Kieran Frost's "100 Greatest Films"

[Charlie_1981]

For me, Blade Runner is a real masterpiece, there are others, but always I liked that.

Is really hard to say one , the list will be more than 1000.

[Starleafgirl]

You've invited me to this thread personally, Frost, and now you must suffer the rambling consequences of my considerations on the matter!

Okay, so there are a lot of films on your list I like, and some I don't agree with, but I just had to say, after randomly skimming it:

I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, that "Unforgiven" made your Top 100. ;P

Love that "In Bruges" is on there, though. Definitely an underappreciated gem.

Surprised similarly odd "Snatch" (2000) and "Fight Club" (1999) didn't make it on there. Don't like Brad Pitt? Though to be fair, I recently re-watched part of Fight Club when it was on TV and it hasn't held up so great. The FIRST TIME you watch it though, oh man!

You have a greater appreciation for classic cinema than I do. For the most part, if it came out before the 1980s, I won't even watch it. And when I do watch a film from the 1970s or before, I don't end up enjoying it. Oh man, there was this one western, I don't remember the name of it, but it was clearly a great piece of cinema, and the director guy was famous for really taking the time to make a great film, but I just did not enjoy it at all. It just dragged on, to me. I guess I just don't have the sensibilities for it.

*pause* The exception to the rule would be Disney cartoons. No matter how old the piece, from "Snow White" to "Frozen," I tend to enjoy them. And yes, that includes films like "Lady and the Tramp," "The Aristocats," and "101 Dalmatians" (the original cartoon). Ahem.

Although, "Alien" came out in 1979, and I liked that. Hmm... well, 1979 is really close to the 1980s. :P Anyway...

That said, let's look at the poll choices:

Right off the bat, I eliminate these due to my rule:
8. the Third Man (1949)
5. Singin’ in the Rain (1952)
9. BEN-HUR (1959)
7. C’era una volta il West (1968) (Once Upon A Time in the West)
3. Apocalypse Now! (1979)

I'm leaving Cuckoo's Nest in because it is, actually, another exception to my rule. Awkward! And yet, when even I can't deny it, you know it was a really good movie. Jack Nicholson, man...

Then I'll remove this:
10. Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001) (Spirited Away) - a good film, but the easiest to eliminate out of the bunch that's left. It's still anime vs. the live actions films I can more easily relate to. "Relate to" as in I've certainly been a futuristic detective investigating cyber-science gone awry, chased a serial killer using the help of a different serial killer, delivered an evil ring to Mount Doom, or been a mental patient. :P

Next, I'm culling these two:
4. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
6. Blade Runner (1982)

Those were both difficult to eliminate (which makes sense, as this is your Top 10!), but ultimately, they're not my cup of tea as much as the remaining two.

It all comes down to this, ladies and gents! The #1 seeded film vs. #2!

Hobbit vs. Hannibal!

Mano e really short mano!

...

1. THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001 - 2003)
2. the Silence of the Lambs (1991)

And the hobbits have it!

Lol.

Jodie Foster put up a good fight, but in the end, none could compare to my love of world-sprawling, big-screen fantasy. ^^

[DebkoX]

No Rosemarys Baby?! I'm upset

[The_Greatest_Username]

Well, Kieran, you've brought to my attention how uncultured I am in the world of cinema.
Out of your list, I went with Ben-Hur because I remember being very impressed with the quality of the film the first time I saw it.

[simbob4000]

I tried doing a Top 100 list...but it just turned into a unwieldy god damn mess. So here's a Top 50 of the 2000s, and maybe later I'll whittle it down to a Top 100.

1. Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino - 2009)
2. The Rules of Attraction (Roger Avary - 2002)
3. Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku - 2000)
4. Deadly Outlaw: Rekka (Takashi Miike - 2002)
5. Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (Tom Tykwer - 2006)
6. Apocalypto (Mel Gibson - 2006)
7. Ichi the Killer (Takashi Miike - 2001)
8. Observe and Report (Jody Hill - 2009)
9. The Piano Teacher (Michael Haneke -2001)
10. Team America: World Police (Trey Parker - 2004)
11. The House of the Devil (Ti West - 2009)
12. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (Quentin Tarantino - 2003)
13. Howl's Moving Castle (Hayao Miyazaki - 2004)
14. Shaun of the Dead (Edger Wright - 2004)
15. Unbreakable (M. Night Shyamaian - 2000)
16. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (Larry Charles - 2006)
17. J.S.A.: Joint Security Area (Chan-wook Park - 2000)
18. Thirteen (Catherine Hardwicke - 2003)
19. Ratatouille (Brad Bird - 2007)
20. Returner (Takashi Yamazaki - 2002)
21. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu - 2007)
22. Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (Quentin Tarantino - 2004)
23. Ginger Snaps (John Fawcett - 2000)
24. Spirited Away (Hayao Miyazaki - 2001)
25. Little Children (Todd Ford - 2006)
26. The Pledge (Sean Penn - 2001)
27. Inside (Alexandre Bustillo & Julien Maury - 2007)
28. Tetro (Francis Ford Coppola - 2009)
29. City of God (Fernando Meirelles & Kátia Lund - 2002)
30. Hero (Yimou Zhang - 2002)
31. The Squid and the Whale (Noah Baumbach -2005)
32. Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson - 2009)
33. Notes on a Scandal (Richard Eyre - 2006)
34. Kung Fu Hustle (Stephen Chow -2004)
35. Drag Me to Hell (Sam Raimi - 2009)
36. Oldboy (Chan-wook Park - 2003)
37. Love in the Time of Cholera (Mike Newell - 2007)
38. Martyrs (Pascal Laugier - 2008)
39. Mongol (Sergey Bodrov - 2007)
40. The Pianist (Roman Polanski - 2002)
41. The Visitor (Tom McCarthy - 2007)
42. A Prophet (Jacques Audiard - 2009)
43. Anything Else (Woody Allen - 2003)
44. Departures (Yôjrô Takita - 2008)
45. Adaptation (Spike Jonze - 2002)
46. Intolerable Cruelty (Coen brothers -2003)
47. Irreversible (Gaspar Noé - 2002)
48. The Notorious Bettie Page (Mary Harron - 2005)
49. Once (John Carney - 2006)
50. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik -2007)

[Kieran_Frost]

ANDREI RUBLEV (1966)
#2 in the Guardian/Observer's "Greatest Films of All Time"
#25 on Rate Your Music's "100 Films"
#27 in Sight & Sound's "Top 250"
#87 in Empire magazines "100 Best Films of World Cinema"
#87 in Toronto International Film Festivals' "Essential 100"
written & directed. Andrei Tarkovsky
Starring: Anatoly Solonitsyn, Nikolai Sergeyev, Nikolai Burlyayev, Ivan Lapikov and Irma Raush

"He, of His own will, left them, He displayed injustice, or even cruelty. Maybe those who crucified him loved him because they helped in this divine plan." ~ ANDREI RUBLYOV

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: the loose telling of the known life of Andrei Rublev, a 15th Century Russian icon painter; exploring the artists as "a world figure"

THOUGHTS: this is a film about a painter, but truly it is a film about God. Much like Life of Pi (2012), the film transcends it's 'obvious' purpose; letting debates of philosophy and the world around it become the true gem to devour. So much of the dialogue is just... profound. The simplest things, such as the monks leaving for Moscow, observing "you see this tree everyday and you notice nothing, now it is the last time we will ever see it. And it's beautiful." The film is divided into seven chapters (along with a prologue and epilogue -- of sorts); which oddly help avoid the problems of "vignettes" in biopic films. So often (in "vignette" biopics, which try to cram everything from childhood till death into 2 hours) you end up getting mere snips of someone's life and it all ends up being meaningless (with all other characters fading into irrelevance or two dimensionally tropes). BUT HERE the films does two brilliant things: a) it's a loose biopic, focused more on the concept of what an artist is to a society, rather than trying to 'bullet point' factual moments in Rublev's life, b) by picking seven specific chapters/moments (often not really about Rublev) you help control the story, cherry-picking the very best of moments expressing what a person IS, rather than specifically what they did. It may appear the distinction between chapters and "vignettes" is wafer thin (and I'm probably not expressing myself concisely) but it makes ALL the difference in the world. Tantamount to this films success is the star making performance by Solonitsyn and the bold, breathtaking direction of Tarkovsky. There are so many moments I want to highlight. The pagan "witchery" feast; as torches and naked bodies light the night sky. The crucifixion of Christ by Russian soldiers in the snow. The paint smeared across the pure white of the chapel after the blinding of the stonemasons (even though in black and white you just KNOW that is red paint). The painfully tense swinging of the bell, closer and closer to it's destiny. It's easily the greatest biopic I've ever seen (though I rarely like any biopic; the Queen (2006) being a rare exception); and I would recommend it to anyone. Yes it's long, and yes the beginning is slow; but the moment Kirill speaks of art and inadequacy and the beauty of simplicity to Theophanes the Greek... you'll be hooked.

