect tongue-in-cheek comedy and perfect action pacing/buildup is "Big Trouble in Little China". But I know better than to think it has any place on a best of all time list.

2001 was the big miss from the list, for me.

Idiotic list - simple reason

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Any list of 100 greatest films that DOES include a semi amusing piece of piffle like A Hard Day's Night, but doesn't include ANY films made by Andrey Tarkovsky (Andrey Rublev, Solaris, nostalghia, The Stalker, The Sacrifice, etc.) or Chris Marker (La Jette, Sans Soleil, etc.) is Total Fucking Bullshit. Pure and Simple.

RS

Re:Idiotic list - simple reason

[nagora]

Solaris

Possibly the worst movie ever made twice. Certainly the dullest.

TWW

Re:Idiotic list - simple reason

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Nagora wrote:

Solaris

Possibly the worst movie ever made twice. Certainly the dullest.

It was made for people with attention spans longer than that commonly exhibited by a gnat. If the original was so lame it wouldn't have been copied, the sincerest form of flattery.

If ou want action adventure and things that go boom, Tarkovsky isn't for you, but if you want something that's graceful, intelligent, complex, resonant, a bit difficult but beautiful, and is a general all around work of genius, then Tarkovsky's the director for you.

Lemme guess: you're an american...

RS

Re:Idiotic list - simple reason

[nagora]

It was made for people with attention spans longer than that commonly exhibited by a gnat.

More like people with less desire for entertainment and interesting ideas than the average corpse. All the pace of a glacier and the insight of a Bush spokesperson. Gee, you mean we can't be sure that what we perceive is real? I didn't have that conversation when I was 16.

Dark Star covers all the "important" philosophical points that Solaris does but it does it with jokes and characters you might actually care about instead of tedious nobodies pretending they're deep because they say nothing.

Ghastly film. The remake was at least shorter, or maybe it just felt shorter, but was no better in any other way.

Lemme guess: you're an american...

Nope, just someone that wants a movie with five minutes worth of material to last five minutes.

TWW

I think this list is going to make...

[lortho]

my list of the top 100 worst top 100 lists ever.

'Apocalypse Now' doesn't make the list, but the 1986 version of 'The Fly' does? Give me a break...

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[falcon5768]

No, they are not. Gone was trash, the book was much better than the movie and even THATS not saying much because the book was pretty bad too. It gets a lot of praise thats very undeserving of a lot of movies in that timeperiod simply cause a lot of people loved it. It does NOT mean it was a GOOD movie. A LOT of people love the Star Wars movies, but they ARNT good movies, they are fun movies and I love them, but none of them could hold a candle to Brazil, or Blade Runner.

dribble to sell ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

...worthless...

ignoring "why this movie isn't on the list" posts,

[krunk4ever]

anyone ever wonder how they chose these movies. based on what criteria did they chose it. the opening weekend sales? the total sales? user reviews? scoring by critics? it'd be nice if they told us how they chose these instead of randomly throwing a list of 100 at us.

Re:ignoring "why this movie isn't on the list" pos

[cimetmc]

Well, I think the article kind of explains it:
2 movie critics work out a common list based on their personal favourites.

Marcel

Leon

[youlikemonkeytennis]

Now I may be daft but I personally think that Leon belongs in the list - it may never have been the most popular film to show on Christmas Day but even so its a classic...

City of God

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, great movie. And recent. Check it out, kids.

Forbidden Planet

[seanellis]

Conspicuously absent. For shame!

Re:Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2

[asilidae]

I'm willing to bet money without looking at the rankings that Revenge of the Sith gets rated in the top 50 after the first weekend

How much do you want to bet? Its rated as nr. 166 as we speak. You can give the money to charity.

Re:I Hate The United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, being hated by the United States (officially) is a fair indicator nowadays that the hatee (?) must be a damn good person!

Interesting??

[Carnil]

Moderated interesting? huh I guess I'm never going to understand the humor sense of slashdot moderators...

Almost half?

[slavemowgli]

Wow, almost *half* of the movies are made outside of the USA? Wow! That's really amazing, considering that only about 96% of the world's population live outside the USA! This really should shut up any critics who say the list (or any list that Time magazine comes up with, for that matter) is US-centric.

Yes how about "Death Blow" or "Cry Cry Again"?

