Time Picks Top 100 Films 622
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."
Ugh. (Score:1, Interesting)
Considering much more than half of the world lives outside of the US, this isn't much of a stretch.
Indian Movies (Score:3, Interesting)
This type of list is good for getting hits (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I heard about this already... (Score:5, Interesting)
"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!
bah (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Too Many Missing (Score:3, Interesting)
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:
Re:To kick off obligatory missing films... (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Not a complete list (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.
Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Ugh. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
The real link to the list... (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, here is the real link [time.com] 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 [imdb.com] (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 [imdb.com] (leaving this one off is, in my humble opinion, the most egregious sin), Rat Race [imdb.com], The Usual Suspects [imdb.com], Independence Day [imdb.com], Ghost Busters [imdb.com], The Majestic [imdb.com], Airplane! [imdb.com], The Professional [imdb.com], The Shawshank Redemption [imdb.com], Back to the Future [imdb.com], Toy Story [imdb.com], Mr. Holland's Opus [imdb.com], Galaxy Quest [imdb.com], Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan [imdb.com], Monty Python and the Holy Grail [imdb.com], Blazing Saddles [imdb.com], Close Encounters of the Third Kind [imdb.com], Primal Fear [imdb.com], The Matrix [imdb.com], Superman [imdb.com], ...
(I'll stop boring you with my list now.)
Re:Not a complete list (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a quote from Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man [suntimes.com]: In his review of Inside Deep Throat [suntimes.com], he also says:
Re:"Gone..." gone? Good! (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:I couldn't disagree more (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
You're proving my point... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [time.com] or Umberto D [time.com] 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:Wow, magazine doing movie ratings? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.