- There is a 10-year moratorium on all new films so you will not yet find films from 2009-now on this list
1. The Searchers- Ford |
2. Apocalypse Now- F. Coppola |
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey- Kubrick |
4. Raging Bull- Scorsese |
5. Citizen Kane- Welles |
6. Blade Runner – R. Scott |
7. Vertigo- Hitchcock |
8. The Passion of Joan of Arc- Dreyer |
9. Stalker – Tarkovsky |
10. Tokyo Story- Ozu |
11. 8 1/2 – Fellini |
12. The Godfather – F. Coppola |
13. In the Mood for Love – Kar-Wai Wong |
14. Bicycle Thieves- De Sica |
15. La Dolce Vita- Fellini |
16. Lawrence of Arabia- Lean |
17. Seven Samurai- Kurosawa |
18. Sunrise- Murnau |
19. Jules and Jim- Truffaut |
20. Breathless- Godard |
21. Breaking the Waves – von Trier |
22. Goodfellas – Scorsese |
23. Rashomon- Kurosawa |
24. The Godfather Part II – F. Coppola |
25. Intolerance- Griffith |
26. Nostalgia – Tarkovsky |
27. The Rules of the Game- Renoir |
28. Battleship Potemkin- Eisenstein |
29. Touch of Evil- Welles |
30. Pulp Fiction – Tarantino |
31. The Magnificent Ambersons- Welles |
32. Taxi Driver- Scorsese |
33. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover – Greenaway |
34. Persona- Bergman |
35. Psycho- Hitchcock |
36. I Am Cuba- Kalatozov |
37. Children of Men – Cuaron |
38. Gertrud- Dreyer |
39. A Clockwork Orange- Kubrick |
40. Red Desert- Antonioni |
41. Aguirre, the Wrath of God – Herzog |
42. The Third Man- Reed |
43. The Thin Red Line- Malick |
44. There Will Be Blood – P. T. Anderson |
45. The Earrings of Madame De… – Ophuls |
46. Manhattan- Allen |
47. Days of Heaven – Malick |
48. Blue Velvet – Lynch |
49. Do the Right Thing – S. Lee |
50. Magnolia – P.T. Anderson |
51. City Lights- Chaplin |
52. M- Lang |
53. The 400 Blows- Truffaut |
54. Metropolis- Lang |
55. Nosferatu- Murnau |
56. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari- Wiene |
57. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly- Leone |
58. The End of Summer- Ozu |
59. The Seventh Seal- Bergman |
60. The Shining – Kubrick |
61. Nashville – Altman |
62. Cries and Whispers – Bergman |
63. Casablanca- Curtiz |
64. The Pornographers – Imamura |
65. The Wild Bunch- Peckinpah |
66. Once Upton a Time in the West – Leone |
67. Werckmeister Harmonies – Tarr |
68. Brazil – Gilliam |
69. Mulholland Drive – Lynch |
70. Pierrot le Fou – Godard |
71. The Trial- Welles |
72. Gone With the Wind- Fleming |
73. Shoot the Piano Player – Truffaut |
74. Stagecoach- Ford |
75. L’Avventura – Antonioni |
76. The Blue Angel- von Sternberg |
77. Heat- M. Mann |
78. Punch-Drunk Love – P.T. Anderson |
79. Rear Window- Hitchcock |
80. Early Summer- Ozu |
81. The Graduate- M. Nichols |
82. Juliet of the Spirits- Fellini |
83. A Man Escaped- Bresson |
84. It’s a Wonderful Life- Capra |
85. Lola Montes- Ophuls |
86. Annie Hall- Allen |
87. Dekalog – Kieslowski |
88. The Conformist – Bertolucci |
89. Paths of Glory- Kubrick |
90. Lost in Translation – S. Coppola |
91. JFK – Stone |
92. The Wizard of Oz- Fleming |
93. Viridiana- Bunuel |
94. The Passenger – Antonioni |
95. Barry Lyndon- Kubrick |
96. Chinatown- Polanski |
97. Fitzcarraldo – Herzog |
98. Boogie Nights – P.T. Anderson |
99. The Grand Illusion- Renoir |
100. The Big Sleep- Hawks |
101. The Birth of a Nation- Griffith |
102. Singin’ in the Rain- Donen, Kelly |
103. North By Northwest- Hitchcock |
104. The Royal Tenenbaums – W. Anderson |
105. Notorious- Hitchcock |
106. Rome, Open City- Rossellini |
107. Dead Man – Jarmusch |
108. Chungking Express – Kar-Wai Wong |
109. Bringing Up Baby- Hawks |
110. Suspiria- Argento |
111. Rio Bravo- Hawks |
112. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – Dominik |
113. Jaws- Spielberg |
114. Rosemary’s Baby- Polanski |
115. La Strada – Fellini |
116. Fargo – Coen |
117. Late Spring- Ozu |
118. The General- Keaton |
119. Umberto D- De Sica |
120. L’Eclisse- Antonioni |
121. A Woman Under the Influence – Cassavetes |
122. Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid – Peckinpah |
123. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie- Bunuel |
124. Fanny and Alexander – Bergman |
125. Dead Ringers – Cronenberg |
126. The Conversation- F. Coppola |
127. Raiders of the Lost Ark – Spielberg |
128. Syndromes and a Century – Weerasethakul |
129. Amarcord – Fellini |
130. Mean Streets- Scorsese |
131. Cool Hand Luke- Rosenberg |
132. Pickpocket- Bresson |
133. Rocco and His Brothers- Visconti |
134. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg- Demy |
135. White Heat- Walsh |
136. Wild Strawberries- Bergman |
137. Modern Times- Chaplin |
138. Sunset Boulevard – Wilder |
139. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp- Powell & Pressburger |
140. Written on the Wind- Sirk |
141. Black Narcissus- Powell & Pressburger |
142. Eyes Wide Shut – Kubrick |
143. Contempt- Godard |
144. Le Plaisir- Ophuls |
145. The Cranes Are Flying- Kalatozov |
146. Intentions of Murder – Imamura |
147. The Scarlett Express- von Sternberg |
148. The Music Room- S. Ray |
149. Hannah and Her Sisters- Allen |
150. Once Upon a Time in America – Leone |
151. Rumble Fish – F. Coppola |
152. Fight Club – Fincher |
153. The Big Lebowski – Coen |
154. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid- Roy Hill |
155. Back to the Future – Zemeckis |
156. A Zed & Two Noughts – Greenaway |
157. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest- Forman |
158. Double Indemnity- Wilder |
159. Star Wars- Lucas |
160. Schindler’s List – Spielberg |
161. Before Sunset – Linklater |
162. Performance – Roeg |
163. Don’t Look Now – Roeg |
164. Kings of the Road – Wenders |
165. Blue – Kieslowski |
166. Andrei Rublev- Tarkovsky |
167. Amadeus – Forman |
168. The Sacrifice – Tarkovsky |
169. Repulsion- Polanski |
170. The Empire Strikes Back – Kershner |
171. Red River- Hawks |
172. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre- Huston |
173. Cache – Haneke |
174. The Bridge on the River Kwai- Lean |
175. Strangers on a Train- Hitchcock |
176. Kill Bill – Tarantino |
177. Johnny Guitar- N. Ray |
178. Malcolm X – S. Lee |
179. Zodiac – Fincher |
180. Alien- R. Scott |
181. The Lord of the Rings – Jackson |
182. Y Tu Mama Tambien – Cuaron |
183. Ran – Kurosawa |
184. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters – Schrader |
185. It Happened One Night- Capra |
186. Dancer in the Dark – von Trier |
187. Dr. Strangelove- Kubrick |
188. Crimes and Misdemeanors – Allen |
189. Blow Out – De Palma |
190. Midnight Cowboy- Schlesinger |
191. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance- Ford |
192. Broken Flowers – Jarmusch |
193. The New World – Malick |
194. The Exorcist- Friedkin |
195. My Darling Clementine- Ford |
196. The Piano – Campion |
197. Out of the Past- Tourneur |
198. Red – Kieslowski |
199. Germany Year Zero- Rossellini |
200. No Country For Old Men – Coen |
201. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial – Spielberg |
202. Network- Lumet |
203. Bonnie and Clyde- Penn |
204. The Gold Rush- Chaplin |
205. Sherlock Jr. Keaton |
206. High Noon- Zinnemann |
207. The French Connection- Friedkin |
208. The Silence of the Lambs – Demme |
209. Raise the Red Lantern – Yimou Zhang |
210. Dog Day Afternoon – Lumet |
211. McCabe & Mrs. Miller- Altman |
212. Aliens – Cameron |
213. Veronika Voss – Fassbinder |
214. Love Me Tonight- Mamoulian |
215. Morocco- von Sternberg |
216. Rushmore – W. Anderson |
217. Unforgiven – Eastwood |
218. Seven – Fincher |
219. Los Olvidados- Bunuel |
220. The Manchurian Candidate- Frankenheimer |
221. Diabolique- Clouzot |
222. The Apartment- Wilder |
223. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind – Gondry |
224. Down by Law – Jarmusch |
225. The Grapes of Wrath- Ford |
226. The Bride of Frankenstein- Whale |
227. The Deer Hunter – Cimino |
228. Harold and Maude- Ashby |
229. Requiem for a Dream – Aronofsky |
230. L.A. Confidential – Hanson |
231. Crash – Cronenberg |
232. The Crime of Monsieur Lange- Renoir |
233. Solaris- Tarkovsky |
234. The Dark Knight – Nolan |
235. Saving Private Ryan – Spielberg |
236. Lost Highway – Lynch |
237. The Mirror- Tarkovsky |
238. The Maltese Falcon- Huston |
239. On the Waterfront- Kazan |
240. La Bête Humaine- Renoir |
241. Talk to Her – Almodovar |
242. 25th Hour – S. Lee |
243. My Fair Lady- Cukor |
244. Pinocchio- Sharpsteen |
245. Greed- von Stroheim |
246. The Hill- Lumet |
247. MASH- Altman |
248. Moulin Rouge! – Luhrmann |
249. The Quiet Man- Ford |
250. Letter from an Unknown Woman- Ophuls |
251. Doctor Zhivago- Lean |
252. Weekend- Godard |
253. Blow-Up – Antonioni |
254. Winter Light- Bergman |
255. Strike- Eisenstein |
256. Great Expectations- Lean |
257. La Chienne- Renoir |
258. Casino – Scorsese |
259. The Parallax View – Pakula |
260. The Sweet Smell of Success – Mackendrick |
261. Groundhog Day – Ramis |
262. Wild at Heart – Lynch |
263. Million Dollar Baby – Eastwood |
264. Badlands- Malick |
265. Some Like It Hot- Wilder |
266. The Last Laugh- Murnau |
267. La Notte- Antonioni |
268. Foolish Wives- von Stroheim |
269. Le Million- Clair |
270. His Girl Friday- Hawks |
271. Diner – Levinson |
272. A Matter of Life and Death- Powell & Pressburger |
273. Yojimbo- Kurosawa |
274. L’Atalante – Vigo |
275. Throne of Blood- Kurosawa |
276. Mon Oncle- Tati |
277. Floating Weeds- Ozu |
278. West Side Story- Wise |
279. The Leopard- Visconti |
280. The Virgin Spring- Bergman |
281. Pan’s Labyrinth – del Toro |
282. Barton Fink – Coen |
283. Le Samourai- Melville |
284. Playtime- Tati |
285. Reservoir Dogs – Tarantino |
286. An Autumn Afternoon- Ozu |
287. The Last of the Mohicans – M. Mann |
288. The Exterminating Angel- Bunuel |
289. The Night of the Hunter – Laughton |
290. A Hen in the Wind- Ozu |
291. Cleo from 5 to 7 – Varda |
292. Five Easy Pieces – Rafelson |
293. The Shawshank Redemption – Darabont |
294. American Beauty – Mendes |
295. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days – Mungiu |
296. Rope- Hitchcock |
297. Cabaret – Fosse |
298. Carnal Knowledge – M. Nichols |
299. Journey to Italy- Rossellini |
300. A History of Violence – Cronenberg |
301. The Fountain – Aronofsky |
302. Mabuse: The Gambler – Lang |
303. Sansho the Bailiff – Mizoguchi |
304. Anatomy of a Murder- Preminger |
305. Shadow of a Doubt- Hitchcock |
306. The 47 Ronin- Mizoguchi |
307. 1900 – Bertolucci |
308. Atonement – J. Wright |
309. All About Eve- Mankiewicz |
310. Mystic River – Eastwood |
311. Traffic – Soderbergh |
312. The Lady From Shanghai- Welles |
313. Memento – Nolan |
314. Out of Sight – Soderbergh |
315. Miller’s Crossing – Coen |
316. The Man Who Fell to Earth- Roeg |
317. La Ronde- Ophuls |
318. Elevator to the Gallows – Malle |
319. Kes- Loach |
320. Letter Never Sent- Kalatozov |
321. The Last Tango in Paris- Bertolucci |
322. There Was a Father- Ozu |
323. The Man with the Golden Arm- Preminger |
324. Pather Panchali- S. Ray |
325. Aparajito- S. Ray |
326. Halloween- Carpenter |
327. All the President’s Men- Pakula |
328. Blood Simple – Coen |
329. The Nights of the Cabiria- Fellini |
330. All that Heaven Allows- Sirk |
331. La Pointe Courte – Varda |
332. The Departed – Scorsese |
333. American Psycho – Harron |
334. Paisan- Rossellini |
335. Charulata- S. Ray |
336. A Fistful of Dollars- Leone |
337. The Son – Dardenne |
338. 2046 – Kar-Wai Wong |
339. L’enfant – Dardenne |
340. Full Metal Jacket – Kubrick |
341. Army of Shadows – Melville |
342. The Birds- Hitchcock |
343. Ordet- Dreyer |
344. The 39 Steps- Hitchcock |
345. A Story of Floating Weeds- Ozu |
346. Beauty and the Beast- Cocteau |
347. Ivan the Terrible Part II- Eisenstein |
348. Twelve Monkeys – Gilliam |
349. Carrie – De Palma |
350. To Have and Have Not- Hawks |
351. Ivan the Terrible Part I- Eisenstein |
352. For a Few Dollars More- Leone |
353. Le Bonheur – Varda |
354. October- Eisenstein |
355. Jurassic Park – Spielberg |
356. Terminator 2: Judgement Day – Cameron |
357. The Crowd- Vidor |
358. The Road Warrior – G. Miller |
359. I Vitelloni- Fellini |
360. Pickup on South Street- Fuller |
361. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie- Cassavetes |
362. The Big Parade- Vidor |
363. Marie Antoinette – S. Coppola |
364. Naked Lunch – Cronenberg |
365. The Wind- Sjöström |
366. The World of Apu- S. Ray |
367. Bob le Flambeur- Melville |
368. Duck Soup- McCarey |
369. Trouble in Paradise- Lubitsch |
370. Hunger – McQueen |
371. Gosford Park – Altman |
372. The Circus- Chaplin |
373. The English Patient – Minghella |
374. Vampyr- Dreyer |
375. Ossessione – Visconti |
376. Shane- Stevens |
377. Chimes at Midnight- Welles |
378. The Fly – Cronenberg |
379. One from the Heart – F. Coppola |
380. The Celebration – Vinterberg |
381. Day of Wrath- Dreyer |
382. El- Bunuel |
383. Stranger Than Paradise – Jarmusch |
384. The Long Goodbye- Altman |
385. Lady Snowblood – Fujita |
386. King Kong- Cooper |
387. The Lion King – Allers & Minkoff |
388. Peeping Tom- Powell |
389. Satan’s Tango – Tarr |
390. Ugetsu- Mizoguchi |
391. The Silence- Bergman |
392. Amores Perros – Iñárritu |
393. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon – A. Lee |
394. Mr. Hulot’s Holiday- Tati |
395. The Talented Mr. Ripley – Minghella |
396. Fort Apache- Ford |
397. The Red Shoes- Powell & Pressburger |
398. The Lady Eve- P. Sturges |
399. Trainspotting – Boyle |
400. Two Women – De Sica |
401. Meet Me in St. Louis- Minnelli |
402. Easy Rider- Hopper |
403. The Age of Innocence – Scorsese |
404. Ivan’s Childhood- Tarkovsky |
405. A Star is Born- Cukor |
406. The Life of Oharu- Mizoguchi |
407. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors – Parajanov |
408. Naked- Leigh |
409. Husbands and Wives – Allen |
410. A.I. Artificial Intelligence – Spielberg |
411. Broadway Danny Rose – Allen |
412. Spirited Away – Miyazaki |
413. Scenes From a Marriage – Bergman |
414. How Green Was My Valley- Ford |
415. Day for Night- Truffaut |
416. Shoeshine- De Sica |
417. Lola- Demy |
418. The Piano Teacher – Haneke |
419. Sullivan’s Travels- P. Sturges |
420. The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum – Mizoguchi |
421. The 3 Penny Opera- Pabst |
422. Dazed and Confused – Linklater |
423. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me – Lynch |
424. All that Jazz- Fosse |
425. The Insider – M. Mann |
426. The Elephant Man – Lynch |
427. The Marriage of Maria Braun – Fassbinder |
428. My Night at Maud’s – Rohmer |
429. Code Unknown – Haneke |
430. The Philadelphia Story- Cukor |
431. The Wild Child- – Truffaut |
432. The Last Picture Show – Bogdanovich |
433. Ali: Fear Eats the Soul – Fassbinder |
434. The Thing – Carpenter |
435. A Streetcar Named Desire- Kazan |
436. Detective Story- Wyler |
437. Ben-Hur- Wyler |
438. Othello- Welles |
439. The Darjeeling Limited – W. Anderson |
440. The Shop Around the Corner- Lubitsch |
441. Detour- Ulmer |
442. The Best Years of our Lives- Wyler |
443. Imitation of Life- Sirk |
444. Videodrome – Cronenberg |
445. Belle De Jour- Bunuel |
446. Safe – Haynes |
447. Distant Voices, Still Lives – Davies |
448. Die Hard – McTiernan |
449. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington- Capra |
450. The Battle of Algiers- Pontecorvo |
451. Wall-E – Stanton |
452. The Usual Suspects – Singer |
453. Ikiru- Kurosawa |
454. The Big Heat- Lang |
455. Gun Crazy- Lewis |
456. Lola – Fassbinder |
457. Mystery Train – Jarmusch |
458. The Palm Beach Story- P. Sturges |
459. My Dinner with Andre – Malle |
460. The Terminator – Cameron |
461. In a Lonely Place- N. Ray |
462. Vengeance is Mine – Imamura |
463. Berlin Alexanderplatz – Fassbinder |
464. Rebel Without a Cause- N. Ray |
465. Two English Girls – Truffaut |
466. Titanic – Cameron |
467. Pigs and Battleships – Imamura |
468. Gunga Din- Stevens |
469. Dawn of the Dead – Romero |
470. The Hustler- Rossen |
471. Accattone – Pasolini |
472. Purple Noon- Clement |
473. The Reckless Moment- Ophuls |
474. The Miracle of Morgan Creek- P. Sturges |
475. Being John Malkovich – Jonze |
476. O Brother, Where Art Thou? – Coen |
477. Henry V- Olivier |
478. Laura- Preminger |
479. Amelie – Jeunet |
480. Fallen Angel- Preminger |
481. The Roaring Twenties- Walsh |
482. Brief Encounter- Lean |
483. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? – M. Nichols |
484. Children of Paradise- Carne |
485. Scarlet Street- Lang |
486. Destiny- Lang |
487. Tom Jones- Richardson |
488. Stardust Memories – Allen |
489. Scarface – De Palma |
490. The Outlaw Josey Wales – Eastwood |
491. Dick Tracy – Beatty |
492. La Haine – Kassovitz |
493. Taste of Cherry – Kiarostami |
494. Days of Being Wild – Kar-Wai Wong |
495. Eraserhead – Lynch |
496. Election- Payne |
497. The Player – Altman |
498. The Hurt Locker – Bigelow |
499. The Bourne Ultimatum – Greengrass |
500. Nosferatu the Vampyre – Herzog |
- DIRECTORS WITH MULTIPLE FILMS
10- Hitchcock
9- Bergman, Ozu
8- Kubrick, Ford
7- Fellini, Scorsese, Tarkovsky, Welles, Spielberg, Allen, Coen, Lynch
6- F. Coppola, Antonioni, Hawks, Kurosawa, Ophuls, Truffaut, Bunuel, Lang, Altman, Cronenberg
5- Renoir, Leone, Dreyer, Lean, Eisenstein, Powell, Jarmusch, S. Ray, Mizoguchi, Fassbinder
4- P.T. Anderson, Godard, Malick, Chaplin, Wilder, Rossellini, De Sica, Kar-Wai Wong, Imamura, Eastwood, Preminger, P. Sturges
3- Murnau, Polanski, Herzog, von Sternberg, Fincher, Kieslowski, S. Lee, Tarantino, Kalatozov, Roeg, Lumet, Bertolucci, Capra, W. Anderson, Visconti, M. Mann, M. Nichols, Sirk, Tati, Varda, Melville, Haneke, De Palma, N. Ray, , Cukor, Wyler
2- Griffith, R. Scott, Peckinpah, Greenaway, von Trier, Bresson, Cuaron, Keaton, Forman, Friedkin, Huston, Gilliam, S. Coppola, Tarr, Cassavetes, von Stroheim, Aronofsky, Nolan, Demy, Linklater, Pakula, Fleming, Walsh, Soderbergh, Kazan, Dardenne, Vidor, Fosse, Carpenter, Minghella, Malle, Lubitsch, Stevens
This is a fantastic collection, and I haven’t even watched some of them. Great Job for getting this done though. Now for the complaining bit: No love for Kramer vs Kramer, it’s my favorite film and a magnificent one at it. Frenzy, Rainman, Bram Stoker Dracula, Rainman , An affair to remember and Oldboy should be there as well. So could Prestige and the Machinist.
thanks AP. Let me ask you this is- Kramer vs. Kramer your “favorite” film or the one you think is the best? Or both? I like all the films you mention here, all of them in the archives (i need to see “the machinst” again because that one isn’t) but the closest one to this list would be “oldboy”. I’m excited to revisit that one.
Surprised I’m the first to say this, but no Fight Club?
Good. Most overrated movie ever. I know it’s not an all time critical darling but it has the most annoying fanbase, mostly internet non-film buffs born between 1980 and 1990 that have been convinced since the day they saw it that it’s the best movie ever.
Honestly though this is an outstanding list. I don’t agree with every film here, but you’ve got most of my favorites as well as the majority of the ones I consider among the 100 “best”. That top ten is marvelous. Can’t argue with anything there.
I really kind of gave up on objective film ranking a while back because I tend to want to take my criteria more seriously than humanly possible, at least without someone paying me very well to take years crunching every single number in regards to box office, influence, impact, longevity, acting, directing, writing, cinematography, etc. In protest of that idea I came to the conclusion that even if two huge film buffs like you and me both did all that we would still come up with different lists because even determining criteria and the weight each one holds, the and deciding what gets the edge in cases when it’s a close call or there’s not enough documentation, is subjective. Anyhow, here’s my personal top 10, in which I fully admit these are my personal favorites but as a result truly consider them the ten best films ever made, because the only criteria for greatness I can really use is how much the film affects me personally, whether it’s through pure entertainment, visual pleasure, intellectual stimulation or emotional manipulation.
1. City Lights (1931, Chaplin)
2. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Dreyer)
3. The Godfather Part II (1974, Coppola)
4. Vertigo (1958, Hitchcock)
5. Melancholia (2011, Von Trier)
6. Vivre Sa Vie (1962, Godard)
7. Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (1972, Fassbinder)
8. The Third Man (1949, Reed)
9. Stalker (1979, Tarkovsky)
10. Persona (1966, Bergman)
This is basically off the top of my head and I’m the type of person who could rewatch anything from Citizen Kane to Dumb and Dumber, from Salo to There Will Be Blood, from The Searchers to Sweet Sweetback’s Badass Song (all of the aforementioned films are no brainer top 100 picks for me), and if that was the perfect film for that moment in time they could skyrocket to near the top of this list. I only really consider the top 2 untouchable, at least by anything I’ve already seen. Maybe one day I’ll come across something on their level but I have a hard time believing anything could beat the two silent classics. Chaplin is my favorite person in cinematic history and while I could honestly fill my top 5 with his films it’s his masterpiece that finally settled as the most complete of his films for me. Meanwhile Falconetti carries Dreyer’s film with a performance that blew me away like no other actor has. With anyone else in that role it’s a historic film, well shot for its time but not really worth a second look outside of an educational context. But with her it’s a must see film that hits me where it hurts the most.
@Jason– thanks for the comment, the kind words and for sharing your list- what a great group of films! I saw caught Joan of Arc again last week and will be moving it up the next time I update my list and admire the boldness of putting Melancholia in there already. That is a truly special film as well.
At the risk of annoying you here I have to point out that I do have Fight Club in the top 500- it’s at #152 actually. I don’t think it’s the best movie ever (I have many films, even from the 1990’s, ahead of it) but I do think Fincher is a great auteur. I hear you on the annoying fanbase– but I don’t think it’s fair to factor that in.
As far as objective film ranking— very interesting topic. So the goal of the website here and my lists isn’t to get into fights about whether something is ranked #1 or #2 or anything- it’s to admire and discuss it all— and i do not think there is an objective top 10 or top 100. Cinema lovers, even if they agree on criteria, will have slightly (i think that’s a key word) different lists. I do think many people use the wrong criteria (I would get box office out of there, along with who has an annoying fan base for a start) but many care more about a film’s message than I do for a start. But what if we looked at this the other way? It’s certainly not entirely subjective either, right? I mean look at how many films you and I have in common and we’re talking about 100 years of cinema with thousands of movies released every year yet many lists from all of us on this page include the same films and directors over and over. That is not a coincidence. I think I have learned a great deal about cinema in the past 20 years and I work hard at it. This is a progression, an evolution and I think my list is better now than it was 5 years ago and if i continue to work at it and study it’ll be better 5 years from now. I think we’re closer to having an objective ranking than a completely subjective/random scenario. If someone comes up and tells me that The Passion of Joan of Arc is a bad movie I’ll tell them they are flat out wrong. Everyone can have an opinion but those opinions are not equal.
100% agree with you.
« but many care more about a film’s message than I do for a start. »
Now, I know why you underestimate The Wolf of Wall-Street haha (joking 🙂 )
Kramer vs Kramer is one of my favorite films, it won’t be near the Top of my list but I will make space for it in the Top 100. And Justice for all is another film that comes to mind, so does 12 Angry men which I believe is Lumets best work. I guess, I just have a thing for courtroom dramas.
Another interesting bit is that Spielberg top film is Jaws which comes in at 113. Not that I have much to disagree, but I still find it quite remarkable.
Thanks again AP– courtroom drama– i love them, too even if my top 500 doesn’t make much room for them. I think mainly it’s because the best directors don’t typically work in that sub-genre– Preminger’s “Anatomy of a Murder” is here and i think it’s the best… Kubrick’s “Paths of Glory” has sections that are like a courtroom drama i guess
Spielberg. I’m guessing you find it interesting because there isn’t one in the top 100? or that it’s because I selected “jaws” as the best? It may take me awhile to get to him but i do have 5 of his films in the top 235 which i think is the sign of a very remarkable filmmaker. For years i was convinced “Raiders” was the best– but i’m pretty confident “Jaws” is his best now
first off i love movies and really enjoy your whole website. but i must say that i disagree with your sentiment that actors arent artists. forgive me if im wrong on your beliefs. actors are artists . i also reject director as auteur theory unless in films such as 2001 i feel actors are more central and i love directors dont get me wrong im an aspiring actor .
@m — Thanks for the comment and am happy to hear you love movies and my website here. You’re entitled to your opinion of course but you are incorrect if you don’t believe in the director as auteur theory. There are exceptions of course but those exceptions are not the rule. Acting is an element of what makes a great piece of cinema– much like film score or lighting– it can be exceptional, weak, or yes, indeed, artistic— but the director using those individual elements to create. Look no further than 2018’s “Roma” from Cuaron. He takes a non-professional actor as his lead and gives us a great work of art, a solid performance, and the best film of the year.
Where is the stranger? Orson Welles is the greatest artist involved in film, and this picture is equal to Citizen Kane. He is the best actor ever and secondarily the best director ever
@M – thanks again here for visiting the site and the comment– I love Welles (he’s a far better director than actor) but “The Stranger” is equal to “Citizen Kane”? That’s not correct.
Well sorry. I don’t know if it is equal. But definitely a masterpiece. Kane has a better story and my third favorite acted scene of all time (first is Ian Mckellen tomorrow soliloquy from Macbeth and second James Stewart praying in wonderful life). The scene is where kane is begging susan not to go and the acting, the eyes, the saddness, is,just plain brilliant acting. But noir is my favorite genre. These are both two of the greatest movies ever. Also kane has a better story and better cinematography but I like the music in stranger better and I also love the story, along with edward g Robinson’s character, and acting, as the noir detective type. Thank you for answering, i love this website
Raging Bull should be at least three places higher. The montage in the movie, with the freeze frames of the fights and the color weddings for de niro and pesci, the pool fight with moriarty is the greatest moment in the history of the artform of cinema, maybe in art history
@M- thanks for the comment here on “Raging Bull”– I’m a big admirer of the film. The critical consensus has “Taxi Driver” slightly higher and if you just talk to people who aren’t film buffs the consensus for Scorsese is pretty easily “Goodfellas”– but I’ve always thought “Raging Bull” was, ever so slightly, Scorsese’s best work (though all three are fabulous films)– so it’s nice to hear from someone who agrees.
my top 50
1) raging bull
2) wizard of oz
3)terminator
4)pulp fiction
5)2001
6) steve jobs
7) Up
8)annie hall
9)citizen kane
10)its a wonderful life
11) the kid
12)the departed
13)carrie
14)no country
15)x men days of the future past
16)star wars episode IV
17)the searchers
18)revenge of the sith
19)chinatown
20) raiders of the lost ark
21)godfather
22)fistful of dollars
23)moonstruck
24)roma
25)logan
26)schindlers list
27)dr strangelove
28)blue velvet
29)mulan
30)purple rose of cairo
31)punch drunk love
32)an astronomers dream (1989)
33)magnificent ambersons
34)blakkklansman
35)halloween (1978)
36)return of the jedi
37)empire strikes back
38)sixth sense
39)gone with the wind
40)indescretion of an american wife
41)aviator
42)cape fear
43)yellow submarine
44)dhobi ghot
45)terminator 2:judgement day
46) toy story 3
47)grave of the fireflies
48)passion of joan of arc
49)metropolis
50)gattaca
@ M Thanks for sharing your top 50— I’ll pick one i have a problem with and on I admire— I’m very happy to see your inclusion of Leone’s “A Fistful of Dollars” — I think he continues to be an underrated filmmaker and I find it baffling that this film continues to be left off the critics’ consensus top 1000 http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films_table.php …. my problem film here is “X-Men: Days of Future Past”– I saw it twice, thought it was fine, but have 45 films ranked ahead of it…. from 2014. haha.
I love days of the future past. I used to watch it every day. I don’t think it is near the same visual experience as kubrick or hitchcock. But it is personal for myself, and has great acting.
Great list but i find a problem with 10 year moratorium. If you talk about including Tokyo story by Ozu in top 10 of all time for not only its message on humanity but also the mise en scenes which anyone would want hanging up on their walls. Then what about Roma. I love ozu and Tokyo story but i believe roma has a better narrative, acting, and when it comes to cinematography, camera movements and photography in the definition roma would be a clear top 10 of all time films. It’s not in mine, because there are movies I’ve grown up with, or are more personal to me or I like their narrative better but Roma is strong candidate for best visual experience ever (after the Sistine chapel perhaps) and I don’t think it needs to wait a decade for these accolades thrown upon it. Thanks (also speaking of visual, gone with the wind should be higher)
@ Bobby– thanks for the comment and feedback on the moratorium– it’s a solid point. I don’t have a really good answer for you and i adore “Roma”– I guess I’d just say i prefer to let the newer films breath a little and see them, 2-3 times and unpack them for awhile. I do have a spot for more recent films: http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/03/27/the-best-films-of-the-decade-thus-far-2010-2018/ and best directors, actors and actresses in the world right now http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/02/15/best-directors-in-the-world-2019/ here http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/02/17/best-actors-in-the-world-2019/ and here http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/02/18/best-actresses-in-the-world-2019/ .
I guess I’d just say i’m not in a rush. I take the top 500 very seriously and sort of like making films wait their turn. Don’t you think you’d be better at doing a top 10 of 1998 or 2008 than you would a top 10 of 2018? Anyways, I certainly do.
Great list as always! One day I hope to garner up the courage to create a top 500 films list, but I’ll need to watch more movies first. I figured I’d share my top 10. I’ve remade it recently, and since it’s a top 10 and there are just so many great movies, I kind of broke some of it into categories.
10. The Big Lebowski (Coen, 1998)
9. PlayTime (Tati, 1967)
8. Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)
7. Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)
6. Mulholland Drive (Lynch, 2001)
5. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
4. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
3. The Mirror (Tarkovsky, 1975)
2. Persona (Bergman, 1966)
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
I very badly wanted to include both Kieslowski’s ‘Dekalog’ and Lanzmann’s ‘Shoah’ on my list, but for the soul reason that I didn’t feel like taking any of my current 10 off, I decided I just wouldn’t count them because neither technically could as “films”, and instead a TV Miniseries and a Documentary respectfully.
Edit: I initially had explanations for each film I added on the list, which I consider to be pretty important when looking at the specific films I chose, but I think it the website wasn’t letting me post it because it was too long.
Edit #2: Citizen Kane should be #3, moving The Mirror to #4 and Tokyo Story to #5
@ Leo — spectacular list.. thanks for sharing. I love the inclusion of “Apocalypse Now” and “2001”- which are my #2 and #3. I can’t quite get on board with “Playtime” and “The Mirror” but many cinema enthusiasts share your opinion of them so perhaps there’s work for me to do here on both.
