How many films from Time Magazine's top 100 movies have you seen?

[kered]

39.

 

[Bugman]

Out of the new twenty I've seen these, and would agree.

Gone with the Wind. (1939)

2001: A Space Odyssey. (1968)

Vertigo. (1958)

Having never seen the others, I can't comment.

 

[Mane'o]

so many films; so little time. I've probably seen about half but, like others, I question what has been left off the list. Then again, one of the great things about these sorts of lists is endless debate on what is included and what is not. In the USA I think we are a little deficient in exposure to non-USA films compared to distribution of USA made films elsewhere. And of course, some of the best films are not necessarily the big blockbusters that make multi-millions. These lists are great to remind one of the gems out there to track down and enjoy. And with today's high resolution, large video displays for the home and home theater sound systems, you can almost enjoy films as they were meant to be experienced on the big screen.
Of course, there is one indisputable fact and that is that the best film ever made, without question, is Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. 🙂

 

[DharmaMember77]

Out of the new twenty I've seen these, and would agree.

Gone with the Wind. (1939)

2001: A Space Odyssey. (1968)

Vertigo. (1958)

Having never seen the others, I can't comment.

You're pretty slacking on modern films I see 😛

 

[jhop220]

I've seen only 15 of the flicks listed.

I was surprised that "One Flew Over the Cucco's Nest" wasn't listed along with "The Shawshank Redemption."

 

[Cy/MiG]

34; more films seen than years on this Earth.

TIME's list is crap.

Blessed are the film makers.

 

[DharmaMember77]

34; more films seen than years on this Earth.

TIME's list is crap.

Blessed are the film makers.

Care to elaborate on how this list is crap?

 

[Cy/MiG]

Care to elaborate on how this list is crap?

Avatar:Sci-Fi and The Hurt Locker:War as D2-The Mighty Ducks:Hockey and Zima:Alcoholic beverages.

 

[MrTicklefeet]

thirty nine.

 

[DharmaMember77]

Avatar:Sci-Fi and The Hurt Locker:War as D2-The Mighty Ducks:Hockey and Zima:Alcoholic beverages.

So two films out of 20 plus the original top 100=a crap list? I should also add that both Avatar and The Hurt Locker are quite groundbreaking in their respected genres.

 

[Cy/MiG]

So two films out of 20 plus the original top 100=a crap list?

There are other debatable choices, I just chose the two most obvious ones. I'd really prefer not to write an encyclopedia, breaking down the merits of each choice.

I should also add that both Avatar and The Hurt Locker are quite groundbreaking in their respected genres.

The only thing groundbreaking about Avatar was the 3's: Use of 3D $3 billion in ticket sales and 3,000 minute run-time. The Hurt Locker was only groundbreaking in its stunning lack of realism.

Putting The Hurt Locker on the list over the likes of (more realistic, stylistic and/or deeper-themed movies like: ) Apocalypse Now, Platoon (Oliver Stone served in Vietnam and won a Bronze Star back when that meant something; Catherine Bigelow made Point Break... guess which one made the more realistic war movie of their generation?), The Longest Day, or even Glory... nothing short of ridiculous (not that Hollywood knows anything about the military/war anyways).

If nothing else, TIME (or any publication) should wait 10-15 years before adding 'recent' movies to a 'best of all time list'. Why do I say this? Look at Titanic. It won the most Oscars ever and set and then held the box office record for over a decade. It was as huge as Avatar. Now...? It didn't even make that top-100 list. You know why? Because it was average at best. Time has proven this and TIME knows it.

I could go on, but will spare everyone further annoying ranting (I have done enough).

So yes, putting those two films on the list is a giant and gross error.

It'd be like putting Tiger Woods on a 100 greatest husbands list.

However, everyone would be wise to watch all 100 (and 20 additional) movies (and the 100+ movies deserved to make it, but not mentioned) on the list and make up their own mind.

 

[DharmaMember77]

They didn't put Apocalypse Now because they already put Godfather 1 and 2 for Coppola. Also Hurt Locker>Platoon You could also argue that Hurt Locker made use of a
documentary style of filmmaking never seen before in a war film. Do you really think creating 3D and cgi is simple? Time even states that Avatar was not put on the list because of its popularity and point out why they didn't put Titanic back in their original '05 list. As for the other recent choices with all the universal acclaim from both critics and audiences around the world A Separation and Wall E have gotten, I think they're pretty much guaranteed to go down as classics.

