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."
Wait a minute (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, I'm pretty sure it was a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
>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 (Score:3, Funny)
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 h
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, magazine doing movie ratings? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and Steven Spielberg Godwinned the Oscars.
Yes how about "Death Blow" or "Cry Cry Again"? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
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:
Indian Movies (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Indian Movies (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch an actual highly-touted Bollywood movie someday, and you might just discover you like them more than you thought you would.
To kick off obligatory missing films... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Informative)
YA.. bet you didn't know that.. so go rent the video now.
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:To kick off obligatory missing films... (Score:2)
Re:To kick off obligatory missing films... (Score:2)
Joker: How can you shoot women and children?
Gunner: Easy... you just don't lead 'em so much.
So many more!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Kurosawa vs. Lucas (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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
Re:To kick off obligatory missing films... (Score:3, Funny)
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....
Apocalypse (Score:2)
Re:To kick off obligatory missing films... (Score:2)
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.
Re:This type of list is good for getting hits (Score:2)
Re:This type of list is good for getting hits (Score:5, Funny)
Three kings? Topgun?!
You obviously don't have a clue about real movies. I'm talking about Donnie Darko, A Beautiful Mind, The Exorcist,...
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!
Re:I heard about this already... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I heard about this already... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, that's what you think.
Office Space?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Office Space?!?! (Score:2)
Or be given a stapler. Red in color.
"Gone..." gone? Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:"Gone..." gone? Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Both were manipulative stories and high-budget chick flics.
Re:"Gone..." gone? Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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 t
Sheer volume of smoking (Score:2)
Weird Selection (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
IMDB (Score:2)
Blatant omissions? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't see Police Academys 1 through 7 on the list.
Not a complete list (Score:5, Informative)
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 c
Re:Not a complete list (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a complete list (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Starship Troopers is closer to second place than Spiderman.
Re:Not a complete list (Score:2)
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:
WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
You keep misspelling that word. I don't think it's spelled the way you think it's spelled.
Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2" (Score:4, Informative)
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 [imdb.com]
Re:Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Greatest movie of all time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Greatest movie of all time (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this bizarro-world? (Score:2)
Obviously they have to list Kubrick, but what sense is it to pick that over, let's say "2001" or "A Clockwork Orange"???
Top 100? (Score:2)
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.
Apu trilogy (Score:2)
My vote for the #1 absentee from this list: (Score:2)
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 [imdb.com] on there though.
No 2001: A Space Oddessy???!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Obligatory Nod to CG? (Score:2)
oh well,
--Stephen
Order (Score:2, Funny)
A few good calls... (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and they listed Star Wars! Woot!
what?! (Score:3, Funny)
it has william shatner!
it was in esperanto!
it has goat heads!
this is a travesty...
You all have TOTALLY missed one (Score:5, Funny)
For my money, nothing says classic movie like a story about a truck and a car going to get beer.
What a waste of "Time" (Score:2, Insightful)
-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 t
Re:What a waste of "Time" (Score:5, Funny)
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" (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The real link to the list... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Mayb
No A Clockwork Orange? No Satyricon? (Score:2)
Thanks God they go Finding Nemo in there. Otherwise I might have to doubt their credibility!
Best comment I saw about the Time list: (Score:2)
Too many modern movies (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 th
No Gigli??? (Score:4, Funny)
Conflict of interest. (Score:2)
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?)
No Seven Samurai (Score:2)
Wrong again, liberal media.
Wizard of Oz (Score:3, Insightful)
What no Star Trek II? (Score:3, Insightful)
A list to try and please all... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [imdb.com] is still my authoratative measure of "good". (Even if I disagree personally)
Re:To hell with European leftish communist filmmak (Score:2)
Re:To hell with European leftish communist filmmak (Score:2, Funny)
Obviously, there is a left wing conspiracy involving the assassination of JFK, Vietnam, AOL mind control CDS and snooty French people.
Re:Subject (Score:2)
Re:Subject (Score:2)
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
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 n
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ugh. (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Hits and Misses (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
>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 (Score:2)
The Ring (Score:2)
Serious PTSS.
In fact, I still kinda avoid manholes.
Re:I Hate The United States (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Save Ferris! (Score:2)
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.
Mmmmmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Brazil [imdb.com] (included fortunately)
A Clockwork Orange [imdb.com]
2001: A Space Odyssey (as you mention) [imdb.com]
Solyaris [imdb.com] (too slow for some but certainly a classic)
Or the more esoteric, like
Naked Lunch [imdb.com]
The City of Lost Children [imdb.com]
or
Pi [imdb.com]
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
Re:The Matrix? (Score:2)
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 top10
Re:Presented to you by: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.