Support NeoGAF

[Fancy Clown]

Sure. Carry on believing your own shortsighted analysis. The ending is kubrick's answer to nietzsche's ubermensch. Like the monolith kickstarted the dawn of man, so too will this event kickstart mankind's renaissance. Ignorance is absolutely correct (and not meant as an insult) as the movie requires previous knowledge of Zarathursta to be understood. Because you are ignorant of such, you could not understand the film. It's peppered throughout with references, nods and symbolism that can only be understood and put into context if you understand what you're watching. It's one of the best endings ever, to call it trash because you could not understand it is silly.

I think the movie stands on its own personally. I am not familiar with Zarathursa but I didn't come away from the film feeling unfullfilled or bewildered (after my watching it again, anyway. First time I saw it I was a kid).

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I'm still going with Z. being (one of) Snowy's alt(s)

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

2001 is well-written throughout. The stuff with the apes AND the ending are perfectly in line with the rest of the film, the dialogue is realistic, HAL's entreaties to Dave are heartbreaking. It's one of the few films you can call truly, unmistakably "cinematic" in the way it uses film's full expressive possibilities to communicate in a manner that cannot replicated or even reasonably approximated in other mediums.

 

[zero shift]

Being honest, I can't really agree with this list. Many of these old films just haven't aged well. Even Citzen Kane, while an enjoyable film, isn't something I'd put in the top 10.

 

[Speevy]

At some point in the present or future of film discussion, we either have to say that films influential to the medium are the bulk of what matters to these lists, or that films made in the last 30 years are largely irrelevant to these discussions, or both.

I prefer a list that completely leaves out films before the 1970s because even though it leaves out some truly important, groundbreaking films, it at least ensures that the person has actually watched the films and was highly entertained by them.

No one gets that enthusiastic about Citizen Kane every time they think of it. I don't care how many times you think of it.

I think it's better that they do a classics list and a contemporary list, since you can't fairly compare No Country for Old Men with something from Alfred Hitchcock (other than to say that they're both movies).

Making a truly all-inclusive film list requires an understanding of film that's deeper than almost everyone reading this list, which is why most either gloss over it or disagree with it. If you've seen every film in this list, I'd love to hear why Pulp Fiction ranks above some movie that more or less invented a genre or camera technique (Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite movies).

Someone from another country might well assume from this list that we're either too reverent or haven't made many movies worth a damn very recently. We could do ten or so per decade if that's somehow fairer, though I doubt it is.

 

[Anustart]

You're gonna ignore Pulp Fiction?

You got me. I ignore MOST. Pulp was good

 

[The Beard]

Way too many old movies on there. Old movies get way more praise than they deserve. Nostalgia is fucking powerful shit.

Then when a modern movie is on there its Dark Knight? Christ.

All of those old movies are really good though. It's not nostalgia, they're legitimately good. Most movies today are just recycled ideas from those old movies.

 

[Plinko]

Sure. Carry on believing your own shortsighted analysis. The ending is kubrick's answer to nietzsche's ubermensch. Like the monolith kickstarted the dawn of man, so too will this event kickstart mankind's renaissance. Ignorance is absolutely correct (and not meant as an insult) as the movie requires previous knowledge of Zarathursta to be understood. Because you are ignorant of such, you could not understand the film. It's peppered throughout with references, nods and symbolism that can only be understood and put into context if you understand what you're watching. It's one of the best endings ever, to call it trash because you could not understand it is silly.

I "understood" the ending immediately. That didn't cloud my judgment of its low quality.

Look, I get why you and others view it highly. I just vehemently disagree. I won't derail the thread further.

 

[terrible]

Wasn't HarSon putting together the GAF equivalent list?

Like, a month ago?

It wasn't limited to American films but yeah. Personally I felt GAF did a better job since it wasn't loaded up with multiple movies from the same director as badly as this one.

 

[Jack Remington]

Pulp Fiction isn't that good, real talk. Solid 8/10 movie.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

2001's ending works just fine whether or not you've read Nietzsche. It may be heightened by having read him, but you don't *have* to have read it to understand what is being communicated. I don't "like" it, esp. compared to other Kubrick endings (Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut), but the technical virtuosity of its execution and the philosophical depth of its implications are undeniable.

Edit: Three big omissions on this list: "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie", "Faces", and "The Limey". For Woody, take out "Annie Hall" and add "Stardust Memories", "Another Woman", and "Hannah and Her Sisters". For Scorsese, you could drop "Raging Bull" (great, but most conventional of his great films) and add "King of Comedy" and "After Hours", easily. Drop "Tree of Life", add in "The Thin Red Line" and arguably "The New World".

Double Edit: 2001 wasn't really an American film. It was made in England, because Kubrick had come to find that the American film industry couldn't really accommodate what he wanted to make.

 

[Z..]

I'm still going with Z. being (one of) Snowy's alt(s)

Who's Snowy? Btw, I'm rewatching Jaws right now because of you. Thanks! ^^

I think the movie stands on its own personally. I am not familiar with Zarathursa but I didn't come away from the film feeling unfullfilled or bewildered (after my watching it again, anyway. First time I saw it I was a kid).

It stands on it's own, but you won't fully understand the story and just how brilliantly executed it all was unless you know what it stems from. You'll take away your own broas interpretation of events and their significance, where as if you know what is going on, it paints a very specific picture.

I "understood" the ending immediately. That didn't cloud my judgment of its low quality.

Look, I get why you and others view it highly. I just vehemently disagree. I won't derail the thread further.

Don't worry, dude, it's okay to dislike stuff. I hate my fair share of established masterpieces, too, I don't think you're derailing anything, to be honest. It's all good.

 

[Griss]

At some point in the present or future of film discussion, we either have to say that films influential to the medium are the bulk of what matters to these lists, or that films made in the last 30 years are largely irrelevant to these discussions, or both.

I prefer a list that completely leaves out films before the 1970s because even though it leaves out some truly important, groundbreaking films, it at least ensures that the person has actually watched the films and was highly entertained by them.

No one gets that enthusiastic about Citizen Kane every time they think of it. I don't care how many times you think of it.

I think it's better that they do a classics list and a contemporary list, since you can't fairly compare No Country for Old Men with something from Alfred Hitchcock (other than to say that they're both movies).

Making a truly all-inclusive film list requires an understanding of film that's deeper than almost everyone reading this list, which is why most either gloss over it or disagree with it. If you've seen every film in this list, I'd love to hear why Pulp Fiction ranks above some movie that more or less invented a genre or camera technique (Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite movies).

Someone from another country might well assume from this list that we're either too reverent or haven't made many movies worth a damn very recently. We could do ten or so per decade if that's somehow fairer, though I doubt it is.

Basically my thoughts. Top 100 American films of this century would have been far, far more interesting.

To add two more thoughts:
Glad to see 2001 up there as always, one of the most astonishing entertainment experiences I ever had.
And I'll never, ever understand how Goodfellas makes these lists at all. It's desperately mediocre. Most of the rest of them that I disagree with I can understand it if I squint, but Goodfellas? Nah.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Basically my thoughts. Top 100 American films of this century would have been far, far more interesting.

To add two more thoughts:
Glad to see 2001 up there as always, one of the most astonishing entertainment experiences I ever had.
And I'll never, ever understand how Goodfellas makes these lists at all. It's desperately mediocre. Most of the rest of them that I disagree with I can understand it if I squint, but Goodfellas? Nah.

"Goodfellas" is stunningly well-written, -acted, and -filmed, in terms of capturing the allure of crime, the masculine pissing contests the participants engage in to keep themselves aligned and in check, the paranoia, the justifications and rationalizations of those on its periphery, etc. It's not nec. a "realistic" take on the mafia, as Hill was a notorious bullshitter and braggart, but as a film, it's simply great, on every level.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

Hmm ok this surely wouldn't be my top 100. Way too old for me. I'd include:

The Matrix (seriously how is it not top 100??)
Toy Story
Good Will Hunting
O Brother Where Art Thou
Stardust
Titanic/The Notebook
Se7en
Gladiator
Shaun Of The Dead/Hot Fuzz
Office Space/Idiocracy

I'm sure a bunch more I'm not even thinking of at the moment...Catch Me If You Can was fantastic. Lucky Number Slevin...awesome.

Then it annoys me that they include Raiders Of The Lost Ark when The Last Crusade was easily the best one imo.

 

[Shai-Tan]

I absolutely love it when people project their own shortcomings onto the film medium. Bland films are forgotten, poweful ones are remembered. Though they may be archaic in construction or primitive in their approach, these films have earned a name in the history books because they are powered by intemporal vision. You don't understand it because you have no respect for the art form and seek only entertainment, and thus, when disappointed because an old film didn't deliver something you expected and take for granted, you assume it doesn't hold up because your priorities are twisted. It's not even about age, either, I can imagine you'd react the same to any contemporary auteur like Zvyagintsev or Ceylan. You step into a world you are not equiped to understand and try to judge it using the wrong set of rules.

Do I assume too much?

There are of course subtleties to film making that the average moviegoer wouldn't pick up on or have an interest in. But you could try not being so pompous lest you elevate craft and narrative in film to levels it doesn't deserve through hot air. That sneering tone you have seems more for your benefit in feeling superior than conveying the significance of those films to an audience which has different interests and experiences than the person who takes a special interest in the structure and interpretation of films and narrative more generally.

Someone from a science background with different priorities could just as easily dismiss the significance of many of the great stories to say something meaningful about human nature. I think that criticism has some weight to it but it's also a defective attempt to sublimate something that is better seen from a variety of perspectives. The unsophisticated viewer of films may not shine the same amount of light on a film but there's also a benefit to not seeing the seams behind the gestalt of a story told well. So of course there is a divergence in what is seen as significant from the critics of the medium compared to a reasonably intelligent person who has no interest in craft or the background studying those older films in school. Kant and Wittgenstein also seem like nonsensical gobbledegook to people who haven't gone out of their way to study them with the help of secondary sources.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Someone from another country might well assume from this list that we're either too reverent or haven't made many movies worth a damn very recently. We could do ten or so per decade if that's somehow fairer, though I doubt it is.

I dunno, I think that might be a better way to come at these sorts of lists. A top 10 for every decade since the the advent of sound. You won't get to 100 that way, but I think it'd be a much more interesting collection. 10 films per decade, 1930-2020.

edit: Goodfellas can't just be mediocre (although that's kinda crazy, just looking at it) it has to be "Desperately" mediocre.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I didn't think it was possible for someone to dislike Goodfellas. I'm used to the internet not liking anything prior to 1990, but this is next level. Plus, it came out in 1990!

 

[kerotan_eater]

Double Edit: 2001 wasn't really an American film. It was made in England, because Kubrick had come to find that the American film industry couldn't really accommodate what he wanted to make.

Yeah but Kubrick is American, that's probably what matters most.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Yeah but Kubrick is American, that's probably what matters most.

That's like saying they could put "Psycho" on their own list because Hitchcock was English.

Granted, I think 2001's financing was more of a mix, I'm not sure, but still, I'd prob go with "Paths of Glory" or "Eyes Wide Shut", purely American (afaik) productions, if the point is to show off what America can produce, artistically.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

Touch of evil > kane and embersons

 

[The Beard]

I didn't think it was possible for someone to dislike Goodfellas. I'm used to the internet not liking anything prior to 1990, but this is next level. Plus, it came out in 1990!

I'm not a fan. I don't like how the entire film is narrated. There's not enough interaction and dialogue between the characters. When there was, it was great, but then Liotta would start narrating again. It really screwed up the flow of the movie for me.

 

[Timedog]

It's all old movies. I can't watch almost anything made before 1975. Just about all old movies are rubbish IMO.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Touch of evil > kane and embersons

Yeah, Ambersons is more well known for what it's not than what it actually is. Whereas Touch of Evil (especially in its re-edited form) is one of the best examples of the film noir ever made.

That Ambersons pick is just sitting there like "here's some more evidence of those unspoken list-making rules critics are beholden to, as well as evidence nobody's rewatched me recently."

 

[Z..]

There are of course subtleties to film making that the average moviegoer wouldn't pick up on or have an interest in. But you could try not being so pompous lest you elevate craft and narrative in film to levels it doesn't deserve through hot air. That sneering tone you have seems more for your benefit in feeling superior than conveying the significance of those films to an audience which has different interests and experiences than the person who takes a special interest in the structure and interpretation of films and narrative more generally.

You know what, you're absolutely right and for that I apologize.

Someone from a science background with different priorities could just as easily dismiss the significance of many of the great stories to say something meaningful about human nature. I think that criticism has some weight to it but it's also a defective attempt to sublimate something that is better seen from a variety of perspectives. The unsophisticated viewer of films may not shine the same amount of light on a film but there's also a benefit to not seeing the seams behind the gestalt of a story told well. So of course there is a divergence in what is seen as significant from the critics of the medium compared to a reasonably intelligent person who has no interest in craft or the background studying those older films in school. Kant and Wittgenstein also seem like nonsensical gobbledegook to people who haven't gone out of their way to study them with the help of secondary sources.

Indeed, different perspectives would be ideal... the problem is, as you stated in the bold part, the unsophisticated viewer is completely biased. To even assume a film has to be about a story or have preset expectations about anything brings alot of negativity into the evaluation of any work that deviates from a specific approach because they expect it to be something it shouldn't and doesn't have to be. It's a double edged sword...

Yeah but Kubrick is American, that's probably what matters most.

By that logic you can throw away a huge chunk of the list, there's alot of foreign directors there.

 

[kerotan_eater]

That's like saying they could put "Psycho" on their own list because Hitchcock was English.

Well yes they could say that.

By that logic you can throw away a huge chunk of the list, there's alot of foreign directors there.

It really depends on what you feel makes up an American film. I think the BBC was letting a lot of films be American because films are such a collaborative medium. You have the source material which may be from one country, the base story written by one person somewhere, the screenplay by another person somewhere, and the director too who could be from anywhere. Then you've got actors from wherever, producers from wherever, technical people, cinematographers, editors and composers all from wherever too. What makes a film from one country is highly debatable which like I said is why the BBC probably let a lot of films be considered American. I just personally think the creatives like the writers and director matter the most. It doesn't mean I don't think something like 2001 isn't part British, it is obviously also considering the fact that Arthur C Clarke was himself a Brit and the production crew. Anyhow, I'm not particularly fussed about it anyway, I just thought the list was interesting.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

Yeah, Ambersons is more well known for what it's not than what it actually is. Whereas Touch of Evil (especially in its re-edited form) is one of the best examples of the film noir ever made.

That Ambersons pick is just sitting there like "here's some more evidence of those unspoken list-making rules critics are beholden to, as well as evidence nobody's rewatched me recently."

I mean, it's not bad. But my god that ending was horrible. i had been warned before, but wow.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It wasn't limited to American films but yeah. Personally I felt GAF did a better job since it wasn't loaded up with multiple movies from the same director as badly as this one.

Just looked at the top 10 I posted in there. Of the American movies that made my list

1) Brazil - not on the BBC's list
2) ALIEN - not on the BBC's list
3) Fantasia - not on the BBC's list
4) The Maltese Falcon - not on the BBC's list
5) Raiders of the Lost Ark - on the BBC list at #82
6) Goodfellas - on the BBC list at #20
7) Ran - not eligible
8) Rear Window - not on the BBC's list
9) Apocalypse Now - on the BBC list at #90
10) Princess Mononoke - not eligible.

 

[Yiazmat]

No Sunset Blvd? This list is bullshit.

Some Like it Hot being top thirty pleases me greatly.

Dat Marilyn

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Touch of evil > kane and embersons

lies.exe not found

Ambersons is like "Man, this could have, would have, totally might have been even more accomplished a work of filmmaking than Kane, you can see it in this fragment here, and this part where Bernard Herrmann score isn't terrible and"

Maybe in that alternate universe where the four-hour Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me exists is in the top 100 US films, but not in this reality we have now

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I'm not a fan. I don't like how the entire film is narrated. There's not enough interaction and dialogue between the characters. When there was, it was great, but then Liotta would start narrating again. It really screwed up the flow of the movie for me.

"Flow"? The narration is the linchpin of the entire movie. It not only gives insight into character motivations and little bits of info that help make the actions of this foreign subculture more lucid, but Liotta bleeds a lot of Henry's nostalgia and reverence for the lifestyle through, which is the literal context of why the film is even being told in the first place. The film would be longer, and flow less, if the narration were excised and the dialogue scenes lengthened, not to mention the narration being integral to the movie building to its climax.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

Ctrl+F'd for Fast. No results. What kinda of list is this that has no Fast and Furious movies? A bullshit one, that's what.

 

[Stinkles]

I have never seen Citizen Kane before.

It's a cliche that it's number one but holy shit is that film weird. I've watched it for twenty five years and it existed for decades before that and it STILL feels so modern that it feels almost ordinary.

It's both inventive and immaculate.

 

[Mohonky]

Most uninteresting list ever.

Yeop. Basically if it came out after 1980, noone was interested.

 

[Panzon]

Terrible list

 

[alfredofroylan]

Ctrl+F'd for Fast. No results. What kinda of list is this that has no Fast and Furious movies? A bullshit one, that's what.

Dear .... please tell me that some of you are joking.

 

[a916]

At some point in the present or future of film discussion, we either have to say that films influential to the medium are the bulk of what matters to these lists, or that films made in the last 30 years are largely irrelevant to these discussions, or both.

I prefer a list that completely leaves out films before the 1970s because even though it leaves out some truly important, groundbreaking films, it at least ensures that the person has actually watched the films and was highly entertained by them.

No one gets that enthusiastic about Citizen Kane every time they think of it. I don't care how many times you think of it.

I think it's better that they do a classics list and a contemporary list, since you can't fairly compare No Country for Old Men with something from Alfred Hitchcock (other than to say that they're both movies).

Making a truly all-inclusive film list requires an understanding of film that's deeper than almost everyone reading this list, which is why most either gloss over it or disagree with it. If you've seen every film in this list, I'd love to hear why Pulp Fiction ranks above some movie that more or less invented a genre or camera technique (Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite movies).

Someone from another country might well assume from this list that we're either too reverent or haven't made many movies worth a damn very recently. We could do ten or so per decade if that's somehow fairer, though I doubt it is.

Yup, that's exactly what my biggest problem is with this list.

 

[Sobriquet]

I've never seen Citizen Kane.

Would a 20-something year old who appreciates good movies in general (favorites are The Good/Bad/Ugly and American Beauty) like it? I haven't seen many movies made before the 50s. I suspect its age will show and I won't really like it that much.

It holds up. While I don't think it's the best movie ever, it's still really good.

Ctrl+F'd for Fast. No results. What kinda of list is this that has no Fast and Furious movies? A bullshit one, that's what.

My sarcasm meter is broken. I can't even tell anymore.

Yeop. Basically if it came out after 1980, noone was interested.

But not really.

 

[Shai-Tan]

Indeed, different perspectives would be ideal... the problem is, as you stated in the bold part, the unsophisticated viewer is completely biased. To even assume a film has to be about a story or have preset expectations about anything brings alot of negativity into the evaluation of any work that deviates from a specific approach because they expect it to be something it shouldn't and doesn't have to be. It's a double edged sword...

I think there might be a limited understanding of philosophy of art and aesthetics caused by a gap in the education system. We get units on media literacy that focus on interpreting news and advertising; English courses have units on audience and authorial intent but it's glossed over compared to the time spent on thematic interpretation; and art classes focus on the development of manual skill over art literacy. Then in university a person like me - not in the humanities - only has an opportunity to investigate these topics by accident through humanities electives.

 

[jett]

Why did the BBC of all places commission a survey of just American films?

And I have to be honest, I watched The Searchers a few months ago and I just don't see what the big deal is.

 

[MMarston]

I gotta admit though, if people are willing to see through it's age, I'd recommend Sunrise for some old timey feels.

 

[Crossing Eden]

It's a cliche that it's number one but holy shit is that film weird. I've watched it for twenty five years and it existed for decades before that and it STILL feels so modern that it feels almost ordinary.

It's both inventive and immaculate.

You could say that about a lot of the most critically acclaimed films of all time. So many instances of timeless dialogue. Or timeless humor.

 

[watershed]

Although I am a huge Hitchcock fan, I am surprised he has 4 movies in the top 50 but one of the 4 is Marnie while both Rear Window and Notorious have been left out. I've honestly never met a Hitchcock fan who put Marine ahead of either of those 2. The rest I'm cool with.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Although I am a huge Hitchcock fan, I am surprised he has 4 movies in the top 50 but one of the 4 is Marnie while both Rear Window and Notorious have been left out. I've honestly never met a Hitchcock fan who put Marine ahead of either of those 2. The rest I'm cool with.

I've always liked Hitchcock, but I went on a Hitchcock tear after reading The Dark Side of Genius, and I would say that Rope, Lifeboat, Rear Window, Notorious, The 39 Steps, Rebecca, and Foreign Correspondent are all better films than Marnie. Surprised that it got placed at 47 here.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I will never understand what people find so great about "Singin' in the Rain"

 

[ReadingRambo]

Ctrl+F Shaw.....

Yep, it's bullshit.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

List doesn't have Frddy Got Fingered and or Jury Duty so invalid

 

[WarrenMax007]

I don't get why everyone likes Pulp Fiction so much. Yeah it's a good movie, but Reservoir Dogs and especially Jackie Brown are better.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Typical "Luvvie" list.

 

[Peru]

Old Hollywood movies are generally better than new ones, and not just better, but feel more modern, true to life, playful, experimental, surprising, liberal, -fun-. Classic era hollywood rom coms, for example, represented by the likes of the lady eve here, actually cared about their characters. Saying it's nostalgia is rubbish. I stay up to date with new movies, mainstream and arthouse, but golden era Hollywood is always what I'm most purely excited and giddy to watch.