OVERALL
A film that slow burns, enveloping your mind in philosophy, art, war and the birth of Tsardom in Medieval Russia. An incredible achievement in directing, with a captivating central performance and fascinating exploration of the essence of "an artist" in the world. A masterpiece on every level.
~ rating: 5 out of 5 [grade: A+]

N.B. added to my "Top 100"; bumping out Don't Look Now (1973)

[Kieran_Frost]

You've invited me to this thread personally, Frost, and now you must suffer the rambling consequences of my considerations on the matter!

*Kieran braces for impact*

Okay, so there are a lot of films on your list I like, and some I don't agree with, but I just had to say, after randomly skimming it:

Such as? Genuinely, this is the whole point of posting it, to be challenged and debated with. Other people's perspective always helps (I used to have Aliens in my "Top 100" -- hell, it used to be in my "Top 10"; but a friend of mine watched it for the first time with me, with no notalgia, and I realized how BAD some of the dialogue is though my friend's gafoars!). Always helps to have a second pair of eyes.

I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, that "Unforgiven" made your Top 100. ;P

It was in my "Top 10" for years; bumped out by Once Upon A Time in the West (1968) two years ago. Why do you not like it? For me it's so beautifully shot, the acting is amazing, and it's a perfect 'deconstruction' of the Western genre (ironically that Clint helped create). That final shot of the whores coming out of the shadows, soaked, and clutching their shawls to their breasts... sends chills down my spine just typing it.

Love that "In Bruges" is on there, though. Definitely an underappreciated gem.
Surprised similarly odd "Snatch" (2000) and "Fight Club" (1999) didn't make it on there. Don't like Brad Pitt? Though to be fair, I recently re-watched part of Fight Club when it was on TV and it hasn't held up so great. The FIRST TIME you watch it though, oh man!

While I enjoy both Snatch and Fight Club (though find the idea of so many straight men loving what is so blatantly homoerotic amusing); I find the redemptive Christmas fable/resurrection underlying concept in In Bruges to elevate it beyond "fun" into "artistic." Snatch is fun, but it's utterly depthless.

You have a greater appreciation for classic cinema than I do. For the most part, if it came out before the 1980s, I won't even watch it. And when I do watch a film from the 1970s or before, I don't end up enjoying it. Oh man, there was this one western, I don't remember the name of it, but it was clearly a great piece of cinema, and the director guy was famous for really taking the time to make a great film, but I just did not enjoy it at all. It just dragged on, to me. I guess I just don't have the sensibilities for it.

I used to be EXACTLY like you. EXACTLY. And it's hard. a) you (and by that I means younger me) have this idea older films don't tackle any big issues, and everything is overacted, b) that visually you won't be satisified. But the more you watch, the more you realise how absurd that notion is. The film M (1931) is about an order of criminals who gather together to track down a paedophile, then put him on trial in their criminal underworld; resulting in the paedophile lambasting them for their sins of the world. Frankly that's a bolder story concept that most of standard cinema these days. As for the acting, yes some is very oldschool. So got for films with Paul Newman, Elizabeth Taylor, Katherine Hepburn, Peter O'Toole; they helped forge what modern screen acting will become.

The "old" films that helped me get into older cinema were the Ladykillers (1955), the African Queen (1951), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) (which you've seen), North By Northwest (1957) and Some Like It Hot (1959). You'd be surprised how GOOD they are, how they haven't really become dated (yet something like Matrix Reloaded is already horribly dated).

