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."
How did Revenge of the Sith get #1? George Lucas, are you up to no good?!?
It's like an automatic flamewar.
Oh, and Steven Spielberg Godwinned the Oscars.
Where's "Debbie Does Dallas?" This list is rigged.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
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 :)
Apocalypse Now.
Every time I see it, I can't help being amazed at how good it is. Simply an incredible film.
webpage
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.
"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.
Office Space isn't on the list. Everyone involved in making that list deserves to die in a fire.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
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.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
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.
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
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.
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.
I don't see Police Academys 1 through 7 on the list.
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
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).
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
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.
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:
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
No Princess Bride... Inconcieveable!
Feed my eyes...
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."
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
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.
"You win again Gravity!" -Futurama (Zapp)
No worries.. America hates you.. not your country or fellow countrymen.. just you.. personally.
What is your penile percentile?
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
This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
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.
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
It's not in order! what kind of list is that?! How an I supposed to know if ROTS is better than Finding Nemo?
Obviously, there is a left wing conspiracy involving the assassination of JFK, Vietnam, AOL mind control CDS and snooty French people.
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.
no Incubus?
it has william shatner!
it was in esperanto!
it has goat heads!
this is a travesty...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
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.
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:
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.)
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.
How come? :)
The list is wrong, there is no excuse for the Wizard of Oz not to be on there.
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.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
"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.
"Derp de derp."
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.
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.
.especially since that time.
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. . .
KFG
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.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
KAAAAAAAAHHHHNNNN!!!!!!
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
Er... Terry and Alfred were Brits. Sorry mate.
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.
Find coupons in Greeley
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
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
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)
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."
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.
Quack, quack.
I mean, I saw the bootleg and the camcorder work was a masterpiece!
You are correct about Hitchcock, my bad, but Terry Gilliam is from my home state of Minnesota.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I think we all know the best power ranger was Kimberly (Amy Jo Johnson).
For purely asthetic reasons, mind you.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.