Thanks! That could be true on “PlayTime” and “The Mirror”, but I could also see why you wouldn’t get behind them. They seem to be pretty polarizing films by nature. I’ve showed plenty of friends “PlayTime” and very few of them respond to it in the same way I do.
For what it’s worth Leo, I find Playtime to be a perfect film and one of the greatest achievements in the history of cinematic mise-en-scene… perhaps THE greatest.
And the turn in the final act as the alienated dystopia gradually transforms into an exuberant bacchanal, has such an ineffable quality… it achieves transcendence.
Couldn’t agree more, my friend
1. Andrei Rublev (1966)
2. Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)
3. Three Colors : Red (1994)
4. Stalker (1979)
5. Rear Window (1954)
6. There Will Be Blood (2007)
7. 12 Angry Men (1957)
8. Sunset Boulevard (1950)
9. Mulholland Dr. (2001)
10. Touch of Evil (1958)
11. Rosemary’s Baby (1968)
12. No Country for Old Men (2007)
13. Red Beard (1965)
14. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
15. F for Fake (1973)
16. The Apartment (1960)
17. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
18. Paths of Glory (1957)
19. Unforgiven (1992)
20. Psycho (1960)
21. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)
22. La Haine (1995)
23. Her (2013)
24. American History X (1998)
25. Pulp Fiction (1994)
26. Taxi Driver (1976)
27. Scenes from a Marriage (1974)
28. Double Indemnity (1944)
29. Seven Samurai (1954)
30. Vertigo (1958)
31. The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
32. Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
33. The Tree of Life (2011)
34. Persona (1966)
35. Three Colors : Blue (1993)
36. Solaris (1972)
37. The Godfather (1972)
38. The Godfather : Part 2 (1974)
39. Eraserhead (1977)
40. Synecdoche, New York (2008)
41. Ikiru (1952)
42. Chinatown (1974)
43. Citizen Kane (1941)
44. A Serious Man (2009)
45. Phantom Thread (2017)
46. Barry Lyndon (1975)
47. Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
48. Three Colors : White (1994)
49. Mystic River (2003)
50. Oldboy (2003)
@Packson– thanks for sharing your list. Really impressive! I’ll pick one i like and one i don’t…. I’m not sure about “Phantom Thread” yet- i need to see it again– but its your #2 rated PT Anderson, right? Boy— I can’t go there yet-.have it 5th. One I do love is “Mystic River”. it isn’t quite in my top 50 but i think it’s very underrated by most cinephiles so i’m happy to see it here.
@Drake
I feel like “Phantom thread” is one of the best executed films ever with two main actors shinning in very demanding roles. When you have an idea like this, margin for error is almost non existent when it comes to writting, directing, acting..and i feel like everybody delievered. I appreciate the level of skill needed to make a film like this.
As for the ranking among PTA’s films, i have it over “Magnolia” and “Punch-drunk Love”. “The Master” is a good film, but, in my humble opinion, not as good as you have it on this website. I will never understand the appeal of Scorsese-type films so “Boogie Nights” is not my cup of tea.
Btw this website is unbelievable and although i disagree on some of these rankings (give my man Kieslowski some respect lol), it’s really impressive to make a database like this and demands great respect. As a young cinephile, i get really inspired by all of the knowledge displayed here. Hope my English was good enough.
@Packson . Your English is better than mine. Thank you again for the comment and for the kind works regarding the website. I look forward to seeing “Phantom Thread” again– the third visit for “The Master” was key for me. I think it has a lot more in common, artistically, with “There Will Be Blood” than many give it credit for.
As for Kieslowski– doing his page http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/05/22/the-42nd-best-director-of-all-time-krzysztof-kieslowski/ was eye-opening. I had forgotten (it’s been awhile) how stunning the imagery was. I look forward to working his way through his entire body of work in the next 3-6 months.
Why don’t you understand the appeal of Scorsese films? Is it the violence or bad words that put you off?
Vanilla Sky. I feel it could be the greatest film in the artform’s history. It might not be Tokyo Story with the mise en scene (though the mise en is great) or have Citizen Kane’s influence (cult classic status though). But I can’t can’t say it isn’t visual mastery. Penelope Cruz, jason lee, kurt russell, everyone else all great in the movie. The acting from Cruise is expressionist, like Falconetti, and the script is very good. It is like Magnolia in its soundtrack, and the use of good vibrations by the beach boys is second only to clockwork orange (singin in the rain). The reason this is maybe the greatest though is not those. Crowe as an auteuer decided to make a film about the transendence of love, it even transcends reality. And also about the dangers of wealth and naturalization. I’m surprised it isn’t in top 300 at the very least, except this isn’t a must see or a highly recommended, its an absolute masterpiece.
@Reynolds — thanks for visiting the site and the comment. I think “Vanilla Sky” is superb and you have a passionate defense of it here. I’ve seen the film 20 times and when i was first studying cinema i thought it was a masterpiece as well. It isn’t. Crowe just isn’t a visual master (though i love some stand-alone scenes like surrealistic scene of Cruise running down an empty Times Square) and I think you’d have an uphill battle that would have to be based more on personal taste and feelings than objective artistic criticism and evaluation if you were trying to argue he’s an artist on the same level as Ozu, Welles or Kubrick. I’d be interested to see if you still feel this way after studying film more and continue to watch some of the other films on my top 500. I love the “Good Vibrations” comment though- that is a fantastic scene and use of music. Thanks again.
Ok I always change up my top 10 list because I just love so many films so I decided I’ll do it this way, put films together that I feel tie with each other, are equal, for example raging bull and taxi driver, i have a bunch of films in these ties and im still missing films i love like fistful of dollars and sixth sense. and of course the whole first six star wars films would be up there.
1. The Wizard Of Oz- Fleming/ Breaking Bad (television series)- Gilligan
2. Raging Bull/ Taxi Driver- Scorsese
3. Searchers- Ford/ Star Wars (1977)- Lucas/ Annie Hall- Allen/ Revenge Of The Sith- Lucas
4. Once Upon A Time In America- Leone/ Schindler’s List- Spielberg/ The Kid- Chaplin/ Where To Invade Next- Moore/ Citizen Kane- Welles/Godfather- Coppola/ Gone With The Wind-Fleming
5. Pulp Fiction- Tarantino/ Raiders Of The Lost Ark- Spielberg/ Grave Of The Fireflies- Takahata/ Joker- Phillips/ Terminator- Cameron
6. Vanilla Sky- Crowe/ O Brother Where Art Thou- Coen Brothers/ Do The Right Thing- Lee/ Apocylypse Now- Coppola
7. Cloud Atlas- Wachowski/ Return Of The King- Jackson/ Carrie- DePalma/ The Stand- Garris (TV Miniseries)
8. Clockwork Orange- Kubrick/ Blue Velvet-Lynch/ Chinatown- Polanski/ 2001- Kubrick/ Ad Astra- Grey/ Up- Docter/ Dr. Strangelove- Kubrick/ metropolis-lang
9. Meyerowitz Adventures- Baumbach/ Punch-Drunk Love/ Passion Of Joan Of Arc- Dreyer/ Roma- Cuaron/ Silence Of The Lambs
10.Broken Blossoms- Griffith/ Steve Jobs- Boyle/ Logan- Mangold/ 8 Mile- Hanson/ Days Of The Future Past- Singer/ Halloween- Carpenter/ Purple Rose Of Cairo/ Yellow Submarine- dunning/ 81/2- fellini/ vertigo- hitchcock
so that was a lot. i want to see if i can narrow it down, absolutely no ties (gonna be very hard) and i started putting films tied with higher films to give space that i dont like as much as some others, like i like steve jobs better than joker but i dont know if either is in my top 10. here goes, and i wont include breaking bad even though it to me is equal slightly less or better than oz. anyways since these are only ten ill put reasons
1. The Wizard Of Oz- a beautiful film about love friendship and childhood acted to perfection great songs amazing screenplay directing, straight up genius, judy garland gives the best performance on celluloid
2.taxi driver/raging bull- ok this is the only tie on this list but these two films are brilliant all around acting music directing editing screenplay and meditations on lonliness, raging bull i think has the greatest last ten minutes aand beginning in history
3. once upon a time in america- in my opinion de niros best performance the music narrative and direction mise en scene are about as good as it gets a meditation
4. searchers- an absolute masterpiece,music, the direction and story, the story the story the story, MOSE freaking HARPER, and mainly perhaps, john wayne in an alltime great performance and hunter’s characters are the most interesting relationship in film history, and the ending as well
5. pulp fiction- the script as good as mainly willis travolta jackson and thurman as well as everyone else is
6. cloud atlas- not as entertaining as star wars or visual as 2001 but the narrative is as human as ive seen and this masterpiece is super ambitious
7. blue velvet- the story and juxtaposition
8. annie hall- great comedic woody allen performance and screenplay keaton is great but she is not why its top ten
9. meyerowitz stories- dialogue, best of hoffman sandler stiller thompson and everyone else in it, narrative genius
10.steve jobs- a shakespearean film which to me gets all the reasons for praise another sorkin script, social network got except an extra layer, that it was about a father and his love for his daughter, a modern masterpiece
@M– thank you for sharing both lists. There’s a good mixture of older works and more recent 2010’s decade stuff. Having said that- I’m not sure you have the right films from the 2010’s decade. Cloud Atlas, Steve Jobs and The Meyerowitz Story. The rest of your films are 7-8 are widely considered classics and in the canon (and very high on my list). The newer ones you won’t find on many of the decade’s list of the best cinema from those critics. Why do you think that is? I’m not saying the critics (or I) am always right— I’m just observing that the older ones you agree with them— and the newer ones you don’t. Any idea why?
i think cloud atlas because it is super ambitious and has something to say about humanity, how big life is, and how there is much repetition and suffering in life, but through the struggle can come a beautiful overture. same reason for meyerowitz, i liked formal touches like the title cards and the script was great, actors were very good, natural dialogue. but to me the best part of meyerowitz was the sense of family, how sandler and stiller wrecked the old man’s car when they found out he violated their sister. steve jobs i thought had a lot of humanity in it as well, as he was a prick but when it came down to his daughter in the end he showed he cared.i do like style over substance films, but my absolute favorite i think the things like acting, and scripts, directing, cinematography, possibly music, it should be formally very good, but i am definitely gonna go with a film with a good lesson on humanity. also iam an actor myself so to me well acted films like meyerowitz and fassbender in steve jobs, or the ensemble of cloud atlas are much appreciated by me.
@M. You are passionate about your picks– as you should be. Thanks for giving me some insight into why you are so high on these three films specifically.
An amazing ranking bro. I would like to know when you will update your count until 2019.
@Richi– thank you for the comment and for visiting the site. So in February — that’s when I’ll do a page for 2019 with my top 10, best performances of the year, etc. I won’t be updating this page for awhile- a year or two and I always wait 10 years to include new films in the top 500. For example, I’ll probably update this page in 2021 and will include films from 2010 and earlier.
Been reading this website for over a year now. Never commented before though. Just wanted to say that this is my favourite website on the internet and your knowledge of film is unparalleled. Seems as if you have seen basically every movie ever and the rankings are superb. Great mix between the classics, foreign films, indie films and the 21st century in all your rankings. The best thing is too that i find myself agreeing with basically all your rankings. For eg. I have PTA’s best as There Will be blood but also not sure if Punch drunk love is his best work because its so goddamn good. Then i go magnolia closely followed by boogie nights. The master is 5 but definitely need another watch )only once). Agree Stalker is Tarkovsky’s best. Even stuff like The Searchers and Apocalypse now i don’t personally have them in my top 10 but they are clearly MP’s and Apocalypse Now is top 20. I like to think of myself as a cinephile but you make me look like i know nothing. So so so appreciate the fact that you watch every kind of movies too. Like the silent films of the 20s, unknown foreign stuff, 7 hour long Tarr films. Literally everything. I haven’t watched as many movies as I’d liked to have in the previous year due to other things happening in my life however i used to watch about 4-5 films a week. Would love to know your thoughts on the Irishman? I personally think its a fantastic sombre look at the gangster life and just life in general. The last 30min is what elevates this movie from very good to great i think. Scorsese rankings: 1. taxi driver 2. goodfellas. 3. raging bull 4. the departed 5. the Irishman 6. mean streets 7. casino 8. the wolf of wall street 9. the king of comedy 10. silence. Thank you for writing such great articles on such a fantastic page. i do have a top 10 movies all time list but haven’t updated it in over a year.
Been reading this website for over a year now. Never commented before though. Just wanted to say that this is my favourite website on the internet and your knowledge of film is unparalleled. Seems as if you have seen basically every movie ever and the rankings are superb. Great mix between the classics, foreign films, indie films and the 21st century in all your rankings. The best thing is too that i find myself agreeing with basically all your rankings. For eg. I have PTA’s best as There Will be blood but also not sure if Punch drunk love is his best work because its so goddamn good. Then i go magnolia closely followed by boogie nights. The master is 5 but definitely need another watch )only once). Agree Stalker is Tarkovsky’s best. Even stuff like The Searchers and Apocalypse now i don’t personally have them in my top 10 but they are clearly MP’s and Apocalypse Now is top 20. I like to think of myself as a cinephile but you make me look like i know nothing. So so so appreciate the fact that you watch every kind of movies too. Like the silent films of the 20s, unknown foreign stuff, 7 hour long Tarr films. Literally everything. I haven’t watched as many movies as I’d liked to have in the previous year due to other things happening in my life however i used to watch about 4-5 films a week. Would love to know your thoughts on the Irishman? I personally think its a fantastic sombre look at the gangster life and just life in general. The last 30min is what elevates this movie from very good to great i think. Scorsese rankings: 1. taxi driver 2. goodfellas. 3. raging bull 4. the departed 5. the Irishman 6. mean streets 7. casino 8. the wolf of wall street 9. the king of comedy 10. silence. Thank you for writing such great articles on such a fantastic page. i do have a top 10 movies all time list but haven’t updated it in over a year.
@Joel– I really appreciate the kind words here about the site. I started this as just sort of a notepad for my ramblings and have been pleasantly surprised by all the positive comments like yours. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Scorsese as well. My ranking is really close to yours (I’d move Age of Innocence in there- it’s very underrated). So I’ve now seen The Irishman twice now. It is superb– here are my thoughts on it: http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/12/09/the-irishman-2019-scorsese/
Completely agree with @Joel. I wanted to post a comment similar to yours, but you perfectly summed up my thoughts. This website is extraordinary, and as you said, the knowledge is unmatched on the internet. I read it almost each day. Bravo @drake !
@ Virgile– well thank you very much- appreciate you visiting the site and the extremely kind words here
My Top Ten Of All Time as of right now is
1.Taxi Driver
2.Pulp Fiction
3.Magnolia
4.Spiderman 2
5.The Master/Manhattan
6.Chinatown
7.LA Confidential
8.Mean Girls (I love this film to death and I don’t care what anyone says)
9.Jackie Brown
10.Inception
HM: Agent Cody Banks( A guilty pleasure lol I watched this all the time as a kid), The Lion King, Fargo, Rush Hour 1 And 2, Alice doesn’t live here anymore, Blue Jasmine, There Will Be Blood, The Shawshank Redemption,And Home Alone 2 among others
@Randy— thanks for sharing. I think i owe the Spiderman’s (including Spiderman 2) another visit. I like most of the films here for sure- great choices. Almost all of these are in the last few decades and in English. Do you have any plans to go farther back? Foreign films? Or have you seen them and just don’t think they qualify?
Also any suggestions I’m open to anything?
I have plans on going back eventually I want to explore more films from the 70s to new Before going into the golden age of Hollywood and other foreign films(I have seen Strangers on a train and Notorious from Hitchcock and enjoyed them both, I eventually will later explore more Hitchcock) I have also seen a clockwork orange and enjoyed that so I can’t wait to explore more Kubrick.
@ Randy– sounds good. I was just wondering. Yeah, I think the way to do it is to work your way back (and expanding outside of English language films). Some directors are more accessible (less difficult) than others. I’d stay away from like Bresson, Dreyer, Tarkovsky and Ozu for awhile. I think even Welles is a little tougher. It took me a long time. I think Hitchcock and Howard Hawks are good places to start. Some of the French New Wave is pretty accessible (Shoot the Piano Player, The 400 Blows from Truffaut). I think Rashomon is right there, too. It’s shorter, has an ambitious structure. Long story short— I think the best way to do it is to go step by step and not try to dive all the way in at once… if you’ve never seen a film from the 60’s pick something like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid– great screenplay, entertaining narrative, in color…
I finally made a list..hurrah
(1) The Godfather (Part 1): Francis Ford Coppola.
(2) The Searchers: John Ford
(3) 2001: A Space Odyssey- Stanley Kubrick
(4) Intolerance: David Griffith
(5) Passion of Joan of Arc: Dreyer.
(6) Apocalypse Now: Francis Ford Coppola
(7) Tree of Life: Terrence Malick.
(8) The Godfather (Part 2): Francis Ford Coppola.
(9) Raging Bull: Martin Scorsese.
(10) Andrei Rublev: Andrei Tarkovsky
(11) Lawrence of Arabia: David Lean.
(12) Breaking the Waves: Lars Von Trier.
(13) The Seventh Seal: Ingmar Bergman.
(14) Once Upon a Time in America: Sergio Leone.
(15) La Dolce Vita: Federico Fellini.
(16) Goodfellas: Martin Scorsese.
(17) In the mood for Love: Wong.
(18) Punch Drunk Love: Paul Thomas Anderson.
(19) Pierrot Le Fou: Jean Luc Goddard.
(20) Cries and Whispers: Ingmar Bergman
Thanks for the suggestion I’ve Seen the first Godfather, Parts Of The second one, Breaking the waves,Once Upon a Time in America, And Raging Bull. I’ll look into the rest.
@AP—– so this list….it’s perfection. Thank you so much for sharing. I might like it more than my own list. haha. I want to ask you for a top 10 of this decade when you’re ready.
I will kinda expand on the choices here.. Have opted for films which aim for the sky. Chinatown is the most perfect film I have seen.. top to bottom. But, Apocalypse and Lawrence have a higher ceiling even if they do meander at times.. Same with Once Upon and Tree of Life. Splitting hairs between all time great films but that’s what we are doing, I guess
Btw, when are you reviewing the Irishman and Marriage Story. The latter was a bit bland at times but both very very good films.
Also, I caught Astra and i think it takes the year. You were spot on with your review.
Hey can you do a List Of The 100 Greatest Movie Performances Of All Time?
@Randy– thanks for all the comments. You’ve really been a great addition to so many of these pages and discussions. Thank you. I’ve had this request before and I’ve thought about it. I will do it at some point but my real work is holding me hostage a bit and with my free time my interest tends towards the films and directors instead of acting… but yeah– i want to get to it. Do you have a top 5 or 10 you can share?
I have a Top 3 lol
1. The Master
2.Moonlight
3.La La Land
@ Drake- haha. You are too sweet.. You are my facorite reviewer and i have gained a lot from reading your work. You have a list for the decade sans 2019 and we are mostly on the same page except The Master which i can’t get into at all.
Recent viewings of American Hustle and Phantom Thread have given me pause, but i am prettty close to getting my list done. Will post it by the end of the year hopefully. Keep up the good work. You are great.
@AP– ahh well thank you. Yes- please let me know when you have a list for the decade. I’m waiting till Feb/March to update mine but yeah if there’s something out there I’ve missed I want to prioritize and a recommendation from you would change that.
Here’s a Topic Idea What are the biggest Oscar Snubs Of The 21st Century ? Some big ones include
Inside Llewelyn Davis for best picture
Before Sunset and Midnight for Best Picture
Jim Carrey for Best Actor for eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind for Best Picture
Zodiac for Best Picture
Paul Dano for Best Supporting Actor for There Will Be blood
The Master for best picture
Oscar Isaac for Best Actor for Inside Llewelyn Davis
The Dark Knight for Best Picture
The 25th Hour for Best Picture
Adam Driver for Best Actor for Paterson
Uma Thurman for Kill Bill 1 and 2 for best Actress
Kill Bill 1 and 2 for Best Picture
A History Of Violence for Best Picture
The Royal Tenebaums for Best Picture
Memento for Best Picture
Mulholland Drive for Best Picture
Naomi Watts for Best Actress for Mulholland Drive
Children of Men for Best Picture
I could go on and on it’s crazy how many great films are snubbed each year
@Randy — I’m on board with these. I can’t imagine I could do a better job than what you’ve done here. Good work! I love the Oscars when they get it right (or close to right like in 2006 I was thrilled with The Departed winning even if Children of Men is superior). But I stopped losing sleep over their wrong choices long ago. My opinion is you have to be patient and year after year and decade after decade the correct (better) films eventually rise to the top.
Hey Drake why do you think of the Golden Globe Nominations?
@Randy. I love watching the Globes. As a TV show– better than the Oscars most years. I’ve got mixed feelings here on the noms. I’m a supporter of Joker, think it’s underrated by many critics, so I’m happy to have it with some surprise nominations. Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood deserve every nom (I’m actually on board with the no nom for De Niro and noms for Pacino and Pesci). I haven’t had a chance at Marriage Story, 1917, Little Women and many others… so we’ll see. I’m disappointed not to see Ad Astra at all… ditto for Midsommar… two of the years very best films that should be represented in most of these categories.
Why are you on aboard with Deniro not getting a nomination?
@Randy. I just wasn’t blown away by De Niro like I was with Pesci and Pacino. De Niro didn’t do anything wrong. I just think if you’re the center of a 3 1/2 hour top 5 of the year quality movie (at least) directed by Scorsese I should be blown away. I’ve got De Niro behind not only Pacino, Pesci, but Phoenix, DiCaprio, Pitt… and Pitt.. perhaps even Kang-ho Song and Banderas as well… There have been a lot of great performances in a lot of great films this year. De Niro’s isn’t at the top.
What’s your top mâle performances of the Year ?
My top 10 :
1. Adam Driver (Marriage Story)
2. Brad Pitt (Ad Astra)
3. Al Pacino (The Irishman)
4. Leonardo DiCaprio (Once Upon…)
5. Joaquin Phœnix (Joker)
6. Joe Pesci (The Irishman)
7. Brad Pitt (Once Upon…)
8. Antonio Banderas (Pain & Glory)
9. Kang-ho Song (Parasite)
10. Robert de Niro (The Irishman)
@KidCharlemagne…. So i haven’t sat down and went through them (except for the little quick exercise based on Randy’s question on De Niro above) but you’re hitting all the ones I’d list for the most part. You and I are aligned. Wht a great year! look at those! I usually wait until February to do my “best of the year” page with my top 10 and best performances- both male and female. I still haven’t seen so many films like 1917, Little Women, Uncut Gems, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Atlantics, etc.
Ah yes, Sandler & Hanks are contenders, that’s true.
Here are my Top 10 Male Performances Of The Year:
1. Leonardo DiCaprio (Once Upon A Time In Hollywood)
2. Adam Driver (Marriage Story)
3. Brad Pitt (Once Upon A Time In Hollywood)
4. Al Pacino (The Irishman)
5. Joe Pesci (The Irishman)
6. Joaquin Phoenix (Joker)
7. Matt Damon (Ford V. Ferrari)
8. Robert De Niro (The Irishman)
9. Daniel Craig (Knives Out)
10. Jake Gyllenhaal (Velvet Buzzsaw)
Honourable Mentions: Eddie Murphy (Dolemite Is My Name), Wesley Snipes (Dolemite Is My Name), Alan Alda (Marriage Story), Chris Evans (Knives Out), Brad Pitt (Ad Astra)
Things I Should Probably Point Out:
1. I haven’t seen that many movies this year… Specifically, Uncut Gems, Dolor y Gloria, Parasite, The Lighthouse or Waves… All of which I hear have very strong male performances.
2. Yes, I do rates DiCaprio’s acting higher than Driver’s… although that is somewhat personal taste.
3. I loved Matt Damon in Ford V Ferrari – but I thought Bale’s work, in the same film, was very weak and an example of overacting. I know, a lot of critics don’t agree with that.
4. Craig and Gyllenhaal’s roles are something I haven’t seen either do before. Knives Out is a great movie, in my opinion – probably about a MS on your scale… And Craig masters the role of the detective, who plays somewhat dumb, but is very clever – essentially, an American Poirot – it’s better than Branagh’s Murder On The Orient Express, and I liked that film quite a bit. Velvet Buzzsaw is R/HR for me – Gyllenhaal makes it for me, very engaging actor.
5. Dolemite Is My Name is not fine art, but is very watchable for me – mostly due to the performances… HR on your scale, for me.
6 – I wasn’t as big a fan of Ad Astra as everyone else, but I do appreciate it’s stunning cinematography, the alternate take on the space movie and Brad Pitt’s stoic and restrained portrayal.
@Jeff — thanks for the comment, list and level of detail here. I loved Damon in Ford v. Ferrari too. I thought both he and Bale (so we disagree here) were superb. I’m a fan of Craig and Gyllenhaal’s work as well. We’ve hit a lot of the best performances here but I’ll had Tom Burke to the mix for his work in The Souvenir. He’s exceptional.
Hi Drake,
Yes, I’ve heard many great things about The Souvenir.
Ford V Ferrari is a weird one. I currently reside in the UK – it’s called Le Mans ’66 over here… But it’s weird. Everyone I know who’s into cinema dislike the performance of Bale, in spite of the many critics who like it… It’s a weird one, for sure. And usually I like Bale – I especially loved his role in American Hustle, although I am not a big fan of his work in American Psycho.
May I ask… as I’m fairly I’ve not seen this film in the Archives… what you think of Drew Goddard’s Bad Times At The El Royale – released last year?
@Jeff…. interesting. Yeah I thought Bale was good and he has good reviews (he’s up for an SAG award, and for a Golden Globe). I adore him in American Psycho as well.
I saw Bad Times at the El Royale. I thought it was fine– not a bad way to spend an evening– but I did find enough in it to put it in the archvies. Do you think I missed something? Did you like it?
Le Mans ‘66. Same here (France)
It’s weird… I really, really loved Bad Times At The El Royale – I’d probably have it as a low MP on your scale, honestly. I get why a lot of people don’t love it. But it is a genre film, through and through. And it’s probably the most fun I had watching a movie in a cinema in 2018. I’m probably slightly bias as I would rank Jeff Bridges as being, definitely, one of the best actors of all-time – his performances in Fearless, Thunderbolt & Lightfoot, The Big Lebowski, True Grit, Crazy Heart and Hell Or High Water are mind-blowing to me – and this is without mentioning other great performances of his, which I haven’t the time to go through lol.* I, also, thought Cynthia Erivo gave a terrific performance. Lewis Pullman was great in his role. And Chris Hemsworth gave a came for the ages. The cinematography was engaging, as was the script. I, also, have to give credit for the use of music in the film – the use of Bernadette by The Four Tops was particularly striking to me. Granted, I can understand why you might not like him.
*If I was gonna do a Top Actors of all-time, it’d probably be DiCaprio as No. 1, followed by Bridges, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Cary Grant, Paul Newman and Clint Eastwood, in no particular order – in years to come, it would be possible that Bradley Cooper, Ryan Gosling, Jake Gyllenhaal, Mahershala Ali and Oscar Isaac would find a place on my list, but it depends on what their future output is like.
@Jeff— interesting. Perhaps I’ll throw Bad Times at the El Royale back in the queue to see again. Thanks for sharing your analysis here.
And that is, for sure, a very fine list of the best actors of all-time. No Brando? Or maybe you don’t go back that far? And I like the crop of “years to come” names you have here too. How about Adam Driver? Daniel Kaluuya? Just another couple of names that are at or near the top right now.
Hey Drake what do you think the Best Decade for Movies is?
@Randy– really good question. I’ve given this a lot of thought. I think it’s the 1960’s. Each and every decade has a lot to offer and some parts of the world or countries disappear and then come alive at different times… but I just think during the 1960’s we had the highest concentration of the most talented directors doing great work. We had the French New Wave, Fellini/Antonioni’s best work. We have Bergman’s best work, Kubrick’s best work, and even a masterpiece from the older generation of great auteurs like Welles, Ford, Hitchcock Dreyer and Ozu. I only have 1 1960’s film in my top 10 (2001) but by every other metric (top 100, top 500) I have more 1960’s films than any other decade. #2 would be the 1970’s.
Okay good answer now I’ll ask you the opposite what do you think the worst decade for cinema is?
@Randy– Well I believe in auteur cinema (director as artist). It’s no coincidence that most of my reviews and blog posts center around the director’s achievement. So I follow that theory and I think there were less great artists working the medium from the 1940’s, 1930’s, and 1920’s and 1910’s. Griffith was great in the 1910’s, Murnau and Eisenstein in the 1920’s, Renoir in the 1930’s, and a handful in the 1940’s like Wells and Powell and Pressburger, Rossellini— but I do think there are more of these great directors from 1950’s-now. So of the more modern decades I think the 1980’s may be the weakest and if you go all the way back I guess I’d say the 1930’s (i don’t count the 1910’s because there just isn’t enough to qualify). There are outliers, great directors and artists (some I don’t mention here) in every decade but if you forced me to answer that would be my answer– 1930’s overall and 1980’s if you’re looking for a more modern answer.
Hello. Many have wondered about a possible Best Performances List, but what about a Best Scripts/Screenplays ranking? If you’re too busy writing all of the other great pages you do, what would be some of the top contenders? I’d expect Citizen Kane, Chinatown, The Godfather I-II, Casablanca, Vertigo and Psycho, maybe Raging Bull and Apocalypse Now to be up there?
@Graham—- yeah that would be fun. I think two that stand out are Chinatown and Social Network. You could track some of the best writer/directors too like Billy Wilder who was just a genius with the pen. All About Eve is a brilliant screenplay. Casablanca… Fargo… I just watched Lawrence of Arabia and would absolutely print that screenplay off and read it on a plane. haha.
Well, I think the thing for me with Brando is that I don’t really love his performance in Apocalypse Now (I haven’t seen any of his work on the Godfather or prior – the only supposedly great performance of his I’ve is Apocalypse Now), so I’m not a big fan, so far. (I’ve only seen a certain amount of movies – I am only 18, at the moment and am only recently emerging as a cinephile, so it’ll probably be a long while before I end up as well-read as you). The thing about the to-come actors I’ve listed is that I’ve loved, at least, two of their performances. So with Oscar Isaac, for example, I have 3 – Inside Llewyn Davis, A Most Violent Year and Ex Machina. Mahershala Ali, I have 2 – Moonlight (he makes this movie a great one, in my opinion, in spite of Barry Jenkins’ superb direction) and Green Book (Movie is HR, at best, but his performance is mesmerising in a way that I haven’t seen an actor be since Hoffman in The Master). Ryan Gosling was one I was tempted to put on the main list. His body of work in this decade is astounding – Blue Valentine, Drive and La La Land are the three highlights, but he is immensely charismatic and funny in The Nice Guys and Crazy, Stupid, Love. His performance in The Place Beyond The Pines is underrated and is one of the best parts of one of my favourite movies of all time (this one really connected with me, for some reason). However, his work in First Man is offputting a little to me – I thought the movie was visually stunning, but his acting was too dry this time. And I wasn’t as big a fan of 2049 as everyone else. To be fair to Gosling, though, I thought his performance was good, albeit not great.
Anyway, to answer your question, which is what I was gonna do before I went on a tangent (sorry lol), the issue with Kaluuya and Driver for me is that- actually, there’s two issues – but the main one for me is that they only have one truly masterful performance each. Kaluuya – Get Out. Driver – Marriage Story. Although, in all fairness, they are very good in Widows and BlacKKKlansman – but not masterful. The other problem with them both is is that, in a weird way, in spite of them both being fairly engaging, they do not have the charisma of the others, which is, usually, what makes an actor stand out for me. For example, in Ex Machina, it’s hard to look away from Oscar Isaac, just because of his phenomenal screen presence in it. The same goes for most of the roles of the actors on that list. They dominate the movies they’re in, but, also, have a way of bringing up the other actors around them. This is a a key asset I find in many of the great actors. I.e. Bridges in The Big Lebowski gets tons and tons of laughs and is one of the great performances of cinema, but the entirety of that ensemble, also, shines.
I don’t know. I feel like I’ve gone on a mega-tangent. Haha sorry.
@Jeff. This is great. I love the passion. I got really interested in cinema around 1999 so I’ve been keeping lists and doing this type of stuff for a long time.
Yep. Hopefully you work your way back over time and watch more Brando and appreciate his stuff. I disagree with the Apocalypse Now take but you aren’t alone. I just think that role needs a big presence/actor and you don’t get any bigger than Brando.
I agree with you on Gosling. He’s on my list of the best actors of all-time already at a young age (along with many of the other names you list here like Dicaprio who was in my top 20 all-time already– and that was prior to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
I’d add Driver’s work in Paterson to the mix. It’s a different (quieter) kind of film/performance (Jarmusch is a different (but exception) type of of director but among the best performances of 2016. And for me i think Kaluuya’s Get Out/Widows is stronger than Ali’s Moonlight/Green Book. Widows is just so much better than Green Book (that’s a big factor) and although Kaluuya is in a supporting role– he’s mesmerizing.
I think you are right about Brando, probably. I feel like I’ll have more of an appreciation for his role in Apocalypse Now (it’s a movie I love), after I view his career. That sort of role needs a sort of backcatologue of knowledge, with the actor. In a way, similar to Newman in Road To Perdition. I should definitely watch Streetcar Named Desire, as I am currently studying the play.
As much as I love DiCaprio in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, I think his best performance might be The Wolf Of Wall Street – no one else could probably play that and it is an absolute tour-de-force that rules the movie.