*pause* The exception to the rule would be Disney cartoons. No matter how old the piece, from "Snow White" to "Frozen," I tend to enjoy them. And yes, that includes films like "Lady and the Tramp," "The Aristocats," and "101 Dalmatians" (the original cartoon). Ahem.

I demand you list your "Top 5" Disney animated feature films. NOW!!! Mwwhahaha!

10. Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001) (Spirited Away) - a good film, but the easiest to eliminate out of the bunch that's left. It's still anime vs. the live actions films I can more easily relate to.

Spirited Away isn't actually anime. Yes it's animation from Japan, but that doesn't (by default) make it anime. Not all Westerns films in Italy or Spain are (by default) Spaghetti Westerns.

It all comes down to this, ladies and gents! The #1 seeded film vs. #2!
Hobbit vs. Hannibal!
Mano e really short mano!
...
1. THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001 - 2003)
2. the Silence of the Lambs (1991)
And the hobbits have it!
Lol.
Jodie Foster put up a good fight, but in the end, none could compare to my love of world-sprawling, big-screen fantasy. ^^

Very happy we see eye-to-eye on this matter.

No Rosemarys Baby?! I'm upset

Personally I prefer the Tenant (1976) out of Polanski's "apartment trilogy". It's Mia Farrow that ruins it for me. I have no Woody Allen films in my list (I find his acting film ruining); but the closest I came to adding a Woody Allen film was September (1987) (his adaptation of Chekhov's Uncle Vanya). It's amazing; and (the now late, great) Elaine Stritch was robbed of Oscar nomination for her work in it. But Mia Farrow is just so... god, SO BAD it ruins it. Alas...

[Kieran_Frost]

What are you doing? Don't hashtag outside of twitter.

#awkward

What the hell is a "straight man's movie"? And how isn't The Godfather also that?

A "straight man movie" (to me) is one that is about the coolness of masculinity; the celebration of men being men in the eyes of straight men. I don't feel the Godfather is about gender, but about the descent of a good man into darkness. Where as Goodfellas is about men being badass, having affairs pointlessly and being unable to backdown because their "rep" was questioned. I find a lot of Scorcese films are "straight man movies."

For me, Blade Runner is a real masterpiece, there are others, but always I liked that.
Is really hard to say one , the list will be more than 1000.

Tell me about it! Honestly, people are shocked how incredibly quickly you run out of 100 slots.

Well, Kieran, you've brought to my attention how uncultured I am in the world of cinema.

Oh you!

Out of your list, I went with Ben-Hur because I remember being very impressed with the quality of the film the first time I saw it.

a) who doesn't love a bit of homoerotic goodness?
b) that chariot race is still astounding. Though I love the whole films, for such a long film it's got a fantastic pace.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu - 2007)

This is one of those films (I personally feel) people love because it's foreign, and think that makes it art (this isn't an attack on you, it's a hypothesis I have on some lauded foreign films that I just don't see any appeal for). Take the same story, the same characters and set it in Manchester, no-one would care.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson - 2009)

Love that you listed this one, such a wonderful film; so shocked to find Anderson make the best Dahl film EVER (was not expecting that).

Drag Me to Hell (Sam Raimi - 2009)

REALLY? Raimi is just one of those directors I don't understand the love he gets.

[simbob4000]

A "straight man movie" (to me) is one that is about the coolness of masculinity; the celebration of men being men in the eyes of straight men. I don't feel the Godfather is about gender, but about the descent of a good man into darkness. Where as Goodfellas is about men being badass, having affairs pointlessly and being unable to backdown because their "rep" was questioned. I find a lot of Scorcese films are "straight man movies."

Did you stop watching Goodfellas before it ended? Things don't really go well for those guys.

This is one of those films (I personally feel) people love because it's foreign, and think that makes it art (this isn't an attack on you, it's a hypothesis I have on some lauded foreign films that I just don't see any appeal for). Take the same story, the same characters and set it in Manchester, no-one would care.

It's a fantastic movie, it's well written, acted, and directed. And you've got to be crazy to think that movie wouldn't have been a big deal if it wasn't a foreign movie. You likely would have heard a hell of a lot more about the very frank English language abortion movie with a strong female friendship that's also a really good movie. And you set that movie in Manchester, and you've got to change it quite a bit, the movie taking place in '80s Communist Romania is kind of a really big part of the movie.