[Bender Unit 22]

I mean, I saw the bootleg and the camcorder work was a masterpiece!

Your Movie Database

[CyrusSukhia]

Here's a site that's devoted to exactly this. Each user lists their top 20 and the site then presents the complete list according to all users. Curious to see how close this matches up with Time's list...

Where's Rocco

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's Rocco Animal Trainer 1-8? I think, these are more known than most of the films listed in this Times article!

Good comedies

[Frankie70]

I know it was a joke - but can people recommend good comedies? Most best comedy movies contain movies which I don't truly consider comedies i.e. light movies with some comic moments are categorised as comedies by most lists i.e. for eg. Ferris Bueller's Day Off is listed as a comedy - IMHO, it isn't. It's a light movie with some comic moments. Ang Lee's Wedding Banquet is listed as a comedy, but again, I don't consider it to be a comedy.

Forget these movies, even Groundhog Day gets listed as comedy solely because of the fact that a comedian Bill Murray acted in the movie. Or "Leap of Faith" just because Steve Martin acted in the movie.

I am looking more for movies like
What about Bob?, My Blue Heaven, Dinner Game etc
etc which are out & out comedies?

yawn...

[generalleoff]

Someone do the "Top 100 useless, redundant, and lame top 100 lists" list

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[dpilot]

GWTW came back around in the 70's, when I was in high school. My mom and a friend's mom took us to see it. Remember the scene where Rhett (sp?) and Scareltt are at the top of the stairs, she tells him she's pregnant, and at least one of them is not happy about it? He tells her, "You could have an accident." Then she turns around and falls down the stairs.

I was the only one who laughed, who found the timing comedic.

Alfred, yes, Terry, no

[Omni-Cognate]

Terry Gilliam is American, despite being a Python.

Use the list *only* as a guide

[pandrijeczko]

The problem with these kinds of lists is that they're entirely subjective.

For example, I personally find Charlie Chaplin entirely unfunny and his films bore me - but put me in front of a Laurel & Hardy short or movie and I will cry with laughter.

This does not not mean to say that Charlie Chaplin was a bad actor or his films were bad - they just didn't appeal to me.

The usage of these lists is that they're handy to peer through for ideas for rentals or purchases if you have spare time to check out additional movies.

About a year ago, Empire magazine published a list of the "Top 50 DVDs" ever released (might have been a topic on Slashdot also) based on not just movie quality but additional features, commentaries, etc.

I myself picked about 5 from the list that I'd either never seen before or had seen but hadn't particularly rated highly and was actually pleased with what I'd bought - the biggest surprise was the first Chris Reeve Superman movie. I never liked Superman much as a superhero and never thought much of the movie when I saw it the first time - however, the DVD was in the Empire list, I took a risk and bought it and I thoroughly enjoyed it as an entertaining movie with lots of additional interesting DVD content.

It's very easy to take a cynical view of movie lists but they're useful as pointers to broadening your own opinions and enjoyment.

Re: It Happened One NIght

[BitterAndDrunk]

I agree 100% on the lack of It Happened One Night. I wish I was 1/10 as smooth as Cary Grant in that movie. . . the primer on how to deal with spoiled women.

The Walls of Jericho, indeed.

Kubrick Films

[wed128]

How is Dr. Strangelove up there but 2001: A space odyssey isn't?

i'm shocked!

Mod Me Flamebait, but

[wed128]

I agree. Fahrenheit 9-11 sucked.

Re:Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2

[Ubergrendle]

Well, I guess I lost that bet but my point still stands: there's no way on God's green earth that ROTS is anywhere comparable to La Strada, Spartacus, Brazil, Groundhog Day, 8 1/2, Network, etc -- all movies its beaten on the top 250 list.

the hollywood ghetto

[johnrpenner]

hollywood provides a lot of glitz, with often little substance.
although hollywood is capable of producing a good movie,
there are a lot of good movies that are never seen
in the united states. thank god they managed to open
their eyes enough to get out of the hollywood ghetto.

here's a couple contenders for best films:

