Best films of all time

[Tannin]

Split from the Beatles topic.

David said: On the back wall of my video shop, we have a "best 100 films of all time". It's collated from a combination of the (40-something) owner's personal favourites and well-known critical lists. Now, the point here is that roughly about 70% of these films are from the '60s or before. There's a huge proportion of classic Hollywood, Bergman, Kurosawa, Jean Renoir, etc. But when it comes to the great films of the last 40 years, there's comparatively low representation.

What I think this tells us (and what I think is demonstrated in most such 'lists' and popular culture in general) is that the critical establishment likes older films and music because the establishment is older people. This is the stuff that they grew up with and the stuff their books and magazines told them about.

You would think that that process would break down from generation to generation, but it's not quite as simple. Sure, Birth of a Nation might not be in many top 10s nowadays, but you'll still see it in a few top 100s. It'll take another generation or two before the great bands and film directors of our generation are given equal cultural esteem and consideration to the 'greats' of yesteryear, and perhaps that's a natural process.

David or Tannin, if you'd like a different topic title, PM me.

Donny.

-----------------------------------------------

Now, the point here is that roughly about 70% of these films are from the '60s or before.

Tannin: Yes. Obviously a biased list. That proportion doesn't make sense.

There's a huge proportion of classic Hollywood, Bergman, Kurosawa, Jean Renoir, etc. But when it comes to the great films of the last 40 years, there's comparatively low representation.

Huh? Which one did they miss?


No - wait - surely you don't mean that .... Wow! You're not telling me he forgot to list both of them?!

[stui magpie]

Now, the point here is that roughly about 70% of these films are from the '60s or before.

Yes. Obviously a biased list. That proportion doesn't make sense.

There's a huge proportion of classic Hollywood, Bergman, Kurosawa, Jean Renoir, etc. But when it comes to the great films of the last 40 years, there's comparatively low representation.

Huh? Which one did they miss?


No - wait - surely you don't mean that .... Wow! You're not telling me he forgot to list both of them?!

Now now, there's 6 movies in the Rocky series.

[Tannin]

^ Damn! I knew I'd forget something!

[David]

Now, the point here is that roughly about 70% of these films are from the '60s or before.

Yes. Obviously a biased list. That proportion doesn't make sense.

There's a huge proportion of classic Hollywood, Bergman, Kurosawa, Jean Renoir, etc. But when it comes to the great films of the last 40 years, there's comparatively low representation.

Huh? Which one did they miss?


No - wait - surely you don't mean that .... Wow! You're not telling me he forgot to list both of them?!

My additions, if I could only choose ten, might be:

Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974)
Edvard Munch (1974)
Stranger than Paradise (1984)
Withnail & I (1987)
Alice (1988)
Slacker (1991) (as per my avatar! )
Satantango (1994)
Mother and Son (1997)
Mulholland Drive (2001)
The Class (2008)

[Tannin]

My additions, if I could only choose ten, might be:

Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974)
Edvard Munch (1974)
Stranger than Paradise (1984)
Withnail & I (1987)
Alice (1988)
Slacker (1991) (as per my avatar! )
Satantango (1994)
Mother and Son (1997)
Mulholland Drive (2001)
The Class (2008)

Never heard of any of them. Do they have stories with an actual beginning and a middle and an end? Do they have characters you can actually give a half a stuff about? Do they have anything fresh and interesting to say about the world, or at least a fresh and interesting way of saying it?

Hint: if you answered "yes" to all three questions, you need to do the following: 1: remove the DVD from the DVD player. 2: check the label. 3: put it away in the proper place. It's obviously not a recent movie, you've just put something away in the wrong DVD case.

----------------------------------------------

Jokes aside David, yes, I think current movies are mostly crap. Then again, the movies of (say) 1951 were mostly crap. The difference is, if it's still getting air time in 2012, more than 60 years after it was released, it's probably because it's good enough to be worth a look. Also, modern movies ain't movies at all anymore, they are just marketing BS dressed up and massaged by 77 different bloody focus groups 'till the poo runs out of their ears. So the chances of a modern Casablanca or a 21st Century Lawrence of Arabia are very, very, very slim.

Well, there is the art-house scene. I daresay there is good stuff in that line. not that I care much. I really only like still pictures. And books, of course. Movies bore me bloody rigid, even the good ones. Mostly.

[stui magpie]

While we're going off topic, I've never watched a movie based on a novel, that I rate superior to the book. Never.

Mind you, I don't watch a lot of movies and when I do lately I go for the action adventure style park your brain at the door and enjoy. Last movie I saw at the cinema was Return of the King.

[watt price tully]

Now, the point here is that roughly about 70% of these films are from the '60s or before.

Yes. Obviously a biased list. That proportion doesn't make sense.

There's a huge proportion of classic Hollywood, Bergman, Kurosawa, Jean Renoir, etc. But when it comes to the great films of the last 40 years, there's comparatively low representation.

Huh? Which one did they miss?


No - wait - surely you don't mean that .... Wow! You're not telling me he forgot to list both of them?!

