Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Movies Media News

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time Picks Top 100 Films

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @09:50PM (#12640980)
    How did Revenge of the Sith get #1? George Lucas, are you up to no good?!?
    • 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.
      • Yes, yes. We understand that very few people "get it" unless they either have the joke explained to them, or have the fact that it is supposed to be humerous telegraphed.

        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
  • by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @09:51PM (#12640990) Homepage
    It's like an automatic flamewar.

    Oh, and Steven Spielberg Godwinned the Oscars.
  • by Motherfucking Shit ( 636021 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @09:51PM (#12640991) Journal
    Where's "Debbie Does Dallas?" This list is rigged.
  • Indian Movies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by guyfromindia ( 812078 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @09:52PM (#12640996) Homepage
    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.
    • For anyone that hasn't see it, this is the film where the dude says, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory!"

      YA.. bet you didn't know that.. so go rent the video now.

    • So many more!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maynard ( 3337 ) <j@maynard@gelinas.gmail@com> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:02PM (#12641079) Journal
      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
      • Re:So many more!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dancingmad ( 128588 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:01PM (#12641464)
        I agree: Yojimbo's a great film, but Seven Samurai was Kurosawa's classic. The film had everything, was perfect in almost every way possible. In my humble opinion, it even bests Ikiru, thanks to the incredible ensemble cast.

        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.
    • 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....

    • Intentionally left off I think, because it is similar in so many ways to Aguirre Wrath of God. But that's just me...
  • by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @09:53PM (#12641004) Journal
    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?

  • by chriswaclawik ( 859112 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @09:54PM (#12641009)
    I think Joe from joblo.com had something good to say about these top 100 lists:

    "You know you're getting into trouble when you try to list the 'Best' anything. The 'best' anything, movies especially, is SO objective that there can never be a definitive list, or at least a list that is even close. Regardless, Time Magazine devoted their current issue to such a topic. The difference here: The Time critics, Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel, know this. The whole point of making this list, they say, was to initiate debate and let people discuss what their favorite films are. And to sell magazines."

    So, don't get angry if your favorite movie isn't on the list... that's just what they WANT you to do!

  • by brxndxn ( 461473 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @09:54PM (#12641013)
    Office Space isn't on the list. Everyone involved in making that list deserves to die in a fire.

  • by Quinn_Inuit ( 760445 ) <Quinn_InuitNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @09:55PM (#12641018)
    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 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.

    • by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:08PM (#12641123)
      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.
    • "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
    • by kfg ( 145172 )
      The whole movie would have been over in ten minutes if someone had just bitch slapped the hell out of Scarlett and sent her to her room until she learned how to behave. It's on my Top 10 Most Annoying Movies of all Time list.

      From time to time I've considered giving the book a go to see if the movie had just ruined it. I think you've just saved me the time and trouble.

      The film has a accorded me a twice removed "Brush With Greatness" though. My oldest friend was once being entertained in a London flat and t
  • is what puts "Out Of The Past" with Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas on this list. This movie will end up banned in the State of California because of all the cigarette smoking. Ironically, the film's location could not even be used for a remake. Where could anyone smoke that many cigarettes? Roger Ebert gave this one glowing praise as he panned the movie "200 Cigarettes". Ebert also lists this one on his favorite movies. It is a good representation of Film Noir, but hardly a great movie.
  • Weird Selection (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:00PM (#12641063) Journal

    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)

    by xoboots ( 683791 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:06PM (#12641104) Journal
    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.
  • About the only accurate top 100 movie list is on the IMDB's top 100 http://www.imdb.com/chart/top [imdb.com] (Well, it is actually the top 250, but you get the point)
  • by sik0fewl ( 561285 ) <.xxdigitalhellxx. .at. .hotmail.com.> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:07PM (#12641111) Homepage

    I don't see Police Academys 1 through 7 on the list.

  • Not a complete list (Score:5, Informative)

    by HungWeiLo ( 250320 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:08PM (#12641121)
    The Time's list is by far incomplete. The Criterion Collection [criterionco.com] 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).

    • 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
      • by HungWeiLo ( 250320 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:50PM (#12641385)
        Do realize that Criterion has to release the greatest works of Michael Bay (Armageddon and The Rock) to finance their other more worthwhile ventures.

        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.