I haven’t seen Paterson yet, so I couldn’t comment. When I watched Widow, when it was first released actually, it didn’t make much of an impact on me. I feel like I should give it a second shot at some point, as I very much enjoy Hunger and loved 12 Years A Slave – Chiwetel Ejoifer and Lupita N’Yongo blow me away in it. I, actually, didn’t mind Green Book. I prefered it to quite a few of the candidates at that year’s Oscars – granted there were better movies that year (even if I haven’t seen Roma or Cold War yet lol) like The Favourite (Rachel Weisz – so good), BlacKKKlansman (Spike Lee’s mastery of so many cinematic techniques is incredible, I still think he is a somewhat underrated director, especially for his work on Inside Man) and A Star Is Born (Bradley Cooper is mindblowing).
I like the « auteur » in Brando works. He often played violent characters who get hit,beat. As he punishes himself.
Viva Zapata, On The Waterfront, One-Eyed Jacks, Mutiny on the Bounty, The Chase, Reflections in a Golden Eye. What ? He’s a sado-maso or something ?
Cruise often played character with daddy issues. What if Brando was a daddy. Kill the father. It’s oedipus. The best representation,use of that is The Godfather.
@KidCharlemagne– fascinating. I hadn’t picked up on all of those trends. Thanks for the insight here.
You should do a list of the worst films of all time.
@Randy– haha this one is all you. It would be fun in a way but I don’t want to spend my time on bad films.
Hey Drake do you use the Criterion Collection? If so what titles do you like, and what Titles can you recommend me Personally I have Punch Drunk Love,Inside Llewyn Davis, and Broadcast News(I believe I have another but I can’t remember off the top of my head).
@Randy. it’s changed over the years. I signed up for and currently subscribe to the Criterion Channel right now as a streaming service. I’d certainly recommend it to anyone– i love it. I have a bunch of old DVD’s still but rarely use them– I’m mostly streaming (Criterion Channel. Netflix, Amazon Prime and a bunch of Cable movie channels) and then I still get the old fashion snail mail Netflix so i can grab a bluray copy of something for a few days. I don’t really buy many dvd’s or blurays anymore. Criterion does such a good job but it isn’t cheap. I’d try to focus on tough to find dvd’s or ones that you wish you could see on the big screen but can’t. Anything Malick, Kubrick, Tarkovsky would be the first ones I’d seek out. I’m currently looking into getting Heaven’s Gate from Michael Cimino as i’m tired of waiting for it.
Twice a year (July and November/December I believe?) Barnes and Nobles has a 50% off Criterion sale. I’ve taken advantage of this to add a few dozen to my collection over the years.
Most apparitions in the « Best Performances of the Year » category, of all time (at least 2):
Robert DeNiro (9) :
} 2# en 1973.
} 2# en 1974.
} 1# en 1976.
} 1# en 1978.
} 1# en 1980.
} 5# en 1982.
} 3# en 1984.
} 3# en 1990.
} 1# en 1995.
Jack Nicholson (9) :
} 5# en 1969.
} 1# en 1970.
} 4# en 1971.
} 3# en 1973.
} 4# en 1974.
} 2# en 1975.
} 3# en 1980.
} 6# en 1989.
} 6# en 1992.
Al Pacino (8) :
} 1# en 1972.
} 6# en 1973.
} 7# en 1973.
} 1# en 1974.
} 1# en 1975.
} 4# en 1983.
} 5# en 1990.
} 4# en 1999.
James Stewart (8) :
} 2# en 1939.
} 3# en 1940.
} 1# en 1946.
} 5# en 1950.
} 5# en 1953.
} 5# en 1954.
} 1# en 1958.
} 2# en 1959.
Humphrey Bogart (7) :
} 1# en 1941.
} 3# en 1941.
} 1# en 1942.
} 2# en 1944.
} 2# en 1946.
} 2# en 1948.
} 6# en 1950.
Leonardo DiCaprio (6) :
} 1# en 2004.
} 2# en 2006.
} 1# en 2010.
} 3# en 2013.
} 1# en 2015.
} 3# en 2019.
Daniel Day-Lewis (6) :
} 5# en 1989.
} 4# en 1992.
} 4# en 1993.
} 1# en 2002.
} 1# en 2007.
} 1# en 2017.
Marlon Brando (5) :
} 1# en 1951.
} 1# en 1954.
} 1# en 1972.
} 1# en 1972.
} 2# en 1979.
William Holden (5) :
} 1# en 1950.
} 4# en 1953.
} 3# en 1957.
} 1# en 1969.
} 2# en 1976.
Dustin Hoffman (5) :
} 1# en 1967.
} 1# en 1969.
} 4# en 1970.
} 6# en 1974.
} 5# en 1979.
Paul Newman (5) :
} 1# en 1961.
} 5# en 1963.
} 2# en 1967.
} 3# en 1969.
} 4# en 1982.
Gene Hackman (5) :
} 2# en 1971.
} 5# en 1973.
} 5# en 1974.
} 4# en 1992.
} 1# en 2001.
Brad Pitt (5) :
} 3# en 1995.
} 2# en 1999.
} 3# en 2007.
} 2# en 2011.
} 2# en 2019.
Kirk Douglas (5) :
} 2# en 1947.
} 4# en 1951.
} 5# en 1951.
} 4# en 1956.
} 5# en 1957.
Cary Grant (4) :
} 1# en 1937.
} 1# en 1938.
} 2# en 1940.
} 1# en 1959.
Tom Cruise (4) :
} 2# en 1983.
} 6# en 1988.
} 1# en 1996.
} 1# en 1999.
Ryan Gosling (4) :
} 2# en 2010.
} 3# en 2011.
} 1# en 2016.
} 2# en 2017.
Bill Murray (4) :
} 3# en 1993.
} 3# en 1998.
} 1# en 2003.
} 3# en 2005.
Joaquin Phœnix (4) :
} 1# en 2012.
} 4# en 2013.
} 5# en 2019.
} 4# en 2008.
Laurence Olivier (4) :
} 4# en 1939.
} 1# en 1944.
} 6# en 1948.
} 6# en 1960.
Toshiro Mifune (4) :
} 2# en 1950.
} 2# en 1954.
} 6# en 1957.
} 2# en 1961.
Edward Norton (4) :
} 6# en 1998.
} 3# en 1999.
} 3# en 2002.
} 3# en 2014.
Johnny Depp (4) :
} 4# en 1990.
} 5# en 1994.
} 2# en 1995.
} 4# en 1998.
Gary Copper (4) :
} 3# en 1929.
} 3# en 1936.
} 3# en 1943.
} 4# en 1952.
Charlie Chaplin (3) :
} 1# en 1925.
} 3# en 1931.
} 1# en 1936.
John Wayne (3) :
} 3# en 1939.
} 1# en 1948.
} 1# en 1956.
Henry Fonda (3) :
} 1# en 1940.
} 3# en 1946.
} 1# en 1968.
James Cagney (3) :
} 2# en 1931.
} 2# en 1942.
} 1# en 1949.
Marcelo Mastroianni (3) :
} 2# en 1960.
} 4# en 1961.
} 1# en 1963.
Emil Jannings (3) :
} 1# en 1924.
} 2# en 1925.
} 3# en 1930.
Robert Mitchum (3) :
} 1# en 1947.
} 3# en 1955.
} 3# en 1962.
Montgomery Clift (3) :
} 4# en 1948.
} 2# en 1951.
} 1# en 1953.
Joe Pesci (3) :
} 2# en 1980.
} 1# en 1990.
} 4# en 2019.
Christian Bale (3) :
} 1# en 2000.
} 4# en 2010.
} 2# en 2013.
Harrison Ford (3) :
} 4# en 1977.
} 1# en 1981.
} 4# en 2017.
Ralph Fiennes (3) :
} 2# en 1993.
} 2# en 1996.
} 2# en 2014.
Sean Connery (3) :
} 3# en 1964.
} 2# en 1965.
} 3# en 1987.
Clint Eastwood (3) :
} 4# en 1964.
} 2# en 1966.
} 3# en 1992.
Orson Welles (3) :
} 2# en 1941.
} 4# en 1949.
} 3# en 1958.
Burt Lancaster (3) :
} 3# en 1947.
} 3# en 1953.
} 4# en 1957.
Warren Beatty (3) :
} 3# en 1967.
} 3# en 1971.
} 5# en 1981.
Ewan McGregor (3) :
} 4# en 1996.
} 3# en 2001.
} 5# en 2010.
Tom Hanks (3) :
} 3# en 1988.
} 5# en 1993.
} 4# en 2013.
Russell Crowe (3) :
} 4# en 1997.
} 4# en 1999.
} 4# en 2003.
John Garfield (3) :
} 4# en 1946.
} 4# en 1947.
} 5# en 1948.
Clark Gable (2) :
} 1# en 1934.
} 1# en 1939.
Jean-Paul Belmondo (2) :
} 1# en 1960.
} 1# en 1965.
Heath Ledger (2) :
} 1# en 2005.
} 1# en 2008.
Buster Keaton (2) :
} 2# en 1924.
} 1# en 1926.
Edward G. Robinson (2) :
} 2# en 1930.
} 1# en 1945.
Frank Sinatra (2) :
} 2# en 1953.
} 1# en 1955.
Klaus Kinski (2) :
} 2# en 1972.
} 1# en 1982.
Harvey Keitel (2) :
} 1# en 1973.
} 2# en 1992.
Adam Driver (2) :
} 2# en 2016.
} 1# en 2019.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman (2) :
} 2# en 2005.
} 2# en 2012.
Christoph Waltz (2) :
} 1# en 2009.
} 3# en 2012.
Peter O’Toole (2) :
} 1# en 1962.
} 4# en 1968.
Max Von Sydow (2) :
} 1# en 1957.
} 4# en 1988.
Denzel Washington (2) :
} 4# en 1989.
} 1# en 1992.
Jeff Bridges (2) :
} 1# en 1998.
} 5# en 1991.
Michael B. Jordan (2) :
} 5# en 2015.
} 1# en 2018.
Maurice Chevalier (2)
} 2# en 1929.
} 2# en 1932.
James Dean (2) :
} 2# en 1955.
} 2# en 1956.
George C. Scott (2) :
} 2# en 1964.
} 2# en 1970.
Ethan Hawke (2) :
} 2# en 2004.
} 2# en 2013.
Ray Liotta (2) :
} 2# en 1986.
} 2# en 1990.
Joseph Cotton (2) :
} 2# en 1943.
} 3# en 1949.
Errol Flynn (2) :
} 2# en 1935.
} 3# en 1942.
Takashi Shimura (2) :
} 2# en 1952.
} 3# en 1954.
Christopher Walken (2) :
} 2# en 1978.
} 3# en 1983.
Daniel Kaluuya (2) :
} 3# en 2017.
} 2# en 2018.
Casey Affleck (2) :
} 2# en 2007.
} 3# en 2016.
John Goodman (2) :
} 4# en 1991.
} 2# en 1998.
Bruce Willis (2) :
} 2# en 1988.
} 4# en 1994.
Mickey Rourke (2) :
} 5# en 1987.
} 2# en 2008.
Sean Penn (2) :
} 5# en 1995.
} 2# en 2003.
Jack Gyllenhaal (2) :
} 2# en 2001.
} 5# en 2014.
Adam Sandler (2) :
} 2# en 2002.
} 6# en 2019.
Jean Gabin (2) :
} 3# en 1937.
} 3# en 1952.
Jean-Louis Trintignant (2) :
} 4# en 1969.
} 3# en 1970.
Rod Steiger (2) :
} 5# en 1964.
} 3# en 1965.
Bruno Ganz (2) :
} 3# en 1977.
} 5# en 2004.
Matt Damon (2) :
} 3# en 1997.
} 5# en 1999.
Robert Shaw (2) :
} 4# en 1966.
} 4# en 1975.
John Hurt (2)
} 4# en 1978.
} 4# en 1980.
Tony Curtis (2) :
} 4# en 1957.
} 6# en 1959.
Michael Fassbender (2) :
} 4# en 2011.
} 5# en 2013.
Kevin Spacey (2) :
} 4# en 1995.
} 7# en 1999.
John Turturro (2) :
} 6# en 1990.
} 3# en 1991.
Jim Broadbant (2) :
} 6# en 1999.
} 3# en 2001.
Jack Lemmon (2) :
} 5# en 1959.
} 4# en 1960.
Bruce Dern (2) :
} 5# en 1978.
} 4# en 2013.
Viggo Mortensen (2) :
} 4# en 2005.
} 5# en 2003.
Benicio Del Toro (2) :
} 4# en 2000.
} 6# en 2015.
Alain Delon (2) :
} 5# en 1960.
} 5# en 1967.
Robert Downey Jr. (2) :
} 5# en 2007.
} 5# en 2008.
@KidCharlemagne — you are my hero– thank you for gathering this
I hope i didn’t forget anyone
96 actors with at least 2 BPY.
45 actors with at least 3 BPY.
24 actors with at least 4 BPY.
14 actors with at least 5 BPY.
7 actors with at least 6 BPY.
5 actors with at least 7 BPY.
4 actors with at least 8 BPY.
2 actors with at least 9 BPY.
Robert DeNiro (76,78,80,95) & Marlon Brando (51,54,72,72) with the most Top 1 (4).
Jack Nicholson (60’s,70’s,80’s,90’s) & Gary Cooper (20’s,30’s,40’s,50’s) with the most decades (4).
@KidCharlemagne — such a great addition to the page and site!
based on what i’ve seen, each decade’s best is as follows
30s- wizard of oz
40s- kane
50s- waterfront
60s- lawrence of arabia
70s- aguirre
80s- tie dead ringers/ raging bull
90s- altmans player
2000s- ai artificial intelligence
2010s- inside llewyn davis
@m — thanks for sharing– some truly great films here on this list.
Mine would be :
20s the passion of joan of arc
30s city lights
40s citizen kane
50s to live/ikiru
60s 2001:a space odyssey
70s the godfather (and its sequel)
80s raging bull
90s schindlers list
00s brokeback mountain
10s tree of life
so i stand behind all those as great films that i listed for decades ends. but i have yet to see many films. i am waiting to watch apocylypse now until it comes on hbo next month, and i will watch 8 1/2 soon on tcm hopefully. i have not seen anything from bergman or tarkovsky, and the only hitchcock i have seen is to catch a thief. i will be working on a top 1000 list over the course of a longer period of time to watch more films and hopefully share some of it. i have praised films like meyerowitz steve jobs and vanilla sky extensively and though they are great films, they are not among the greatest \. i just see a film and proclaim it as the best thing ever.
anyways great site tat exposed me to alot of great films and directors and actors.
You dont need to wait. Just watch any movie of your choice online.there are TONS of legal and free online movie streaming websites
@m and @azman– thanks for sharing your thoughts m– and Azman is right on the online streaming sites but I’d just caution that some free/streaming transfers aren’t of the highest quality. Some are solid– but I think it’s worth the extra wait to see a really good transfer of a film. You know HBO and TCM do a great job but others aren’t so hot (a lot of movies on EPIX right now are awful transfers). Just my two cents on that.
your right most websites are low quality but there are a lot of hd quality streaming websites
Hey Drake.
Ranking movies is becoming very challenging for me. I’ve thought of a new way of ranking movies. So basically there are 5 levels, the top level being perfect movies like Chinatown and the bottom not so good. Kinda like your ranking system but more like Roger Ebert’s. I will still think of a top 10 maybe like most critics for sight and sound. Do you think this is a decent way to rank movies?
It’s very hard to justify why a certain movie is better than another and also there will be recency bias and rewatch bias (you might see a certain movie more times than another). Some movies get much better upon rewatching them other flip flop. I’m not suggesting that ranking movies is wrong, I’m just want something different to try out. I wanna rank movies like ebert. The decades best and the 10 best of all time. I will implement your 4 tiers of ranking too. (MS, MP,R AND hr). I think it’ll be a unique and fun way of ranking movies. Something different.
Suggestions … the year my voice broke, mad max, spotlight, picnic at hanging rock, lantana
@RayP— thanks. I’ve seen 4 of the 5– the one I haven’t- The Year My Voice Broke I’ll add to the queue to see. Appreciate the suggestion.
I’m not sure which mad max you mean– if its fury road– I always wait 10 years from release date to add films so that’ll be on here in 2025. haha. I like the original 1979 Mad Max but it would be closer to #1000.
Lantana and Spotlight were fine films- but aren’t that close to the top 500.
Picnic at Hanging Rock is one I need to revisit soon. it’s close. Thanks again.
what are your favorite films. i don’t mean what you think are the greatest but what is your top 15 favorites. of course it can overlap, for example the searchers is one of my favorites.
for me my favorite films are lord of the rings, up, star wars, inside llewyn davis, ai, school of rock, ferris, sesame street follow that bird, goodfellas, etc.
@m – that’s interesting. I mean I think at this point “favorite” and “best” are so closely aligned for me– I think I see what you’re saying though in terms of films that I’m awed by (like Citizen Kane) but not something I’d watch every day.
Goodfellas, Big Lebowski, Annie Hall, Rio Bravo, Royal Tenenbaums–there are a ton more but these come to mind quickly– just kind of great hangout movies that I could have on at any time and they fly …. I don’t know if I have one for this decade really yet– maybe those emerge later after many viewings. Maybe it’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Is your ranking completely objective? Are these the films you find to be the best or are they your favorites? Also most of my favorites are so emotional I can’t watch them anytime because they are so dark and depressing (like Joan/Come and see). Not all of our favorites can be comedies. Even some mvies like Green Mile, Cinema Paradiso (IMDB favorites) are very dark.
very emotional*
@Azman – as I said “best” and “favorite” are very much aligned for me at this point. Some are easier to rewatch immediately than others so I listed a few for @m. I could watch Big Lewowski every day (there was a period of my life I almost did-haha) but I definitely think Citizen Kane is the better film- even if both are brilliant films.
Ya drake, that was my point. Some movies are easier to rewatch then others because they are less violent and less emotional. However it is undeniable that certain movies are better than others. I find Schwarzenegger’s Commando extremely fun and rewatchable and come and See (from the same year) to be very depressing. But, it’s undeniable that Come and See is the better movie. Like you mentioned, the rewatchibility factor doesn’t dictate the quality of a film.
@Azman — exactly– we’re on the same page here. Case and point I think I’ve seen Commando three times and Come and See once. haha.
That’s so common now, I’m not even surprised. Very rarely are we not on the same page.
When De Palma was watching Raging Bull he turned around to his friend and said: “No matter how good you are, no matter how hard you try, there is always Martin Scorsese”.
When I read through Ebert’s reviews and your reviews the same thought goes through my head. ” No matter how many movies I see, no matter how hard I try, I will never be able to write detailed reviews like that. I will never be as knowledgeable as you about movies”.
Whenever I see that Ebert and you like the same movies as me (which often), I feel a bit happy and very intelligent because great minds think alike.
Keep up the great work on your website. Your website is truly the most informative about movies there is.
@Azman– these are very kind words. Thank you. There are plenty of more informative websites on cinema out there but again– thank you.
Has Any Decade Produced a better group of alternate Best Picture Winners than the 70s.
1970: MASH, Five Easy Pieces,Love Story,and Airport
1971: The Last Picture Show,a Clockwork Orange, Fiddler on the roof, and Nicholas and Alexandra.
1972: Cabaret, Deliverance, Sounder, and The Emigrants
1973: The Exorcist,American Graffiti, Cries and Whispers, and A touch of class
1974: Chinatown, The Conversation, Lenny, The Towering Inferno
1975: Nashville, Barry Lyndon, Dog Day Afternoon, and Jaws
1976: Taxi Driver, All the presidents men, Network, and Bound for Glory
1977: Star Wars, Julia, The Goodbye Girl, and The Turning Point
1978: Coming Home, Heaven can wait,an unmarried Woman, and Midnight Express
1979: Apocalypse Now, All that Jazz, Breaking Away, and Norma Rae
I can’t name another Decade that has a better list of non-winners. You could also argue that it is the greatest decade for Actresses.
Hey! I only have Netflix (Canada). It’s the only streaming service I am subscribed to. What are the best movies on Netflix? I have seen this question asked before but no one replied. I’m looking for some recommendations. Anything from the 1920s-2020 is fine. Foriegn or English.
keyser soze. id recommend this one called promised land by gus van sant. he is unfortunately a hack now, but this film has great acting from the likes of john krasinski (jim in the office, quiet place), frances mcdormand, and matt damon. The Hateful eight is perhaps my favorite tarantino (though i don’t like all his films too much. Snowpiercer by director of parasite is intriguing, with tilda swinton and chris evans from the mcu. ghost rider with nicolas cage is very underrated. the meyerowitz stories with adam sandler dustin hoffman and some other greats. Cadillac records with adrien brody and beyonce. if you are a breaking bad fan than try el camino, the sequel to the show, that is a great movie. of course raging bull is great. of course back to the future is an absolute masterpiece i hope this helps you find some stuff. my netflix is american and there is not many old movies on it so most i mention are new.
Well Netflix Canada is far inferior to Netflix USA. NO Promised land, NO Snowpiercer, NO Ghost Rider, NO Raging Bull, NO Cadillac records.
There are only about 10-20 Black and White/classics(pre 1960).
Most b and white movies are documentaries. The only black and white movies on Netflix are: High Noon, Citizen Kane, The Stranger, Frances Ha and a few others. If anyone like Drake or Matt Harris or Cinephile could help me out, I would greatly appreciate it.
@Keyser Soze — first off, thanks for visiting the site and for the comments. Secondly– great name. As for your Netflix Canada question- sorry- I don’t have it. I mean those are great films- High Noon, Citizen Kane, The Stranger and Frances Ha. All four very worthy of seeing.
Hello:
I’ve certainly lurked but have never commented here yet. Anyhow, your top 20 films are hard to argue with, even if it wouldn’t necessarily be my list, although I’m not sure I’d have Bicycle Thieves so high. I’m glad you have Jules and Jim and La Dolce Vita as high as you do. They’re among the most taken for granted films in cinema history I think. The Searchers would be a no-brainer top ten film. Likewise 2001, even if I probably personally prefer Barry Lyndon. I’ve often wrestled between L’Avventura and Rules of the Game as the Greatest Film of All Time, but I could certainly argue Vertigo as well. Lola Montes would also be up there for me. Likewise PlayTime. Granted, I’m not a very list-minded person, so I probably think in somewhat different terms. There are other films I personally love that are maybe not top 20 of all time material, such as The Long Goodbye and Maurice Pialat’s We Won’t Grow Old Together. However, I’d go to the mat insisting In A Lonely Place, Love Streams, and Two-Lane Blacktop all belong in a top 100, but I respect they’re not everybody’s cup of tea. I’d probably throw PTA’s The Master into a top 25, and you seem to rate that film pretty highly.
As for the greatest all around director of all time, it would be a toss up for me between Hitchcock and Ozu, since Antonioni doesn’t quite have the body of work as a whole to compete with those two. On the directors’ side of things I’d probably have Bresson, Cassavetes, and even Bunuel a bit higher than you do, but that’s just me. At any rate, you have an excellent blog.
@Remy– thank you very much for visiting the site and the thoughtful comments and suggestions here. I owe Maurice Pialat’s work further study especially.
Hey Drake and hey Remy
I’m curious about Playtime. A film that’s been on my watch list for a long time.
On TSPDT the film is said to be 108 mins. Other websites say the film is 120 mins and most commonly 155 mins. This is confusing to me. Are there multiple versions? Which one should I see?
The Criterion bluray is 124 minutes so I’d assume that’s the correct runtime. In any case, that version is the one I have seen and own and consider one of the greatest films ever made. As great an achievement in mise-en-scene as the medium has ever seen.
Thanks Matt.
So that means you would recommend it right?
What else did you enjoy about the movie. Was it an achievement in acting, screenplay, cinematography too?
“As great an achievement in mise-en-scene as the medium has ever seen.”
Even better than Ozu??
Now Im hyped to see it!
Hi Azman:
As far as I know, the 124 minute version of PlayTime is the only one to have ever been available in an HD format.
Azman,
I think you witnessed my back and forth with Drake about Roma where I argued that the narrative and themes were important to its greatness and his final word was that I was underestimating how its themes were communicated visually rather than narratively. Well if there was ever a film that statement is true of, it is Playtime. You don’t go to Playtime for scintillating dialogue, but it has incredible humour and a profound examination of modernity which occurs, almost entirely in the film’s visuals. As an achievement in mise-en-scene, it’s difficult to compare to the other great masters. Ozu has his stately, any random frame is a work of art, beauty. Kubrick has his rigorous, clinical compositional perfection. Kurosawa has a dash of both with a major infusion of movement. Tati… is different. There are innumerable still frame images you could take and frame, but the true genius of it is the way the design communicates with the viewer. It’s difficult to explain. If you want to say Tokyo Story, or Blade Runner, or A Clockwork Orange is the greater achievement in mise-en-scene, I won’t fight you, but it’s splitting hairs.
@Matt Harris— totally unrelated- but I’m going to make a point of seeing Playtime again very soon. haha.
I get what you are saying Matt. the ‘visuals’ symbolize a lot. They advance the film’s narrative. You can tell a lot without dialogue. A lot of themes can be communicated visually. The narrative can be progressed without words.
For example (i know it’s kinda unrelated; haha): The silent 25 minute opening of 2001 basically tells us how human beings advanced from apes and ape-like weapons to intelligent humans with nuclear devices and spaceships. In one single cut (from the ape bone weapon to the nuclear spaceship), Kubrick has transitioned us from mankind’s most primitive technology to mankind’s most advanced. This is profound…Not only has the narrative been advanced millions of years, but Kubrick also touches on themes like evolution and technology and how we are so advanced, we no longer live in the landscapes of African deserts, but in space. (Notice towards the end in the star gate sequence, what appears to be Jupiter’s ‘deserts’ show up. The ‘landscapes’ in the star gate sequence look remarkably similar to the ones in the Dawn of Man sequence. Humans have become so advanced, that we go from the ‘deserts’ of Africa, to the moon and now Jupiter and beyond…). All this has been communicated visually and not with dialogue. The themes of human advancement, the fear of the unknown etc would never have been this profound if Kubrick chose to communicate it verbally instead.
Cinema is first and foremost a visual medium. You should be able to tell your story and themes only visually… You can show moods and feelings (suspense, horror etc), silently. Dialogue is extremely important to advance the narrative and themes but visuals are (i would argue) slightly more important because they even add to the beauty of the film.
I look forward to seeing Playtime since I like ‘visual’ movies and since it has been praised by a lot of people.
Azman this was extremely informative! Thanks for sharing. People on the blog what do you think?? I agree with everything Azman said.
What’s your top 10 of every decade (1920s + 1910s counted together ) ? Of course this question is not directed towards Drake (since we can know his top films through the lists on the blog) but towards each of the readers of the blog.
@cinephile
You asked and it sounded like a fun exercise, so I quickly threw together each of the lists. I’m sure I missed some in my haste, and in several decades I included many ties… because you can’t stop me! Here they are.
1910-1929
1. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1928)
2. Pandora’s Box (Pabst, 1929)
3. Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)
4. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein, 1925)
5. Nosferatu (Murnau, 1922)
6. The General (Keaton, 1926)
7. Metropolis (Lang, 1927)
8. The Last Laugh (Murnau, 1924)
9. Intolerance (Griffith, 1916)
10. (tie) The Love of Jeanne Ney (Pabst, 1927)
10. (tie) Fantomas (Feuillade, 1913)
1930-1939
1. The Rules of the Game (Renoir, 1939)
2. Stagecoach (Ford, 1939)
3. M (Lang, 1931)
4. City Lights (Chaplin, 1931)
5. The 3 Penny Opera (Pabst, 1931)
6. Bringing Up Baby (Hawks, 1938)
7. The Wizard of Oz (Fleming, 1939)
8. Modern Times (Chaplin, 1936)
9. The Blue Angel (von Sternberg, 1930)
10. Gone With the Wind (Fleming, 1939)
1940-1949
1. Notorious (Hitchcock, 1946)
2. Bicycle Thieves (De Sica, 1948)
3. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
4. The Third Man (Reed, 1949)
5. Late Spring (Ozu, 1949)
6. Casablanca (Curtiz, 1942)
7. The Big Sleep (Hawks, 1946)
8. Double Indemnity (Wilder, 1944)
9. Red River (Hawks, 1948)
10. My Darling Clementine (Ford, 1946)
1950-1959
1. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
5. Rashomon (Kurosawa, 1950)
6. The Seventh Seal (Bergman, 1957)
7. Touch of Evil (Welles, 1958)
8. Ikiru (Kurosawa, 1952)
9. Hiroshima mon Amour (Resnais, 1959)
10. (tie) North by Northwest (1959)
10. (tie) Throne of Blood (Kurosawa, 1957)
10. (tie) Singin’ in the Rain (Donen, 1952)
10. (tie) Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1954)
10. (tie) Rio Bravo (Hawks, 1959)
10. (tie) La Strada (Fellini, 1954)
1960-1969
1. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
2. Breathless (Godard, 1960)
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
4. Playtime (Tati, 1967)
5. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Leone, 1966)
6. La Dolce Vita (Fellini, 1960)
7. Lawrence of Arabia (Lean, 1962)
8. High and Low (Kurosawa, 1963)
9. Persona (Bergman, 1966)
10. (tie) L’Avventura (Antonioni, 1960)
10. (tie) Once Upon a Time in the West (Leone, 1968)
10. (tie) The Wild Bunch (Peckinpah, 1969)
10. (tie) Andrei Rublev (Tarkovsky, 1966)
10. (tie) Last Year at Marienbad (Resnais, 1961)
1970-1979
1. Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)
2. The Godfather Part II (Coppola, 1974)
3. Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1976)
4. A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, 1971)
5. The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
6. Stalker (Tarkovsky, 1979)
7. Chinatown (Polanski, 1974)
8. Jaws (Spielberg, 1975)
9. Manhattan (Allen, 1979)
10. (tie) Days of Heaven (Malick, 1978)
10. (tie) Nashville (Altman, 1975)
10. (tie) Star Wars (Lucas, 1977)
10. (tie) Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Herzog, 1972)
10. (tie) Annie Hall (Allen, 1977)
1980-1989
1. Raging Bull (Scorsese, 1980)
2. Blade Runner (Scott, 1982)
3. Ran (Kurosawa, 1985)
4. The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner, 1980)
5. Do the Right Thing (Lee, 1989)
6. The Shining (Kubrick, 1980)
7. Blue Velvet (Lynch, 1986)
8. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg, 1981)
9. Dekalog (Kieslowski, 1988-1989)
10. Dead Ringers (Cronenberg, 1988)
1990-1999
1. Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994)
2. Goodfellas (Scorsese, 1990)
3. The Thin Red Line (Malick, 1998)
4. Schindler’s List (Spielberg, 1993)
5. Magnolia (Anderson, 1999)
6. Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick, 1999)
7. Heat (Mann, 1995)
8. Chungking Express (Wong, 1994)
9. Red (Kieslowski, 1994)
10. (tie) Fargo (Coen, 1996)
10. (tie) JFK (Stone, 1991)
10. (tie) Boogie Nights (Anderson, 1997)
2000-2009
1. There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007)
2. In the Mood for Love (Wong, 2000)
3. Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009)
4. The Lord of the Rings (Jackson, 2001-2003)
5. Mulholland Drive (Lynch, 2001)
6. Werckmeister Harmonies (Tarr, 2000)
7. Children of Men (Cuaron, 2006)
8. Punch-Drunk Love (Anderson, 2002)
9. A History of Violence (Cronenberg, 2005)
10. (tie) Paprika (Kon, 2006)
10. (tie) Spirited Away (Miyazaki, 2001)
10. (tie) Dancer in the Dark (Trier, 2000)
10. (tie) No Country for Old Men (Coen, 2007)
2010-2019
1. The Tree of Life (Malick, 2011)
2. Roma (Cuaron, 2018)
3. Dunkirk (Nolan, 2017)
4. Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (Tarantino, 2019)
5. Gravity (Cuaron, 2013)
6. Inception (Nolan, 2010)
7. Mad Max: Fury Road (Miller, 2015)
8. La La Land (Chazelle, 2016)
9. The Black Swan (Aronofsky, 2010)
10. (tie) Holy Motors (Carox, 2012)
10. (tie) The Social Network (Fincher, 2010)
10. (tie) The Turin Horse (Tarr, 2011)
10. (tie) The Revenant (Inarritu, 2015)
10. (tie) Django Unchained (Tarantino, 2012)
10. (tie) The Master (Anderson, 2012)
Drake I posted a list it didnt show up. It took a lot of effort :[ 🙁
Anyways Matt from your lists, I have a lot of favorites which everyone on the blog agrees with(for example Joan). So I’ll just talk about movies that you have included but Drake is underrating. I’ll only talk about foreign movies for now since it will be quicker(because there are FAR fewer foreign language films). It’s really nice to see Ikiru and HIgh and Low rated so highly. 2 Kurosawa classics Drake is criminally underrating. I agree with you on them. NIce to see a bit of Godard in there. He dominated the sixties. Band of Outsiders and VIvre sa vie are great too.
I believe Nosferatu is Murnau’s masterpiece and Ikiru is Kurosawa’s 50s masterpiece. I’d switch them around on your list. Since I have only(by co incidence) mentioned B and W movies, Ida is a modern B and W masterpiece. I like how Drake, me and you admire In the Mood for Love. It’s a masterpiece. Rightly rated.
I’d switch around Dekalog as it cannot be included because they are 10 different films(imo). Ebert couldn’t vote for it on sight and sound because of this.
However I am with Drake on Spirited Away. It’s not a top 10 of the decade film. (Still incredible)
For American movies. We have to talk about Westerns. John Wayne criticized High Noon “the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life”.(what a stupid comment) I’d probably have it around the top 10. I prefer it (unpopular opinion) to Rio Bravo.
I like No country’s inclusion.A modern western. Another modern Western which would be close for me is Broke back Mountain.
I truly do not believe Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs is as inferior to Pulp Fiction as the consesus would have you to believe. Would be howering close to the top 20-ish.
Lastly, the lack of Lumet sadness me a bit. Also only Double indemnity by Wilder is sad. I’d have more.
@Matt Harris— What do you think must be praised in Holy Motors and is the reason you have it as a top 10 of the decade worthy film ? I agree with you (although closer to top 25-30 for me) but I like to hear your thoughts on it.
This is going to be a lot of fun haha
Okay, here go
1910-1929
1. Sunrise-Murnau
2. The passion of Joan of Arc- Dreyer
3. Battleship Potemkin- Eisenstein
4. Intolerance-Griffith
5. Metropolis- Lang
6. Nosferatu- Murnau
7. The The Birth of a Nation- Griffith
8. The General- Keaton
9. The Gold Rush- Chaplin
10. Greed-Von Stroheim
1930
1. The Rules of the Game- Renoir
2. M- Lang
3. City Lights-Chaplin
4. Gone With the Wind- Fleming
5. The Blue Angel- von Sternberg
6. The Wizard of Oz- Fleming
7. Stagecoach- Ford
8. The Grand Illusion- Renoir
9. Modern Times- Chaplin
10. Bringing Up Baby- Hawks
1940
1. Citizen Kane- Welles
2. Bicycle Thieves- De Sica
3. The Third Man- Reed
4. Casablanca- Curtiz
5. The Magnificent Ambersons-Welles
6. It’s a Wonderful Life- Capra
7. The Big Sleep- Hawks
8. Late Spring- Ozu
9. Red River- Hawks
10. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre- Huston
1950
1.Vertigo- Hitchcock
2. Tokyo Story- Ozu
3. Seven Samurai- Kurosawa
4. The searchers-Ford
5. Rashoman- Kurosawa
6. Touch of Evil- Welles
7. The 400 Blows- Truffaut
8. Rear window-Hitchcock
9. The Seventh Seal- Bergman
10. La strada-Fellini
1960
1. 8 1/2 – Fellini
2. 2001 A Space Odyssey- Kubrick
3. Lawrence of Arabia- Lean
4. Breathless- Godard
5. Jules and Jim- Truffaut
6. Psycho-Hitchcock
7. La Dolce Vita- Fellini
8. Persona-Bergman
9. Once Upton a Time in the West – Leone
10. Shoot the Piano Player – Truffaut
1970
1. Apocalypse Now-Coppola
2. The Godfather –Coppola
3. The Godfather Part II-Coppola
4. Taxi Driver- Scorsese
5. A Clockwork Orange- Kubrick
6. Stalker-Tarkovsky
7. Nasville-Altman
8. Days of Heaven – Malick
9. Aguirre, the Wrath of God – Herzog
10. The conformist-Bertolucci
1980
1. Raging Bull- Scorsese
2. Blade Runner –Scott
3. Nostalgia – Tarkovsky
4. Blue Velvet – Lynch
5. Do the Right Thing – Spike Lee
6. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover – Greenaway
7.The Shining – Kubrick
8. Fitzcarraldo – Herzog
9. Fanny and Alexander- Bergman
10. Brazil- Gilliam
1990
1. Pulp Fiction – Tarantino
2. Magnolia – P.T. Anderson
3. Breaking the Waves – Von Trier
4. Goodfellas – Scorsese
5. The Thin Red Line- Malick
6. Heat- Mann
7. Boogie Nights – P.T. Anderson
8. JFK- Stone
9. Fargo – Coen
10. Schindler’s List – Spielberg
2000
1. There Will Be Blood – P.T. Anderson
2. In the Mood for Love – Kar-Wai Wong
3. Children of Men – Cuaron
4. Mulholland Drive – Lynch
5. Lost in Translation – Coppola
6. Punch-Drunk Love – P.T. Anderson
7. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – Dominik
8. The Royal Tenenbaums – Wes Anderson
9. Werckmeister Harmonies – Tarr
10. Dancer in the Dark – Von Trier
2010
1. The Tree of Life – Malick
2. The Master – P.T. Anderson
3. Roma – Cuaron
4. Dunkirk – Nolan
5. Mad Max Fury Road-Miller
6. Birdman – Iñárritu
7. La La Land – Chazelle
8. The Revenant – Iñárritu
9. The Grand Budapest Hotel – Wes Anderson
10. The Favourite – Lanthimos
Thanks for sharing everyone–I’m excited to dig through these and look them over.
@Azman– yes- I took down your first post. You took like 4 shots at me in your last comment for no apparent reason. You can say whatever you want -but I spend a lot of time on this site and I don’t want to read people taking shots at me for no reason.
I don’t remember my original comment. I remember mentioning the movies you disliked but I found you were underrating. Thats about all.
@Matt Harris & @cinephile
I just wanted to know what puts The Godfather Part II above The Godfather? I, for one, haven’t been able to separate the two for a long time now, would love to hear your thoughts.
@JC- Both are up there with the greatest achievements in the art form. It’s splitting hairs. But I’d say The Godfather Part II is the slightly more accomplished one. Visually, it’s the most beautiful film, it features (in my opinion) an EVEN BETTER score than the original. It’s the more ambitious artistically film. It’s bigger in epicness and scope, features mindblowing set-piece after set-piece and is richer thematically. Finally it showcases the more complex narrative and engages in storytelling mastery in a completely potent way, especially with the flashbacks of the rise of Vito and how they contrast with Michael’s modern-day fall.
You’re absolutely right, I was splittin hairs there, but mainly ’cause I really wanted to hear your views on it as you articulate certain intangible and vague thoughts of mine so well, and partly because I was arguing about this with bud of mine. Thanks a lot!
just an idea- but if you guys have put together a top 10 of a decade and come this far— you should just do a top 50/100 or whatever you feel up to. When I did my top 500 I take my individual year by year top 10’s, then do a top 100 of the decade, then do a top 100 all-time, etc. It makes it easier when you’re basically just deciding on a few movies for your next choice as you work your way down the list.
@Azman
Well obviously I have them in the order I feel they belong in. I will say, even with all my little cheats and my 6 way ties for 10th, I still only listed 124 films. I’d say there’s just as many again if not more that I would classify as a masterpiece or close to, including several that you mention in your reply. As far as Ikiru being Kurosawa’s best, I haven’t returned to it yet in my study. I started with Mifune films, and I’ve done the 4 crime/noirs, the 6 Samurai pictures, and then The Quiet Duel and Scandal. Next up is the Idiot, followed by I Live in Fear, The Lower Depths, and finally Red Beard. After that, I’ll expand outward… either returning to the beginning, or tracking along with wherever Drake is in his study so we can have better discussions. Haven’t decided yet.
I will say, I adore Ikiru and am entirely open to the possibility that it will move up, but of the 12 I’ve watched so far I’ve got 4 masterpieces and 2 more on the border… but Seven Samurai remains the greatest film I’ve ever seen. I’ll be happy to discuss it at length… probably when Drake gets to it in a few weeks.
Well Kurosawa was a genius. A lot of his movies were incredible.
Since I’m the visionary mind behind the conversation- hahaha, it’s my time to share my list. Let’s go!
1910-1929
1. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1928)
2. Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)
3. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein, 1925)
4. Metropolis (Lang, 1927)
5. Pandora’s Box (Pabst, 1929)
6. Nosferatu (Murnau, 1922)
7. Intolerance (Griffith, 1916)
8. The General (Keaton, 1926)
9. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Wiene, 1920)
10. (tie) Greed (von Stroheim, 1924)
10. (tie) The Last Laugh (Murnau, 1924)
1930-1939
1. The Rules of the Game (Renoir, 1939)
2. M (Lang, 1931)
3. City Lights (Chaplin, 1931)
4. Stagecoach (Ford, 1939)
5. Gone With the Wind (Fleming, 1939)
6. The Blue Angel (von Sternberg, 1930)
7. Bringing Up Baby (Hawks, 1938)
8. The Wizard of Oz (Fleming, 1939)
9. The Grand Illusion (Renoir, 1937)
10. (tie) Modern Times (Chaplin, 1936)
10. (tie) The Scarlet Empress (von Sternberg, 1934)
1940-1949
1. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
2. Bicycle Thieves (De Sica, 1948)
3. The Third Man (Reed, 1949)
4. Notorious (Hitchcock, 1946)
5. The Magnificent Ambersons (Welles, 1942)
6. Casablanca (Curtiz, 1942)
7. Late Spring (Ozu, 1949)
8. The Big Sleep (Hawks, 1946)
9. (tie) Red River (Hawks, 1948)
9. (tie) Rome, Open City (Rossellini, 1945)
10. (tie) Black Narcissus (Powell & Pressburger, 1947)
10. (tie) My Darling Clementine (Ford, 1946)
10. (tie) Double Indemnity (Wilder, 1944)
1950-1959
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
5. Rashomon (Kurosawa, 1950)
6. The Earrings of Madame De… (Ophuls, 1953)
7. The Seventh Seal (Bergman, 1957)
8. (tie) Touch of Evil (Welles, 1958)
8. (tie) The 400 Blows (Truffaut, 1959)
9. (tie) Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1954)
9. (tie) A Man Escaped (Bresson, 1956)
10. (tie) Hiroshima mon Amour (Resnais, 1959)
10. (tie) Ikiru (Kurosawa, 1952)
10. (tie) Ordet (Dreyer, 1955)
10. (tie) Singin’ in the Rain (Donen, 1952)
10. (tie) Early Summer (Ozu, 1951)
1960-1969
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
2. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
3. Persona (Bergman, 1966)
4. Breathless (Godard, 1960)
5. Playtime (Tati, 1967)
6. La Dolce Vita (Fellini, 1960)
7. Lawrence of Arabia (Lean, 1962)
8. (tie) Jules and Jim (Truffaut, 1962)
8. (tie) L’ Avventura (Antonioni, 1960)
8. (tie) Gertrud (Dreyer, 1964)
9. (tie) I Am Cuba (Kalatozov, 1964)
9. (tie) The Good, The Bad & The Ugly (Leone, 1966)
9. (tie) Once Upon A Time in the West (Leone, 1968)
10. (tie) Red Desert (Antonioni, 1964)
10. (tie) Last Year at Marienbad (Resnais, 1961)
10. (tie) Andrei Rublev (Tarkovsky, 1966)
10. (tie) The Wild Bunch (Peckinpah, 1969)
1970-1979
1. Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)
2. The Godfather Part II (Coppola, 1979)
3. Stalker (Tarkovsky, 1979)
4. Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1976)
5. The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
6. A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, 1971)
7. Barry Lyndon (Kubrick, 1975)
8. Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Herzog, 1972)
9. (tie) Days of Heaven (Malick, 1978)
9. (tie) Manhattan (Allen, 1979)
9. (tie) Cries and Whispers (Bergman, 1972)
10. (tie) Nashville (Altman, 1975)
10. (tie) The Conformist (Bertolucci, 1970)
10. (tie) Chinatown (Polanski, 1974)
1980-1989
1. Raging Bull (Scorsese, 1980)
2. Blade Runner (Scott, 1982)
3. Blue Velvet (1986, Lynch)
4. The Shining (1980, Kubrick)
5. Ran (1985, Kurosawa)
6. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989, Greenaway)
7. Do the Right Thing (Lee, 1989)
8. Nostalgia (Tarkovsky, 1983)
9. (tie) Brazil (Gilliam, 1985)
9. (tie) Dekalog (1989, Kieslowski)
9. (tie) Raiders of the Lost Art (Spielberg, 1981)
10. (tie) Dead Ringers (Cronenberg, 1988)
10. (tie) Fitzcarraldo (Herzog, 1982)
10. (tie) Fanny and Alexander (Bergman, 1982)
10. (tie) Once Upon A Time in America (Leone, 1984)
1990-1999
1. Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994)
2. Goodfellas (Scorsese, 1990)
3. The Thin Red Line (Malick, 1998)
4. Breaking the Waves (Trier, 1996)
5. Magnolia (Anderson, 1999)
6. Schindler’s List (Spielberg, 1993)
7. Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick, 1999)
8. Heat (Mann, 1995)
9. (tie) Chungking Express (Wong, 1994)
9. (tie) Boogie Nights (Anderson, 1997)
10. (tie) JFK (Stone, 1991)
10. (tie) Red (Kieslowski, 1994)
10. (tie) Satantango (Tarr, 1994)
2000-2009
1. In the Mood for Love (Wong, 2000)
2. There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007)
3. Mulholland Drive (Lynch, 2001)
4. Werckmeister Harmonies (Tarr, 2000)
5. Children of Men (Cuaron, 2006)
6. Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009)
7. Punch-Drunk Love (Anderson, 2002)
8. Lost in Translation (Coppola, 2003)
9. (tie) The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford (Dominik, 2007)
9. (tie) The New World (Malick, 2005)
10. (tie) Syndromes and a Century (Weerasethakul, 2006)
10. (tie) The Lord of the Rings (Jackson, 2001-2003)
2010-2019
NOT RANKED YET
The Tree of Life (Malick, 2011)
Roma (Cuaron, 2018)
The Irishman (Scorsese, 2019)
Dunkirk (Nolan, 2017)
The Master (Anderson, 2012)
La La Land (Chazelle, 2016)
Mad Max: Fury Road (Miller, 2015)
Inception (Nolan, 2010)
Birdman (Inarritu, 2014)
Gravity (Cuaron, 2013)
The Turin Horse (Tarr, 2011)
Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood (Tarantino, 2019)
The Black Swan (Aronofsky, 2010)
The Revenant (Inarritu, 2015)
The Social Network (Fincher, 2010)
I feel arrogant for not putting any tie, but it was going to take much longer, I just want to say to @Matt Harris and @Cinephile that I love their lists
Hey Drake. Approximately how many films do you see that are not archiveable?
How does your tier system work as a number ranked list?
Approximately, is this how your tier list works??
MP: Top 300 Films of all time
MP/MS 300-400
MS:400-600
MS/HR 600-700
HR 700-1000
R 1000-2000
The other films are flawed/not archiveable. Is this (appox) your tier system?
@Azman– not sure-so this month I’ve seen 58 movies overall so far and 16 or so were unarchiveable. The breakdown above looks about right– probably more room for HR, HR/R, and R as the archives have 4000 movies or so- not 2000. I always have just done it on a year by year basis since I know how many are in most years and there have been about 100 years of cinema.
Oops I posted in the wrong comment section
My updated Top Five
1. Taxi Driver
2.Pulp Fiction
3.The Master
4. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid
5.Nashville
Honorable Mention: Raising Arizona, Broadcast News,Fargo, Manhattan, Short Cuts, and There Will Be Blood
What are your top 3 movie years of all time?
What are 3 movies you like the most from these respective years?
This question is for all the readers of the blog.
When you’ll update the list to include films from 2010 ?
@Cinephile– I’m not really sure when I’ll update this. I think i’m going to do 1000 at this point but have a few things I want to do first and this is only about 1 year old.
Oops. I accidently posted my comment as a reply to Randy.
Anyways,
What are your top 3 movie years of all time?
What are 3 movies you like the most from these respective years?
This question is for all the readers of the blog.
I’ll start with 3 years I like(of the top of my head):
1962- The Manchurian Candidate, La Jetee, to kill a mockingbird
1975-Jaws, Barry Lyndon, Mirror
1993- Groundhog Day, Schindler’s List, The Age of Innocence
There are also others years like 1974 (godfather part 2, Ali fear eats the soul and Chinatown). I’m sure there are some other great years I am missing.
1960, 1982, 1973, are the ones I like the most, if I chose one of each year it would be Psycho, Blade Runner and Mean Streets
I read wrong, it was 3 haha, well, I’m passing but here are 3 that I really like every year
-1964
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg
Dr strangelove
My Fair Lady
-1962
Lawrence of Arabia
Jules and Jim
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
-1968
2001
Once Upon a Time in the West
Rosemary’s Baby
-1982
Blade Runner
The Thing
Fanny and Alexander
-1975
Nashville
Barry Lyndon
Jaws
-1999
Magnolia
Eyes Wide Shut
Fight club
-2012
The master
Moonrise Kingdom
Django Unchained
-2019
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Midsommar
Ad astra
-1973
Badlants
Mean Streets
Amarcord
Great list. Your 1962 is most likely stronger than mine. I made my list of the top of my head so I may be missing some.
2006 is great.(i had left a comment on the 2006 page and you had agreed with me.). I mean Pan’s Labyrinth, Children of Men, The Departed and The host among others wow.
2007 obviously – No country, 4 months
1944-Double Indemnity Laura
1956- A man escaped and night and Fog are excellent but The Killing, The Searchers and the red balloon are massive masterpieces.
1952- To live (Ikiru), High Noon, Singing in the Rain.
1966- Andrei Rublev, Battle of Algiers.
1988- Cinema Paradiso, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Grave of the Fireflies, The thin Blue Line
What do you think Aldo?
I’m sure I am missing some incredible movies in these years and I am sure I am missing some incredible years. This list is of the top of my head.
A great list, if i forgot 2006 i love Children of men, Pan’s Labyrinth and The Departed, i also forgot the original comment of Psycho, Breathless, Shoot the Piano Player, L’Avventura, Rocco and His Brothers and Two women, it is such a wonderful year that I love many.
The killing is probably the movie i like least about Kubrick, although i recognize that The searchers is one of the best movies made i prefer the style of Leone, your list from 1952 is fantastic, 1944 film noir, great, 1988 is an extremely entertaining
Thanks for your comment. I wouldn’t describe 1988 as ‘entertaining’. I included a devastating war movie Fireflies, a slow (slow is different from boring) art house movie Cinema Paradiso and a sad but important crime documentary. Roger Ravbit is wildly entertaining though.
For 1960, I would also Wilder’s Magnum Opus The apartment.
What about the Killing do you dislike?
Few more years. What do you think
1989 is great. When harry met Sally, do the right thing
1994-shawshank, pulp, hoop dreams and gump
1957(how did I forget this)- Witness for the prosecution, paths of glory, 12 angry men, Cranes are flying among other MPs.
2011-Tree of life, A separation
2000-Memento, In the Mood for love
You can add more years if you want.
Hey Drake I posted a comment twice on the best film of the 2000s page but nothing is showing up
@Randy- should be on there now- it blocks links sometimes (which is a good thing with all the spammers out there). Sorry
Yesterday I had a conversation with another cinephile and asked him his favorite films of the decade. He mentioned films like Once Upon A Time in Anatolia, Zama, Certified Copy, Sieranevada and An Elephant Sitting Still (films I like very much but I don’t find worthy of top 20 of the decade) amongst others. He said that those are the films with substance, depth and profoundness. It’s cinema that has a lot to offer, that more mainstream/ Hollywood cinema can’t offer or doesn’t trie at all. He called mainstream/Hollywood digestible and empty of ideas. I expressed to him my view of cinema, that it’s about the craft (aesthetic, form, narrative most important). My point is this: Why do you think there’s a distinction between cinephiles and their view of cinema and film art ? How can someone see something like Once Upon A Time in Anatolia as a better film than Dunkirk? You obviously support the craft and what is “cinematic” (as I do), so what you’d say to someone who claimed that this view he holds for cinema is the right one and represents filmmaking? Maybe these questions need deeper analysis and can’t be answered by comments by I’m very interested in your answer ( I also want to hear the opinions of other readers).
I guess it’s a matter of evaluation or opinion. Your friend could point to critics’ lists and TSPDT,(where Dunkirk is below most of the movies he mentioned. ) maybe those critics are using a different evaluation method too(the same method your friend is using.)
@Azman and @Cinephile- I’d like to think Cinephile’s friend has his opinion as evidence, and Cinephile (and me as we share the same opinion) has the actual text/art itself as evidence.
@Cinephile- I’ve had many of these discussions over the years. Before answering I’d ask your friend what he thinks are the greatest films of all-time are. If he stays true to his decade list it wont’ include Hitchcock, Welles, Kubrick, Scorsese or Coppola among others. If he picks films from these filmmakers he’ll be disingenuous and will have a different criteria than he’s using for his decade list than his his all-time list. If would make a list of the best films of all-time and it doesn’t include films from these guys– I’m probably changing the conversation to talk about music or sports– haha
@Drake— Yes, I don’t believe he’d include any film from those masters in the top 20. He praised Bresson and Kiarostami very much. Well, there’s no point going the conversation further as you said, you can clearly figure out when a person is biased against something. I still can’t understand his view of cinema tho, I mean how can someone evaluate films to conclude that something like Once Upon A Time in Anatolia is a top 5 of the decade. And the argument about “substance” doesn’t sound well to me.
@Cinephile and @Drake – to be honest this subject has been bugging me for quite a long time. I think that art is very subjective. In that, I believe that if someone is biased that clearly takes away from the validity of their views (if they say that Hollywood cinema is devoid of “substance” or whatever that means, that is a very one sided assumption). There are objective criteria of course and if you stick to those I think you usually form a great perspective. But again, it depends on what affects each viewer and naturally some things will appeal more to some people and less to others. So I generally support the idea of appreciating cinema as a craft, because it is a more consistent and open minded way of studying film. But I also have great admiration for what a film or filmmaker is trying to say, and sometimes that can elevate the worth of a movie in my eyes, personally speaking. I will primarily appreciate Haneke’s shots, narrative and the sharp coldness of his approach, but the way that he provokes its audience will also resonate with me. I love The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover for all its visual treats, but it becomes much more important to me in the context of its critique (which is sometimes inseparable from the narrative, so it kind of touches the territory of objective criteria, as well). 2013’s the Great Gatsby is full of visual delights, but it lacks the depth that made the book so brilliant, and eventually its style is not enough to save it. I guess what I’m trying to say, is that I recognise Dunkirk as the better film, but the thought provoking nature of Once Upon a Time in Anatolia stayed with me, and renders the latter my favourite of the two movies. Still, I wouldn’t name it one of the best films of the decade, were I to be asked.
@Georg— What are in your opinion the best films of the decade? I probably do that question to everyone on this blog, yep, that’s how curious I am- haha. But I’ve always find hearing other opinions very interesting.
@Cinephile- haha I get it. Well to be honest I haven’t made a list but off the top of my head if I were to name some of those I think would make it in a top 30-50 list, I would probably mention these:
The Grand Budapest Hotel (probably not THE best, but my favourite)
Under the Skin
The Master
The Tree of Life
Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
The Turin Horse
Mad Max Fury Road
Dunkirk
The Great Beauty
The Favourite
The Lobster
Ida
Cold War
Frances Ha
Nebraska
A Separation
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Django unchained
Parasite
We Need to Talk About Kevin
A Bigger Splash
Melancholia
Those are some movies that I would include in a draft of some sort. They are not mentioned in any particular order, and I’m pretty sure that in the future, as I watch more films, some of them will not be ranked so highly – but I am also confident they will remain in some kind of top 100. I’ll admit that I haven’t got around to Birdman and the Revenant yet (I’m generally a little behind with Inarritu – I’ve only watched 21 Grams and Babel), as well as several other films I’m sure would make their way to such lists – and at pretty respectable slots. But as I said I don’t really profess to have a concrete list or a very profound knowledge of film – I’m still missing out on some great ones and great directors as well.
Oh, I would also like to add Black Swan of course, Mother!, Shame (not entirely sure about those two), We Have a Pope, La La Land (somewhat overrated, as far as I’m concerned, but I’d say good enough), maybe Only Lovers Left Alive, oh and the Lighthouse which was a great 2019 gem
Which ones would you include @Cinephile? And have you decided on a concrete list? Btw, I think @Drake’s list on this blog is incredible.
@Georg— I don’t have a 100% ready list, with every film on the right place but ill give you a first “impression” of how the list will be when it’s all set and done. Before starting, I want to mention that you have great taste so I think highly of every film you mentioned. Let’s go:
– I’m sure by now that Tree of Life will be at number #1 so I never really think about that
– I’m also pretty much convinced by now that Roma and Dunkirk will land at #2 and #3 respectively.
– The next spots of my top 10 I feel belong to The Master, The Irishman, Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood, Inception, Mad Max: Fury Road and La La Land…
– For the 10th spot and the first spots outside of that I’d have Gravity, The Revenant, The Turin Horse, Black Swan, Birdman, The Grand Budapest Hotel and The Social Network without knowing fully where each one of them will end up
– The last 4 spots to close the top 20 belong (surely) to The Favourite and Cold War and as time passes by I think the other two must be Midsommar and Inside Llewyn Davis.
– The next 10 to end a top 30 are Blade Runner 2049, Phantom Thread and Columbus (from 2017). Ida, Under the Skin, The Wolf of Wall Street and The Great Beauty (from 2013). Holy Motors and Django Unchained (from 2012) and Shame.
– Now if you want to go more “deep”, outside of those 30, I’d have 4 mindblowing 2019 films: 1917, Parasite, Ad Astra and Waves. Other films are Burning, Paterson, Son of Saul, Melancholia and Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives.
-To make the top 50 are: Moonlight, Silence and Arrival from 2016, The Assassin from 2015, Interstellar, Inherent Vice and Boyhood from 2014.
@Cinephile- that is an incredible list! I agree with most of these though I’ll admit I haven’t watched the Social Network and some of the more recent movies like Phantom Thread. To be honest, my only point of disagreement would be Gravity – I thought it was great when I saw it, but I can’t quite agree with those that consider it the best film of 2013, and I’m not very sure where to place it – I think I need a revisit. I have the same thoughts on Gone Girl.
Like you, I am always curious to know other bloggers’ opinion.
How many times have you seen tree of life? I last watched it less than a year ago. What about you? Everytime I watch it, I too am convinced that it’s a masterpiece(#1 of the decade worthy).
What happened to the Irishman? Did it diminish very slightly over time and upon rewatches? You used to call it the best movie of the decade tied with Tree of life. Now it’s not even in your top 3.
Lastly, I see you love the ‘mindblowing’ Parasite as much as I do. How would you rate Bong Joon Ho as a director. What are your favorite movies by him?
@Azman— I’ve watched Tree of Life 3 times, the last one was before 2 years I believe.
The Irishman hasn’t faded, I still love it the same but yep, you’re right I dropped it a little although I can’t leave it out of the top 10. As another reader said, it’s a landmark in film form, I can explain that but you didn’t ask so for that.
I admire Bong Joon Ho very much. I think Parasite is his best and Memories of Murder follows. I still don’t think tho that is one of the very best directors working today.
@Georg— I think Gravity features a completely “almighty” aesthetic given by the inexhaustible camera movement and the jaw-dropping beauty featured in the mise-en-scene with countless shots of framing/blocking that transcend the film. That’s the reason it’s a top 15 of the decade for me.
@Cinephile – yes you are right about that where Gravity is concerned. I don’t know how I rate it (though it is undoubtedly a great film), but it has to be the most visually stunning movie of the decade right? Maybe Inception sits closely behind. And by stunning I mean daunting kind of awe-inspiring. Because I think that the Grand Budapest Hotel can easily be called the most beautiful. Oh, and I would also like to give a nod to Certified Copy, which I didn’t mention before but regard quite highly too – it is great Kiarostami.
@Georg— Yeah, Gravity ( along with Inception and Grand Budapest Hotel as you mentioned and I agree) are definitely some of the most visually striking films of the decade. I need to give Certified Copy another look soon because I saw it once and it’s been years but I remember I thought it was very good.
To respond to the discussion regarding Dunkirk and Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, I think for some people appreciating films is riddled with moral dilemmas that are less present in say literary appreciation, given the money involved and the often duplicitous nature of the ‘movie industry’, so perhaps the easy way out is to take refuge in ‘festival cinema’ (I.e. Ceylan, Tarr, Akerman, Costa, Kiarostami, etc.). I suppose there’s an inability to surrender to the aesthetic achievements of something they perceive as being too ‘commercial’. At the same time, aesthetic awareness I don’t think is strictly a question of admiring craftsmanship. Emotional involvement is part of the equation as well. It’s understandable to be unimpressed by a technically flawless film that does nothing for you emotionally, and being able to engage others emotionally can be an artistic skill in and of itself. The 400 Blows and Pather Panchali may not be Citizen Kane or Dreyer-level masterclasses in film technique, but that’s irrelevant to why they’re so heavily praised. Lastly, I suspect some cinephiles may find ‘film buffery’ to be juvenile, so for them there’s a sense of outgrowing Kubrick and growing into Kiarostami or Bresson. For the record, I’m just trying to make sense of the biases that exist among cinephiles. I’m not necessarily taking a side here. With that said, how do we define formal/aesthetic innovation in filmmaking? The low-fi documentary-like aesthetic of Pedro Costa while not everyone’s cup of tea certainly brings something new to cinema I think. And there’s an immediacy and simplicity to Kiarostami’s aesthetic that he makes seem easy but that I reckon is hard to imitate. Ceylan I don’t think fully manages to transcend his primary influences like Tarkovsky and Bresson. But the aesthetic achievements one appreciates in a Kubrick, Malick, or even PTA film aren’t he generally achievable on a low budget, say well under $10 million, so one has to be willing to place films within certain budgetary contexts before fairly certain assessing them I think. Just my two cents
@Remy – thanks for the comment here- articulate and well thought-out. To me, if you’re thinking in terms of “commercial” “festival” cinema (and that’s tough because Tarantino, Wes Anderson, Cuaron, Innaritu, Chazelle present films and win at festivals all the time) or “hollywood” or budget you’re biased already. You lump Tarr here in with Ceylan, Kiarostami and Akerman (I’m not ready to speak on Costa) when Tarr’s muscular aesthetic has way more in common with PTA, Cuaron or, yes, Nolan. I’m not saying you’re alone in doing so– but it’s not based on the actual films/art themselves. It may be based on the language they make films in, the budget they have (or don’t have)— but again, it isn’t reflected in the style of the work itself.
Judging a film on how it wrestles with moral dilemmas (I’d love to hear how this person has “moved on” from Kubrick to Bresson, is interested in moral dilemmas and finds something superior to Paths of Glory in this regard– again this argument just crumbles when you dig in even a little) or the subjectivity of what constitutes an emotional involvement feels — well– more like an individual “feeling” – and that’s fine. But these people would find themselves in a corner pretty quickly if someone “feels” differently. I’m not speaking of you directly but this is why they often fall back on the crutch of talking about budgets, hollywood, etc. That’s not the case with visual or formal superior filmmaking- you can point to the actual text.
I’m also going to push back on your statement on Pather Panchali and The 400 Blows and how their technique is “irrelevant” to why they’re so heavily praised. I did entire pages on the either the films or directors or both but for both auteurs (and these films) technique is absolutely part of the equation- the primary piece in fact. The 400 Blows ends with one of cinema’s justifiably most famous final shots and it’s a stylistic/visual choice- the freeze frame.
I apologize for a few of the typos towards the end of my above comment.
I also think someone like PTA is a very lucky man. He was in the right place at the right time and established a certain degree of cultural capital for himself that’s stuck over the course of several decades, so Indiewood has given him free reign despite the occasional financial hiccup, since the critical acclaim inevitably compensates in the end. I think someone who broke in a bit later like Sean Baker or Robert Eggers would have a hard time raising ~$35 million to make ‘the film they want to make’.
@Remy -I’m not with you here. Describing PTA as “lucky” and “right place at the right time” feels like an unnecessarily slight. If you’re interest is in the financial mechanics of the industry that’s just not a spot where my primary interest is. My interest is in the output and art itself.
@Remy – I’m not entirely clear on what the point is you’re making with PTA and his access to low-to-mid level production budgets. Is it that someone making films in the ether between low-budget and Hollywood blockbuster doesn’t have access to those budgets anymore (unless they are a PTA or Tarantino grandfathered in)? Damien Chazelle and Steve McQueen appear to have threaded that needle in the past decade. Ari Aster, Barry Jenkins, and the Safdies appear poised to do the same.
Or is it a statement that unless filmmakers have access to mid-tier $30ish million budgets, it won’t be possible for them to make great films like PTA has? Several of the above filmmakers belie that proposition. In fact if we look at 2019, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Midsommar, and Waves (I believe) all had budgets of $10 million or less, and they were some of the most aesthetically audacious works in recent years.
Yes. You’re probably right. Sorry if I came as a bit provocative. My original statement there was probably a bit misguided, even if yes, I guess I was intending to say PTA was grandfathered in on some level. I still admire him greatly and have four of his features on Blu-ray. You’re right about the Safdie Brothers though. Also, I didn’t mean to say that great films can’t be made for under $10 million. Many of Bergman’s films were made for well under that even when adjusting for inflation. I was only trying to say that PTA and Malick often attempt projects that could only be pulled off with a larger budget, although it would be interesting to see what Anderson would do with a $4-5 million budget. Likewise I’d be curious to see what Lucrecia Martel or Kelly Reichardt would do with $35 million at their disposal.
P.S. I haven’t actually seen Midsommar yet. I will eventually though.
@ Remy and I’m sure PTA would love a look at the 100 million budgets of Nolan or Tarantino. This has been happening for 100 years from von Sternberg to Welles to Visconti coming from money. There’s a lot of nostalgia right now for the glory days of the 1990’s and a lot of that is justified. I’m reading a book on the period now. But it’s just hard to complain in the wake of 2019 and the money A24 gave to support really bold talented young filmmakers- and what Netflix is doing as well.
^^The above comment was directed at both Matt and Drake for the record.
I’m not sure about Portrait of a Lady on Fire yet. I certainly liked it the first time I watched it. The second I saw it, which was also in the cinema, I was a bit jet lagged and kept dozing off (the same thing happened the one time I saw The Irishman in the theater), so I’ll need to revisit.
As for Ceylan, I feel he lacks confidence but not necessarily talent. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia isn’t sure whether it wants to be a procedural or a contemplative art film. Likewise Winter Sleep isn’t certain whether it’s a midlife crisis/relationship drama or, again, a contemplative art film. So his work can feel muddled at times, even if it’s almost always interesting. Anatolia has excellent moments, the last 45 minutes or so in particular as well as the scene of the mayor’s daughter serving tea to the investigation team.
Hey drake, I have 2 questions
1)do you ever see a run of bad unarchiveable films? That happens to be very occasionally. It frustrates me a lot. I’m sure it must be happening to you too.
2) I haven’t really seen pacing discussed that much on this page. What are some of the worst paced and best paced movies of all time for you?( the movie could be in your top 500 or even outside of it)
That happens to me*(spelling error)
@ Azman
Absolutely- it happens– sounds like a good time to rewatch a masterpiece or something and get the juices flowing again.
Didn’t see Shsne on the list.
#376 on the list
Shane (George Stevens, dir.)
These aren’t ranked lists, just some movies I really like
Films with great mise-en-scene:
1) Vertigo
2) Paths of Glory
3)Tokyo Story
4) Rules of the Game
Films with great all round acting performances by the whole cast:
1) Heat
2) Nashville
3) Godfather
4) Godfather part 2
Films with great lead performances:
1) Ikiru
2) Conversation
3) Passion of Joan
4) On the Waterfront
Films with great use of lighting
1) In the Mood for Love
2) Schindler’s List
3) Citizen Kane
Films with best cinematography
1) Tree of Life
2) 2001
3) Barry Lyndon
4) City of God
Movies with brilliant camera work:
1) Battle of Algiers
2) Do the Right Thing
3) Children of Men
4) Aguirre: The Wrath of God
Movies with best Editing:
1) Raging Bull
2) Mad Max: Fury Road
3) Z
4) Titanic
Best written scripts of all time:
1) The Apartment
2) Casablanca
3) Chinatown
4) 8 1/2
Any other movies you would add?
What are some movies that arent brilliant objectively/artistically but you still greatly admire them? (Movies that are very emotional/personal. Almost like guilty pleasure movies).
This question is to all readers of the blog.
@Azman– I think for most of us cinephiles, objective and subjective, best and favorite are the same thing. I mean my 10th best film of the decade, is also my favorite. They’re tied. I had some guilty pleasures in the past (let’s say Amour) but now they’re all eliminated. I think most casual viewers judge based on emotional/personal
connection, that’s why The Shawshank Redemption is considered the GOAT in imdb. The same goes for something like Avengers: Endgame, which correct me if I’m wrong, lands in the top 50 of all time based on imdb (a film I wouldn’t have in my top 20 of its respective year).
Most of the IMDB list is pretty mediocre, I can’t understand how 12 angry men is in the top 10
@Aldo and @Cinephile
Really?? I think the Shawshank Redemption, 12 Angry Men and Armour are incredible movies all of which are MS by Drake and on the top 600 of TSPDT. IMDb’s list isnt great, but all 3 of these movies are greatly adored by critics and me. How is Amour a guilty pleasure? It’s a very sad story and its rated very highly on TSPDT (gulity pleasures are usually action/comedy movies). @Aldo, sure 12 Angry men isnt the 10th best movie of all time, but it’s still amazing.
A guilty pleasure would be something easy you enjoy watching when you want to take a break after a heavy auteur study or if you want to switch things up a bit.
Poseidon Adventure is an example
Another example is Commando 1985(probably my guilty pleasure movie). The 2 best movies from 1985 are Brazil and Come and See but obviously Commando is easier to watch than an intense, depressing holocaust movie. So when I have seen many ‘heavy’ movies like Melachonlia, Satans Tango, Schindlers list etc I like to switch it up with movies like Commando.
Anyways, @Cinephile, how would you rank movies from 1985? Have you seen Commando?
@Azman– Of course they are incredible. Nowhere near the best tho. That’s why I bring imdb. Having The Shawshank Redemption and 12 Angry Men on the top 10 of all time is not a representative list of the greatest achievements in cinematic history. (Drake doesn’t have Amour a MS, probably HR). You see that’s about Amour, it’s a sad story, many critics judge films personally/subjectively, that’s why Amour is so high, because it is touching, as far as what is “cinematic” tho, it’s not a top 20 of the decade film.
Yes, there are these guilty pleasures, but I wouldn’t rate any of them a HR or something if they don’t deserve it. I enjoy many action and comedies but I wouldn’t archive them.
@Azman– I’ve seen Commando. It’s good but I don’t think I’d archive it.
When you say how I’d rank movies from 1985, you mean a best films of the year list ?
Obviously they are good, Drake usually calls something overrated with +100 spaces difference, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen 150 better movies than Shawshank, regarding the critics there are better rated movies that year, has an 80 in metacritic, so they don’t seem to love him very much.
I think it would be Goodfellas, Mad Max fury road but i wouldn’t call them guilty pleasure.
That reminds me that I have to see Come and see, is it true that they kill a cow?
@Aldo, Drake doesn’t call Shawshank overrated. I think it’s an absolutely amazing movie-phenomenal. Its #292 on the top 500 which means Drake considers it to be MP territory and he has it much higher than the consensus which means he probably thinks it’s quite underrated. I agree. Calling a MP bad or calling a MP a guilty pleasure isnt right in my opinion.
Regarding Come and See, I think it’s easily one of the greatest films ever made. It’s slow, torturous and absolutely brutal though. It makes a great statement on war.
@Cinephile, why do you use IMDb’s list? On TSPDT top 1000 and Drake’s list all the movies you mentioned are top 600-700 or so which makes them incredible movies(I dont use IMDb, I’m sure most people on this blog dont either).
Yup a list is what I meant. what are the movies you think are the best from 1985?
@Azman– As I said, they are amazing. My point was to show how casual viewers evaluate films, based on personal/subjectivity criteria. That’s why I mentioned The Shawshank Redemption and imdb. I use imdb because a large part of general audiences rate there and that justifies my point about their evaluation of a film.
My top 10 of 1985 is:
1. Ran
2. Brazil
3. Back to the Future
4. Mishima
5. A Zed and Two Noughts
6. The Purple Rose of Cairo
7. Out Africa
8. Come and See
9. Witness
10. The Breakfast Club
@Azman I was actually referring to the IMDB position, since it appears there as # 1.
As for Come and see, i will have to see it to comment, but TSPDT has it at # 150
How would you compare TSPDT’s list with the one of Sight & Sound’s. Of course the second features only 250 films while the first goes up to 2000, but judging the top 250 of both, which do you consider better as a resource?
@Cinephile– I study the Sight and Sound one in the year it is released (ending with ‘2 every decade I believe) and then most of the time look at TSPDT as TSPDT takes the S&S list into account and it updates every year. I don’t have a good answer though. I think they’re both superb. How about you?
@Drake– Yes, they are superb indeed. I think they are the best resources for cinephiles. I’d probably take the TSPDT one because it is updated every year whereas S&S every 10 years. Also, TSPDT is closer to the value of some films than S%S (for example Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas) but overall they’re pretty close. Anyway, I’d look at your list as superior to both (yep, that’s a compliment- haha) since your choices reflect better the artistic value of films and although we have differences (for example Playtime), which is a normal thing after all, we’d never find something like Close Up in your top 50.
@Cinephile — what a compliment! Thank you. Do you have a filmmaker you think I underrate in general? Tati? Anyone else? I have a number of random generators I use to prompt what I see/study next but always looking for someone to uncover, rediscover, or rethink, etc
@Drake– I don’t think that you underrate someone. A filmmaker who I have for example #40 and you have #50 I wouldn’t call him underrated by you. I think to use the word “underrated” it must be a big divergence, for example someone I have at #40 but you have at #70. I think you do a great job with your placements. So for directors there’s no one I’d argue for. There are some films that we differ, Playtime as i mentioned is one that I’d have at a completely different place on the list but, it’s a common thing, we can’t agree on everything and I don’t think it’s fare to nitpick about those when we can celebrate all the other excellent choices you’ve made here.
@cinephile- Wow. Close up isnt in my top 50 but I think it’s absolutely amazing and definitely not overrated.its Kiarostami’s best and one of the best Persian language movies ever made. That’s saying something . Of course Drake wouldn’t rewatch/study Closeup in detail because he doesn’t evaluate documentaries.
Would you not attach value to my list if you find close up on my top 50? Would you think my list doesn’t represent the “true, artistic value” of movies?
@cinephile, do you evaluate documentaries? Do you think they have “artistic values” comparable to movies? What are some of your favorite documentaries?
@Azman– Its a good film. Nothing more than that. What makes it worthy of top 500 consideration and Kiarostami’s best ?
If your list is overall great and there’s some films that I don’t find worthy in there, I wouldn’t argue that it’s problematic. But, if it’s full of those films, yep, I’d argue.
I don’t evaluate documentaries. As Drake said in the past, they are mostly for educational purposes and not film style or form. Two documentaries that I greatly admire are Shoah and The Man with a Movie Camera.
hey i think you should reevaluate the zack snyder films. they have some really good visuals and overarching themes. my favorite is batman v superman, though it is not perfect.
@Cinephile, my list is pretty similar to TSPDT. If you are evaluating docs like movies, you’ll find most documentaries are overrated. “Its not what a movie is about, it’s how it’s about it” – Roger Ebert. For documentaries it’s the opposite, it’s more the message it provides rather than how (with cinematic techniques) it tells its story. obviously cinematic techniques and ‘artistic values’ are important too in documentaries but not as much as movies.
Close up (and most of Kiarostami movies)are unique because they blend documentary style with movie style rather seamlessly.
Anyways, what are you favorite/best Kiarostami films?
What are some other Persian language movies you admire and consider MP or close?
@Azman– Yep, you’re right that someone shouldn’t evaluate documentaries as films, I don’t evaluate as I said documentaries at all and when I see a documentary (like Shoah) I think of it differently from a film.
If we count Close Up as a documentary, this is my ranking:
1. The Wind Will Carry Us
2. Taste of Cherry
3. Where is the Friend’s Home
4. Certified Copy
5. Through the Olive Trees
6. Life, and Nothing More
7. Ten
I can’t recall a Persian Language film that I consider at or near masterpiece level.
What film of Kiarostami you’d consider a masterpiece (I have no masterpieces for him) and what other Persian Language films you’d consider a masterpiece?
I have a handful of Persian films I’d consider to be really good. TSPDT does too. I think of Kiarostami as one of the greats.
“cinema ends with Kiarostami”-goddard.
Persian cinema is regarded as one of the top 10-20 movie making countries. I dont get why it isnt more praised? Maybe a lot of the movie is getting lost in translation? I’ll have to watch a Persian movie with English subtitles to see if that is the case. Maybe the culture/film movement is different. I doubt if all of that will make much of a difference though.
Do you watch short films? There is a good short Persian film called the House is black. What are some of your favorite short films Cinephile?
As for your statement that sight and sound is flawed because it doesn’t represent the “true, artistic value of movies”. I think that could be a fair statement, however the directors top 100 is based of of acclaimed movie directors top 10s. What do you think of their opinions? Would you argue/debate their lists?
@Azman– Why do you regard Kiarostami as one of the greats ? I think Godard’s statement is extremely inaccurate. I mean I need proof that Kiarostami has made masterpieces and I can’t found any. I think people evaluate him subjectively/personally and how his films touch them emotionally rather than the actual objective/artistic proof. I’m open to hearing opinions but until now I’ve never heard something like “his films are strong in this or that aspect”. In Dunkirk I’d point to the editing, in Roma to the photography , in Gravity to the camera movement etc. With Kiarostami I have nothing. This leads me to believe that there isn’t proof that he’s up there with the best.
As with documentaries, I don’t watch a lot of short films, one I consider great is Bunuel’s Un Chien Andalou.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that TSPDT is flawed and doesn’t represent the true, artistic value of movies. I said there are films that I’d argue about. The list as a whole is great.
Most cinephiles in the planet, including directors, judge/evaluate based on personal preference and emotional connection. That’s why I consider Drake’s list probably the best I’ve seen, it’ stripped from any emotional/personal/subjective criteria. All his choices are pure in a way that there’s proof of the greatness. He can explain why he considers a film to be a masterpiece, he’d point to the actual text which isn’t the case with many cinephiles out there.
@Cinephile – fair enough. You’ve argued your point very convincingly. You are a very good writer. I admit you’ve out-argued (is that a word?) me. I dont know what to else to say😂
“Relating one person to the entire world, that’s the meaning of cinema” -Tarkovsky(a big admirer of Kiarostami)
What do you make of this quote?
I think(my theory) directors rate Kiarostami movies so highly because they display great filmmaking, great believable characters, are a blend of neo realism and documentaries/ movies and have really poignant moments.
I feel like you may need to appreciate/ evaluate documentaries too if you want to like Abbas Kiarostami since nearly all of his movies blend documentaries into movies.
Anyways, it requires a strong director to make simplistic movies about simplistic Iranian people that are not only poignant, but extremely relatable(now and forever) to people around the world. (Tarkovsky’s quote)
Maybe this is why so many directors and cinephiles like Kiarostami? What do you think?
Anyways, it was really nice having this discussion with you
Cinephile.
Azman– Haha, thanks for “the good writer”. My intention was not to make you feel uncomfortable in any way, I’m really curious about Kiarostami. Happy we had this conversation too!
Tarkovsky has a very spiritual sense of what cinema is, but, in this blog, we mostly celebrate the craft, film style or form mainly, but narrative and writing also.
I can’t agree on the great filmmaking for Kiarostami, Nolan for example is a far superior filmmaker but most critics don’t have him very high in their estimation, so the argument about great filmmaking doesn’t sound well to me. Also, yes, making strong and believable characters requires talent but many films go for more than that, I don’t think crafting believable characters is enough to make him an all time great, neither engaging with the neo realist movement. Shawshank Redemption and Forrest Gump are very poignant also, but I don’t think any of those critics regard those films very high. Yes, you’re right that to appreciate Kiarostami more you need to evaluate documentaries.
It surely requires a strong director to make simplistic films and characters, and also being relatable. I’m going to offer my interpretation on why I believe many consider him so high. I think for many critics the film style or the form, the craft on display in general, doesn’t interest them so much in cinema. It’s how one understands cinema. But, as painting or literature, it’s the craft that makes the art, the magic is in the craft. If many people understood this then something like Toni Erdmann wouldn’t be regarded a top 20 film of the decade.
So after our conversation, I did a little research on Godard and his favorite filmmakers:
Godard said before that Kiarostami is making films without a camera. He implies that the filmmaker is projecting and not recording, not discovering. This is hard to explain.
Godard said he thinks about Cézanne (painter) in the same way as Abbas Kiarostami , as a painter who thinks forms and at the same time paints forms that think. Godard’s greatest enemy is the cerebral(he said he likes making unique movies), the rational and the instrumental encapsulated in the everyday conception of language as conveyor of information. The ideal is to know things more directly, materially, essentially, before their ‘enframing,’ before conceptions or propositions.
“When Cézanne paints an apple, he’s not saying I am painting this apple. He says nothing.”-godard. The muteness of Cézanne returns us to Lumière (Goddard said cinema beings with Lumiere and Dw Griffith) where ‘an apple’ is not exploited for narrative purposes, not labeled or named, but simply shown for our enjoyment and contemplation.
This took me a lot of time to process, but based on what Godard has said in the past/his quotes and his movies it is my educated guess that the realism Kiarostami portrayed, appealed to Godard and a lot of different filmmakers and critics. Godard liked how Kiarostami’s films are simple but still get you thinking.
Lastly, Cinephile,
I’m with you on Erdman. Why is it so highly regarded is something that continues to baffle me – Haha
Just let me remind you @Azman that according to Godard the cinema has been dead since 1968 what Godard says should not be taken so seriously.
@Aldo – what exactly did he say? Also, Kiarosatmi debuted 10 years after 1968.
What are some films you consider great that you’d call inaccessible?
@Cinephile– you mean like literally hard to locate the films or tough to crack because they are difficult works? it took me awhile to adjust to the rhythms and style of Ozu, Dreyer, Weerasethakul– I can try to think of some others. .. I think Antonioni will be that way for many
@Drake– I mean tough to crack. I’d add some of Tarkovsky to the shortlist and for a more recent director, along with Weerasethakul I’d add Pedro Costa, but he isn’t extremely difficult to get through just needs your fullest attention.
Ive always been confused when critics say a movie is “pretentious” or “inaccessible”. Even Google doesn’t provide a proper definition. What does an inaccessible film mean @Cinephile? Doesn’t a director’s most accessible film mean his or her best film?
You can access these films through the criterion channel though that’s probably not what you were asking.
@Azman- I think it literally means “unable to be reached”- but the second definition on google here is it : “(of language or an artistic work) difficult to understand or appreciate.”
@Drake, does that mean you find it “difficult to understand or appreciate” Ozu, Dreyer etc?
So does that mean an inaccessible film is one that requires more than one viewing to understand or requires your full focus to appreciate(for most people)? Subject matter may also be an issue for some.
If that’s what inaccesibility is, would you consider Jeanne Dielmann inaccessible? Celine and Julie Go Boating? Mirror? Are these good examples?
@Azman- it can be for several reasons. But yes, I wouldn’t recommend the works of Ozu, Dreyer, Tarkovsky, and some others to someone if they weren’t extremely interested in cinema. And even then- I may recommend they start in other areas first and sort of work their way up to it.
Subject matter, pace, etc– lots of reasons.
Do you have this list on IMDb?
@Alejandro- it is not on IMDB
One flew over the Cuckoos Nest is far too low at 157.Simply One of the greatest films ever made with one of the greatest screen performances of all time from Jack Nicholson.Should be in the top 50.
Unfortunately faces two titans Nashville and Barry Lyndon, including the best Spielberg movie that also has bad luck.
That doesn’t mean they are necessarily better.I mean a film that is rightly regarded as one of the greatest films ever made outside the top 100 is ridiculous.Whereas films like Blue Velvet and Thin Red Line made the top 50.It’s the only one of it’s kind.They don’t make movies like that anymore.Should be in the top 50
@Chris – The TSPDT consensus agrees with me here. They have it outside of the top 100, too. Lots of “ridiculous” critics out there.
I mean you can’t really compare something like Apocalypse Now and One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest.They are great in their own way.Both made a huge impact upon release that are felt to this day.Both are landmark films.No matter how many great films come One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest can always make a strong case for one of the greatest films ever made.It’s sad to see a film like that at 157 and maybe out of the top 200 when you update the list with 2010-2019 films while Apocalypse Now sits at no.2.I’m not necessarily saying Cuckoos Nest is better than Apocalypse Now but I liked it more.I think there are others as well who think highly of Cuckoos Nest than the critics do.
Apocalypse now is definitely better, although that’s not the point, it’s not that the movie does something wrong, it’s just that Apocalypse’s artistic values are ridiculous.
Personally i always come and go with Amadeus and this, but if you ask me i think Amadeus is Forman’s best movie by a small margin
@Chris and @ aldo, a ranking of top 200 means the movie is absolutely, ridiculously amazing (especially if you’ve seen nearly 10000 films like Drake probably has). Think about it. Cinema has existed since the 1900s. There are 1000s of movies made every decade and about 10000 good ones. This movie is one of the 200 best from that many movies. Just let that sink in….
I have titanic slightly higher than Drake by 100 or so slots. But the difference is quite marginal so I think if the difference is small, its not a problem.
I recently had a conversation with a well known of mine who is a passionate cinephile. He said that for him, cinema is to make the viewer transformed or have a powerful mostly spiritual experience. Of course he supports subjectivity since the “transformed” and “spiritual experience” thing is different to everyone and that feeling one might find in one film another may find in the other. When I mentioned my view of cinema, that it’s about the craft, mostly formal and technical, he said something interesting that stayed in my mind, he mentioned Amour especially and added that Haneke maybe doesn’t use transcendent film style but the way he provokes the audience, the way he makes the viewer feel and the experience he offers, all need high craftmanship to achieve. His point is basically that when we talk about craft, it’s not just form or visual style, there’s more to it and a film can be a masterpiece for those other reasons. What do you think ? (Interested in the other readers opinions)
There isnt one “view of cinema”. You can have expiremental cinema(F for Fake), narrative cinema(High Noon) or more. All these films have different styles and set out to accomplish different things.
Of course emotion isnt really subjective. Think about Schindler’s List or Ida but with poor photography, bad acting and a bad score would it have the same impact?
I dont think its subjective to be moved by Schindler’s List, its brilliant photography, acting and devasting music.
For thrillers, they have to be very well crafted otherwise the plot twists could seem sudden or exaggerated and the audience wont be shocked or surprised. Vertigo and Chinatown are examples.
What do you think Cinephile?
Azman– Of course perspective in film art is subjective, the word cinema art has a different meaning for many people, we here with Drake have formed a perspective that is (as we believe) truthful to evaluating films and we think our perspective is an objective way of studying and appreciating film.
As I said, those words from that guy have stayed with me and I’m wondering, maybe when evaluating a film we must search more deeply. For example with something like A Separation, it doesn’t feature formal or visual power, but the way it is constructed, the powerful experience it offers. My point is that maybe we have to take more in account when evaluating and high craftmanship is hidden not only in what is cinematic etc.
I want to hear Drake’s opinion, maybe he didn’t answer because I said “interested in the other readers opinion” and it sounded like I only wanted the opinions of the other viewers.
I disagree with what you’ve said about separation and the subjective way of evaluating films.
All people (even causal cinema goers) appreciate the craft of filmmaking to quite some extent. Subconconciously our brains like good fast paced exciting, editing(goodfellas and city of God without it’s great editing falls apart. ). This is what cinema goers describe as exhilarating. It’s to do with the editing. Even casual cinema goers like watching beautiful images rather than ugly images. Even casual cinema goers like good acting and sharp scripts/dialogues. How can a movie “spiritually” move you if it’s made badly, acted badly, directed badly or written badly? Even casual cinema goers wont be moved as much.
As for A Separation, it’s clear and obvious how incredibly well acted and written this movie is. Its edited good and is a great thriller that features a great satire about the lower class (Parasite grapples with similar themes).
The symbolism in A separation is shown in the dialogue and in the visuals(the shot where Nader and Simin ir the lower class and higher class people are quite literally separated by walls, construction etc). It also has some decent formal repetition with the crying over the shoulder shot being repeated 3 or 4 times amongst other shots (though the form isnt as good as the other aspects. It’s still decent). The lack of music until the very end is also a great choice by the director. Adds realism like 4 months (2007) does. Since you were talking about emotion, A separation is universal. It doesn’t matter if you speak Persian or not, the movie will speak to you….
@Azman– What I said about A Separation and the subjective way of evaluating films that you disagree?
Of course, someone will prefer something aesthetically superior but casual viewers don’t care much about that.
I didn’t say that the movie that will improve you spiritually needs to be badly acted, shot, directed or written. Of course it needs to showcase strong craft.
A Separation is greatly acted and written. But as formal/visual filmmaking goes… it lacks…. that’s why I said that maybe we must search more deeply, aside from form/film style and see if there’s another type of high craftmanship that makes it a film higher in value than Drake (and i) think for the moment. I didn’t say those things are facts or true or that I support that. I raised a question since this thing has been in my mind for some days.
@Cinephile– thanks for sharing. My thoughts are aligned with yours here. I get wary of anyone using words like “it made me feel” or “my experience” “it it didn’t speak to me” or “connect with me”. It is cause and effect. These are effects– what is the cause? They can be cinema lovers, intelligent, have great tastes, and be great writers—all fine— but if you can’t point to the art- the text itself- and show me where sometime happens or doesn’t happen (be it formal or technical achievement, theme and variation)– I’m not really that interested in the opinion and my eyes kind of gloss over.
@Drake– Yes, you’re 100% right that we need a text to point at. But what if there’s more to the craft than more obvious things like form/film style (form is not that obvious, but film style mostly is). What if we can look deeper into a film and include in that text/proof other things. What if they way Haneke uses minimalism and simplicity and the way he provides a powerful experience for the audience must be counted on that text as a showcase of powerful expression and direction ? or the themes he gives, they way he gives them to the audience, that needs strong talent right? As I said above I’m not saying I support this but I’m just raising questions that I’m pretty interested hearing the opinions.
@Cinephile- I’d have to hear more. I think the work can tie the stylistic and formal choices to meaning — absolutely (even that is bit of a slippery slope). But overall– this invisible (my word choice) or “transformed” or “spiritual experience” (your worlds, or, rather your friends) just feels like … well… like a feeling. Which again, is totally fine, everyone is entitled to theirs– it’s just not what I’m interested in.
I’ve read Paul Schrader’s Transcendental style in film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer— dense– tough read (at least for me). It was interesting. But when I went back and studied Ozu in depth there isn’t anything invisible (or even all that “minimal”) about his approach. I had a similar breakthrough with Dreyer -though he’s more varied in his stylistic approach.
@Cinephile I think there really are few “cinephiles” I prefer to use the term lover of the seventh art ”
Since the person you refer to as many others evaluate a movie on how they connect with it, or if it caused a sentimental reaction,
for them it is about connecting with the characters, with the story,
i have a group of “cinephiles” friends who hates 2001 because they don’t connect with the characters, i really don’t think this is a value to evaluate a movie, the birth of a nation is racist and I do not connect with anything, not even his characters, does that prevent it from being a masterpiece?
That’s why we have A separation ahead of Dunkirk on TSPDT.
Visual aspect is as subjective as narrative. There’s no rulebook that would suggest something is better than something else visually.
@Chief Keef– I respectfully disagree. I think there’s clear proof that something like Roma is superior visually to something like Shoplifters (both films from 2018)
And it’s also clear that Andrei Rublev is superior to something like Idiocracy in terms of narrative. It’s as objective and subjective as the other. One thing is sure and that’s that there’s no proof. If the proof existed we would be able to rank all movies ever precisely from best to worst.
@Chief Keef– But saying one film who is visually mindblowing there’s not proof that’s better than a visually flat film…. is a little disrespectful to the achievement of the visually mindblowing film. It’s true that with two visually ravishing films (Roma and Cold War for example) is splitting hairs and you can’t find a clear winner but that’s not the case at all with a film that’s 10/10 in visual style than a film that’s 6/10.
@Cinephile Just like it is disrespectful to imply that whether narrative is good or not is totally random and it depends on how viewer experienced it. I’m in no way trying to say that it is all subjective, I just tried to argue your (and others) critique of narrative filmmaking because you seem to equate visual to objective and narrative to subjective and I don’t think there’s proof of that.
@Chief Keef- Good stuff here- lots to chew on- thank you for sharing. I’d have to see another example of your argument at work here where you aren’t picking Tarkovsky (a brilliant visual master if I ever saw one) vs. Idiocracy. Certainly @Cinephile’s argument of Roma vs. Shoplifters makes sense. Just to clarify– are you saying you can’t prove Andrei Rublev is superior to Idiocracy? Or you can? — it doesn’t seem clear
@Drake I also think that Roma is easily better than Shoplifters but I had a problem with the word “proof”. It implies that it is a definitive factual statement like “3>2” and that is simply not true because you can’t prove that it is better even if every single person on the planet thought so. There’s no defined criteria.
I will guess that you are not satisfied with my example because Tarkovsky is also very strong visually and you would like me to point out a film that is great overall despite being bad visually. I will concede that some level has to be reached. No matter what the narrative is, the film can’t be great if it looks like Idiocracy. On the other side a film can be great only off the strength of visuals. Dunkirk would be a good example. Nolan basically didn’t have any narrative and it was great. I actually even prefer him making that type of movies instead of his populist and I would dare say lazy plots in the past.
As for the example, I would say Synecdoche, New York fits the criteria. It’s nothing special visually, Kaufman is obviously not a director, but it looks acceptable and it doesn’t stand in a way of a genius narrative. I don’t have it as the best of the decade like Ebert but I have it somewhere around number 10 and comparable to where I have Dunkirk in this decade, obviously for very different reasons.
Haha this is good @Chief Keef, I wouldn’t say lazy plots, but i would love for Nolan to focus only on movies like Dunkerque instead of his “populist” movies
@Chief Keef- thank you again for sharing and providing a another example. I see what you’re saying now. I’m fine with you objecting to the word “prove” or “proof” or using 3>2… there is no clear winner and loser in art or cinema… agreed. I’d change it slightly- it’s more like a judge at the Olympics in figure skating or diving or something. Or even a teacher giving out a grade in a writing or photography class. There’s always some variation and interpretation and/or debate– but by and large, it is pretty easy to spot the average ones from good ones from the great ones and so on if you know what you’re talking about.
@Drake Yeah that’s a good analogy but it also depends what’s your criteria
@Chief Keef– sure- same for the judges I’m sure. If it were you and me for example I bet we’d agree the vast majority of the time and we’d have a good healthy debate every once in a while. Nothing wrong with that.
@Cinephile “I didn’t say that the movie that will improve you spiritually needs to be badly acted, shot, directed or written. Of course it needs to showcase strong craft.”.
Yup. A movie needs to show strong craft. Writing, acting and directing are part of the craft though. Nowhere near as important as visuals but important enough. By showcasing strong craft a movie can move you.
“we must search more deeply, aside from form/film style and see if there’s another type of high craftmanship that makes it a film higher in value”.
Maybe try focusing a bit on the direction, symbolism and themes. These are other aspects that could showcase strong craft.
@Cinephile, Sorry for my stupidity but I’m not sure what you are trying to say. You talk about a “deeper craft” but I’m not entirely sure what craft you are describing. Did your friend give an example of the “deeper form”? Did he tell you which film showcases “another type of high craftsmanship?” What was your friend even trying to describe?
@Drake, Azman & Aldo
Absolutely the “transformed” & “spiritual
experience” thing is a personal feeling, so we go back again to the subjective evaluation which I’m not interested either.
I think the guy meant that an auteuristic expression isn’t only in form and film style, the director’s craft can be impressive in other aspects. An example may be the Hoffa Killing Sequence in The Irishman. Does it future photography or camera movement like the beach sequence in Roma ? No. But Scorsese’s direction, even tho not with awe-inspiring visuals is just so powerful. From the use of silence, to the build up, to the feelings he makes you feel…. the way he constructs the scene…. that scene achieves transcendence, it smashes the viewer. Although it isn’t visually stunning, it’s a masterclass in direction. The point is that, that scene, showcases craft of the highest order, yet at the same time…. not technical mastery of the highest level. The guy didn’t mention The Irishman and specifically this example but I think this is what he meant. That craft isn’t always film style, and you can point to the text for those other things. What do you think?
@Cinephile you describe it perfectly. Very well said.
@aldo 2001 is supposed to be cold and emotionless, the astronauts are small compared to humanity in general. It doesn’t give you emotion of sadness but it gives you emotion of pure awe and fear.
Kubrick’s goal was to use film to make emotions that “no other art form could hope to accomplish.”. (These are his words not mine). Emotion doesn’t just mean sadness, it could be fear and awe and many other things.
When Kubrick met up with Clarke his goal was to make a film (2001) that would provoke feelings of awe and if appropriate fear. To kubrick at least, the kind of feeling and views he showed in his films were of importance to him.
@Azman I don’t know why you say this to me, I love 2001, all this I already know, they say they are not interested in the characters (2001), they want a story that involves them and care (their words)
@Chief Keef I don’t know if your answer was for me, but I never mentioned that, would you be so kind as to show me some examples
I interpreted your comment as critique of people who watch films for meaning or to connect to because they are being subjective and it’s not a good way to evaluate cinema and I argue that the visual aspect is as subjective and objective as narrative. Although I’m not sure why you are tying it so closely to connecting with film, feeling emotion etc. There’s a skill in creating a narrative and it has nothing to do with those things. No matter what you felt, few would argue that The Bell sequence in Andrei Rublev is not masterfully constructed.
@Aldo- makes sense. Sorry about that. I agree with you more than your friends. Would 2001 be amongst your favorite movies?
What are some other movies you’ve seen recently that you like a lot? (this question is to all the readers of the blog).
Almost every time they ask me about my favorite movie I say 2001, sometimes I can say another one, but it is usually the first one that comes to mind, Really the most interesting movie I saw recently was Playtime, I was amazed it was so perfect, the corridors, the windows, the sound, today I saw ivan childhood, but I had already seen that one, What about you @Azman?
@Chief Keef one can watch movies for whatever reason, spiritual, entertainment, feeling, it does not seem appropriate to evaluate a movie for what it makes you feel.
2001 is usually the first movie that comes to my mind too though sometimes not (but mostly yes)
Definitely Central Station is a great movie I saw recently that hasnt left my mind even after 3 weeks. Drake highly recommends the movie. I discovered it through this wonderful website. I hadn’t heard of it before.
The last movie I saw was Welles’s F for fake 2 days ago. I liked it a lot.
movies i’ve seen recently include seventh seal, raising cain, mean streets, dressed to kill, the other side of the wind (welles) and i now pronounce you chuck and larry. i was starting blowup yesterday but my tv was having issues will hopefully watch it in its entirety tonight. i like all those films very much, probably not raising cain as much but it was still very good. most films i watch i like because i usually turn them off when i don’t like them. for example i was watching the netflix movie called the laundromat by two hacks, steven soderbergh and meryl streep and i turned it off after 10 minutes.
@Chief keef. You said that there is no exact science or fact about what makes a film more visually superior to another. Allow me to explain.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is true but largely deceptive. Most beauty is largely objective. Theres a science behind this.
Human beings like looking at nature and symmetry and nice mise en scene frames rather than ugly, clustered, unorganized frames which look messy and have no “patterns”.
Look at all the leading men of Hollywood. Tall, dark, handsome. Just think about all the leading men of Hollywood. How many of them have light hair vs dark? Unnatractive vs attractive etc. If beauty was subjective, all directors would shot random objects that have not been set properly with random not-so-goodlooking people and use the excuse that “beauty is subjective”.
The fact is there are certain things (like well structured mise en scene frames, attractive people, nature etc) that the human brain strongly prefers looking at in movies. We like patterns and things that we find in nature(like magic hour, trees, good architecture, well organized frames etc). There is a very small amount of subjectivity involved.
I think you missed the point. The debate here, at least on my part, is not objective vs subjective in general (the truth is somewhere in between, closer to objective). It’s visual vs narrative and if any of these two aspects is more objective than the other. I’m arguing it’s not.
I think visuals may be slightly more important. Visuals make cinema unique.
You are right though- I agree with you. Narrative (and other aspects of cinema) are really, really important too.
What are in your opinion the grandest films you’ve seen in terms of scope?
@Cinephile– well both “grandest” and “scope” are open to a little interpretation (I think Boyhood would be an interesting one to debate) but here are a few I wrote down
Intolerance
2001
Lawrence of Arabia
Fitzcarraldo
Godfather Part II
Apocalypse Now
Greed
Stalker
LOTR
@Drake– “Scope” and “Grand” are definitely open for interpretation. I think I’d add The Irishman there. Of course if we count the word scope or grand as pure spectacle I don’t think it’s on that level, but if we count how much years a film has covered I can’t remember a film like that, portraying 50 years of history and make you feel like you age along the characters and live a whole life yourself through a film. It’s a completely original experience.
Would mirror be a good example? How about Rublev? The reason the Irishman may feel grand like that is because it is more than 3 and a half hours long. Of course it would have a lot of years to cover.
@Azman– You’re right that a humongous runtime will give a more “grand” experience. But, that’s not the case with the years it covers. Jeanne Dielman and the more recent An Elephant Sitting Still feature huge runtime, but the one covers 3 days and the other 1 day. The Irishman doesn’t cover a lot of years because of its huge running time.
@Cinephile What do you think of Tarkovsky (especially Rublev and Mirror) for scope and grandness?
@Azman– With Mirror it’s weird since it features that dreamlike and poetic nature. It surely covers a lot of things but you don’t feel the passage of time. I can’t explain it, it has a big scope but at the same time it doesn’t. On the contrary, Andrei Rublev is a huge epic and I’d say it showcases powerful grandness and an equally huge scope.
If we are referring to that, we should include Boyhood
@Drake has it pretty much covered here. From my side, i’ll add The Tree of Life, Heat, Once Upon a Time in America and Dunkirk @ Cinephile
I think Branagh’s better Shakespeare films (Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, Hamlet) deserve to be acknowledged on this list.
@Joel- thanks for sharing. Interesting. I have four Branagh films in the archives (Henry V, Dead Again, Much Ado, Hamlet) but they didn’t make the cut so to speak here. Though I like them- I’m confident Much Ado and Dead Again aren’t top 500 films. I’d have to see Henry V and Hamlet again to make sure. Hamlet, in particular, is quite gorgeous.
Hi @Drake, a big fan from India. It’s been more than a year since I have started visiting your site daily, and I trust your opinion more than any other critic. I am fairly new to movies (have watched 1000 or so), but I love ranking them! I’ll be really happy if you could answer a couple of questions I have, to help me in properly appreciating movies. Best wishes and thanks for the great work!
@Sar— thank you very much for visiting the site and the comment here. I obviously enjoy ranking movies, too- haha. Happy to try to answer any questions to the best of my ability. Fire away. Thanks again
@Drake, thanks for the reply. Coming to the questions.
Firstly, when is the best time to rate a movie: just after you have watched it (so it remains fresh in your memory), or after a week or so (having some time to reflect upon it and when any first impression is worn off)?
Secondly, how should I rate old movies? Should I compare it to other movies of that period, or to the modern movies? Same for foreign films, should they be compared with other movies of that country?
Since I am not a film student, what are the best sources to learn about the terminologies used in film analysis?
I would appreciate suggestions from other users also. Thanks for your valuable time.
PS: Have you watched Gangs of Wasseypur (2012 Indian movie)? I think you would like it.
@Sar— I think it varies depending on how many movies you see as to when a best time to rate a movie is. I like to take notes during, and just after– and then put something together the next day or two days after. But I’m seeing 10 movies a week at least so my worry if I wait longer, I’ll lose some of the momentum and my thoughts will drift to other films. Having said that, some films are so well-made, they stay with you for days/weeks and I’ll go back and change my grade
I like comparing movies to the films of that year. I think most years are relatively even (2020 maybe not because of the pandemic). I was always frustrated with the thumbs up or thumbs down and the stars system— when I was starting out and was trying to prioritize what to watch and study– I always wanted to know– “is this one of the best movies of the year? or not?”– there are 100+ years of film- that’s 1000 movies.
If you can find it- I think Film Art: An Introduction by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson is a great place to start as a source to learn about terminologies in film analysis. But there are a lot of free resources on the internet (including Bordwell’s online stuff) as well…. you can do a lot of damage and develop a decent grammar with this page here or something like this https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/movie-film-terms/
I have not seen Gangs of Wasseypu– thank you for the recommendation- I’ll add it to my queue
@Drake, thank you very much for the quick reply and the very well-thought out answers. I will keep your suggestions in mind from now, and will read the materials you have provided. Currently I am watching ~300 movies a year and
I hope to develop a good understanding of cinema by the next decade.
I am glad you liked my suggestion and I’ll wait for your review. Thanks again and best wishes.
Hi @Sar. When you say you’ve seen 1000 movies, do you mean the 1000 best, or 1000 random, some good, some bad? because I don’t even think I’ve seen 1000 good movies
Hi @Aldo, I am sorry that my comment created this confusion. I meant that I’ve seen 1000 movies in total, ever since I started watching them seriously 4 years ago. Before that, I used to watch English movies dubbed in Hindi, which was no good. I am not counting Indian movies (Bollywood), which I am watching since childhood but only for entertainment. That doesn’t mean that Indian movies are not good (some of them are great). Out of the 1000 movies I have watched, I don’t think I have seen more than 20-25 which can be considered the best (Masterpiece).
I mistakenly typed it as a new comment, but I don’t think I can delete it now. Sorry for that.
Hi @Aldo, I am sorry that my comment created this confusion. I meant that I’ve seen 1000 movies in total, ever since I started watching them seriously 4 years ago. Before that, I used to watch English movies dubbed in Hindi, which was no good. I am not counting Indian movies (Bollywood), which I am watching since childhood but only for entertainment. That doesn’t mean that Indian movies are not good (some of them are great). Out of the 1000 movies I have watched, I don’t think I have seen more than 20-25 which can be considered the best (Masterpiece).
You’ve said that best and favorite is the same thing for you. Do you mean that on a 100% scale? I mean, I also support that best and favorite are the same for me, but there are very small exceptions. I don’t mean that the objective #25 film of the year will be superior to the objective #1 but in some cases your #5 film will appeal to you more than your #4.
@Cinephile– depends on what you mean by “appeal to you more”— I mean there are films that I was more often, that are easier to revisit— that are behind films that awe me more with their cinematic achievement. Does that make sense?
@Drake– Yes, that’s what I mean. Although you may recognize the one film as the superior achievement, the other may offer a more satisfying experience to you personally. But I’ve rarely found cases like this.
@Cinephile- Sure- but I don’t know if it is even about being “satisfying to you personally”- for me, I’m often talking about the genre, length of the film, seriousness of the content — I can throw in Love and Death from Woody Allen and watch it (and do) more often than von Trier’s Breaking the Waves, etc.
@cinephile. In my opinion, Certain films are just more rewatchable, fun, happier and ‘satisfying’ than others. Theres no denying that.
Schindler’s List, Come and See, Raging bull and a plethora of other such movies arent (and shouldn’t) be more satisfying and rewatch able than movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Do you agree?
@Azman– Yep, you’re right.
What are some films than in your opinion, lose some of their theater magic when viewed at home and some that retain that theater magic at home?
@Cinephile– do you have any in mind? I’m having a hard time. I think the great films get better with repeat viewings. Inception in 2010 blew my mind… but I think it holds up. Seeing Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm was special but I can’t say the bluray experience on a good tv isn’t either.
Avatar? I still maintain that the 3D theatrical version of that film is a landmark in cinematic visual achievement, but it’s virtually impossible to recreate that at home.
@Cinephile – with all the technology we have today, even 3D movies can seem very special on the home screen. Also what you find ‘magical’ is purely subjective and should not impact your evaluation of the film.
I would say that based on what happened MP to MS, Gravity and Inglorious Bastards, both in the page of his year he had them as the best and a MP, in the reviews he dropped them, and i could say that Gravity is a different experience at home
I would say that it is much easier to underestimate a movie and then discover that it’s great, Drake had great advances with Gertrud and Ikiru which he called overrated.
Unlike think that it is MP and then it is not
Those are some examples. One recent that comes to my mind is Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood. In the theater, especially if it’s outdoor, it puts you through a magic mood, it’s the perfect summer movie. At home, I’d say (although I still think it’s one of the best of the decade) it doesn’t offer the same experience, which is logical I think since theater is the authentic house of films, and it’s the greatest place to watch. I mean, most films probably don’t offer the exact same effect on the viewer both on theater and on home. You are still going to get blown away by it’s narrative, technical, formal mastery on TV but it’s not the same thing with the theater.
I didn’t know that Steven Spielberg was commenting on the site haha, although i tend to agree, i just want to point out that i at least most of the movies that i have seen have not been in the cinema, have been on my home screen
@Drake – While poring over your list, I noticed you have a few movies graded out at MS which are ranked above MS/MPs or straight MPs.
For instance,
MS graded films Solaris, Weekend, Throne of blood are above MS/MP graded films Casino, The Departed and MP graded films Traffic and Badlands.
I have vague suppositions but would rather hear from you, for I’m sure you have a strong reason.
@JC– yeah– good question- it is something I’m aware of– you’ll find that with every level- even like a R/HR over a HR on a top 10. The grades are great and I use them as an outline when I compile my top 10’s of the year or top 500 of all-time or top 100 of the decade etc– but ultimately I’ll go with the stronger film for my list even if that isn’t in sync with the grade for the film. Some films stick with you longer- like a cinematic reverberation long after watching it so it may have moved a tier or two from the grade I had it last. Does that make sense? Sorry- sounds complicated. Some of the grades on the year by year page are simply older than my top 500 list too. I believe in my list 100% the day I print it or post it- haha– after that things change, I see new films, etc. Which is why I go back and update.
@Drake – yes that does make sense, I ask, not in a bid to cavill, but to ascertain which carries more weight and you’ve answered that – its the list.
Another small thing I noticed, you said Roma might be Cuaron’s best work ahead of Children of Men. Does that that mean you have The Master as PTA’s best work since its ahead of Roma on the 2010s decade list and CoM is ahead of TWBB? (Sorry if these questions are irritating 😬).
@JC — I’m not ready to move Roma past Children of Men or The Master ahead of the four PTA films I already have in my all-time top 100. I think it could happen though with another viewing.
Roma, in my opinion is a simple Recommend. Great to look at but full emotionally.
@KUBRICKIAN – thanks for the comment and for visiting the site. I’m confident Roma is not a simple Recommend.
Hi @KUBRICKIAN. How is Rome a recommendation?
I could say that about Kubrick movies, but emotionally empty, I mention this because from your username you seem to be a fan of Kubrick
What are in your opinion some of the best “hangout” films?
What is a hangout film? If you tell me, I can recommend you some.
@Azman–
https://www.google.com/amp/s/filmschoolrejects.com/history-of-the-hangout-film-5bff7f27d658/%3famp
I kind of understand now cinephile. Still not completely sure. Can you give an example of your favorite hangout film?
Does pulp fiction count?
@Cinephile– nice- sorry- found the same article. which ones do you want to add?
@Cinephile and @Azman– I thought this was good https://filmschoolrejects.com/history-of-the-hangout-film-5bff7f27d658/ first ones that came to mind for me were Rio Bravo and Big Lebowski- both here. American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused (and the sequel of sorts Everybody Wants Some!!)… Once Upon a in Time in Hollywood could be the new classic in this little weird fun subgenre (non plot oriented– fun, engaging film). Hawks had a few. El Dorado is basically a Rio Bravo remake.
@Drake, @Azman, @m— I’d probably add that Scorsese’s gangster films, especially Mean Streets, but also Goodfellas and Casino have hangout feeling to them. Maybe The Irishman is there too, since it contains many scenes when they are talking especially after Hoffa gets released and Sheeran tries to convince him to stop. But again, it doesn’t feature this lighter friendly tone, it’s not just like Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood where in the end you have a melancholic vibe, The Irishman is more ‘dark’ from the start and, in the end, you’re absolutely wrecked.
What do you think ? You’d agree with those ?
“In an article in the New Yorker, Tarantino described a “hangout movie” as a film whose plot and camerawork you may admire, but whose primary attraction is the characters.”- tiff
in accordance to those criteria, i’d say it applies quite a bit to comedies. ferris bueller’s day off is a movie whose characters i love, school of rock, bringing up baby, i recently watched the film something wild by demme and that may count. goodfellas is a good choice also, and this sounds weird but Metropolis by Fritz Lang might be like that. I mean it is a very visual film but even though they don’t talk i feel something special for the characters.
Is this your favorite films? Or the films which you consider the best? What are your criteria to rank them?
@Johan– thanks for the comment. Although my favorite and the best are virtually the same thing in my mind at this point- I’d call this the list of films I currently believe to be the best.. As far as criteria. I consider the narrative, acting, writing, music– film style of course but that’s probably too broad a definition– if I had to isolate the main pillars it would be cinematography, mise-en-scene, editing and film form (often the structure of the film itself or the visual style being tied together).
Ok. But here’s the problem that I observe. Having this as a list of movies which you consider the best is a lesser problem (I would still have some little issues), but having this list as your favorite movies shows me a deep bias towards the things that you enjoy and don’t enjoy. I say this because your list is almost completely made of a very specific type of film. The “high art”, praised by big name conventional critics, type of films. The ones that make the traditional canon. And while I do think that art can be categorized, and dissected, I also think that that is a process which happens after you absorb and have the experience. Its then, and only then, that you can look for the elements that justify that experience. That make it incredibly unlikely that your personal taste is EXACTLY the same as the big canon consensus on what makes a good film. Do you not have any favorite films that the canon hates? Do you not hate any films that the canon loves? No controversies whatsoever? Guilty pleasures?
It seems to me that you have a profound bias (I’m not accusing you by the way. This is all unconscious) towards what the canon says its “good”. Not only you praise and like the movies that the canon likes, you also consider that the elements that make good art are only the ones that the canon determines. What about other elements that the canon ignores? What about other styles of films? Other cultural aesthetics? Other elements that we don’t even know they are good and important to good art, but they are there, just waiting to be found? You do realize that a big portion of the movies in your list were rejected and disliked when they came out. Because the canon at the time was different. And it was only after accepting that those films were good, and had something in them that we were able to explore them and find the elements that made them great.
I’m speaking to you about this because I used to have the same ideas that you have right now. I used to analyze movies (and art in general) following some sort of “rulebook” on what constitutes good art. But that is INCREDIBLY limited. It blinds you to a vast world of other elements that also constitutes good art that we reject simply because of ignorance. At the end of the day is just like Thomas Mann said: we either feel sympathetic towards a work of art or we don’t, and after that we search for a million reasons to justify our opinion. And is exactly that process that teaches us what are good or bad elements of art.
So don’t feel ashamed to put American Psycho (or something like that, lol) in your favorite movies list. Be bold and proud and then find why you like it, and justify your opinion. That would be a much more experience to you in my humble opinion.
Diclaimer: everything I say here is just my personal view. Not trying to attack you in any way, just trying to have a nice conversation and give (and receive) some advice. Thanks.
America Psycho *higher* in you favorite movies list.
@Johan – thanks for the note here. I appreciate you sharing your journey but this isn’t mine. I’ve been doing this for a very long time. I don’t try to explain away or justify films I like or don’t like– in fact, “like” isn’t criteria I’m really looking for. It is appreciation and awe if I had to single out an element in a word or two. Poke around on the site if you want but these are my thoughts and there are plenty of breaks with the critical consensus both ways– almost all the pages have an “overrated” and “underrated” (by the consensus) section.. I certainly don’t feel ashamed to put something like American Psycho if it is good enough on it– it already on the list so how could I? In my experience those that totally reject the canon or consensus are the ones that ultimately have some work to do– it usually has to do with a knowledge gap (not saying this about you specifically).
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I never said anything about rejecting the canon. The canon is important. But it is important for a reason. It shows us elements and patterns in the artistic expressions in question that are more likely to be appreciated by the one experiencing it. It dissects the human experience into palatable and understandable elements that are important to the human experience. But all of that are means to an end. There is a objective. A goal. And the goal is the experience of the art. Its the experience that justifies the elements, and not the other way around. The elements in Vertigo are good because Vertigo is good. In fact we discovered those elements precisely because of that. Its the elements that fulfill the goal of granting us humans a positive experience of art that we define as being good. A good cinematography is not good on itself, it is good or bad in relation to the experience it provides. And the more relatable that experience is, the more consensus there is about it. And so, the canon is created.
There are 2 problems happening here. The elements and criteria that you use to define what is good or bad being limited to a very specific type of film (traditional, prestigious western canon), and you using those criteria to define what your personal subjective experience is (which is the more tragic of the two). I think you don’t realize how absolute minimal is your deviation of the canon. For instance, yes you consider some works of great directors to be underrated or overrated, but there is always something to take their place. You may think Ikiru is overrated but have Yojimbo take its place. Also they are not *truly* over-underrated, are they? You still think they are great works, still praises them, at the end of the day you still consider them to be at the top of the pyramid of cinema. And there is something even worse. The criteria that you use to classify them as being over-underrated are exactly the same criteria of the canon. It’s the same rulebook, the same elements. At the end of the day, you are still following the canon at all times, and it shows in this list. But the biggest proof of all is what you said earlier, that the works which you consider the best and your favorites are the same. Like I said, having this being only the criteria you use to define what is good or bad art is not that bad. Them it’s just about expanding the rulebook and definitions that you have. But having these criteria define what your personal experience is, is ludicrous. No human works that way. There’s no way that your personal experience aligns perfectly with the canon. The fact that you don’t realize that shows me a profound bias in your analysis that, ultimately, undermines the work that you are trying to do.
@Johan– It sounds like you’re glancing at this list for 5 minutes, asking one question, and then going on about your experience– which is fine— but it has little to do with me.It sounds like you make your evaluation based more on what speaks to you emotionally vs. what is actually on the screen– and that’s fine for you. But that’s not for me. I’ve thought about this daily for 20 years. In the last 24-48 hours @Matt Harris and I have shared a back and forth about Kurosawa’s The Bad Sleep Well talking about specifics in the film that make it a masterpiece (at least speaking for me, I won’t speak for Mr. Harris) even though it doesn’t sit in the top 1000 on the consensus list. Just before that, I said that I part ways sharply with those that think Kiarostami’s Close-Up is one of the greatest works in cinema in the 1990’s– again, focusing on the actual film and elements on the screen. These are just two of the many examples– it is an almost daily occurrence.
Not about my experience per se, but about the problems that I see on your criteria and what are my takes on them. I tried to be as articulate as possible for you to understand where i’m coming from, but it seems it just went over your head. Also, is the experience that dictates your journey to find whats actually on the screen, as I Said before. The fact that you can’t see your bias and think that your opinion is somehow controversial to the canon (with those examples that you gave) shows that we’re simply not speaking the same language. Thats fine. Lets just agree to disagree
@Johan– Thanks again for the comment— your comment just isn’t accurate. I have Shohei Imamura and Peter Greenaway ranked as stronger directors than Charlie Chaplin and Robert Bresson. I’d acknowledge it if you might be on to something– but you’re not. I’m not going to argue a great film isn’t great– or vice versa –if there is no evidence to support that claim– just to be different. Chief Keef is quite right here- it absolutely is a progression. You should read up on on Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 rule- essentially you need to have practiced, to have apprenticed, for 10,000 hours before you get truly good at something. I think as you continue to study cinema you’ll find your own “favorites” and “the best” to be closer aligned.
Ignoring the suggestion that your opinions are superior or more valid than mine, how can you possibly claim that your opinions are controversial to the canon is beyond me. Dont you realize that the examples you cited are absolute minimal? You may have some good directors ranked higher than some great directors, at the end of the day, they are all at the high end of the spectrum in your personal rankings. Just take a look at this list. Theres only 1 movie in the top 100 that is not present in the TSPDT list. Look at the types of films. I said that in the beggining, they are almost unanimously the same type of film, the high art canonicaly praised classic. You cant get more biased than that.
@Johan– Your comments just remind me of where I was 15-20 years ago or so. As I said plainly, I’m not going to say a film is great when it isn’t or vice versa to be different. You’re suggesting (or at least insinuating) I put average and bad directors ahead of good and great ones? Haha. I don’t see any strong relevant specific examples in your comments here. If you have a film or filmmaker I’m overlooking- speak up. I’ll tell you if I’ve seen it or haven’t. It is completely possible I haven’t and should seek it out. Sorry- you sound smart enough– but without specifics this is a conversation/comment worthy of being completely dismissed. You sound like one of those people that walks around an art museum saying “what’s so special about all this? I can paint better than that!” but in reality, just can’t tell the difference between the art on the wall in the museum and the art that isn’t.
The way you interpreted my opinions and arguments, diregarded almost everything that I said and strawman my ideas in such a defensive way show me that you dind’t understand anything I was talking about. Just look at the way you phrase this: “I put average and bad directors ahead of good and great ones”. You are already classifying them to be bad or mediocre. That is explicit bias, as clear as it could possibly be. The point is what you consider to be good or bad. And is as clear as day that those opinions that you hold are absolutely drowned in canonical consensus. Basically you don’t have your own opinions or originality, they have been completely washed away by the canon, which is sad.
The example that you gave is quite the opposite. I’m the one in the art museum looking at less important art pieces and finding good elements on them. It’s that process that advances art. And you are the conventional critic that stays with its conservative views forever. Just to be clear, you are the exception here. Look at even the great critics that you hold so dear. Look at the favorite films of Tarantino, Ebert, Scorsese. You will find plenty of controversies and different ideas and opinions. I still remember when no one cared about Wes Anderson until Scorsese named one of hils films as his favorite of the decade. Then suddenly everyone cared.
As I said before, that’s fine. Let’s just agree to disagree.
@Johan- I’m just correcting you when you’re wrong. To be fair- you’re painting me with a pretty broad not-so-flattering- brush here– so if you’re wrong– I want to correct it—as I’ve done here. I’ve asked for specific criteria, films and filmmakers I’m missing and you can’t provide one. On the other hand, I’ve provided specific examples of how you are wrong– and you are. So I’ve seen many man of films by these “average” and “bad” directors. I know they’re bad–I’ve seen their films. That’s my label (talk about a strawman). Sorry if that’s the reason you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying here is you think I’m simply taking the critics word for it. I’m not. It isn’t a bias. I’ve seen the films. If Tarantino thinks The Bad News Bears is one of the 15 best films of all-time (I’ve read here https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/quentin-tarantino-12-greatest-favourite-films-ever/) or Ebert picks Monster as one of the 10 best of the 2000’s– that somehow means I’m doing something wrong in your mind? Hmmm? That doesn’t make sense.
You’ve given some food for thought and feedback and that’s fine. I think it has pretty clearly and debunked with my specific examples and responses. So yes- let’s move on.
Yeah, you clrealy don’t understand the points i’m making. I urge you to think deeply and reflect on your ideas and opinions, because the bias is as clear as day. Not only about the movies (which seem to be the only nitpicking you are doing) but about everything that I said (the criteria, the elements, the experience, etc). Thank you for your time.
@Johan- haha thanks for visiting the site. I have thought about it- and do every day for 20 years- that’s what I’m trying to tell you– I have been there and done that– and moved past it long ago.
@Johan
I will not debate everything you said, but If I can intrude, in my experience the more you experience art and more hours you put into it, “the best” and “favorite” are closer and closer and they eventually become synonymous, because with time you develop appreciation for the craft instead of content. It’s a natural progression and it’s the same with classic novels, hip hop music and any other art form. It’s very surprising to hear that you went in the opposite direction.
Drake do you think Tarantino is a cinephile or just a fan of the movies? I ask this because he likes a lot of bad movies, average, i ask this here since you shared a list of Tarantino
@Aldo– not sure- I’m not an expert on what Tarantino thinks– he seems like both- a fan and cinephile to me. He’s very articulate about some great films (he’s a big admirer of Dunkirk for one)– but he also seems to love films that I’ve seen that I would not consider to be very good at all. I don’t know enough about his feelings on those films to know if he’d defend those as personal favorites, guilty-pleasures, nostalgic pics, etc– or if he would put those in the same category as his love for Apocalypse Now and Taxi Driver.
@Aldo– and I shared the list to illustrate and debunk a point made by Johan. Johan was upset that my list of favorites is the same as my best films (and how closely both align to the status-quo) and brought up Tarantino’s “favorites” as evidence of something I’m doing wrong that makes him sad and that I need to reflect on.
Thanks for your answer. Yes, I have heard how you mention that the social network and dunkirk are the best movies of the decade.
Regarding the comment above, i followed the conversation closely and i must say that i did not understand what they were trying to say
@Johan
I’ve given @Drake plenty of crap over the years when I think he’s been too dogmatic and narrow with the sorts of films he values and which he does not. He subscribes to a rigorous cognitivist/formalist set of criteria that serve as a necessary heuristic for the type of project he’s committed to. If he’s going to independantly and without the benefit of any assistants, spend years sifting through 10000+ films in order to construct an exhaustive several thousand film archive, he needs a reliable method by which to efficiently seperate the wheat from the chaff. And he has developed just such a method.
Now that’s not my project. I float along the surface of the ocean of film that Drake exhaustively navigates, often guided by the cinematic cartography he has provided, and then at my leisure or as my interests or research dictate I’ll dive in, and plumb the depths of this or that little pocket of the ocean making discoveries and having revelations that aren’t initially accessible to Drake’s more comprehensive approach.
Insofar as I might be inclined to accept the notion that Drake misses a few things in the margins, I would attribute it to his heursitic approach. However, I’ve usually found him open minded about revisiting those things he may have missed.
The problem I have with your critique of his method, is that your order of operations is perplexingly reversed. You seem to be employing a teleological approach whereby you flail from experience to experience and then attempt a post-hoc rationalization of your responses. This is not the sort of approach that can withstand even the slightest amount of scrutiny. The reason Drake appears to read your perspective as lacking in experience is perhaps best encapsulated in your saying, “Its the experience that justifies the elements, and not the other way around. The elements in Vertigo are good because Vertigo is good.” Experientially, this may be true. A bright individual of moderately good taste, has a positive experience and then if they have the intellectual curiosity to do so, investigates the work to determine what elements contributed to that experience. This is a great place to be early in one’s evolution as an admirer/critic of an artform. However, as you learn and develop, you come to realize and appreciate the fact that the elements precede the experience and that indeed it is by that nature of what these elements are and how, why, when, and where they are combined, that the experience is generated in the first place. This is the form of the work, this is film style, this is narrative structure, this is performance… and all of these things are generative of experience. Inasmuch as canons form, it is because cogntively humans share enough in kind that many of these experiences will be shared, and certain consensuses arrived upon. Personally, I have suspicion of the person too committed to the canon, but if the alternative is the person too skeptical of it, then I’ll take the former just about every time.
@Matt Harris– Extremely well said. Thank you for weighing in here.
Just curious have you ever seen The War Zone (1999) direct by Tim Roth? If so what did you think? It’s one of the most disturbing & visceral films I have ever watched. Although, it was extremely well done from a technical standpoint, imo.
I liken it to watching Shame or Hunger from British filmmaker Steve McQueen. Fincher & McQueen are 2 of my top 5 all-time filmmakers & rarely do I see filmmakers display the extremities of the human condition through a realistic lense as they do. I wonder why Tim Roth never directed more.
@Von – I have- page for The War Zone is here with my thoughts http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/11/18/the-war-zone-1999-roth/
Yes- it is a strong film and strange (and a shame) that Roth didn’t direct again (or hasn’t so far)
Great choices with McQueen and Fincher- thanks for sharing your thoughts
Hey. Does anybody on the blog watch TV shows?
I remeber Matt Harris said he think TV shows are comparable to the best of cinema. I don’t remember the page.
This question is to Matt. I started watching a TV show called Modern Family. It’s very well written and acted. Have you seen it? What do you think of it?
Hi Azman, I don’t watch TV shows, in fact, that’s why I started to get interested in the cinema, i was bored to death with the Netflix series, the filler is not really for me, when i am taken to see a series, boredom invades me, as they point out, simply in most series there is not much to admire.
@Azman I want to be clear, I believe my exact words were that the “finest Television” is on par with cinema. The majority of what clogs the airwaves is of far less value than your average random non-archivable Hollywood whatever at the multiplex.
That said we live in the era of the auteur showrunner and there are series that have a tremendous amount to offer in ways that overlap significantly with the sorts of pleasures and experiences offered by the best films.
Modern Family is an interesting case. I watched several seasons of it, and very much agree with your assessment that it is very well written and acted. It’s not really the sort of show I’m thinking of though. It is very distinctively recognizably television. A slightly elevated iteration of a well worn formula: the sit-com. Incredibly enjoyable, but not what I would categorize as “cinematic”.
I’m glad you agree with me about modern family. I have a few more questions though about TV shows. I’d like to know your thoughts.
@Matt Harris – Apart from the writing and acting, I find nothing much else to praise in Modern Family (there’s the occasional good looking shot or 2). Still, I find the acting and writing to be quite praise worthy. Very sharply written and very well acted. I only watch the show occasionally and I’ve only seen a few episodes, but every time I see it, the dialogue and acting really impress me. I agree that it is “incredibly enjoyable” and is better than the usual sitcom. The characters are built well. Certainly an above average TV show though I haven’t seen all episodes so my judgement is based only of what I’ve seen.
You say: “I believe my exact words were that the “finest Television” is on par with cinema.”
Do you mean that the best TV shows of all time are comparable to the best movies of all time? Any examples of such TV shows?
TSPDT (a website for movies) has started adding TV shows to their 21st century list.
Does this mean(in your opinion) that TV shows can be considered mini-series sometimes or even extended movies (like movie series/sequels)? Do they have ‘cinematic’ qualities to them?
@matt harris what do you think of the wire.
What other TV shows do you admire as much as the best movies/cinema of all time?
@matt harris.
Have you seen the Sopranos?
azman If I may id like to share thoughts on television. The best television is not comparable aestheticically even to lesser masterpieces of cinema, like dr strangelove or on the waterfront, let’s say. But I care about television and there is good television. I enjoy shows like breaking bad that are complex dramas. I also like simpler humanist shows like prison break and there is good writing but i am more into visuals when I look at a screen and they aren’t always there. Miniseries like roots can be great. However I think that the best of television is situation comedies because of their potential for social satire and understanding different types of humans we encounter in this country.id recommend last man on earth, and malcolm in the middle (with brilliant breaking bad star Bryan cranston) Futurama and of course Simpsons. One I love is scrubs, a satire of the procedural medical show genre, which is a basically worthless genre. The characters are great and I especially love dr cox played by John c mcginsley the guy who plays supporting roles in all those oliver stone movies. They also have the best sitcom visuals I think.. i remember azman I recommended office space and you liked it, so I’d especially recommend my favorite television series King Of the Hill, created by a starring the voice of office space director Mike Judge. I think it is superior huamnist satire to Simpsons even.
Now for modern family i enjoy it too. I particularly like the satire of the character many as he grows up in the show. He is an aspiring filmmaker and I remember a quote where he said ‘we cant all be spiks Jones or Guillermo del toro” and then in a later episode his step father jay tries to screen Lawrence of Arabia in a deluxe screening because he doesn’t want to be interested by manny who keeps commenting on the movie things like ‘this is boring, just sand’ or ‘id go with a tracking shot’. I love that satire of the young pretentious director praising jacks like Jones and del toro and mocking a genius like david lean.
Love The Deuce, Boardwalk Empire, The Soprano, The Wire & Oz.
A general question,
Apart from TSPDT (Sight and Sound polls too), which pages/lists or critics would, you consider to, comprise of the ‘consensus’ or the ‘canon’?
@JC- those are my main two historically– TSPDT being my favorite resource. In real time of course metacritic does a great job (and they compile critics top 10’s at the end of the year) I think as does a site called https://criticstop10.com
jc I can’t answer for everyone but here are some critics I admire. Armond white, pauline kael, vincent canby, john simon, amy nicholson, rex reed. I like that they all have different unique voices and certain principles and beliefs that factor into their reviews, and are all humanists who appreciate aesthetic. Also there is a website called combustible celluloid by a critic named jeffrey m anderson, and I admire his tastes even if I sometimes disagree (he does not like seventh seal, searchers, or metropolis). His website is also cool because he has a compilation of great directors and many archived lists and seems to know the history really well. I hope this all helps
@jc and @m— agreed with Jeffrey Anderson- https://www.combustiblecelluloid.com/ big fan
@Drake, @m – yes, these help immensely thank you. I probably would add Ebert, ignoring his 2000s movie lists flub. I wonder if m (or drake) is familiar with a Piero Sciaruffi? He has quite an singular voice and rates movies quite bluntly, albeit on a prehistoric website.
Jc I just looked at him and He seems to know the history. I don’t know what else he offers but that is vital for a critic and not everyone does know it. Also id recommend a series by amy nichsolson where her and a friend take a look at each afi 100 movie to see if it deserves to be part of the cinema canon. I forgot what it is called but it is good. My favorite critic though is armond white because he is the voice that I read and whether I agree he gives me a new thing to consider or look at and he is an inspiration for me besides just film.
@JC and @m – I’m a big fan of Justin Chang as well- I’m not going to begrudge anyone’s choice- but I’ll share this from Ebert https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/not-in-defense-of-armond-white
“It is baffling to me that a critic could praise “Transformers 2” but not “Synecdoche, New York.” Or “Death Race” but not “There Will be Blood.” I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll.”
I listened to Unspooled for awhile. I enjoyed Paul Scheer… but I eventually stopped listening because I found Amy Nicholson so insufferable. It wasn’t the only thing that about her that bothered me, but at a certain point I couldn’t take it anymore when she kept ignorantly shitting all over Scorsese.
Oh God, one podcast I like and the host doesn’t like Scorsese.? Thats really sad, as far as I’ve got she hasn’t really said much about him, but that’s a major put off..