- Baraka (Ron Frike)
- Wings Of Desire (Wim Wenders)
'Der Himmel über Berlin'
- La Double Vie de Veronique (Krzysztof Kieslowski)
- Picnic At Hanging Rock (Peter Weir)
- The Icicle Thief (Maurizio Nichetti)
- The Navigator - A Medieval Odyssey (Vincent Ward)
- The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen (Terry Gilliam)
- The Field (Jim Sheridan)
- Yellow Submarine (George Dunning)
- Prospero's Books (Peter Greenaway)
- Howard's End (James Ivory)

Film Critics have the best job in the world

[Anonymous Coward]

You watch movies for free, before anyone else gets to see them, then you get your ego stroked because the rest of the media print your OPINION as gospel on if a movie is good or not -- circulated in print, radio and TV nationality no less. And you get (if you are a "high profile" reviewer anyway) heaps of cash for this task!

Amazing..simply amazing!

No critic is creditable to me if they don't have either Blazing Saddles or Braveheart in a list of 100 best films! ;)

Re:Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we all know the best power ranger was Kimberly (Amy Jo Johnson).

For purely asthetic reasons, mind you.

apropos lyrics

[justforaday]

What if no show ever happened again?
No Seven, no 8-1/2, no Nine and no "10"

Two people's opinions? Who cares.

[walterbyrd]

>>
"Neither of us really cared for that film," Schickel told Reuters, calling "Gone With the Wind" a "faux epic."

Stop the presses! Some snotty film critic doesn't like "Gone With the Wind" ! An article like this would be much more interesting if it were based on a poll of 1200 or more people. Although even then it wouldn't be that interesting.

How to tell that a list like this is not very good

[anti_analog]

You can sort the list by Alphabetical, Actor, and Date.
No sorting by Director? No thank you. Directors are the central artists of films (at least most that should be on lists like that), and to not let the list be sorted by director, but by the onscreen talent, indicates to be a lack of familiarity with the art of filmmaking to me.

Though, to contradict my subject, I do really think it is a decent list, though I don't agree with some selections.

What?? No Phantom Menace?!

[UTPinky]

This list is all wrong...

several of these lists

[peter303]

I remember a "top 100" coming out for the 100th anniversary of the first commercial films in 1895, another for the year 2000. There was even a TV special attached to the first.

Why is this in there

[ifwm]

"Almost half of the films were made outside the United States"

And more than half of them were!

Seriously, what the fuck does this have to do with ANYTHING?

Kurosawa vs. Lucas

[hey!]

Seven Samarai was as boring...

Believe it or not, it was criticized in Japan as being too fast paced and westernized when it came out. Personally I don't find it boring, on the contrary. But I can understand why some people do.

Recently, I rented the original Star Wars (EP 4) for my kids, and I have to say we all really enjoyed it. Having seen it many times before as a young person, I of course knew every scene by heart, and combined with being older, I was much more critically aware of the movie.

Many scenes in the movie are just chock full of wonderful stuff -- not just the obvious things like the Cantina, but, for example Luke's home, , which is a clever mixture of commonplace suburban details and North African exotica. But there are lots of crap too -- really cheesy dialog, uneven acting, and so forth. But the thing is, crap flies by so fast you don't notice it. Even now, when the industry has been transformed by that movie, it's rare that a movie paced at such a breakneck rate. You simply don't notice the flaws -- they're not on the screen long enough to make you care. It's like you're stuffing your brain full of popcorn and you barely taste it before you're gobbling the next handful.

(This by the way is why so many people hate Ep1 and Ep2. There isn't enough material, so the pace is more deliberate, and the aftertaste of synthetic corn is much more noticeable. It's fun to fantasize what Kurosawa could have done with these movies).

Now, getting back to the Seven Samurai, this film in many ways is the exact opposite. Like Star Wars, every scene has details that are simply perfect. Unlike Star Wars, the director strives to get everything perfect. And he gives you time to appreciate it. Great artists don't just paint objects, they also paint spaces. Great musicians don't just play lots of notes, they play rests too. I'll admit though Kurosawa is a bit heavy handed with the Seven Samurai; his later films like Ran have many of the merits of 7S but he isn't as anxious to hold your head down in the toilet bowl of his genius. The pauses are there, just long enough for you to notice, then he moves on. It's almost makes you do a double take -- did I really see that?

You know, by the way, who is a master of this kind of elegant pacing? Hiyao Miyazaki. I'd say Miyazaki is an even better filmmaker than Kurosawa.