REALLY? Raimi is just one of those directors I don't understand the love he gets.

He's a fantastic director with a great command for style, what's not to get? The Battle of Helms Deep pretty liberally takes from Army of Darkness, which is a far better than the The Lord of the Rings movies.

[Starleafgirl]

Such as? Genuinely, this is the whole point of posting it, to be challenged and debated with. Other people's perspective always helps (I used to have Aliens in my "Top 100" -- hell, it used to be in my "Top 10"; but a friend of mine watched it for the first time with me, with no notalgia, and I realized how BAD some of the dialogue is though my friend's gafoars!). Always helps to have a second pair of eyes.

Oh, really? I tend to avoid disagreements, but since you're asking... ^.^

DISCLAIMER: There's a good reason I never took Film Appreciation class in college. I tend to rate films based on what I like and what I don't like, without in-depth analyzing on the artistry of cinema and whatnot.

*skims it over* ... to be honest, most of the ones I'm disagreeing with are films from before the 1970s, which simply wouldn't be on my list because I have not, and generally would not, ever watch them.

How about The Social Network (2010), though? Why is that on there? It didn't strike me as anything special.

Same goes for When Harry Met Sally (1989). Is it just the cultural impact you're looking at, for this one?

I saw Mystic River (2003), but what really elevates it above similar films? The performances were great, that's for sure... Mmm, I'm just not sure I would say I enjoyed it enough for it to ever make my list (which, no, I am not coming up with 100 films right here and now, haha).

By the way, can I ask you why you think Shakespeare In Love (1998) is generally so underrated? I liked it, but I can't find many others who will agree with me, hah.

It was in my "Top 10" for years; bumped out by Once Upon A Time in the West (1968) two years ago. Why do you not like it? For me it's so beautifully shot, the acting is amazing, and it's a perfect 'deconstruction' of the Western genre (ironically that Clint helped create). That final shot of the whores coming out of the shadows, soaked, and clutching their shawls to their breasts... sends chills down my spine just typing it.

*reads description* ... *thoughtful pause*

You know what, I'm glad you pointed this out, because I was actually thinking of "Unfaithful," lol, the movie about cheating with Richard Gere and Diane Lane.



I've got nothing against Unforgiven; I heard it was good, but I haven't seen it. ^^

While I enjoy both Snatch and Fight Club (though find the idea of so many straight men loving what is so blatantly homoerotic amusing); I find the redemptive Christmas fable/resurrection underlying concept in In Bruges to elevate it beyond "fun" into "artistic." Snatch is fun, but it's utterly depthless.

Ahh, I see, then. ^^

I used to be EXACTLY like you. EXACTLY. And it's hard. a) you (and by that I means younger me) have this idea older films don't tackle any big issues, and everything is overacted, b) that visually you won't be satisified.

Yeah, that's exactly it. You've put into words what was in my head, as of yet unformed thoughts, hehe.

The "old" films that helped me get into older cinema were the Ladykillers (1955), the African Queen (1951), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) (which you've seen), North By Northwest (1957) and Some Like It Hot (1959). You'd be surprised how GOOD they are, how they haven't really become dated (yet something like Matrix Reloaded is already horribly dated).

Sadly, only the first Matrix film holds up, nowadays.

I think I saw part of Cleopatra (1963) once and liked it well enough, but that was helped by the fact that I'm a big Cleopatra fan in general. ;-)

I demand you list your "Top 5" Disney animated feature films. NOW!!! Mwwhahaha! ;-)

PUT ME ON THE SPOT, WHY DONCHA?? Lol, okay, lemme find a list of Disney animated feature films to look at and try to come up with a Top 5...

Before I get to that, though, I have to point out that some of my most beloved animated films ever came from Don Bluth. They tend to have a little more darkness, but still so much heart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Blu...collaborations

1. The Secret of NIMH (1982)
2. An American Tail (1986)
3. The Land Before Time (1988)
4. All Dogs Go To Heaven (1989)
5. Rock-a-Doodle (1992)

In fact, looking at the short list available at that link, I think the only one I didn't particularly care for was Titan A.E. ^_^;;

As for Disney films:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mated_features

Top 5 Enjoyed Disney Films a.k.a. The Amazing List:

1. The Lion King (1994)
2. The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
3. Aladdin (1992)
4. Beauty and The Beast (1991)
5. The Little Mermaid (1989)

Looking at my list, I see a heavy 1990s bias and although I appreciate the classic princesses, I appear to be more of an animal person. ;P If I had to do a straight "quality" list (as opposed to the "enjoyment" list I've come up with) I'd say...

