I’ve seen quite a few of those movies, and they’re not as good as they’re supposed to be. People who treat movies like the highest form of art get on my nerves discussing them. “Oh, the artistic merits of Citizen Kane are very post-blahdeblah”. Piss off, it’s a waste of 2 hours of my life I could have spent watching Ghostbusters.
Yeah, I don’t watch movies for “art”. I watch them for entertainment. Some of those “great movies” might indeed be groundbreaking steps in the history of cinematography and introduce whole new styles and showcase the marvels of the trade. . .but they’re a total bore to watch. If I want art, I can go look at pictures and sculptures. I don’t want to have to sit there for three hours in order to “appreciate” it, when I could be enjoying myself watching something that’s actually entertaining. The same goes for a lot of “great literature”. Just because something’s a landmark in style doesn’t mean that it’s actually any good.
Hrm, I’ve seen 69, way more than I thought. Can’t say I agree that all are great films though.
Tootsie? Are you serious?
Also, I know I’m way in the minority, but I thought Saving Private Ryan was terrible. Speilberg’s tendency to maudlinism was way over the top in that film and I actually walked out about halfway through because I was bored and found the film to be patronizing and kind of condescending in that “chicken soup for the soul” kind of way.
But that’s just me No one will agree on what the greatest films are anyhow simply because tastes are so subjective. My top 100 list contains some of those films (Blade Runner - woot!!), but it would look quite different.
Well, to reply to those who cannot stand ‘artsy’ films, I don’t think anyone can! As the great producer / director Cecille B. DeMille once said, “If you have a message, use Western Union.”
But truly great films transcend artsy, and are fun to watch, and are totally absorbing, as well.
‘Citizen Kane’ is a great example of that, as well as ‘Godfather’, and several others on the list.
Absolutely fun to watch, entertaining as can be along every single moment, but still put together quite well, too.
Kind of like Paris Hilton, or Bebe.
Now, someone above denigrated ‘2001, A Space Odyssey’. That movie was original and stunning, and easily one of the great movies of all time, in my opinion, and the opinion of many others, too, in its day.
But! It had to be seen in the theater! Wide screen, and with a fabulous sound system, and a stunned audience. ‘Stunned’, not stoned. The music alone was worth the price of admission, and the use of ‘Waltz On the Blue Danube’ as sound while the space shuttle vehicle alilgned itself with the orbiting space station, and so on, was incredible! All was ground-breaking!
Remember, it was filmed in 1969 or so, before computers were household items, when man had just walked on the moon, and special effects in movies usually consisted of some cowboy falling off his horse while shooting a villain.
I have rented the movie, and at home, frankly, it sucks. It loses every bit of the grandeur it possesses on the big screen.
But in its time, it was fabulous. Worth re-watching. And everyone went around talking about it, especially the ‘light show’ near the end, and what it all meant, and all that.
(As it turns out, Arthur Clarke, who wrote the initial screen play, a favorite theme of his in his books is mankind getting ‘saved’ by extra-terrestrials. The screenplay was a continuation of his short story, ‘The Sentinel’, wherein lunar explorers find some sort of beacon hidden beneath the lunar surface.)
To those who have not seen ‘Citizen Kane’, it is a great movie, entertaining as can be, not hoked-up with artsy scenes or ridiculous high-brow dialogue. It is the story of a human-being who self-destructs, albeit a very colorful one with lots and lots of money, who gets (buys) everything he wants, except his childhood happiness.
I can hardly recommend the movie more.
And you won’t cry at the end for him, or anything.
And for those unaware, it is actually a slam at William Randolph Hearst, kind of the Paris Hilton of his day, only with a penis.
I’ve seen quite a few of those movies, and they’re not as good as they’re supposed to be. People who treat movies like the highest form of art get on my nerves discussing them. “Oh, the artistic merits of Citizen Kane are very post-blahdeblah”. Piss off, it’s a waste of 2 hours of my life I could have spent watching Ghostbusters.
Here, here! I couldn’t agree with you more!
I enjoy the occasional artsy film, but I hate people who criticize others for enjoying some “no-brainer” films. (I use the term “no-brainer” in the loosest sense-- there’s really nothing more subjective than what a “good” or “smart” movie is) I like what I like, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Yep! A great ‘no-brainer’ film is ‘Yellow Submarine’ as is ‘Star Wars’, and so many others.
Dan, the original ‘no-brainer’ in the opinion of many, especially his family
Also, I know I’m way in the minority, but I thought Saving Private Ryan was terrible. Speilberg’s tendency to maudlinism was way over the top in that film and I actually walked out about halfway through because I was bored and found the film to be patronizing and kind of condescending in that “chicken soup for the soul” kind of way.
Heh, I actually found it rather dull, too. Granted, the sounds often had me rather twitchy, but the story itself just. . .didn’t have much to it. Besides which, they were a rather annoyingly inept group of soldiers. . .
Now, someone above denigrated ‘2001, A Space Odyssey’. That movie was original and stunning, and easily one of the great movies of all time, in my opinion, and the oppinion of many others,too.
But! It had to be seen in the theater! Wide screen, and with a fabulous sound system, and a stunned audience. ‘Stunned’, not stoned. The music alone was worth the price of admission, and the use of ‘Walts On the Blue Danube’ as sound while the space shuttle vehicle alilgned itself with the orbiting space station, and so on, was incredible! All was ground-breaking!
Remember, it was filmed in 1969 or so, before computers were household items, when man had just walked on the moon, and special effects in movies usually consisted of some cowboy falling off his horse while shooting a villain.
I have rented the movie, and at home, frankly, it sucks. It loses every bit of the grandeur it possesses on the big screen.
But in its time, it was fabulous. Worth re-watching. And everyone went around talking about it, especially the ‘light show’ near the end, and what it all meant, and all that.
(As it turns out, Arthur Clarke, who wrote the initial screen play, a favorite theme of his in his books is mankind getting ‘saved’ by extra-terrestrials. The screenplay was a continuation of his short story, ‘The Sentinel’, wherein lunar explorers find some sort of beacon hidden beneath the lunar surface.)
Oh, I saw 2001 in a theatre. And that was back when things like computers and spaceships and movies and indoor plumbing were still relatively new marvels to me, too. I just felt that the movie was used more as a vehicle for showcasing the effects that they could do, and not for telling a story. It just tended to drag along ponderously, and if I hadn’t read the book (which, by the way, I do like and would recommend to people) just before I probably wouldn’t have had a clue what was going on half the time.
But then, that’s just my own opinion. I realise that other people are entertained by other things than what entertains me. It’s those people who don’t seem to realise this, and who look down on anybody who doesn’t like the same things that they do, who get annoying.
Besides which, I have a suspicion that many of the people who go on about how wonderful and artistic some movies (or books, or whatever) are don’t really know what they’re talking about, simply watched the movie without enjoyment because they felt it was obligatory to watch it, and are just saying that it was so great because it’s what they consider to be the cultured and intellectual thing to say.
Dan, who has never seen ‘Saving Private Ryan’, and could not agree more with the assessment of S. Spielberg, frequently his movies are quite silly when critically examined, like “E. T.”. But others are great (and wonderfully mindless!) like ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’, or ‘Jaws’.
Here’s my selection out of the original list. Inclusion in my private ranking list below does not necessarily mean I think it’s a good movie, I just selected those I have seen, re-arranged their priority according to my own ranking. Basically, up to #8 on my re-ranked list I consider good movies indeed. With “Lawrence of Arabia” being my absolute favourite and personal #1 indeed.
1. “Lawrence of Arabia,” 1962.
2. “Pulp Fiction,” 1994.
3. “The Sound of Music,” 1965.
4. “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” 1981.
5. “The Silence of the Lambs,” 1991.
6. “The Bridge on the River Kwai,” 1957.
7. “The Deer Hunter,” 1978.
8. “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” 1969.
9. “Spartacus,” 1960.
10. “Singin’ in the Rain,” 1952.
11. “King Kong,” 1933.
12. “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” 1982.
13. “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” 1937.
Not listed in the original top 100, but would certainly be included in my personal list:
I saw ‘2001, A Space Odyssey’ in a cinema showing classic films. I quite enjoyed it - some of it dragged on a bit, but I did like the effects and the music used.
Mind you, I have fond memories of it because Chris took me to see it on our first date…
I’ve seen quite a few of those movies, and they’re not as good as they’re supposed to be. People who treat movies like the highest form of art get on my nerves discussing them. “Oh, the artistic merits of Citizen Kane are very post-blahdeblah”. Piss off, it’s a waste of 2 hours of my life I could have spent watching Ghostbusters.
Yeah, I don’t watch movies for “art”. I watch them for entertainment. Some of those “great movies” might indeed be groundbreaking steps in the history of cinematography and introduce whole new styles and showcase the marvels of the trade. . .but they’re a total bore to watch. If I want art, I can go look at pictures and sculptures. I don’t want to have to sit there for three hours in order to “appreciate” it, when I could be enjoying myself watching something that’s actually entertaining. The same goes for a lot of “great literature”. Just because something’s a landmark in style doesn’t mean that it’s actually any good.
I completely agree with you here. I’ve run into a lot of people who say, “If you think [insert classic film] is boring, then you must be stupid and uncultured!” I’m glad to see that others share my point of view.
Tootsie? Are you serious?
I agree. Tootsie was cute, but it in no way deserves to be on the list of best films ever made. I thought it ended abruptly, and you didn’t even get to see what happened to Sandy (that’s her name, right?) after he revealed himself to be a man.
No one will agree on what the greatest films are anyhow simply because tastes are so subjective. My top 100 list contains some of those films (Blade Runner - woot!!), but it would look quite different.
