500 Greatest Movies of All Time: An Anthology

[Ramsay B.]

I'm pretty sure this was directed at me. The list is a compilation of lots and lots of people, I get that. I contributed to a completed list and was making comments about the compilation, which is again, comprised of lots and lots of people. I was just commenting on what I saw. No need to get defensive. But do I really have to explain why Hot Fuzz shouldn't be on this list when things like Braveheart or It Happened One Night aren't?

Yes, you were commenting on what you saw by saying your movies deserve to be on the list and others shouldn't be because they are basically laughable, over and over again...it gets a little old. I don't think Kyoshi's response to "you" was defensive at all.

[sologdin]

FFS. the thread is about the 500 greatest films of all time. it is an inherently elitist endeavor.

[polishgenius]

FFS. the thread is about the 500 greatest films of all time. it is an inherently elitist endeavor.

Yes it is, but it's not impossible to be elitist without being condescending.

[JonArryn]

can't you just leave the thread or actually contribute

haha how about you go numb your nuts some more? you missed that larry said the G is not silent, and whatever else I posted upthread.

Take that to your own thread in general chat then. No one cares about your off topic adventures.

We discuss movies in this thread.

[polishgenius]

No one cares about your off topic adventures.

I almost hate to point out that he gets responses, so clearly someone does.

[James Arryn]

Re: Eisenstein

As I said before, this means war!

Also, why are there no films from the twenties and thirties on your list?

Lol, I get how important he is...it would take an extra level of iconoclasm not to...but it's a combination of personal experience that one week and his heavy handed repetition of visualized concepts which combined terribly. Nevsky comes closer to liking, if that helps keep the swords in scabbards.

Oddly enough I had not realized the gap. I kinda think of the Philadelphia Story as of that era, but good call. Interestingly I do agree with consensus about the 2 golden ages, so I am somewhat surprised myself. If I had to come up with a coherent rationale it would probably involve a serious preference for auteurism over ground breakers/studio system formation, but it's a bit thin. Also, many of the most important films of that era...All Quiet, etc. I see more just for their importance rather than personal enjoyment, though again that doesn't cover all of them.

Last but weirdest line: I am so used to people finding my tastes anachronistic that when I first read your line about the period gap I assumed it was ironic. Only when looking back did I realize 'wow, he's right.' Maybe I was unconsciously overcompensating for the anachronistic thing?

[Disputatious]

"Last but weirdest line: I am so used to people finding my tastes anachronistic that when I first read your line about the period gap I assumed it was ironic. Only when looking back did I realize 'wow, he's right.' Maybe I was unconsciously overcompensating for the anachronistic thing?"

About that I cannot say, but I will note that I first saw some of the films I mentioned circa 1970, so they weren't so ancient then.

You couldn't go to a video store and rent a tape or DVD. I first saw Vertigo when my parents decided to take my sister and I to the drive in. I was eight or nine at the time and fell asleep part way through :) Ditto for 2001 save that I was an undergraduate by then, could use the family car and went with a couple of buddies to see it and did not fall asleep. So I can compete on atavism :)

[Theda Baratheon]

We could go on forever like that- you're never gonna get a list everyone is happy with.

I mean, if there's still mileage in the subject, sure, but...

come o polish....tjos thread had been great fun!! Sorry typos bit drubk

[Larry of the Lawn]

can't you just leave the thread or actually contribute

haha how about you go numb your nuts some more? you missed that larry said the G is not silent, and whatever else I posted upthread.

effin A right the G is nit silent. It's Guh-norm the Guh-nome.

[Veltigar]

FFS. the thread is about the 500 greatest films of all time. it is an inherently elitist endeavor.

I agree, that doesn't mean that entertainment isn't a factor of course. It just means that entertainment is only one of the many things we need to take into account when composing this list.

I'd suggest that given the amount of foreign films there actually are, the list probably under-represents them by a significant degree if we're being realistic.

I also can't see any foreign films on there at a quick glance that are particularly obscure, so I can't see what the problem is there.

I also agree. Being that this board is dominated by people from English-speaking countries that's to be expected.

[sologdin]

I agree, that doesn't mean that entertainment isn't a factor of course. It just means that entertainment is only one of the many things we need to take into account when composing this list.

agreed. timecode, say, is a nifty experiment, i think, and probably important, somehow, but it is kinda dull. i was simply countering the charge that it's elitist to exclude certain films or include certain other films. that charge must be admitted as an essential part of a list like this. we could put together a top 500 most entertaining films ever, which may overlap with this list, but it is likely to be a populist endeavor, sweeping up films that tend to comfort rather than challenge, or that appeal to base emotion through mere scripting or acting, or rely on spectacle only. maybe am too much of an aristotelian on this?

[ants]

Hmm, thinking about it, realised Transformers is missing.

As in the cartoon. :P

[Unlady B]

I don't know why everybody is so fussed at the thread title. Titles are exaggerated to get attention. The real content is explained below. Read OP again, and you'll get all your answers in life:

The reason I started this thread is so that we can discuss some of the greatest movies we've watched. We can recommend them to one another, critiquing them and appreciating their achievements.

It can be anything from sci-fi to horror to drama, genre shouldn't limit brilliance. If you've come across a cinematic gem, share the love.

That said, I've started to watch the recommendations of the list. And I was not disappointed.