Personally, I see no contradiction in being able to enjoy both films, but you have to approach them differently. If somebody has gone through the trouble of serving you foie gras in a pate brisée shell accompanied by a glass of Parcherenc du Vic-Bihl, you don't approach it the same way you do a bowl of popcorn and an ice cold can of Coke. But if you aren't a snob or an anti-snob (which is just as bad), you can enjoy both. IDIC.

Re:Kurosawa vs. Lucas

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say Miyazaki is an even better filmmaker than Kurosawa. OMFG, you're such a nerd.

Re:Kurosawa vs. Lucas

[jamesmrankinjr]

You know, by the way, who is a master of this kind of elegant pacing? Hiyao Miyazaki. I'd say Miyazaki is an even better filmmaker than Kurosawa.

Tonari no Totoro being the best example in my experience. With all the times I (and my 3 year old son) have watched that movie, I feel like I've spent an entire summer in rural Japan (in reality, I've only lived in a couple Japanese cities). It reminds you how awesome nature was when you were a child and really experienced it, as opposed to a jaded adult passing by it or through it to get somewhere else.

By the way, what time period is that movie set in? From the surrounding technology, I'm guessing maybe the 1950's, but I never knew for sure.

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

Re:Kurosawa vs. Lucas

[Omestes]

The pacing, and amount of stuff is why I love Ran, and would rank it as one of the best moves ever. Not only is the story solid and poignant (it's Shakespeare, how can it be bad?), but the scenes were GODLIKE, matching what is going on in the film. It's like Hero for adults.

I just don't think that Seven Samarai shines as much as Rashomon and Ran. I'm also admitting I'm wrong, I confused Yojimbo with it's sequal(ish) Sanjuro, which had the safe samarai sex diaglogue (a good samarai keeps his sword seathed!). But even then the character of Sanjuro is probably one of the deepest and most complete characters in a film.

I also quite enjoy EpIV, I rented it after watching EpIII (which I also liked) for the first time in probably 6 years. It was very well done, and nuanced. I was expecting it to be crap now that I'm watching it as a more mature individual. But it seems to hold the test of time rather well. Unlike RotJ and NH. (I doubt Ep's I-II will either).

Re:Kurosawa vs. Lucas

[hey!]

IIRC, Totoro is set in the post WW2 years. There are cryptic autobiographical elements in the story and it's setting. Miyazaki was born in '41, and since Satsuki is, I think, supposed to be a girl on the cusp of puberty, I'd place the film's setting to be 1952 or 1953.

By the way, you and your three year old watched that movie once?

Re:Kurosawa vs. Lucas

[jamesmrankinjr]

By the way, you and your three year old watched that movie once?

Huh?

With all the times I (and my 3 year old son) have watched that movie,...

Once a day for a while, now once every few weeks, maybe :).

Yoroshiku,
-jimbo

Re:Kurosawa vs. Lucas

[mink]

I think the one thing in Totoro that sums up the spirit of Ghibli films is one scene outside. The camera settles on a butterfly doing it's butterfly things for just a few seconds. It is just the kind of thing a person might notice and pay attention to for a few seconds before getting on with the task at hand.

Re:Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2

[Woogiemonger]

Relying upon the IMDB to determine the top 250 movies of all time is like walking into a grade 2 classroom and asking them "Which Power Ranger is the best-est?"

I printed out imdb.com top 250 list and spent two years watching every movie on it. It was an amazing experience. I gained an appreciation for great films from many countries, for older classics, including silent and historical films, and other more experimental films (Dogville most notably).

Although I certainly disagree with some of the placement of the movies, I don't sell modern cinema short either. I would not put Return of the King where it is, but what Peter Jackson managed to do was astounding, and although I wouldn't put Godfather at #1, I see references to it every other day, and so many people revere it. Appealing to the general layman has to count for something, and that's what this list conveys. ROTS was a good but not great movie, and after the hype settles, it will probably fall off the imdb list because it only takes into account the "relatively active users" and not just those high on marketing hype.

How did they find Nemo?

[cylcyl]

Finding Nemo was a fine movie and all, but that is all that it was, fine. I wouldn't put it in top 100 unless you limited to only animated films...

So, is it just that they look down on animation and that was the only animated film that they saw or did they get paid by Disney/Pixar?

AIRPLANE! 1977

[john.mull]

• Surely you can't be serious.
  ...I am serious and stop calling me Shirley.
  
• What's my vector, Victor?
• I speak Jive. (classic!)
• Captain Over, the white courtesy phone... The WHITE courtesy phone.
• Looks like I picked the wrong day to give up sniffing glue.
• It's a twister, it's a twister!

Priceless parody that will live in my heart forever.

The Big Sleep or Maltese Falcon

[swb]

I disagree with their big "noir" choice.

Maltese Falcon has a more coherent plot, but Big Sleep has a more intricate plot (William Faulker, the novelist and this film's screenwriter, couldn't even keep it all straight) and the dialogue is often as good as it gets in films (cf. Bogart and Bacall's sexually suggestive horse racing conversation).

Both films involve mystery, the dark side of life & crime.

Dashiell Hammet or Raymond Chandler? John Huston (screenplay) or William Faulkner (screenplay)? You get Bogart with either one, Bacall with one, and Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre with the other.

BR vs Alien: it's ON!

[orim]

"Blade Runner instead of Alien? Are you kidding me???"

Nope. The first one is a beautiful movie, with great atmosphere, great acting and a superb story. It dwells on so many questions, such as our own humanity. Aliens? The only questions are "what's that goo" and "will I ever eat spaghetti again". It's a run-of-the-mill horror flick. Good for its time, but nothing spectacular.

Oh, and BR has never been ruined by sequels. Thank god it never amounted to anything in the theaters, otherwise I'd be watching "Blade Runner 5: Carnage at the Tanhausser Gate" right now.

Re:BR vs Alien: it's ON!

[coopex]

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched "Blade Runner 5: Carnage at the Tanhausser Gate". All these moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain. Time to die.

Best Comedy

[ChrisMaple]

Bringing Up Baby -- Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn.

Also notable by its absence: My Fair Lady or (better yet) Pygmalion.

Need an Age Limit

[BraceletWinner]

"City of God"? "Finding Nemo"? Will people really still be watching these movies in 10 years? "City of God" is overrated as it's basically just another gangster film, but set in an exotic, but poor, locale, so people praised it. I was bored in 15 minutes. "Finding Nemo" is a well done kid's flick, but there are dozens that are just as good.

Films like these get put on a list because it's the hip thing to do. If someone really wanted to make as objective a list as possible, they should limit the films by release date. Five years is a good number, but ten is better. If it's less than that, you can't consider it. Films take time to be come truly great.

There are several films in the last few years that I love, but I am not sure I'll still be popping them in my DVD player in five years. Among them: Lost in Translation, Before Sunset, Solaris, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Donnie Darko, Mulholland Drive. There are many films that I know I'll still be watcthing in five years because I've been watching them regularly for five years or more: Dr. Strangelove, Casablanca, When Harry Met Sally, Barton Fink, Rushmore, Goodfellas, The Princess Bride. These are the great movies for me.

I might say that "Lost in Translation" is one of my favorite movies right now, but if you asked me to make a Greatest 100 (or 10 or whatever) list, it wouldn't be on it. I wouldn't dishonor great films by doing that.

MOD PARENT UP !!

[Anonymous Coward]

to get past the lameness filter..

very politically correct too

[DABANSHEE]

Look at the way they avoided such masterpieces as Sergi Eisenstein's 'Battleship Potemkin' 'n '10 Days that shook the World' & Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will'. Together with Citizen Kane, those 3 films always get included in such lists. For example m father was an award winning Cinematographer who was a mentor & teacher to 3 Oscar winning DOPs & those 4 films always make his top 20 best film lists.

Personally I think 'Carry on up the Kyber' was a better film than many that made it on this list of Time's.

Drunken Master II ?????

[ObscureKaffine]

I'm sorry, but that does not belong on a top 100 List! The original Drunken Master had a way better story line, and the choreography (sp??) was better. Jackie Chan was in much better shape when he made the first one. All and all the first movie was way more impressive. Deffinately a much better film! But it still doesn't belong on a top 100 list... (maybe a top 100 list of guy flicks... but not all time movies!)

Glaring omission, motivations...

[PhotoGuy]

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.

What about

[ndansmith]

UHF

"[They] snubbed several classics...."

[ddkilzer]

What do you expect? They're a couple of Dicks.