I disagree on Amy Nicholson. She is pretty positive and fun to watch and if anybody on that podcast is ignorant and shows the lack of knowledge and interest to acquire it, it’s Scheer. He is also a master of talking for ten minutes without saying anything, but I’m not overly bothered since I don’t take it too seriously. They have a good chemistry and it’s great to listen to while you are doing something else. It’s more of a casual talk than some sophisticated analysis. I’m curious, when did she put down Scorsese? She can be opinionated but I don’t really remember her ever going really hard in the paint on anything.
@Drake & @m the combustible celluloid and AFI movie list videos were great. However apropos Mr. White, @m, I’m afraid its just not for me. I’ve been mostly shaped by this site’s view of films – film form, visuals and narrative, things he, apparently, doesn’t look for. However, the others did show me various other views and stances on so films. Loads of perspective.
I didn’t know Amy nicholson ripped on Scorsese. Everyone has their opinions but what can touch scorseses classics (raging bull, taxi driver, mean streets). Anyways I don’t think nicholson is the most enlightening critic out there but I like her energy as well as her knowledge of the artform. I’m pretty sure Paul Scherr is an actor and I don’t think he contributes much to the conversations but it is also interesting to see them debate classic films and what their reputations are.also I disagree with ebert (who is by all means a great critic himself) on armond white. That is how I felt when I first discovered him but then I started to realize a pattern. He talks about two things ideas and anesthetics and sometimes if he considers a films ideas to be nihilistic or anti religious or whatever he will object to the film. I agree with him bay is a great director, who might be a bit mindless, but certainly shoots like no one else out there. He also has very good writings on griffith, altman, de palma, and spielberg. Also, this is from a literary critic who passed away recently Harold Bloom, I’m paraphrasing, but this statement helps a lot. He says that great art has these three components; originality, cognitive merit, and aesthetic. That is how I look at art including cinema. Have you ever heard that quote before?
Found a very interesting article in Film Comment regarding the best films of the 90’s and how they ask cinephiles to name the best film of the decade and the film person of the decade.
Here’s Bordwell:
“An old-fashioned reply: the most deeply moving, most formally adventurous film I saw from the last ten years: Kiarostami’s Through the Olive Trees. With its tactile realism, rigorous concept, humor, brilliant exploitation of long takes / depth / flatness / Kuleshov effect / closeups / longshots, and performances in which the flick of an eye carries everything, it shows that the power of the cinema at its best (that is, Ozu, Mizoguchi, Eisenstein, Sjostrom, Feuillade, Dreyer, Hou, Renoir, Bresson, Ford, Lang, Tati) is undiminished.
In light of the above, Person of the Decade can only be Abbas Kiarostami, who seems along with his Iranian colleagues and the best Asian directors to be reinventing the history of the cinema, from early film tableaus through neorealism to reflexivity, without any postmodernist bad faith–instead, a spontaneous sense of human integrity.
Ten Best Nineties films I know (in no ranked order):
– Through the Olive Trees (Kiarostami)
– A Brighter Summer Day (Yang)
– Chungking Express (Wong)
– The Blade (Hark)
– The Thin Red Line (Malick)
– Heat (Mann)
– Simple Men (Hartley)
– An Angel at My Table (Campion)
– A Scene at the Sea (Kitano)
– The Suspended Step of the Stork (Angelopoulos)”
What do you think ? (The question is directed not only towards Drake but the other readers as well)
I absolutely love Carlitos Way from De Palma and Bad Lieutenant from Abel Ferrara.They will probably be in my top 10 of the 1990s.I see Heat in here but no top 10 list of the 1990s will be complete without Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas.Haven’t you even seen them?
@Anderson– Currently I personally have Goodfellas and Pulp Fiction as the two best of the decade. That list in the comment is Bordwell’s, not mine.
@Cinephile, Bordwell is a good critic.
This is not surprising tbh. Most critics and directors(on sight and sound for example) have a few common choices, however, a lot of their choices seem to be different too. Coppola with King of Comedy, Scorsese and ashes and diamonds, ebert used to choose Notorious on his list etc.
I like the last paragraph.
Through the Olive Trees is not the best film of the 90s though(in my opinion). It’s not even Kiarostami’s best film of the 90s – haha.
Lastly, is there an objective way to describe a film’s beauty that would rank it above another movie?
What makes close-up (1990) an ‘ugly’ movie but the tree of life a film with great photography?
What makes one film’s photography objectively better and more good looking than another film’s photography? Is there a way to describe this in words?
@Cinephile
I don’t really have an opinion on him, and certainly owe him more study at some point. I’ve seen a few of his films over the past decade and a half but I don’t think Through the Olive Trees is among them. Hopefully I’ll get to him as some point. For the moment though I’m launching into a Wong Kar-Wai study as I wait to track down the last couple missing films from my Kurosawa study, and then probably Tarkovsky. That’ll keep me busy for a little while.
@Drake
Bardwell loves Michael Mann. He constructed his entire theory of Intensified Continuity largely on the basis of Mann’s films.
@Matt Harris- interesting- I’ll have to check out Bordwell’s work on Mann. If you had told me three of our top 10’s of the 1990’s were the same I would’ve guessed Chungking Express and The Thin Red Line– but never Heat. Pleasantly surprised.
@Cinephile
Bordwell understands film form as well as anyone on the planet, indeed perhaps *better* than anyone on the planet, so I take his views and opinions very seriously. That said, he is not in his work principally concerned with evaluation and as such when compiling such a list may be more led by his personal interests and tastes than is ideal. This is an interesting list that includes some of the very best films of the decade, and some I haven’t seen. That said, I struggle with the absence of Tarantino, Scorsese, and PTA here.
@Matt Harris– What is your opinion on Kiarostami? Many cinephiles I know have him as the best working filmmaker of the end of the 20th Century, considering every one of his 90s films (Close-Up, And Life Goes On, Through the Olive Trees, Taste of Cherry and The Wind Will Carry Us) and counting other non-90s films such as Where is the Friends House? and Certified Copy as also masterpieces. Do you stand along with Drake in your evaluation or you view him as a higher artist? Personally, I’d place him (probably) higher, but not up there with the strongest auteurs of the cinema. That said, I need to give him more attention with a full study in the future.
@Cinephile- thanks for sharing this. I don’t collect much of anything anymore (had a great VHS collection back in the day, have a dozen movie posters or so) but I do have almost every film comment magazine here- a great resource.
Certainly Bordwell is the man— worthy of reading, studying, re-reading— an in turn- any list he provides like this is worthy of watching, considering, and rewatching and reconsidering. That said- what struct me about this list was the inclusion of Heat from Michael Mann on this particular list. haha
Good list, thanks for compiling.
Interesting having “The Searchers” at #1 (personally, around #50 would be more appropriate), but it seems some critics might agree with you. I think “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” has the stronger story, which you have much lower. Obviously the cinematography is far superior in “The Searchers” and it’s more influential, but “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” resonates better on an emotional level.
“2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Citizen Kane” are definitely top 5. “Vertigo” and “Apocalypse Now” are definitely top 10. I would put “The Godfather” (the first two) in the top 10, as well. Greatest acting ever. Also very nice to see “Stalker” in the top 10. Impressive.
I don’t understand the love for “Pulp Fiction.” I would switch it with “Ikiru,” which you are vastly underrating. “Pulp Fiction” is about nothing, “Ikiru” is about everything. I guess that’s why I also dislike movies like “Breathless” and “Jules and Jim.” Stylish and influential, but ultimately empty. I think “Ikiru” is just slightly superior to “Seven Samurai.” It’s Kurosawa’s masterpiece. Ebert was with me on that.
I would also switch “Blade Runner” and “Star Wars.” “Star Wars” is at least top 25. But I can understand why cinephiles might prefer the former to the latter. I suppose “Blade Runner” is more profound, but the execution just doesn’t quite work. Kubrick covered similar ground first and much better with “2001: A Space Odyssey.” The artistic ambitions of “Star Wars” are somewhat modest, but they are probably the most entertaining movies ever made (the original trilogy, forget the prequels or sequels). Even the AFI has it at #13.
Similarly, no love for “The Lord of the Rings”? Top 50 would be reasonable. Along with “Intolerance,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Star Wars,” they’re among the most ambitious movies ever made. And next to “Star Wars” probably the most entertaining.
Speaking of ambitious movies, you should re-watch “Pather Panchali”/”Aparajito”/”The World of Apu.” Easily one of the greatest epics, nearly as good as “The Godfather.” Kurosawa himself highly praised them.
Good for you for not placing the vastly overrated “Gone with the Wind,” “Schindler’s List,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Fight Club,” “The Dark Knight” anywhere near the top.
Overall, nice job. I’ve been working on my own top 100 list and plan on publishing it with an online magazine before the year is out. I can send to you if you’d like.
@David Barwinski– thanks for the comments. There could be other reasons but two things stand out as the reason for the possible difference on some films. You mention “resonates better on an emotional level.” and then you talk about a number of films that are “empty” and/or “about nothing”. I don’t really factor that in. By your logic a film that is about a subject matter is inherently better than one that isn’t, and films with a traditional “plot” are better than those without and I don’t believe that to be true. Emotion, as well, seems like a personal thing. You could say Liberty Valance is more emotional to you, someone else could say The Searchers is more emotional to them— fair enough to both of you—which is why I try to stick to the style and what’s on the screen. Thanks again- good stuff here.
Thanks, appreciate it. Yes, it seems like you have a slightly different approach. To me, Godard and Tarantino are not much more than style over substance directors. I’m not averse to non-traditional narratives, but the director also has to have something to say for me to consider a movie truly great. Directors like Kubrick and Kurosawa have something meaningful to say about the human condition while entertaining at the same time. And I don’t care much for contrived emotion, which is why I appreciate the technical skill of someone like Spielberg but can’t respect him that much as a storyteller, outside of something like “Jaws.”
Anyway, it’s a good point about emotion being obviously subjective. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in any of these lists. Trying to balance the subjective with the objective is the biggest challenge. I guess it comes down to how you define “great.” Art vs. entertainment? Style vs. substance? Story vs. influence? That’s not an easy question to answer. “2001: A Space Odyssey” is the superior movie, but I’d rather watch “Star Wars.” So, which is “greater”?
You say you stick to what’s on the screen, but I’m curious what exactly you mean by that? How do you interpret what’s on the screen and then decide how to rank any given film? Despite quibbling over rankings, etc., I’m very impressed that you would tackle 500 movies, as it’s taking me months to try to do justice to 100. (Although I’ve had to re-watch many which I haven’t seen in years.) It strikes me that the further down the list I go, the more arbitrary it seems. It’s a worthwhile exercise, all the same.
@David Barwinski- thanks again on the kind words on the project/site here. I wish you luck putting together your list. As far as “stick to what’s on the screen”- it is just that I try to keep my analysis to elements (cinematography, mise-en-scene, production design, camera movement, editing, composition, reoccurring visual motifs, etc)– things I can point to in the text itself and isolate. Like I’m reading a great book by David Thompson called “Have You Seen…?: A Personal Introduction to 1,000 Films”. He’s a great writer- far better than I could ever dream of being— but all the time he’ll go off on some story,a tangent, a personal anecdote, a theory, or he’ll talk about how the movie should never have been made, or something– very interesting– but also miles away from the actual text.
It’s my pleasure, really. I’ve used your site as a reference in recent months and have found it helpful and enjoyable. Your “deep dives” into films and directors is particularly impressive. And thanks for your kind words, as well!
That makes sense about “stick to what’s on the screen.” I was never a film student or a critic (although I write occasionally and sometimes about movies), so admittedly the technical aspects of film I’m not terrible strong in. I know what I know mostly from the thousands of movies I’ve watched. I know enough to tell you what’s a good movie, if you take my meaning.
I’ve never heard of David Thompson, thanks for mentioning. I’m a big fan of Roger Ebert, I think he was by far the greatest balance of critic and populist. His writing was accessible and his opinions were usually spot on. Although I much prefer the BFI directors’ poll to the critics’ poll, his top 10 is very impressive.
@David Barwinski — agreed- Ebert is the man. Somewhere along the lines Ebert says film style isn’t what a film says, but how it says it– I’m paraphrasing but that has always stuck with me when talking about subject matter vs. style (cinema art at least by my definition). Yep- Thompson is colorful, very entertaining and he’s knowledgeable. Bordwell is the best– I always forget to mention Andrew Sarris- I’m a big proponent of the auteur theory and Sarris’ work was so important here
Ebert also said something like what a great movie comes down to is how it moves you, does it make you think about what it means to be human and even encourage you to live your life a little differently? So was he contradicting himself with his style comment? 🙂
Yeah, Sarris and Kael were the OGs of important film critics. Sarris was better. The auteur theory is basically what separates serious movie people from casual movie people. The casual film fan tends to follow actors, the serious film fan tends to follow directors.
Also, surprised that these are missing entirely:
“12 Angry Men”
“Picnic at Hanging Rock”
“Stroszek”
“Make Way for Tomorrow”
“Au Hasard Balthazar”
“Close-Up”
“Hoop Dreams”
“Yi Yi”
“Being There”
“Ballad of a Soldier”
“The Enigman of Kaspar Hauser”
“Koyaanisqatsi”
“Man with a Movie Camera”
“Marketa Lazarova”
“Woman in the Dunes”
“Woodstock”
All definitely top 500.
@David Barwinski
Thanks again for the comment. So several of these are documentaries- and I don’t do documentaries. The only one I haven’t seen is Marketa Lazarova and I’ve just added it to my queue (thanks for the suggestion). Others I haven’t seen in some time so my confidence isn’t great (Picnic at Hanging Rock for one) and others I’ve seen recently and am quite confident they don’t belong in the top 500 (Make Way For Tomorrow- a film that is very emotional- so it makes sense it would be on your list given our last back and forth)
Sure thing. Glad there is at least one movie you haven’t seen which you can check out. I should also mention “The Shop on Main Street,” “High and Low,” and maybe “The Human Condition” (although I haven’t seen it yet, it looks promising).
I understand what you mean about documentaries and I am also hesitant to put them on the same level as traditional movies. I kind of feel the same way about short films (less than an hour) and animated films.
I see you have “Tokyo Story” very high, so wondering why you don’t think highly of “Make Way for Tomorrow” since it was the inspiration for “Tokyo Story”? You don’t seem to think too highly of “The World of Apu” or “Ikiru” but it seems to me that “Tokyo Story” is just as “emotional”?
@David Barwinski– some of these (like Ikiru- page here http://thecinemaarchives.com/2020/06/16/ikiru-1952-kurosawa/ and High and Low page here http://thecinemaarchives.com/2020/08/04/high-and-low-1963-kurosawa/) I’ve had a chance to see again since making my top 500 in 2019 and they would now be on my list. I’m sorry the top 500 isn’t hyperlinked yet to make this easier. So there is always more work to be done– films to watch and rewatch. I have an individual page for both Make Way For Tomorrow here http://thecinemaarchives.com/2020/04/18/make-way-for-tomorrow-1937-mccarey/ and Tokyo Story http://thecinemaarchives.com/2018/05/14/tokyo-story-1953-ozu/ that explains the difference better than I can here.
Thanks! Yeah, agreed that “Ikiru” may suffer (slightly) from excessive emotion. It’s not a perfect movie, but I don’t think such a thing exists, anyway. Even movies like “2001: A Space Odyssey” (one or two scenes go on a bit long) and “Citizen Kane” (some of the acting is less than stellar) are not quite perfect.
Guys this is an interesting question, i have been researching this and ultimately 2001 is not perfect, but i have found some perfect movies, no flaws, without errors, PERFECT, then i will share what i found, but for now, Nostalghia is a perfect movie that meets those requirements.
@Aldo – I don’t know about “perfect”- but Tarkovsky’s Nostalgia is just about as awe-inspiring as cinema gets
I love Tarkovsky, but I actually think “Nostalghia” is one of his weaker movies. I think Tarkovsky said as much, as well. I’d like to know why it’s so high on the list? Maybe I’m missing something. I found it a bit tedious and unengaging.
I don’t know if you ask me or Drake, but here is his review http://thecinemaarchives.com/2017/11/10/nostalgia-1983-tarkovsky/ it is still a compliment, Tarkovsky never made an average or normal movie, he has the worst best movie of all
You mean why is it in position 26?
Well, I say this because you will not find mistakes in the film, is the definition of perfection
Thanks. Yeah, Tarkovsky was a very rare director who never made a bad film. A relatively average Tarkovsky is better than just about anybody else’s best. Of course, it helped that he only made one about every 5 years. 🙂
Now, someone like Kurosawa cranking out a movie every year and never making a bad film, THAT is something truly exceptional. I’m not sure you can say that about any other director.
Kubrick was kind of like Tarkovsky, he didn’t make many movies. And even Hitchcock and Bergman had their clunkers.
Some of Bergman’s films are certainly on the forgettable side (such as Brink of Life), but the only film of his I’ve seen that I could emphatically call “flawed” is Passion of Anna, and even that is an ‘interesting failure’ of sorts. Autumn Sonata is decent, but it almost feels like it could be one of Woody Allen’s “serious” movies at times.
Hi @David Barwinski. Okay, this is my chance to ask, where would you place approximately 12 angry men? What’s so special? It is not even the best of Lumet, that is definitely Network.
It’s not even in the top 500 on TSPDT, Drake doesn’t have it in his 1957 top 10.
sorry for so many questions, i’ve always been curious to ask why people proclaim this to be one of the best
@Aldo and @David Barwinski– David may have his own answer- but in the middle of my Kurosawa study I came across this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MWeE5TCpl8 @Aldo- needless to say it makes me very excited for my next chance to revisit 12 Angry Men
@Drake
Nice pull. Makes me eager to see it again too. Just out of curiosity, was it sheer coincidence that brought you to that video during your Kurosawa study? I ask because some of that reminded me a lot of the way Kurosawa arranged and moved figures within a frame.
@Matt Harris– I believe youtube recommended it based on whatever similar Kurosawa staging/blocking video I was watching at the time (probably sent by you). I saw a still frame from 12 Angry Men and said “damn– this isn’t the 12 Angry Men I remember” and watched this video. It stuck with me and made me vault this one near the top of my rewatch list.
@Matt Harris- I also spend about 15-20 minutes a day (which is like 4-5 days a year- haha) looking at stills from films– so I’ve seen the 12 Angry Men compositions pop up from time to time.
@Drake. What images are you looking at? you should share them haha
@Aldo- haha I do share them! or try- it is one of my favorite parts of doing the site- finding the best shots from a film and sharing them.
Thanks for your question, Aldo. I currently have “12 Angry Men” in the #50-60 range, but that may change as it’s been some time since I’ve seen it. It’s very well-written and well-acted (what a great cast!), and its themes of prejudice obscuring the search for truth and the value of human life are profound. Kind of like “Rashomon” or “Paths of Glory” but not quite as good. In general, I’m not a fan of “message movies,” but there are exceptions.
I like “Network” but find it too shrill and cynical, and so I think “12 Angry Men” is Lumet’s best movie. I’m not against cynical movies, either. I think “Sunset Blvd.,” “Chinatown,” “Sweet Smell of Success,” are all brilliant. The satire in “Network” is really over-the-top, though.
@David
It’s interesting that you highlight the writing and performances in your praise here, because I already would have agreed with that and never would have considered putting it anywhere near my top 100. The video Drake shared that highlights the cinematography and arrangements of figures in the mise-en-scene is the sort of thing that could conceivably convince me I’m mistaken. Perhaps that speaks to whatever disconnect there is between your views and Drake’s which I (typically though not always) share.
“The video Drake shared that highlights the cinematography and arrangements of figures in the mise-en-scene is the sort of thing that could conceivably convince me I’m mistaken.”
Yes. That, too. 🙂 It’s a very tightly constructed film.
I’ve made an attempt to compile all of the most beautiful shots (or really singular frames) in cinema in this presentation:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vZM6986omJnPDAsMVRLlgzNKAybAI9WVj2TIDeQfyb0/edit?usp=sharing
Hit the present button in the top right if you want the full experience. I was going for a top one hundred or so, but it appears I’ll be ending up at a much higher number than that. It is certainly a work in progress. I wouldn’t have known or remembered some of the shots without The Cinema Archives, so thanks for that, Drake (I haven’t even seen all of the movies).
@Graham- this is awesome! thank you for sharing. Beautiful.
Very nice, thanks! May I suggest adding the Star Child looking at earth and the various alignment shots in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Those are my favorite. The doorway shot in “The Searchers” and the death dance in “The Seventh Seal” are also brilliant.
Thanks. Those shots from 2001 are certainly wonderful. I already have five images from 2001, the highest county of any movie so far. I love the “dance of death” shot as well, although I wish Bergman cut out the shot right after so we could call it the best final shot in cinema. It’s one of a few famous “ending shots” that are actually something like the second or third to last shot, along with Citizen Kane, Psycho, The Graduate, and others. There’s certainly nothing wrong with settling for The Searchers, Seven Samurai, and Nostalghia, though.
Yeah, good points.
I wonder if you have considered a ranking or deep dive of which countries have the best films? Obviously the US would be at the top, but I would be interested in seeing your thoughts on the place other countries hold in cinema history. Sometimes making those distinctions can be difficult though. I’ve lived in Australia my whole life and it’s only recently I’ve started exploring more films from our past.
This would be interesting, but they must stick to the rules, the film counts for the country where the director was born, examples Gravity-Mexico, Joan of arc-Denmark City lights-England, Clockwork orange-USA, Sunrise-Germany, Double Indemnity-Poland
I mention this because many attribute to the language the film is in.
That’s why I think it be difficult drawing those boundaries. Are all Hitchcock movies English then? Or should it have more to do with studio producing it? Even that would be tricky when you get into co-productions.
@Declan and @Aldo– I’ve definitely thought about this. You’re free to disagree of course- but as a big proponent of the auteur theory- I follow the directors birth place here. Again, others will disagree– and certainly all films aren’t driven by their directors (and all directors aren’t auteurs– I’m in the middle of talking about the artistic accomplishments in 1933 of Busby Berkeley who was a choreographer in those films)— but by and large it is good rule to follow. So I’d start with George Miller, Peter Weir, Baz Luhrmann
As an Australian, would you agree that “Picnic at Hanging Rock” is the greatest movie from Oceania?
I’ll take The Lord of the Rings. Fury Road is right there too.
@Matt Harris- had The Lord of the Rings but I don’t think that’s technically Oceania— at least that’s what I found in a 15 second google search of the word. haha
@David Barwinski— It has been ages since I’ve seen Picnic at Hanging Rock- I want to get to it and study it again soon- but without that caveat, and my sort of math/theory of what is an Australian film below– I’d go with Moulin Rouge! or Fury Road probably at this point unless I’m forgetting something.
Yeah, I love it. Reminds me of “L’Avventura” but not quite as good.
@David Barwinski – excited to revisit it- hopefully soon
Technically LOTR is Oceania so I suppose it would be up there, but if we just talking Australia then I would say Mad Max: Fury Road would be our best since it is sadly one of our few full-fledged masterpieces along with Moulin Rouge. Picnic at Hanging Rock is also fantastic. When it comes to Indigenous Australian cinema, Samson and Delilah would be ranked fairly high.
What are some films that never drag ? (Especially the longer ones, since I believe it is harder to make a 3 hour film that never drags than a 2 hour film)
@Cinephile- I think the way Oliver Stone edits JFK makes sure it doesn’t drag. Ensemble films like Short Cuts, Magnolia, Heat– never seem to drag. Casino of course- flies- Wolf of Wall Street… Hawks’ Hatari!… The Right Stuff and The Great Escape move as well for longer films
@Drake– Those are great examples, I’d probably add Seven Samurai, The Godfather trilogy, The Lord of the Rings and I think Gone With the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia are up there. Lastly, Scorsese is a master of pacing. The Aviator and The Departed belong there. And, of course, I’ve expressed my admiration for The Irishman for so long but I’ll say that, at least for me, the film flew as quick, or even quicker (this Is a bold statement) than Goodfellas, Casino or The Wolf of Wall Street. Remember that it’s also longer. Blue is the Warmest Color maybe also qualifies.
Hey cinephile, what are some other brilliantly paced and entertaining(non-Scorsese) films? Some films never drag for almost 3 hours (Aliens) while others drag for even 2.
@Azman– The Social Network (and Fincher as a director knows how to make the films flow), Fury Road, The Safdie Brothers make electrifying cinema. Whiplash also. For some foreign ones, Sieranevada, A Separation, Ida, The Lobster, Burning. Probably Loveless and The Return from Andrei Zvyagintsev. And, of course, Parasite.
I would add “Once Upon a Time in America,” “Andrei Rublev,” “Barry Lyndon,” “Fanny and Alexander.”
They are talking about movies that do not drag, but if you ask a lot of people they will say they are boring
apart i would not say that these have a good pacing like Goodfellas or Casino, many of the movies that @Cinephile @David Barwinski mention are very long and none are accused of good pacing
@Aldo– But many of those people aren’t serious about cinema. If you ask them, they’ll probably call boring everything that doesn’t feature action on 90% of the film.
And, I mean, how we define “pacing”, or if a movie is “dragging”. For me, it’s when a film flows, it never makes you tired and keeps you engaged. What of the films I mentioned doesn’t fit those criteria in your opinion?
Yeah, you’re right, but i’m using Scorsese as an example, not many people would accuse Casino and Goodfellas of crawling, being one of the most entertaining movies, as we are talking about great films, i thought about including them, inside the bag of Andrei Rublev etc.
I don’t usually complain about the length of the movies, but OUATIA is excessively long and that’s not even the full movie, the original movie is longer, i’m cheating a bit here, but Lawrence falls for an hour, the first 2.5 hours as Drake says is great, but after there goes down.
The Social Network, Back to the Future, Pulp Fiction. Raging Bull.
The Cinema Archives Top 500 Films is now a quiz on the platform JetPunk. How many can you guess?
https://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/259519/the-cinema-archives-top-500-movies
Possibly quizzes for the other rankings coming.
Interesting, i remember answering one but it was not this, i have seen about 200, excuse my ignorance but i do not know how it works haha, should i enter the titles that i already saw?
You are supposed to guess the best film of the year based on this websites list. You have to type it into the search.
It has nothing to do with what you have seen; just type in as many of the titles as you can remember. It is not just the best movie of the year. The years are just there to make it a little easier.
@Graham– haha interesting. I haven’t seen that
That’s because I just made it.
I found the list i was talking about guys, it’s not to detract from your list @Graham, but i think this one is more practical
https://www.listchallenges.com/the-cinema-archives-500-greatest-films-of-all-time
I have done that thing too, and it is very cool. That is a totally different way idea because it is for figuring out what you have seen while mine is a memory quiz. Generally, JetPunk is a site for quizzes where you have to list all of a certain thing in a certain amount of time, i.e. all the countries in the world or something. It also has general knowledge quizzes and stuff.
Very funny, I did 144, i could have done
more, but in some did not take the name, someone did more?
Can you explain the issue? If so I can try to fix it. Perhaps you guessed one which is not on the list or spelled one wrong and then did not delete it before typing the next one? Was it not accepting a certain spelling of a title that you think it should? I’m not sure what you mean by “someone did more?” but if you are wondering what the average score is you can scroll down after you are done to see how often each answer has been guessed.
I tried to put the Antonioni films that have “L” (Avventura, Eclisse) and does not accept them
I mean, if someone did more than 144? I saw that the average is 80
How were you typing them? Both “L’Avventura“ and “laventura” (punctuation and capitalization not required on JetPunk) should work. I don’t believe there is a way on the site to find the highest score someone has achieved.
Since we’re talking about how many of these we have seen, I’ve put together a Letterboxd list to make this endeavour easier. If you have a Letterboxd account and are fairly up-to-date with logging films, then it should give you a percentage saying how much of it you have covered.
https://boxd.it/5w3rE
I’m at 42%, which is roughly 210/500. Still got a fair way to go! Highest ranked one I have seen yet is Stalker, simply because I’ve found it almost impossible to stream/rent/buy in Australia. I have finally chased down a copy which arrived in the mail just yesterday, so I’m excited to finally watch it.
^ Have NOT seen yet that should say.
@Declan- that’s exciting!
I’m not sure why this happens to you, but there is a channel called Mosfilm where all the Tarkovsky movies are
https://m.youtube.com/user/mosfilm
I think in my case it would be The Grand Illusion and Dekalog, luckily that day will be over soon, since Drake is studying Kieślowski, as soon as he publishes the review i will be able to see it
@Aldo- I’m not sure about the quality of the streaming Tarkovsky films but for a lot of people they would rather wait a little longer to see it on bluray or a better format
It’s actually very good, it’s the channel where the Kalatozov movies are, one question, you mention that you haven’t seen The Tenant in 20 years, which movie from your top would you say you haven’t seen in a long time? (many years)
@Aldo- perfect example- I decided to wait on the Kalatozov movies after taking a look at the quality. If I don’t have a grade on them I haven’t seen them in a very long time and don’t feel comfortable grading them. Most at the top I’ve seen within the last 10 years or so
Drake, my favorite coming of age movie is American Graffiti, I wasn’t alive or even close to alive when it was set but it still makes me feel nostalgic for another era. What makes you put the very similar, but in my opinion not as original or important, Dazed and Confused in the top 500 but not American Graffiti. Also, no love for Rob Reiner, he is a very underrated director by critics I feel like. Stand By Me is a wonderful film and in my top 25 favorite movies of all time. But all in all great list, I haven’t seen a lot of them so I’m planning on watching all the ones I haven’t seen this next month. Thank you for this site, it has really helped me find a lot of movies I’d have never watched before.
One only other problem I have with this list is the fact that Birth of a Nation, and absolutely disgusting and frankly boring film is ranked 101, ahead of EVERY SINGLE SPIELBERG film is crazy. People always talk about how some movies haven’t aged well or stood the test of time (a frequent film that gets this criticism is Easy Rider), but isn’t a 3.5 hour film glamorizing and praising the KKK A bit aged as well. It’s important so maybe top 500, but 101 in my humble opinion is way too high.
@James Robbins- thanks for sharing your thoughts. That is an apt description of the content of Birth- absolutely disgusting. But I can’t agree that it is boring. Griffith is pioneering narrative cinema storytelling
Alright this is my best by decade.
1900s trip to the moon
1910s Intolerance
1920s Metropolis/Joan of arc
1930s Rules of the Game
1940s Citizen Kane
1950s the Searchers
1960s 2001:a space odyssey/rocco and his brothers
1970s Taxi Driver
1980s Blue Velvet
1990s Schindler’s List
2000s revenge of the sith
2010s Inside Llewyn Davis
Hi @D.WGriffith. Nice list, maybe all of us are missing something, revenge of the sith?
Episode 1 and 2 are considered the worst in the saga (including Disney)
@D.WGriffith- thanks for sharing. It is an impressive list of films. I know you posted your thoughts on it but Revenge of the Sith sticks out like a sore thumb here. I just don’t see how you could mount a defense for it against any number of films– including In the Mood For Love, Children of Men, or There Will Be Blood
i actually haven’t seen in the mood for love yet. from the stills i’ve seen it looks great maybe even better than sith but i need to catch it. as for paul anderson i think that punch drunk love is a better movie that really moved me. reminds me of say silver linings playbook are you a fan of pdl? i think sandler in that film is superb.
also have you seen critic camille paglia’s defense of it. she wrote that sith is the best work of art of the past 30 years arguing that the mustafar sequence is like a museum intallation. i don’t want this to come off as rude but i wonder how long it’s been since you’ve seen it. i’m not saying you’ll love it as much as i do but if you come into it with an open mind i can certainly see you archiving it.
Thank you @aldo. I explained my thoughts on it under the natalie portman page and I know some cinephiles who appreciate the prequels as well, including my brother. I would like to see your decade or all time list if you have one as well
Yeah, i don’t remember where i published it, if i find it i link the comment.
I don’t recall seeing so many times a number of review requests than those for star wars, maybe Drake will listen to your wishes haha.
The only other much-requested review was Vertigo.
I know that you do not put documentaries in the archives, Drake, but if you were forced to choose, what is the best documentary ever? I cannot speak for myself as I have not really seen many the ones that are often placed highly on lists, such as Man with a Movie Camera, Hoop Dreams, and Shoah. There is also documentary work from major auteurs such as Godard, Varda, and Herzog. Which documentary is the single greatest?
@Graham- I’ll leave this one to other people. I’ve seen a few over the years but am nowhere near qualified to answer this
Movie camera might be the best. Have you seen Gates of heaven by enroll morris. Ebert placed that in his top 10. Very good film
Good question. I’d say “Hoop Dreams.” Ebert called it the best movie of the 90s and I think there’s a strong argument to be made for that. “Man with a Movie Camera,” “Koyaanisqatsi,” “Night and Fog,” and “Woodstock” are also some of the greats. I haven’t seen “Gates of Heaven” or “Grizzly Man” in years, I should rewatch.
You shouldn’t have asked this to Drake, he said he doesn’t watch or evaluate documentaries.
Maybe @Azman can answer you, he likes to watch documentaries
I have seen few and the best for me is Man with a movie camera, i hesitate to call it a documentary, really differs from traditional documentaries for propaganda, didactics, indoctrination and educational purposes, is like a movie
Yes, I meant to ask the question to everyone but the way I wrote it implied I was only asking Drake. Sorry about that. Everyone can answer.
You’re right that some movies are only sort of documentaries. I haven’t seen Man with a Movie Camera yet, but from what I understand, it is an experimental compilation of various things occurring that the director did not personally plan, so I guess that makes it a documentary.
It is in the public domain, you can find it on youtube or on the internet archive page as well as other movies that lost their rights as potemkin.
It is a “movie” that can be seen for free legal
@Aldo @Graham Herzog’s Lessons of Darkness is good(very excellent). Close-up(A lot Kiarostami movies can be considered sorta documentaries), some Lumiere bros, Thin Blue Line is excellent, F for Fake is excellent as is Waltz with Bashir.
I haven’t really made a ranked list and didn’t repeat the movies already said.
Hey drake I have a question.
How long after you’ve seen a movie do you feel comfortable commenting on it? Like after how long do you not give a grade to a film in the archives?