Top 5 Quality Disney Films:

1. Bambi (1942)
2. The Fox and the Hound (1981)
3. The Rescuers (1977)
4. Pinocchio (1940)
5. Cinderella (1950)

Sadly, these lists are pretty useless because I love almost all of them almost equally. I cannot choose! Ask me for a Top 5 any day of the week and it would likely be at least 50% different, haha.

And do you like the Disney movies, too? I see Beauty and the Beast is on your list... :-) How about your Top 5?

Spirited Away isn't actually anime. Yes it's animation from Japan, but that doesn't (by default) make it anime. Not all Westerns films in Italy or Spain are (by default) Spaghetti Westerns.

Oh, really! I didn't know that (re: anime), thanks for the info. :-)

As a side note, I tend to really enjoy Raimi films, even if they're cheesy at times, hah. Darkman is really great, I've rewatched it a few times and it holds up, in my opinion. A lot of that is due to Liam Neeson's performance.

[Mister Mets]

Cool list, and interesting goal (reviews of films that appear on "great" lists) even if the lack of It's a Wonderful Life disappoints me.

One random point I do wonder about. I do often see people capping lists so that a particular artist won't be represented too often. But it doesn't necessarily show that you're biased towards the guy. Someone who is at the top of a particular profession might produce a high number of the most significant works. In a collaborative medium like film, actors might be lucky enough to have fruitful relationships with multiple figures (John Wayne did some great movies for John Ford and for Howard Hawks, while Cary Grant's done great work with Hitchcock and Hawks), or to offer what a lot of people are looking for, thus becoming the top casting choice for the people who go on to make the best movies ever.

[PretenderNX01]

the acting by the kids in E.T. (for me) lets down the film.

I think the kids in ET, especially the main family, are some of the better child actors I've ever seen.

There was a time when the kid my mom babysat watched it over and over and I got so sick of ET, didn't watch it for decades later until it had an anniversary re-release and I realized how good it was. It really is just a great film with kids in it.

Spirited Away isn't actually anime. Yes it's animation from Japan, but that doesn't (by default) make it anime.

Well, it does when you consider "anime" is just the Japanese word for "animation" Amazon sells it under Movies & TV › DVD › Anime

And Wiki defines it as
Anime (Japanese: アニメ?, are Japanese animated productions usually featuring hand-drawn or computer animation. The word is the abbreviated pronunciation of "animation" in Japanese, where this term references all animation.[1] In other languages, the term is defined as animation from Japan or as a Japanese-disseminated animation style often characterized by colorful graphics, vibrant characters and fantastic themes.[2][3] Arguably, the stylization approach to the meaning may open up the possibility of anime produced in countries other than Japan.[4][5][6] For simplicity, many Westerners strictly view anime as an animation product from Japan.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime

[Kieran_Frost]

DISCLAIMER: There's a good reason I never took Film Appreciation class in college. I tend to rate films based on what I like and what I don't like, without in-depth analyzing on the artistry of cinema and whatnot.

I did one "film appreciation" class at uni and hated it. The director thought only old movies were good and never cared about the acting (like NOT AT ALL). All he cared about what who did what camera shot first, it was awful. In general I dislike critics, because they laud directing and consider acting secondary. What other media (outside the entertainment industry) do people who aren't part of the industry get to decide what is good or bad?

How about The Social Network (2010), though? Why is that on there? It didn't strike me as anything special.

I am not free of bias. I love the film, I think the wit, the dialogue, the acting, the directing, the music... it ticks all the boxes. The fact it's filmed in Harvard (which was designed by the same architect who did my university: Iowa State University; means so much of the film looks like it's set at ISU. Add to that I remember when facebook was THE facebook; when only American universities could be on it, and how excited I got the moment I heard one of my friends in England was on it. It has a special place in my heart. Plus, the film is basically about a nerd who makes a website, yet it's so engrossing (that is worthy of praise alone).