 

[Cy/MiG]

They didn't put Apocalypse Now because they already put Godfather 1 and 2 for Coppola.

Yes and everybody knows that film directors only make 2 good films and can't make a third.

What kind of criteria is that for TIME to implement? Why run such a list like Stalinist Russia? No more than 2 movies per director!

Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Lean, Lumet, Kazan, Huston, Coppola and Scorsese alone could fill probably nearly 1/3 of all spots on such a top 100 list. Why ignore their genius?

You could also argue that Hurt Locker made use of a documentary style of filmmaking never seen before in a war film.

And one could counter-argue that Jaws invented the summer blockbuster, Alien combined both Sci-Fi and Horror and transcended both genres or that the Matrix redefined limits of SFX. And what the movie that has been watched by the most US Presidents (High Noon)? Where are those films?

Again, not a complain directed at you, but the lack of consistent logic in the list (Drunken Master II??? Really?!).

Furthermore, with the extensive histories of film and with so many different 'era's' (silent films to talkies, the evolution of SFX, pre-code, Hays code and post-code Hollywood), there could be 3 (or more) top-100 lists for each era (Pre-1934, 1934-1968, 1968-present or 1968-2000, 2000-present). Lumping every movie together (and then ignoring so many EPIC comedies like Duck Soup, Airplane!, This is Spinal Tap, Monty Python and the Holy Grail...) is 'reckless'.

Also Hurt Locker>Platoon

While I undestand the concept of subjectivity: no.

Why? Because of reviews like these or common sense experience such as this (read the first two posts).

I'm not saying Platoon is 100% realistic. That's just a dumb opinion to hold.

However, The Hurt Locker is equivalent to Major League while Platoon is The Natural. Both succeed in what they set out for, but one clearly presents and relates to the subject matter in a much more poignant and relatable way, without insulting or taking farcical liberties with the subject matter and still presenting grand and ambigious themes.

So while one can argue that THL does a good job of presenting a 'feel' or trying to 'sympathize' with Soldiers, the fact is that how it presents it is entirely false. If it succeeds, it is only because it's artificial and shapes reality around it to make a[n exaggerated] point instead of presenting reality to make a point it still could (just with less 'flash'). Any success in/of/by the film is because it is fiction.

This might be hard for someone with no military experience to understand, so let me put it this way:

Imagine (in the future they made) a holocaust movie: It is 1943 Nazi dominated Europe. Hitler, Rommel and Von Braun visit Auschwitz. Hitler and Rommel just start randomly shooting Jews. Then they have one cooked and they eat it, licking the bones dry. Von Braun watches in disgust and returns to his rocket factories. He then invents the V-2 and uses it to fly [in]to Auschwitz, breaks free all the Jews and uses the V-2 to fly them all to safety. The End.

That's what THL was.

Now, would the crazy movie I made up be 'good' or 'exciting' or 'groundbreaking'? Maybe. Might it hit a tone/feel which allows for viewers to empathize with the persecuted Jews? Probably. Might it, as a film, accomplish what it set out to do and be 'relevant' from that perspective? Sure, it's possible.

But it would be total historical bullshit and fallacy. So while people 200 years from now might LOVE such a movie because they have no concept of WWII/1940's era Earth, it would only be successful because it completely takes liberties with facts and uses those lies to create a 'feeling' or 'message' of its own intentional design.

But I've de-railed this thread and posted WAY more than I ever intended to already.

I've seen 42/120 movies on TIME's (questionable) list(s) and 165/473 (35.3%) of all the BP nominees up until 2010.

Check out AFI's top 100 list too. It mostly ignores movies before 1940 and foreign ones, but it's still solid as Sears.

 

[DharmaMember77]

Yes I've seen AFI's list and anybody who knows anything about real cinema would agree that this list is better

Are you saying a top 100 list should be filled with the same ten directors? That's not exactly being well rounded in film since there's far more than 10 great directors in the history of film. A majority of the films on this list were directed by some of the most well respected filmmakers of all time. Even with the rules of only two films per director there are still alot of famous directors being left out such as Huston, Lumet, Lynch, Altman, Tarkovsky, and Bertolucci

With your description of Alien they did include Invasion of the Body Snatchers which did the same thing and was made 20 years prior to Alien.