Missing flicks

[hotspotbloc]

Akira Kurosawa's "Madadayo" (1993). Think a Japanese "Goodbye, Mr. Chips". The artistic backround of Kurosawa shows. It was his last film. Not his best but still great.

"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (1998). Gilliam brought a great book to life in a great film. "Buy the ticket, take the ride".

"Life Is Beautiful" (1998). It speaks for itself. Sad, sickening, painful without a happy ending.

"Glory" (1989). IMO the last movie made that had an incredible collection of leading African American actors giving a great dramatic performance. Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman and Andre Braugher all some of the greatest actors of our time in one film. A film made possible by the courage of the all black 54th Regiment of the Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. Great story, great writing and great acting: all the makings of a great movie. It's a shame this movie wasn't on the list.

I hate these lists because they're so subjective. At least the postings here will give many other films the exposure they deserve.

What are you smoking?

[tidge]

I have a three year old, so I end up watching Finding Nemo and Toy Story much more than I care to admit. I can tell you for a fact that not only does my son like Toy Story more, but so do I. It's just a better all around movie.

But the real question is "Where are the National Lampoons vacation movies?"

Joseph Conrad

[gcatullus]

I was never forced to read Conrad, but enjoyed reading his works for fun. What I find most amazing is that he was born Polish; I believe English was his THIRD language. I don't believe that he learned English until he was in his twenties, after learning French.

Not enough international movies.

[DJ_Goldfingerz]

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.

Me Fail English?

[brakk]

That's unpossible!

Missing that would be on my list ...

[gfreeman]

The Great Escape
The Italian Job
2001
A Matter of Life and Death

i must not know good movies

[MisterMoney]

i have about 400 dvd's and only 5 of the top 100 movies...

guess i just like to watch crap movies.

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[Quinn_Inuit]

One was that book about mirror magic by Stephen R. Donaldson (my first SRD book, and my last). The other two I don't actually remember. They were in elementary school sometime, and it's been a very long time. All I can remember is that I've been thinking for the longest time that it was 2 books in elementary school, that mirror book, and GWTW.

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[mink]

Donaldson has a tendency to really make you love or hate his work.

I enjoyed the Magic Kingdom for sale (and I think I may have read one of the follow ups) so I decided to start in on his series "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever".

Early on you have the main character being a bitter person and when things seem to get better for him he rapes a woman. This put me off, but I kept reading and I got to see the wonder of the creation the story world was. Even at the end I still hateed the main character. Anyone you were rooting for or loved/enjoyed the character was killed somewhere in the first trillogy.

Donaldsons giants were possibly the most enjoyable creatures I have ever read in a fantasy setting.

I pop open the next book and discover they have been genocided behind the scenes. I almost stopped again. Then I find he meets the daughter that is his from the rape in the first book. So I hope to go his character has learned and can make some decisions that are not going to get everyone killed.

I gave up on that series after the first book in the second trilogy. I dont even think I finished it. Maybe some day I will go back and read them again, because when Donaldson was able to make you feel the magic, wonder, and joy of the world it really was so worth reading. The downside was he really can pull you into a deep pit of despair.

Re:"Gone..." gone? Good!

[mink]

Now with spelling fixed (sorry about the grammar).

Donaldson has a tendency to really make you love or hate his work.

I enjoyed the Magic Kingdom for sale (and I think I may have read one of the follow ups) so I decided to start in on his series "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever".

Early on you have the main character being a bitter person and when things seem to get better for him he rapes a woman. This put me off, but I kept reading and I got to see the wonder of the creation the story world was. Even at the end I still hated the main character. Anyone you were rooting for or loved/enjoyed the character was killed somewhere in the first trilogy.

Donaldson's giants were possibly the most enjoyable creatures I have ever read in a fantasy setting.

I pop open the next book and discover they have been genocide behind the scenes. I almost stopped again. Then I find he meets the daughter that is his from the rape in the first book. So I hope to go his character has learned and can make some decisions that are not going to get everyone killed.

I gave up on that series after the first book in the second trilogy. I don't even think I finished it. Maybe some day I will go back and read them again, because when Donaldson was able to make you feel the magic, wonder, and joy of the world it really was so worth reading. The downside was he really can pull you into a deep pit of despair.