Same goes for When Harry Met Sally (1989). Is it just the cultural impact you're looking at, for this one?

I promise I'll never include a film purely for cultural impact, in fact far from it. I don't have Citizen Kane (1941) in here, for example. While it would probably be number #1 in "the 100 Most IMPORTANT Films"; it has some major flaws. Similarly (in the '100 Most Important Films') would be Birth of a Nation (1915). I see people put that in a "100 Greatest Films" list and cringe. It's about the Klu Klux Klan being awesome, HOW does story not matter to some film 'fans'??? While getting their first is an accolade in of itself, it rarely makes it the one who did it best. For me When Harry Met Sally is just a perfect romantic comedy, where the friends aren't just 2D clichés, but have their own stories and motivation. I generally hate Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan, so kudos that their chemistry and on-screen work in this is so strong.

I saw Mystic River (2003), but what really elevates it above similar films? The performances were great, that's for sure... Mmm, I'm just not sure I would say I enjoyed it enough for it to ever make my list (which, no, I am not coming up with 100 films right here and now, haha).

I love films about one thing, yet really about another. The film is a "murder mystery" but ISN'T actually about that (much like Gosford Park (2001)). I love that, I love that it's about how events in our childhood can shape us, in ways we don't even realise. The ensemble is amazing, and Laura Linney at the end - what a evil b*tch! It's simple (another thing I love in films); it's a simple plot about complex characters (as all the best stories should be).

By the way, can I ask you why you think Shakespeare In Love (1998) is generally so underrated? I liked it, but I can't find many others who will agree with me, hah.

Here is where bias comes in = I'm an actor. I love Shakespeare. And I think Tom Stoppard (and amazing playwright) manages to weave so many Shakespeare tropes into the story (cross dressing, play within a play, mistaken identity, comedy/tragedy), cleverly mirroring the plot of R&J with the main event, without ever needing to signpost it. I love how Will "kills a man" but doesn't (much how Romeo sees his part in the death of Mercutio). The music is beautiful, costumes, set. The way Judi Dench says more about what it is being a woman in that period (in only 8 minutes) than in the entirety of Elizabeth (1998). As a theatre geek, everyone I know loves this film. It's a film for actors "But there's never any profits"/"Exactly!" HAHAHAHA! Oh, the cruel truth of it all.

*reads description* ... *thoughtful pause*
You know what, I'm glad you pointed this out, because I was actually thinking of "Unfaithful," lol, the movie about cheating with Richard Gere and Diane Lane.

I've got nothing against Unforgiven; I heard it was good, but I haven't seen it. ^^

HAHAHA! Ah, I see; and yes I would question anyone including Unfaithful in their list.

Sadly, only the first Matrix film holds up, nowadays.

It's so strange isn't it, how the first film has aged so well, yet the later ones are dated. Too many computer graphics and not enough set pieces (the Hobbit will likely age far worse than Lord of the Rings, for the same reason).

I think I saw part of Cleopatra (1963) once and liked it well enough, but that was helped by the fact that I'm a big Cleopatra fan in general. ;-)

See, I've never seen it; so you've seen an old film I have not.

Cool list, and interesting goal (reviews of films that appear on "great" lists) even if the lack of It's a Wonderful Life disappoints me.

I have a love/hate relationship with Jimmy Stewart. Sometimes I think he's brilliant, other times just awful. I found It's a Wonderful Time to be the latter. I disliked the talking stars (RE: LEDs) at the start (that has dated) and the ending...
spoilers:

so he was going to die by jumping off the bridge, yet at the end jumps off the same bridge to save the angel, and lives?

end of spoilers
It just doesn't so it for me. For Capra I go with It Happened One Night (1935).

One random point I do wonder about. I do often see people capping lists so that a particular artist won't be represented too often. But it doesn't necessarily show that you're biased towards the guy. Someone who is at the top of a particular profession might produce a high number of the most significant works. In a collaborative medium like film, actors might be lucky enough to have fruitful relationships with multiple figures (John Wayne did some great movies for John Ford and for Howard Hawks, while Cary Grant's done great work with Hitchcock and Hawks), or to offer what a lot of people are looking for, thus becoming the top casting choice for the people who go on to make the best movies ever.