    • Or go to the real film source -- at least for American films: American Film Institute. While it will be focused more on American films (which leaves out many of my favorites), at least you're talking about films that have proved themselves based on merit, as opposed to being picked because they're fun, had a sexy actress, or some other shallow reason.
  • Too Many Missing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Michael_Burton ( 608237 ) <michaelburton@brainrow.com> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:14PM (#12641172) Homepage

    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:

    • The Grapes of Wrath
    • Treasure of the Sierra Madre
    • The African Queen
    • Paths of Glory
    • 2001: A Space Odyssey
    • Saving Private Ryan
    • The General (Buster Keaton)
  • WTF? (Score:5, Funny)

    by hawado ( 762018 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:15PM (#12641173) Homepage
    No Princess Bride... Inconcieveable!
  • by nighty5 ( 615965 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:15PM (#12641179)
    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 [imdb.com]
    • by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @12:06AM (#12641818) Journal
      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. ;)
  • by obi-1-kenobi ( 547975 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:15PM (#12641180) Homepage
    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.
  • "Barry Lyndon" !??! I thought that was on the list of Worst-100 movies. I guess I don't share Time's enjoyment of 10 minute pans over wallpaper.

    Obviously they have to list Kubrick, but what sense is it to pick that over, let's say "2001" or "A Clockwork Orange"???
  • 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.

  • I was happy to see the Apu trilogy on the list, an amazingly made film by a director far ahead of his time. I am suprised to see Sherlock Jr, on it. Maybe it was a good movie ? But I am suprised to see the lack of the Bicycle Theif and extrodinarily well made and highly influential film of the time. Suprised to see Blade Runner. But the 2nd to last scene of Blade Runner really touches me to this day when the cyborg/villan dies in the rain as in a sort of cleansing of his soul, or rather reincarnation of so
  • Once Upon A Time In America [imdb.com]

    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.

  • by datafr0g ( 831498 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `gorfatad'> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:32PM (#12641288) Homepage
    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.
  • What the hell is Finding Nemo doing on there? It's like they had to pick a single CG movie just to have that genre represented...why not Toy Story, or even its sequel? If you need something animated, why not something like Beauty and the Beast or Spirited Away? It's just bizarre...

    oh well,
  • Order (Score:2, Funny)

    by m85476585 ( 884822 )
    It's not in order! what kind of list is that?! How an I supposed to know if ROTS is better than Finding Nemo?
  • Citizen Kane is a great call. It's one of the few "classics" that I've seen, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's a long movie that you have to wait until the very end to truly enjoy. It really puts a lot of things into perspective.

    Oh yeah, and they listed Star Wars! Woot!

  • what?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquare@nOSpaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:48PM (#12641372) Homepage Journal
    no Incubus [imdb.com]?

    it has william shatner!

    it was in esperanto!

    it has goat heads!

    this is a travesty...
  • 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.
  • 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 t
    • by panaceaa ( 205396 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:53PM (#12641754) Homepage Journal
      Tuition/yr costs as much as a luxury car

      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??
    • Come on, it's only one issue. Time magazine covers social aspects of life too, not just the death and destruction, gloom and doom, etc. It's nice to have an issue once in a while that doesn't make you depressed. You can still get your "THE WORLD IS ENDING TOMORROW" "AIR CAN KILL YOU" "KITTEN MURDERED BY 5 YEAR OLD BOY" stories on the local news in the mean time.
  • by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:50PM (#12641390) Homepage Journal

    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:

    • 2000's: 5 movies
    • 1990's: 10 movies
    • 1980's: 12 movies
    • 1970's: 9 movies
    • 1960's: 15 movies
    • 1950's: 16 movies
    • 1940's: 15 movies
    • 1930's: 12 movies
    • 1920's: 6 movies

    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.)

    • Writers ... are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo

      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.
    • 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.


  • No A Clockwork Orange [imdb.com]? No Satyricon [imdb.com]? Not even the original (Russian) Solaris [imdb.com]? Or 2001: A Space Odyssey [imdb.com]?

    Thanks God they go Finding Nemo in there. Otherwise I might have to doubt their credibility! :)
  • "Someone at Time is OLD!" LOL
  • by Edmund Blackadder ( 559735 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:53PM (#12641415)
    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.
    • 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.

      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)

    by cpotoso ( 606303 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @10:54PM (#12641422) Journal
    How come? :)
  • Wait a minute...

    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?)
  • The list is missing Seven Samurai.

    Wrong again, liberal media.
  • Wizard of Oz (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oneeyedelf1 ( 793839 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @11:08PM (#12641506)
    The list is wrong, there is no excuse for the Wizard of Oz not to be on there.
  • by Timbotronic ( 717458 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @12:15AM (#12641862)
  • by Domini ( 103836 ) <lailoken@gmail.com> on Thursday May 26, 2005 @01:51AM (#12642237) Journal
    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!!!


    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)

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison