Slashdot Mirror


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."

7 of 622 comments (clear)

  1. Indian Movies by guyfromindia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 :)

  2. This type of list is good for getting hits by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  3. I heard about this already... by chriswaclawik · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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!

    --
    A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
  4. Re:Not a complete list by darkitecture · · Score: 3, Interesting


    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.

  5. Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Wait a minute... by pcgabe · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.
    --
    Don't put advice in your sig.
  7. Re:"Gone..." gone? Good! by kfg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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