[url=http://www.yo



My additions, if I could only choose ten, might be:

Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974)
Edvard Munch (1974)utube.com/watch?v=ToCSOp7FGT0]Stranger than Paradise[/url] (1984)
Withnail & I (1987)
Alice (1988)
Slacker (1991) (as per my avatar! )
Satantango (1994)
Mother and Son (1997)
Mulholland Drive (2001)
The Class (2008)

Yes it certainly is matter of opinion as to top 10. I saw Withnail & I in London (enhanced by some A grade cocaine - which I've only ever had on a few occasions 20 yrs ago) on release back in the day. Great film but despite the great acting it is nowhere near say "All about Eve", "Sunset Boulevard" or one of my all time favourite for all ages - the greatest love story ever told "Les Enfants du Paradis". Lola & you might like to see this on a decent screen.

Mulholland Drive again a great film but nowhere near a top 10 in my opinion.

[HAL]

That makes a lot of sense to me, now that you explain it.

[David]

[think positive]

the only one of those ive seen/heard of is Mulholland drive, i remember it because i didnt get most of it, what it was about or the point of making it! boring self indulgent crap. i cant remeber if i watched it all!!

i watched the links, Withnail and i looks interesting.

saw The Hunger Games yesterday, sheesh if thats the future, scary!!

but it made me want to read the books!!

dont see the Twilight comparrison, i only watched the first, and about 1/2 an hour of the 2nd, vampires just dont do it for me.

i prefer action movies, but i have seen a few dramas i like. my idea of a good drama, is when you want the movie to keep going, and see what happens next. cant think of any right now, but ive seen a couple. Schlinders list was fantastic, but i dont watch many of those type of movies, too depressing! Mask with Cher i remeber loving. Rear window i can still watch today! and Apocalypse Now.

i never get the so called charts of greatest all time movies. Whos to judge? its subjective for everyone. whenever ive watched something the critics rave about, im generally bored stupid.

to me movies are meant to entertain. keep me watching. thats different for everyone. and the mood you are in. i watched 13 Days the other week, and was totally engrossed by it. a subject ive never known anything about or cared to find out about. but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

i remember everyone raving about Monty Python and the meaning of life. that just bored me stupid.

i guess it depends on your personality, too. in life im a bit of an adrenaline junky, and i love a good heart pumping action movie.

scary movies, i prefer things like The Hitcher, where it is about suspense not blood and gore. Wolf creek is just to over the top for me, same as the Saw series, they are just too demented. Though i have to say i watched the whole series of Final Destination recently (my daughter has them, i watched them while on the traeadmill/xtrainer!!) and i thoroughly enjoyed them! fell off a couple of times!!

come on David there must be one Blockbuster you have liked!!

ps, i hated Titanic!!

[David]

[rocketronnie]

And that is often the point.

[David]

Exactly. It's a predetermined product that is entirely predictable and marketable. They churn this stuff out like Big Macs. I understand that there's comfort in familiarity, but I like to feel intellectually engaged by a film.

Each to their own, but guns and car chases don't entertain me. I like witty dialogue, interesting ideas and complex characters.

[rocketronnie]

Exactly. It's a predetermined product that is entirely predictable and marketable. They churn this stuff out like Big Macs. I understand that there's comfort in familiarity, but I like to feel intellectually engaged by a film.

Each to their own, but guns and car chases don't entertain me. I like witty dialogue, interesting ideas and complex characters.

Essentially in a genre film - each production team asks "what can I do with this film". The parameters of the genre may be predictable but in some worthwhile results can happen. In action films that usually means creatively blowing things up for the "oh-ah" factor. Action films I just mainly accept as pretty much mindless pulp. A bit like a Big Mac - satisfying while you eat it but after that not so much. It been a while since we've had an action film transcend the genre but the Hong Kong ones come closest to this I think (where Hollywood actioners steal most of their plots).

My main beef with them is the 'violence without consequence' thing they almost all have. I'd love to see one where the hero is pulled up in front of the Police Board or the coroner to explain the 317 corpses, the 7 blown up building and the 170 cars damaged in the car chases - or even a hero wracked by conscience for what he did. I joke but the (often vigilante) violence as problem solving without consequence is a disturbing trend.

For genre films I have a soft spot for Westerns. Within the western framework all sorts of moral and existential problems get worked through, and in an entertaining format too. As time has passed they have got more sophisticated and I'm a sucker for them when a new one is released. (for an interesting old one check out "No Name On The Bullet" with Audie Murphy - its a 1950's sort of film noir western with existential overtones)

[David]

My main beef with them is the 'violence without consequence' thing they almost all have. I'd love to see one where the hero is pulled up in front of the Police Board or the coroner to explain the 317 corpses, the 7 blown up building and the 170 cars damaged in the car chases - or even a hero wracked by conscience for what he did. I joke but the (often vigilante) violence as problem solving without consequence is a disturbing trend.

Totally agree with this. I've always disliked that too.

I generally avoid violent films, but I'd far prefer a very violent film that deals with the consequences of violence than a less violent film that just glosses over mass killings of unnamed characters.