Drunken Master II might seem like an odd choice but aren't kung fu movies some of the most popular kind of movies of all time? And since Drunken Master II is considered one of the best and is the only real just straight up action movie on this list I think it's quite fitting when trying to make a well rounded list.

They might not have those epic comedies but they do have other more influential ones such as Dr. Strangelove, Kind Hearts and Coronets, City Lights, and Sherlock Jr.

Rofl are you really using imdb as your source as to why The Hurt Locker is inferior. The same site that put Fight Club ahead of Seven Samurai. Here's their rotten tomatoes profiles Hurt Locker Platoon and you can see which one got the most acclaim.

I suggest you watch Aguirre the Wrath of God (which was a major influence on Apocalypse Now) and Barry Lyndon if you want the kind of realistic war movies that still do something different.

 

[Cy/MiG]

Yes I've seen AFI's list and anybody who knows anything about real cinema would agree that this list is better

Well that's far less pretentious than anything I said. [/sarcasm]

Are you saying a top 100 list should be filled with the same ten directors?

How you read what I wrote and I got that I will never know.

That's not exactly being well rounded in film since there's far more than 10 great directors in the history of film. A majority of the films on this list were directed by some of the most well respected filmmakers of all time.

This is news to me. [/s]

Even with the rules of only two films per director there are still alot of famous directors being left out such as Huston, Lumet, Lynch, Altman, Tarkovsky, and Bertolucci

You're making my point about the list being crap here.

With your description of Alien they did include Invasion of the Body Snatchers which did the same thing and was made 20 years prior to Alien.

I never said Alien absolutely belonged on the list, I merely stated that choosing THL (and other more 'modern' films) over it (and others) is questionable (on the grounds of 'groundbreaking'). Furthermore, I clearly stated that it would have been best to have had (at least) three different lists to accomodate each specific era of cinema.

Drunken Master II might seem like an odd choice but aren't kung fu movies some of the most popular kind of movies of all time? And since Drunken Master II is considered one of the best and is the only real just straight up action movie on this list I think it's quite fitting when trying to make a well rounded list.

One 'true action' movie out of 120 and the list is well rounded... can't argue with that logic. [/s]

They might not have those epic comedies but they do have other more influential ones such as Dr. Strangelove, Kind Hearts and Coronets, City Lights, and Sherlock Jr.

Again, four out of 120. Can't argue with such sound logic. [/s]

Rofl are you really using imdb as your source as to why The Hurt Locker is inferior. The same site that put Fight Club ahead of Seven Samurai.

No, I'm using my nine years and counting of military experience as to why THL is inferior. Also the reviews of people like me who actually know about the military (and OIF/OEF) and know that THL is a work of pure fiction that is mostly enjoyed by ignorant civilians and brainwashed military cowboys.

Here's their rotten tomatoes profiles Hurt Locker Platoon and you can see which one got the most acclaim.

Hmm. Funny. THL drops 14% when the audience reviews it whereas Platoon rises 4%.... maybe because the audience (to include people who KNOW ABOUT THE MILITARY) knows that one is 'better'?

Nope. Can't be. [/s]

Another funny thing about your RT links...

THL synopsis:

Based on the personal wartime experiences of journalist Mark Boal

Platoon synopsis:

Informed by director Oliver Stone's personal experiences in Vietnam

Interesting... maybe one movie is not only technicaly superior/more realistic, but is more relatable (toward its subject matter) and hits on themes which actually translate past 'thrill' and 'action'??? Maybe Platoon is less about (the observations of) 'war' and more about the existential struggle participating in it, the loss of humanity, disillusionment, alienation, moral ambiguity and like themes that war/military service sometimes leads to...???

But again, what would I (or decorated Vietnam Vet Oliver Stone) know about such subjects as film when I've seen nearly a thousand of them or the military when I've actually served? I must be waaaay off base here.

The critics and college types from TIME obviously know more than I do. [/s]

I suggest you watch Aguirre the Wrath of God (which was a major influence on Apocalypse Now) and Barry Lyndon if you want the kind of realistic war movies that still do something different.

Saw Barry Lyndon nearly 10 years ago.

And as you surely know (since you strike me as educated in the area film [no sarcasm]) Apocalypse Now is more or less a Heart of Darkness adaptation.

Three more modern movies which are pretty technically correct and also solid war films (though probablynot worthy of T-100) are We Were Soldiers, Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan (although this could be T-100). Obviously, the first two over glorify war, but they're still capture the essense of what it is to be a Soldier about 1000x more than THL while being smashing films overall.

And, of course, Patton is a triumph. But I guess one of the best acting performances of all time and the technical supervision of General Omar f*cking Bradley (who only lived that movie) were not enough to convince TIME that the BP winner was one of the top-100 movies of all time.

TIME's (attempt at such a 'short') list is laughable.

I truly respect your love for cinema, but you really don't have to take any publication['s opinion on film] as gospel.

The list is flawed because it is, at its core, a futile attempt to define a limited # of epic films. Some of the choices therein only make it glaringly obvious.

 

[DharmaMember77]

What I was saying is you believe there shouldn't be a limit to the amount of films per director in this list yet you call the list crap for all the directors left out even with these rules. Now what would you rather have a few directors taking up a majority of the list or a huge number of directors spread out?

I think I should add another reason why HL was included was bc it was directed by a female director and before the inclusion there was only one female made film on the list.

Do you really rely on the audience's response to the film instead of the critics? A majority of famous films based on historical events aren't 100% accurate, the point of the film is for the film to be well made.

Yes I know Apocalypse Now is based on Hearts of Darkness but I'm talking about the visual aspect of it. Coppola himself has said that Aguirre was a huge influence on him when making AN

This list is a top 100 of all time not a top 100 of a certain period of time in history. Should every top 100 list only include a certain period of time such as books or albums?

Only four epic comedies might seem unbalanced but considering how many types of films they included I feel that is more than enough. Since you probably won't believe me I'm going to list every type of film that got included here:

Silent
Epic Comedies
Romantic Comedies
Romantic Dramas
Dark Romance (yes there's a difference)
Film Noir
Neo-Noir
Gangster Films
Mystery/Thrillers
Science Fiction
Fantasy
Horror
Westerns
War
Kung fu/Samurai
Documentaries
Musicals
Sports
Surrealism films
Character Studies
Mini-Series
Animated films
Family films
Coming of Age films from a male perspective
Coming of Age films from a female perspective
Films with an all female ensemble
Satires
Films about filmmaking
French New Wave
Italian Neo-Realism
European/Asian/South American/Indian/Israelian films

Is that balanced enough for you?

I suggest you try out more films on this list (especially foreign ones which you seem to be lacking) and then you will see that a majority of these do indeed belong on this list.

If you still don't agree with it can you make a list of all the films you have seen and highlight the ones you do feel belong on it.

On a side note: Just went through all six episodes of The Singing Detective so that makes 46 for me now.

 

[Dino Turtelli]

I've only seen about 10 myself. I'm surprised Jaws isn't on there

 

[DharmaMember77]

I've only seen about 10 myself. I'm surprised Jaws isn't on there

They already have two Spielberg movies on here.

 

[Cy/MiG]

What I was saying is you believe there shouldn't be a limit to the amount of films per director in this list yet you call the list crap for all the directors left out even with these rules. Now what would you rather have a few directors taking up a majority of the list or a huge number of directors spread out?

Both. It can be done.

I think I should add another reason why HL was included was bc it was directed by a female director and before the inclusion there was only one female made film on the list.

Again, what should that have to do with anything? Does this list fall under the authority of Affirmative Action?

I don't see any movies directed by teens, so should we throw something up there written/directed by Cameron Crowe?

A list of best movies ever should not be dependent on arbitrary things like 'we must have one of each type of director based on race/sex' or 'limiting to allow for the inclusion of others'. The BEST means the BEST. It's called MERITocracy. If Spielberg or Director X has made more than 2 of the BEST films ever (and there are many who have), why limit them?

The answer is because TIME has set a 'round number' to appeal to the masses and it's dumb.

If I offered you 368 people of your sexual persuasion, saying that they would do anything that you wanted, would you say, 'no thanks, I only need 100 of them'???

If there were 451 dying animals that you could rescue, why would you limit your decision to only 100 (arbitrarily)?

Cutting a list like this off at 100 is absurd because movies are subjective and there are not 100 definitive choices, limitations lead to ridiculous slights to directors who may have made more than 2 epic movies and so it all leads to pointless arguments like this.

Do you really rely on the audience's response to the film instead of the critics?

When the movie is a historical drama and the audience are people who LIVED that history (myself included), YES.

The critics are not always right, neither is the audience. It's situational dependent. And in this situation the critics are pretty much entirely wrong because they're viewing THL as a techincal triumph (which it may be), but also as historically important (which it is not, except as work of fiction).

Again, if this were a holocaust movie where Hitler saved the Jews and it was beautifully shot, I doubt the critics would gush over the movie. But since they're ignorant about the military outside of CNN and hollywood TV/movies, they don't know better.

A majority of famous films based on historical events aren't 100% accurate, the point of the film is for the film to be well made.

So a (serious) movie can be total bullshit, but so long as it's well made, it's okay? It's okay to believe and enjoy a lie, so long as it's a 'fun' one???

Again, what don't you get here? THL was The Patriot, only about OIF instead of the American Revolution. Except The Patriot's historical innacuracies are somewhat forgivable because (they're intentional and) the movie was release 200+ years AFTER the history it depicts---not while that history was still in motion. Also, The Patriot was never considered a great movie.

So either you are not reading the audience reviews I cited like these (see response among veterans, which is damning evidence), or you just don't want to accept the truth. Which is:

Most everything THL depicts, makes the viewer feel and believe is a lie. All the tension, drama, mood, character development and the like... everything outside cinematography and editing: BULLSHIT.

Was it a well constructed/paced/edited movie? You bet. Under the Cherry Moon was a decent enough well made movie, too, but the content sucked soooo bad I wanted to kill myself. The difference here being (aside from the obvious total ineptitude of Prince compared to Katherine Bigelow) that THL passes its content off as important/truth to appeal to critics while UtCM is recognized as shite by anyone with a brain.

THL: Best cinematography or editing? Absolutely. Best PICTURE? Best 120 movies of all time??? Um... not by a mile.

You (and many critics) think it's some modern Citizen Kane. Most veterans KNOW it's a serious attempt at making a modern Battle:LA or a modern Starship Troopers, only shockingly not self-aware or intentionally self-depricating.

THL barely qualifies as propaganda.

Yes I know Apocalypse Now is based on Hearts of Darkness but I'm talking about the visual aspect of it. Coppola himself has said that Aguirre was a huge influence on him when making AN

Ah, did not know this. Never cared to find out. Interesting. I should probably re-watch Hearts of Darkness and/or AN with commentary one day.

This list is a top 100 of all time not a top 100 of a certain period of time in history. Should every top 100 list only include a certain period of time such as books or albums?

When there are such drastic differences in those time periods, yes.

Again, considering the limitations of silent films compared to 'talkies' and the Hays code restrictions of content compared to the 'Raging Bulls and Easy Riders' post-1960's era, it's unfair to grade all movies equally. Throw in the evolution of SFX and it's glaringly obvious.

The Wizard of Oz or Metropolis, if made today with the same cast/crew, would look like Pan's Labyrinth and blow the minds of all people of all ages. It would make Avatar look like Masters of the Universe. If made today, all those noirs and Westerns relased during the Hays code could become even more violent, dark, daring and downright classic. Conversely, Star Wars was modernized (already itself a modernization of The Hidden Fortress) and it sucked balls.

Means and method matters.

Nobody compares Mozart or Beethoven to U2 or Van Halen. Because it's dumb.

Why compare Fritz Lang to Steven Spielberg just because they happen to have lived within a century of each other and shared the same profession?

How they accomplished their marvelous film feats is so different it's unfair to treat/compare them as equals.

I suggest you try out more films on this list (especially foreign ones which you seem to be lacking) and then you will see that a majority of these do indeed belong on this list.

If you still don't agree with it can you make a list of all the films you have seen and highlight the ones you do feel belong on it.

It's less that I feel certain movies do not belong (except for modern ones which need more time to soak up proper historical context; for example: Blade Runner was a bomb when released, and now it made TIME's list) and more that I recognize that arbitrary standards like 'only 100' and 'only 2 movies per director X' are absurd.

Most (not all) of those movies (probably even those that I have not seen) belong, but so do many others left out.

That is why the list is silly.

It's primary purpose it to create arguments like this one between people who obviously share the same passions, just different perspectives on how to judge said passion.

Although I do not personally know you, aside from your misconceptions of THL you strike me as a smart person whose passions and opinions are respectable.

I have tired of this discussion and desire to resume lurking, as it brings me the most peace of mind.

Be well.