Oldboy (2003) disturbed me a little, but that was the point so... great thriller.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) I missed the first hour, as I caught it on cable past midnight. I stayed up until 4:40 am to finish it. Definitely watching it again from the beginning. Really beautiful.

So thanks to the people recommending them :thumbsup:

[Veltigar]

EDIT: Another list of great movies (besides this one and the Sight and Sound poll) that I think is very important is the one by Roger Ebert. In many ways, he seems to be a bit of a bridge between Sight and Sound (which is top-of-the-line) and the more casual cinephiles. I'm currently working my way through it and there are very few disappointments so far.

I think where we're getting caught up is that is that a lot of personal favorites are getting nominated for the list which probably really shouldn't be on a list of "500 Greatest of All Time". I was guilty of this myself when I nominated Sin Nombre. It's truly a great movie, and it's a personal favorite of mine, but it probably doesn't belong on a "500 Greatest".

I loved 'Sin Nombre' as well. Fukunaga is really bursting with talent. The movie was so vibrant, the acting was well done (really great to see a fully Hispanic cast), the story was great. The movie was also very relevant. Everything I know about Central-America seems consistent with what Sin Nombre shows, there is a gigantic humanitarian disaster going on there.

A problem with the list imo is that many of us (including me) haven't seen many of the movies that do belong on here. When I look at the Sight and Sound poll of 2012, I have to admit that I haven't seen many of them. I have seen a lot of other great movies (like Sin Nombre), but I haven't seen many of the older great movies that shaped the genre. Including you, there are like four posters who seem to have seen a lot of the movies that are represented in Sight & Sounds poll.

As to your second point, in addition to not having enough foreign films, the list is also too heavily weighted towards more modern movies, and it doesn't have enough musicals on there.

I submitted Once, The Wizard of Oz, Saturday Night Fever, Beauty and the Beast, The Prince of Egypt, Hunchback of the Notre Dame and Inside Llewyn Davis :P So, I did try to get some more musicals on the list. I sadly couldn't decide on which Fred Astaire movie to send in, so I left him out entirely.

agreed. timecode, say, is a nifty experiment, i think, and probably important, somehow, but it is kinda dull. i was simply countering the charge that it's elitist to exclude certain films or include certain other films. that charge must be admitted as an essential part of a list like this. we could put together a top 500 most entertaining films ever, which may overlap with this list, but it is likely to be a populist endeavor, sweeping up films that tend to comfort rather than challenge, or that appeal to base emotion through mere scripting or acting, or rely on spectacle only. maybe am too much of an aristotelian on this?

No, I think you are spot on. I just thought that it was a good idea to emphasize that entertainment is also still a factor, though not more (or less) important than say innovation, cultural relevance, quality, etc. Just to stop the bickering from continuing.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) I missed the first hour, as I caught it on cable past midnight. I stayed up until 4:40 am to finish it. Definitely watching it again from the beginning. Really beautiful.

Any movie that features Peter O'Toole in the lead for 216 minutes must be great. O'Toole is one of the greatest actors of all time.

[HexMachina]

I think entertainment is important. If I watch a film, and I'm not entertained, that film has failed its purpose, and is therefore not "great". It should be the first thing on the checklist imo.

[sologdin]

sure. pornography can be eminently entertaining, but we don't have randall's list from clerks here.

[James Arryn]

For myself I tried to walk an inclusive line. Like, important, entertaining, representative of a work or director/etc. that is essential to understanding the whole, personal preference and also something somewhat iconic.

Like for Hitch; his most experimental film could be argued to be Rope. Which is a good, not great film, IMO. I think he flexes more creative muscle in Vertigo than Rear Window, but RW works for me as a whole. It's most representative of his view on what film is, what audiences are, etc. and there is technical and creative brilliance. And IMO Hitchcock's greatest single moment isn't the shower or penetrating a neon sign or w/ex, it's when Burr suddenly breaks the perceived 4th wall that we don't even understand we've created. That's fucking genius.

I have no problem with Vertigo being higher for most; I think it's a bit more complex, I think Stewart's performance shows more range and they are both iconic. Just that IMO RW is a self-contained masterpiece.

[sologdin]

you mean when burr carches us looking in his window? yes.

[James Arryn]

you mean when burr carches us looking in his window? yes.

Yes.

We're somewhat threatened already because he sees Burr coming home and Kelly's there and reality and safety are colliding, but...whew...police. She's ok. And, oh, she's got the ring!

She wiggles it, we/Stewart see it, grasp the significance. The wife IS dead! We were so right!

Then we see Burr see it. We see him think. Uh-oh, maybe Kelly ought to tell the poli---JESUS CHRIST HE'S LOOKING AT US!

Pure genius. The fixed POV and the academic nature of Stewart's ponderings have taken us down a road we didn't even see. We're safe, he's safe, this is all about what happens over there. Here we have romance and sex and mild comedy and friends and boredom. Bad stuff happens over there. We never actually think any of this, we just absorb it.

And then in 1 second, AH breaks it wide open. Burr is not stupid, and while we understood what the ring signal meant to us, he understood what the ring signal meant; us.

Fucking brilliant on so many levels.

[sologdin]

see, I said it like a dumbass layperson, and much prefer your description of the scene. that kinda stuff is probably what a greatest list should track--items that make use of the medium of film itself. books have narrative, the symphony has sound, painting has visuals. film is however its own art, with its own imperatives, say.