I've actually not seen anyone else instil that particular cap, but I'm happy to know I'm not alone. One of the first things I need to do if I'm bumping out a film, is see if the one being entered has another film by that director. One of the reasons I didn't add Yoyimbo (1964) is I already have a Kurosawa samurai 'western' in the form of Seven Samurai (1954) (and I feel the latter is better). 100 films is such a small amount, it seems wasteful to include two films so similar (ESP. when by the same director with the same actors). Also I feel there is an element of "refinement" vs. "nostalgia". Has that director refined to perfection a concept he nearly got spot on previously, or is he harping back to a style/concept/genre that has served him well in the past? Ultimately one of them will be better than the other when compares side-by-side; so actually picking which one to include isn't so hard. The same goes for films similar. I bumped out Topsy-Turvey (1999) because Shakespeare in Love (1998) is also a film about a famous staging of a (at the time unknown) play, with a strong ensemble.

I think the kids in ET, especially the main family, are some of the better child actors I've ever seen.

There was a time when the kid my mom babysat watched it over and over and I got so sick of ET, didn't watch it for decades later until it had an anniversary re-release and I realized how good it was. It really is just a great film with kids in it.

The kids aren't bad, but the stories asks so much in the performance of Elliott; and he just isn't capable of the full rage of emotions (without becoming cheesey/over-the-top). The music is beautiful. It's just a little too sugary sweet for me.

[Starleafgirl]

I did one "film appreciation" class at uni and hated it. The director thought only old movies were good and never cared about the acting (like NOT AT ALL). All he cared about what who did what camera shot first, it was awful. In general I dislike critics, because they laud directing and consider acting secondary. What other media (outside the entertainment industry) do people who aren't part of the industry get to decide what is good or bad?

Yipes. I can understand caring about cinematography first and acting second (I think both are important, and tend on the acting side, myself... unless it's just TERRIBLE, the non-acting parts don't break a film for me), but not caring about acting AT ALL? Geez.

I promise I'll never include a film purely for cultural impact, in fact far from it.

Good. ;-) I'm of the opinion that films should stand on their own and great films will always hold up, even when removed from their cultural context.

Thanks for explaining the inclusion of those other films. I see your point and it makes more sense to me now.

HAHAHA! Ah, I see; and yes I would question anyone including Unfaithful in their list.

Hehehe.

It's so strange isn't it, how the first film has aged so well, yet the later ones are dated. Too many computer graphics and not enough set pieces (the Hobbit will likely age far worse than Lord of the Rings, for the same reason).

Yes, it IS strange! It just goes to show you how well-made the first one was, though. The Hobbit trilogy, like the later Matrix films, are now/were at the time beloved mainly on the strength of the films that came before it. And I think most people could agree that by the time the third Matrix flick came out, this was just unentertaining crap... even if they could teach philosophy classes on it. ;P

See, I've never seen it; so you've seen an old film I have not.

Maybe you've got a new one to check out, then, heh.



Seeing Rex Harrison there reminds me that there is, actually, an old movie I love!

Like really, truly love!


Can you guess?


Well...


It's...


Doctor Dolittle (1967)!



I looked it up on IMDb, surprised to see that it wasn't a whole trilogy of films as I remember seeing when I was a kid, just a single film. It is 152 minutes long, though, so at 2 hours and 32 minutes, to a kid with a short attention span, I wouldn't be surprised to see it seemed that way. ;P

It's just a huge film, very magical and such. It wouldn't have been as impressive if it was animated, but for a live action flick, it was amazing. I always liked animals, though, so a film all about them would get high marks from me no matter what. I'm a little worried to see how it would hold up now...

And then THAT reminds me of "Herbie" from The Love Bug (1968), which I also enjoyed, but probably wouldn't hold up as well for me now. I'm sure Mary Poppins (1964) would hold up just fine, especially if the kids were young enough to not be spoiled on computer graphics yet. The point is, I'm seeing an alarming trend in children's films here and wondering just how mature my sensibilities are, if at all. ;P But there you have it. XD

[simbob4000]

The Hobbit movies don't have to worry about aging badly, they look pretty terrible now. Especially the last one.