Sometimes I don’t see a film for too long so I can’t give it a grade or remember a lot about it? How long is too long(to not give a grade) in your opinion?
@Azman- I like to give it a few hours at least. Ideally I think a day or two but I’m on pace to see 600+ this year and if I get backlogged that’s not good either. The good ones will continue to get better as I let them gestate a little.
Yeah if you can’t remember it then I would leave it alone until you see it again before you give it a grade or whatever. I only started the site in 2017 but I’ve been doing the R/HR/MS/MP grades for 10 or more years now.
Hey Drake, I was wondering if you’ve seen Tommy Wiseau’s The Room? It’s a massive pile of dogshit, I know, like holy fuck it exceeds incompetence, but as Jodorowsky said in The Holy Mountain, “You are excrement. You can change yourself into gold,” in this case, comedy gold, because it’s pretty damn hilarious and one of the best/worst so-bad-it’s-good movies ever. I feel like it can be compared to Showgirls (which is also horrible; I’m not trying to change your mind here) in some regard.
@Zane- I have seen The Room. haha. Intentional comedy is a tough hill to climb for me. I know it has had a big renaissance lately too but I’m not the biggest admirer of Showgirls.
Oh I’m not advocating Showgirls as some type of great movie haha. It’s definitely terrible but I can’t deny it’s fun to watch.
Have you ever thought archiving short films and documentaries but on a special category? I mean, of course you can’t compare a 15 minute film with a 2 hour one but probably in a year end, or decade list after making the official list with the feature fiction films, make a special mention for shorts and documentaries. I think I might do it.
I especially saw Elephant, the 1989, 40 minute film by Alan Clarke and found it amazing.
@Cinephile– I haven’t thought about archiving short films and/or documentaries– I have been watching like 500-1000 movies a year for so long– 20 years– yet still I have so many movies on my list I need to see, or haven’t seen in too long– I just haven’t really felt compelled to go to shorts or documentaries
I watched “12 Angry Men” yesterday after not having seen it for years and agree with the consensus here that it’s overrated. I have to admit I was skeptical when I saw it rated so high in the IMDb Top 250. 🙂
On the one hand, it should be lauded as a tense drama playing out in a single room. The claustrophobia, sweat, and conflict are well communicated. On the other hand, that’s also what makes it feel more like a filmed play than a movie. There are some interesting visuals, but not enough to overcome the “uncinematic” criticism.
Regarding content, the acting is good (especially E.G. Marshall) but the characters are rather one-dimensional and mostly either soft-spoken or shrill, depending on whether they’re “good” or “bad.”
Likewise, the writing is somewhat heavy-handed, especially the ridiculous scene when the jurors get up from the table one by one as the bigot rants. Moreover, it’s lacking in the moral complexity a situation like this demands. It’s referenced briefly that they may very well be letting a guilty man go free (the kid was most likely guilty based on the overwhelming evidence), but otherwise it’s treated like an indisputable moral victory delivered by Henry Fonda in his white suit. And that’s not even to mention clear jury misconduct like Fonda buying the knife, etc.
Overall, it’s still very good but highly flawed. The shrillness and heavy-handedness also plague Lumet’s “Network.” He’s not the most subtle director, evidently. He’s like a more talented Stanley Kramer, another director of “message” movies.
Having recently re-watched both, I’m wondering about “In the Mood for Love” and “Children of Men.” What do they have going for them other than nice mise-en-scene and cinematography? The first is dreadfully dull and the second is a heavy-handed near farce. I can’t see how they are ranked higher than masterpieces from the 2000s like “There Will Be Blood” and “Mulholland Dr.” Maybe I’m missing something, but they both seem massively overrated. Thanks.
@David Barwinski- thanks for sharing your thoughts- I do have individual pages for both Children of Men and In the Mood for Love http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/03/25/in-the-mood-for-love-2000-kar-wai-wong/ and here http://thecinemaarchives.com/2018/12/13/children-of-men-2006-cuaron/ . You won’t hear me say a bad word about There Will Be Blood or Mulholland Drive
Thanks. I get the style arguments, but style only gets you so far. As to the substance, it’s lacking IMHO. But I’m of the minority opinion, especially regarding “In the Mood for Love.”
Nice to see you have “Werckmeister Harmonies” in your top 100, another great movie from the 2000s. Very underrated. “Zodiac” is another underrated one from the 2000s. Watched it again recently, blew me away!
Hi @David Barwinski. So i saw In the mood for love at the theater a few days ago, so i feel qualified to comment.
This substance bothers me a bit, do you hate style over substance movies?
Most great movies are style over substance Pulp Fiction, Battleship Potemkin, Goodfellas, i could go on.
You mention Mulholland dr. but Lynch is style over substance.
In the mood for love could well be the best movie ever, it has everything, freeze frames, etc, it is almost perfect, everything flows in harmony and is one of the most beautiful movies.
I won’t say it, but as Drake says, it has one of the best (if not the best) film forms.
@David Barwinski- Style is pretty much everything. What you’ll find is someone else— someone who adores cinema and is intelligent (just like yourself) thinks In the Mood For Love or Children of Men has a ton of substance and Mulholland Drive has nothing to say. Style is provable- you can point to it up there on the screen.
Appreciate both of your comments. No, I don’t hate style over substance movies. “Pulp Fiction,” for one, is quite good. I just don’t consider it great because it really has nothing to say. “Breathless” is another stylish, influential movie that comes to mind which has even less to say. People would disagree with me on this point, but I think they’d be hard-pressed to support their argument. “Mulholland Dr.” is very stylish, but it also has quite a bit to say and I could support that pretty well.
I understand what you’re going for in your evaluations, a strictly objective approach. However, I don’t see how it’s possible to disregard subjective criticism. The purpose of art besides entertaining is to communicate something about ourselves and the world we live in. So in the case of cinema, it’s not merely to look at nice pictures, although that is an important part of the experience. By definition, then, criticism of art must include subjectivity in addition to objectivity.
While you are certainly correct that my subjective experience is different from someone else’s, that doesn’t mean that subjective criticism is useless. It’s kind of like the saying, “Everyone has their own opinions.” Well, yes, that’s true. But that doesn’t equate to opinions being equal or meaningless. Someone who is well-versed in cinema, or any art, their opinion ought to be held in higher regard than one who is not. That’s why as someone who takes movies seriously I’ll opt for the BFI list over the IMDb list, for example.
Interesting, but should the film be judged by what it is / intended, not what it is not looking for, did Dunkirk have something to say? no, but that was not the criterion he was looking for. While Breathless has less or almost nothing to say, unlike Stalker. Does that make it a bad movie? no
The problem with this is that it is your subjective interpretation, Mulholland lacks total sense, in fact I would like to know that someone said what the movie is about, they couldn’t, Lynch has never come out to say it, so all those supposed theories could be true or incredibly false, it’s like me saying that Eraserhead is about the fear of fatherhood, are just my theories i don’t have to prove it
As for In the mood for love, you are in the minority of not having it in high esteem, it is the highest ranked film in TSPDT since 1980 (Ragin Bull) and in any poll and if it is not first, it is in the top three.
“In the Mood for Love,” “Breathless,” etc. are certainly not bad movies, but they are not exactly great, either. In the case of “In the Mood for Love,” the intention was there, it was just not well-communicated by the director. In the case of “Breathless,” there never was any intent on the director’s part to create something of substance. I can appreciate these movies for what they are (stylish, influential, etc.), but to rank them alongside the greatest movies ever made, those which successfully combine style and substance, form and content? I personally can’t do it.
Funny you mention “Dunkirk.” I watched it on a massive screen in the East Village when it came out and I actually fell asleep at one point. I never fall asleep in the theater. It was so boring! Nice to look at, sure, but very dull.
I like it when the director doesn’t spell everything out, like Kubrick did with “2001,” Welles with “Citizen Kane,” Hitchcock with “Vertigo.” And, yes, to a lesser extent Lynch with “Mulholland Dr.” I would also add “L’Avventura” and “Picnic at Hanging Rock.” These movies are endlessly fascinating, precisely because they are somewhat open to interpretation. They have a mysterious and unknowable quality, like life itself.
As to “In the Mood for Love” being possibly the best movie ever, I would have to emphatically disagree. It’s so incredibly dull, for one. Visual style alone does not make a masterpiece. There must be a compelling story, as well. I’d take “Casablanca” over it any day. Yes, I’m in the minority in not according it masterpiece status. But let’s face it, the critics don’t always get it right. Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars, which I think is fair. Since 1980 I can think of many movies far better:
“Blue”
“Blue Velvet”
“Close-Up”
“Crimes and Misdemeanors”
“Do the Right Thing”
“Fanny and Alexander”
“Fitzcarraldo”
“Goodfellas”
“Mulholland Dr.”
“Once Upon a Time in America”
“Ran”
“The Sacrifice”
“There Will Be Blood”
“Werckmeister Harmonies”
“Yi Yi”
“Zodiac”
And I don’t use the terms “dull” and “boring” lightly. I love Tarkovsky, a director most people would have nothing to do with! 🙂
@David Barwinski. Thanks for the answer, i guess it is directed to both.
The ending of In the mood for love is open to interpretation, it’s mysterious, so i don’t know what we mean.
Well that compelling history is debatable, not every movie is Chinatown, i’m actually surprised to see Werckmeister Harmonies on your list, Tarr would be surprised if his films are compelling stories, he said “I don’t care about stories. I never did. Every story is the same. We have no new stories. We’re just repeating the same ones. I really don’t think, when you do a movie that you have to think about the story. The film isn’t the story.”
Tarr is all style
I’ve seen almost all of them at the expense of one, so i won’t speak ill of any of those great movies.
I would like to know what the “substance” of Nostalghia is compared to In the Mood for Love. I’m not saying there isn’t any in Nostalghia (you mention liking Tarkovsky), but it seems to me that ItMfL has much more to say about love, unfaithfulness, and keeping secrets than Tarkovsky’s film does about… nostalgia, or whatever else it is about. I think it may be even harder to uphold the standpoint that Mirror has more substance than ItMfL. I would also like to know if you think Nostalghia and Stalker are more entertaining than Dunkirk (you mention that Dunkirk is “so boring”), because I can’t see how such a thing could be said by a resident of Earth. I hope I do not sound rude; I value your opinions and find them interesting.
Thanks for your replies. I suppose the plot in “Werckmeister Harmonies” is a bit thin, but a thin plot doesn’t necessarily mean the director doesn’t have much to say. Tarr has a lot to say. I definitely wouldn’t agree that he is all style. He’s similar to Tarkovsky, although not as talented.
I can appreciate what the director was going for in “In the Mood for Love,” but it just didn’t work for me. Good intentions are one thing, but translating that into a great film is quite another.
I actually think “Nostalghia” is one of Tarkovsky’s weakest movies, so I disagree with the high ranking it’s given here. I have a high tolerance for slow, thoughtful films, but I found it somewhat tedious. Tarkovsky basically admitted as much himself. “Mirror” is another one which I would rate lower. I’ve seen it a couple of times and it’s a bit too dense and self-indulgent. “Stalker” is his strongest effort, very nice to see it in the top 10 here. “Andrei Rublev” and “Solaris” are also up there for me. I can easily see how people may find these movies boring, but I find them mesmerizing. Most people I know find “2001” boring, but then again they’re not cinephiles. I can’t even discuss Tarkovsky with them. 🙂
Maybe I’ll give “Dunkirk” another try, but I’m certainly not alone in having found it dull.
Thanks for the response. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the substance of In the Mood for Love. I think Wong gloriously succeeded in the majority of his intentions.
It is understandable that you find Nostalghia and Mirror to be weaker parts of Tarkovsky’s filmography. I have only seen those two, Stalker, and Andrei Rublev, so I am unqualified to compare anything to all of his movies. I would classify Nostalghia as an inarguable masterpiece of mise-en-scene with admittedly very little narrative drive; Stalker as a solid masterpiece of composition, camera movement, and set design that successfully uses a slow plot to provide meaningful substance; Andrei Rublev as a purposefully episodic (some might say disorganized) epic with beautiful photography and form; and Mirror as… I’m not sure…
I would rank those four with Stalker on top, Nostalghia and Andrei Rublev as a near-tie, and Mirror on the bottom. I think our opinions are not too far off on Tarkovsky.
I like your use of the word “mesmerizing” to describe Tarkovsky (the most mesmerizing film of all to me may be Persona). However, I think that word applies as much or even more to ItMfL. As for Dunkirk – I can completely understand how someone might not find the film meaningful, but “dull” and “boring” do not make sense to me as descriptions at all. Do you consider Fury Road boring and dull? It seems there must be some disconnect between us about the definitions of those words. Dunkirk lacks thematic value as compared to, say, a masterful character study movie, but the superb editing makes it thoroughly engaging and action-packed.
Yeah, I guess there’s always going to be those handful of movies which pretty much everyone else loves but you don’t. For example, while they mostly seem to be in agreement, I’ve seen several major discrepancies between rankings on this site and on TSPDT. Buf if everyone agreed on what constitutes greatness, what would be the point of having competing “best of” lists?
I think the guy from “Variety” said it best about “In the Mood for Love”: “Dazzles with a heady atmosphere of romantic melancholy and ravishing visuals … but neglects to construct the kind of dramatic complexity to provide any lasting emotional resonance.” A good friend of mine who is a director also loves it, so maybe I’ll give it another try.
Tarkovsky is definitely one of the greats. Criminally underrated, at least among mainstream audiences. Those are great comments you provided on his movies. Interesting you that mention “Persona,” another all-time great. You probably know that Bergman said this about Tarkovsky: “Tarkovsky for me is the greatest [of us all], the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream.” I’m a huge Bergman fan, too.
I did fall asleep during “Dunkirk” at the theater, which never happens to me and is obviously not a good sign. 🙂 But I’ll have to give it another watch. I’ve never been overly impressed by Nolan’s movies, although I do enjoy them. I’m also set to give “Inception” another go. I recently re-watched “Memento.” Good, but not great. Relies way too much on its narrative gimmick.
@Aldo, describe the best looking images from In the mood for Love and what makes it the best looking “objectively”.
How do you objectively describe an image that looks good or a movie that looks good?
@David. You find In the Mood For Love incredibly dull yet you live Tarkovsky.
That’s a good point. Yes, I love Tarkovsky but not everything he did. “In the Mood for Love” is just way too repetitive and isn’t nearly as deep as it pretends to be. It’s a classic example of style over substance.
One more thought is that “slow” and “boring” are not mutually inclusive. Tarkovsky’s movies are slow, but they are not boring (with the possible exception of “Nostalghia”). While he’s clearly not the most entertaining director, his visual style is nearly unparalleled and he probably had more to say that any director who ever lived.
@David Barwinski- the repetition is intentional of course — part of film form — most of the great masters were have reoccurring elements- theme and variation, properly setting up both the narrative and visual style
@drake maybe he means repetitive as in he’s seen a similar story before? Not sure what he’s trying to say.
Thanks for your replies. Repetitive as in he keeps essentially replaying sequences to hammer home the point. At first it’s clever but it subsequently becomes more and more tedious. The affected visuals eventually overwhelm the narrative.
@David Barwinski- gotcha– well thank you again for sharing your thoughts. As for replaying the sequences- this is very intentional and a big part of film form. I don’t know if you’ve ready much from David Bordwell but it is worth checking out if you haven’t. In the Mood For Love is not something I would recommend to everyone right away. I think it can take awhile for an appreciation of this specific style to set in. Don’t give up on it– I would guess you will change your mind down the road
Yeah, I get that it’s intentional, it just didn’t work for me. That being said, there are certainly movies which I initially didn’t care for but eventually came to appreciate. Vice versa, there are movies I used to love which now I don’t. I’m sure everyone can relate to that. Even the greatest critics change their minds.
Thanks, I’ll check out Bordwell! Looks like he has an interesting background.
Best Animated Films of All Time ?
@Cinephile- I have Spirited Away, The Lion King, and Pinocchio listed here… Grave of the Fireflies is one I’ve caught semi-recently and was impressed with. What am I missing? What tops your list?
@Drake– I can say that’s I’m not so educated with animation films compared to the non-animated. Probably I’d pick Spirited Away as my top choice, but again, I think every of the 11 Miyazaki films is truly worth watching, while some of them are essential. After I saw Paprika in one of @Matt Harris’s list, I gave a closer look to Kon and I think he has made terrific achievements. Then, probably Akira, Snow White and The Seven Dwarf, Brad Bird made some very good ones too. For a more recent, Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse probably.
I’d throw in “WALL-E” and “Toy Story.”
@cinephile and @drake, it impossible to talk about animation without mentioning Pixar.
Disney is essential too as is Studio Ghibli.
I’d recommend these 3 ‘studios’.
Would you agree?
Hi Drake. I saw a conversation you had with Johan back in September and was reminded of a similar conversation I often have with my dad. I just wanted share my own thoughts on this.
Firstly, I think there is a difference between our favourite films and the films we consider the best. For example, Shaun of the Dead isn’t a film I would call one of the best – but it is, nonetheless, one of my favourite films. One the other hand, I can appreciate the greatness of, say, Citizen Kane or Vertigo – but that doesn’t make them my personal favourites.
Don’t get me wrong, I think objective critical analysis of a film is very much possible – however, we shouldn’t forget that watching films is also a visceral experience. How can we quantify the personal response we have to a film?
I’ve attempted to make a list like yours before, albeit my attempt was much less ambitious. I eventually gave up because the ranking of the list felt arbitrary – what makes, say, The New World, exactly one spot better than the Exorcist? These are two very different films. I think this kind of ranking is almost impossibly precise – it seems to imply some kind of scientific criteria, which there isn’t.
I do think your list is remarkably similar to the canon. I think this is worth pointing out because the canon is result of many individual critics’ lists. I wouldn’t expect any one individual critic’s list of the best films to closely resemble the canon. I agree some films are ranked higher in this list compared to the canon, but there aren’t really any big surprises.
Here’s an interesting question: if you watched all of these films, but with no knowledge of their critical standing, would your opinion be exactly the same? I think the answer is no.
There seems to be an unconscious bias towards the canon, which might explain why the canon is so slow moving. It might also explain why the reception towards many films, films now considered to be great, was more mixed upon their release – once a film becomes canonised, it becomes harder to depart from the consensus. Who are we to say the Emperor has no clothes?
Interested in hearing what you think. I do think this is a very good website!
@Aaron Morley- thanks for the comment and the compliment on the site. I certainly agree with most of what you say here. I’ll be the first at admit I do not spend a ton of time thinking about whether The Exorcist or The New World should go at #193 or #194. I do a yearly list, then that bubbles up to the decade list and then use the decade list to do the entire top 500. I do this once every few years. I couldn’t have even told you which film (Exorcist or The New World) I had higher unless I went to look at my own list. Yes I do put them in order- but that’s not really the point. The point is appreciating and studying great works and I do the order for fun, and, if forced, to give us something fun to debate or a place to start if someone is just getting interested seriously in cinema.
I would not agree with you on the “there aren’t really any big surprises” comment. I think there are literally hundred of pages here I where I single out disagreement with the consensus list. They not be enough for you to constitute them as “big surprises” but that’s your take I guess. I have auteurs like Imamura and Greenaway ahead of Chaplin and Bresson. The next time I update my list I’ll be putting The Bad Sleep Well ahead of All About Eve (this one is fresh in my memory as I just finally finished my Kurosawa study) and so on.
I think the canon is the canon for the reason for the most part. I’m open to examples (and have a bunch of my own) as to where and why they are wrong– but in my studies over the years I think critics and “experts” agree because they see the same thing— not because they are sheep or are afraid to step out of the box. I don’t know where you are in your studies or your love of cinema so don’t take this as an insult (it certainly isn’t personal)– but I do find that to the uninitiated — there’s usually a general “what makes this work of art better than my third grader’s scribbling?” sort of reaction to art … until you’re initiated
As for your question on if I watch these films with or without knowledge of the critical standing– and do I think my rankings would largely be the same with or without that knowledge…. I get this question a lot. Sometimes I go in blindly when I watch a new movie and sometimes I don’t. I don’t have a rule. Life is short and I value my time so for the most part in order to watch a movie a film has to meet some sort of criteria before I will pick it as my choice for the evening. I don’t see any way around that. But I’ve been doing this for 20 years and believe in my own skill as an evaluator. I may rewatch something where I disagree with the consensus, or a critic I respect (whether it’s Justin Chang or Matt Harris here on our site)– but so much of what I appreciate and evaluate is based on specifics in the film itself– it really isn’t about changing my opinion. It is about finding something I missed. Or confirming something in the film is or isn’t there.
If someone on the site disagrees with me or vice versa I’ll often ask for specifics. This is not me being defensive– I just want to see if their criteria for what makes a film strong/weak is different than mine– or literally I want to see if I may have missed something, etc.
Hey, Drake. Just wanted to say I love this page and always come back to it when I’m developing my own thoughts on a movie. Your understanding of cinema unparalleled and completely beyond me. I do have one question, though: how can you differentiate between “favorite” and “best”? To me, although in some cases I can easily see which movie is “better”, this distinction is very hard at times. For example, I like Magnolia more than Blue Velvet, but which is the better movie? I could never know. How do you do it? Thanks!
@Pedro– thank you for the kind words on the page and about my understanding of cinema– that’s very nice of you to say– I have a long way to go myself. As far as best and favorite– just keep watching, read up on cinema (whether it is critics like Ebert– or Bordwell’s stuff). The distinction is definitely hard at times. I think in a lot of cases the differences are negligible (like Blue Velvet and Magnolia in your example here). But other times just ask (“why do I like this?” or “why am I impressed with this?”)– I think that’ll help. Others may disagree but I’d say there is a hierarchy there as well.
Do you know of the YouTube channel The Beauty of? You can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheBeautyOf/videos. It consists of 267 (Don’t know why I took the time out of my day to count haha) short videos that cut together the most gorgeous shots from many wonderful films. The videos should be absolutely mesmerizing for any cinephile or lover of stunning imagery, and they allow me to admire the greatness of these movies even more. There are also a few for entire directors (Kubrick and Leone that I’ve seen). Make sure to watch with the sound on, as the creator of the videos edits the shots along to nice music (sometimes the score for their respective film).
@Graham– what a nice resource- I like seeing “Waves” up there– thank you for sharing
Some random thoughts as I finally near the completion of my own top 100 list (plus honorable mentions). Admittedly a much more modest compilation than your own. 🙂
You are right about “The Searchers” being better than “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.” It will easily make my top 50 but not the top 10.
“Star Wars” is going to fall closer to 50 than to 25. Many fans prefer “The Empire Strikes Back” while the critics prefer “Star Wars.” I am with the critics on this one as “Star Wars” is clearly the better movie. And while “Return of the Jedi” is probably a bit underrated, it’s still a lesser movie than “The Empire Strikes Back.” I see that “Star Wars” doesn’t even crack your top 100, but for me it’s mainly the watchability and influence factors which pushes it to the top 50 despite its relatively weaker elements such as the acting and writing.
I don’t think “The Lord of the Rings” is going to make it at all, let alone top 50. They are great movies, but not really top 100 or so great. I was a big fan of the books as a teenager quite a few years before the movies came out, and while the movies were a fairly good adaptation, much of the whimsy and charm of the books was lost to the demands of a big-budget action spectacle. So I think where you have it ranked is very reasonable.
Interesting how your tastes change as you mature. If you had asked me about twenty years ago what are your favorite movies, I would have said the “Star Wars” trilogy and the “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. Now I would say “2001” and “Citizen Kane.” Movies I was just starting to get into back then. Some movies age well along with you, some not so well. Also, I read somewhere that as you develop into a cinephile, at some point your “favorite” movies and the “greatest” movies should for the most part coincide. I think this is true.
I respect that you include non-canonical films in your top 100 and exclude canonical ones, even though I may not agree with all of your choices. Similarly, there are movies I’m leaving out of my list widely considered unassailable classics and including ones which are not.
I see that the site TSPDT gets a lot of respect here and rightfully so. However, as you near the top of the list it seems to be almost identical to the BFI Sight and Sound list and so I’m not sure how much it’s adding to the conversation. As I’ve mentioned before, critics can and do get it “wrong” and so the consensus shouldn’t necessarily be taken as gospel. They are usually “right,” but not always.
@David Barwinski- thanks for sharing your process here. I agree on the BFI/TSPDT list which is why I’ve almost always just sort of thrown out the BFI list. It is fine– fun to look at (we get another update next year in 2022 which will be fun)- but really no need for it
Thanks for your reply. Any thoughts on the “Star Wars” trilogy and “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy as prime examples of films that the more serious movie fan is more likely to age out of, so to speak? Looking at the IMDb top 250, for instance, where both movies rank prominently, leads me to the conclusion that the site is dominated by very young people and/or the more casual movie fan.
@David Barwinski- I’ll leave this for others to comment as well but while cinephiles and people who are serious about cinema should find plenty to appreciate about LOTR or Star Wars— there are many LOTR and Star Wars fans that aren’t cinephiles or serious about cinema. So there’s an overlap in the middle, but people on both sides. Does that make sense? They may come to IMDB or whatever website and vote for the film they love and good for them– but they have no interest in going back 100 years, or seeing something in black and white, or in another language or genre, etc.
I think for a lot of us it was Star Wars, or LOTR, or Indiana Jones or something that sparked our initial interest- but we kept going. Many obviously stop.
Well said, agree. Yeah, for me it was “Star Wars” as a kid more than anything else.
When LOTR came out it (or they rather, I didn’t start considering it a single massive film until later) were the best films of all-time as far as I was concerned. Of course I was in no position to make such a claim at the time and have since dived into the world of cinema in a far more extensive fashion and no longer hold that view. However, it remains an enormous landmark Masterpiece in the history of cinema. Star Wars is a shade lower (and let’s not kid ourselves, Empire is pretty clearly better in almost every way) but still a tremendous achievement in narrative and modern myth making.
I think Drake is right that each series hold an outsized position in the culture due to the fact that many non-cinephiles consider them the greatest of all movies, and more seasoned viewers are right to resist this. However, I think it’s equally incumbent upon “sophisticated” viewers to reject the notion that these are things to be “outgrown”. That is not their place in the firmament and it is foolish to suggest otherwise.
@Matt Harris– great point. I was guilty of being in that second category when these films came out in 2001-2003. There is a type of cinephile that believes if a film is popular, it must be bad. These people are wrong. Again, that’s why I try to stick to what’s on the screen regardless of genre, tone, box office, etc.
What are the most important or influential films in history? What are the most notable cinematic landmarks? Here are some:
Roundhay Garden scene (1888) – First film (2 seconds)
A Trip to the Moon (1902) – Early notable science fiction, special effects, narrative, set design
The Great Train Robbery (1903) – Early notable American narrative cinema, Western
Cabiria (1914) – Precursor to the Griffith epics
The Birth of a Nation (1915) – Massive breakthrough in the popularity of cinema
Intolerance (1916) – Early notable non-linear narrative, breakthrough in cinema form and editing
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) – Early notable expressionism, frame story, expressionist set design, breakthrough in mise-en-scene
The Kid (1921) – Early notable silent comedy
Battleship Potemkin (1925) – Massive breakthrough for editing, montage, action
The Jazz Singer (1927) – Early notable sound film
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) – Breakthrough for camera movement
Metropolis (1927) – Early notable dystopian science fiction, expressionist set design
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) – Breakthrough for expressive and emotional acting, first complete blending of innovations before including mise-en-scene (Caligari), quick-cut editing (Potemkin), camera movement (Sunrise), form (Intolerance)
Love Me Tonight (1932) – I do not know much about it, but i am aware you consider it the first great musical
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) – Early notable animation, Disney, color film
Stagecoach (1939) – First highly acclaimed Western
The Wizard of Oz (1939) – Early notable color film, fantasy
Gone With the Wind (1939) – Early notable color as well, massive box office breakthrough and hit
The Rules of the Game (1939) – Early notable social satire, reframing camera movement
The Maltese Falcon (1941) – Early notable/precursor to film noir
Citizen Kane (1941) – Deep focus, shadowy aesthetic, non-linear narrative, early character study
Double Indemnity (1944) – Breakthrough for film noir
Rome, Open City (1945), Huge breakthrough in cinema realism, beginning of Italian Neorealism movement
Rope (1948) – Early attempt at one-shot cinema
The Third Man (1949) – Creation of “Harry Lime character” archetype, Dutch angles
Rashomon (1950) – Brought cinema from the East to the West, non-linear narrative
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) – Breakthrough for naturalistic acting
The Seventh Seal (1957) – Early notable example of surrealism, allegory
The 400 Blows (1959) – Breakthrough for the French New Wave, young protagonist
Breathless (1960) – Jump cuts, further breakthrough for French New Wave
Psycho (1960) – Early notable psychological thriller/horror, violent surprise scene
The Graduate (1967) – Breakthrough for the American New Wave
Bonnie and Clyde (1967) – Breakthrough for American New Wave as well, violence in Hollywood cinema
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) – Revolutionary special effects, revival of science fiction, greatest film of all time
Jaws (1975) – First quintessential “summer blockbuster”
Star Wars (1977) – Science fiction/fantasy re-revival, breakthrough in world building, saga narrative, cult classic franchise
The Shining (1980) – Breakthrough for the Steadicam camera movement device
Blade Runner (1982) – Early epitome of postmodern style, shadowy dystopian aesthetic
Unforgiven (1992) – Western re-revival, completely decimating the tropes of the genre
Pulp Fiction (1994) – Breakthrough for cinema violence and non-linear narratives
It is difficult to know which movies from the 21st century will prove to be influential in cinema history.
The Dark Knight (2008) – Revival of the superhero genre
Birdman (2014) – Notable example of a “one-shot” illusion
Dunkirk (2017) – Breakthrough for non-linear narrative and editing
I’m sure I have missed some major landmark films. Any additions?
Great list! I would add “King Kong,” “The Searchers,” “Shadows,” and “Toy Story.”
And to a lesser extent, “Nosferatu,” “Safety Last!,” “Dracula,” “Frankenstein,” “Casablanca,” “The Apu Trilogy,” “North by Northwest,” “Dr. Strangelove,” “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” “The Last Picture Show,” “The Godfather,” “Blue Velvet,” and “The Blair Witch Project.”
Oh, and how could I forget “Seven Samurai”?
Also “The Last Laugh,” “Un Chien Andalou,” “L’Age d’Or,” “M,” “It Happened One Night,” “Bicycle Thieves,” “Sunset Blvd.,” “On the Waterfront,” “Ben-Hur,” “L’Avventura,” “La Dolce Vita,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “Persona,” “Andrei Rublev,” “A Clockwork Orange,” “Aguirre,” “Chinatown,” “Nashville,” “Taxi Driver,” “Annie Hall,” “Do the Right Thing.”
Question regarding “Sunrise” and its camera movement. Didn’t the real breakthrough in that regard come with “The Last Laugh” three years prior?
Perhaps you are correct. I have not seen The Last Laugh, and thus I cannot say exactly how influential or unprecedented its style was. Thanks for including a lot of good choices above.
My pleasure! Yeah, so many of the all-time greats were influential to some degree. Again, great list you put together and comments. You seem to have covered nearly all of the major ones.
What would you say are the 10-25 or so most overrated films on the new TSPDT list, Drake?
@Zane- I don’t know if I can spit off 10-25– most pages have an “overrated” (at least for actors, directors and years) section to pick from— Some Like It Hot at #28 on the TSPDT list sticks out right now. Toni Erdmann #363 and #1 of 2016 sticks out too
Drake,
I’m curious about Chinatown being only 96. Granted anything in the top 100 is very impressive given the number of great movies that have been made but I’ve always considered Chinatown to be really one of a small handful of truly perfect movies. Perfect as in I wouldn’t change a single detail. One of the greatest screen plays ever, all time great performances, probably the best noir ever in terms of noirs made after the 40s and 50s so I guess neo-noir, perfectly directed, a haunting ending that sticks with you as much as any ending I can think of, and the themes it touches gives it the feel of a very powerful story: greed, corruption, incest, sexual assault, politics, etc
Cont…
Sorry meant to do 1 post
This was Polanski swinging for the fences and connecting with a grand slam
Noah cross all time great villain
It brilliantly subverts the noir trope of the femme fatale by making Faye Dunaway’s character the most selfless character in the film.
The screenplay is so good it’s frequently used in film classes as the golden standard for how to write a screenplay.
One of the most fitting and haunting scores of all time.
@James Trapp– really good share- thanks again– maybe I’d push back a little on “Polanski swinging for the fences…”– I mean it is all relative and we’d be comparing it to other top 100 films. I’d certainly describe many of the films in the top 100 as slightly more “ambitious” — but we’re splitting hairs.
@James Trapp– I’m with you- it is perfect. Couple quick points: one, I mean if you think it should be higher- totally fair– it is a brilliant film and the point of the website and this list isn’t to argue about #91 vs. #96 or whatever. It is more about the appreciation of all of these great films and filmmakers. I will say that though Chinatown may be more “perfect” than some films in front of it– others may push the boundaries more in terms of their artistic bravado– like the gorgeous photography of Days of Heaven, the use of camera movement in like The Earrings of Madame De…, editing in Potemkin, or mise-en-scene design like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari….
Okay I think I get what you’re saying, so a film like JFK which is a few slots higher probably isn’t as “flawless” but is more ambitious in what you refer to as “artistic bravado” in the case of JFK that would probably be film editing?
And yeah I get that films closely ranked are probably hard to separate but you have to rank them after all.
In regard to the ambition I guess I meant more in the story being ambitious in the way it covers politics, corruption, sexual assault, and other serious themes but I guess that’s more the screenplay than just Polanski, good point.
Mind if I jump in? I love Chinatown and am in total agreement that it is a resoundingly perfect film, and almost on that alone it soars to its spot on the top 100. I mean, acting, screenplay, characters, cinematography, and on top of that, the unbelievable direction from Polanski? It’s a full package. Every second of this film is incredible. My heart genuinely stopped for a second after I realized what was making that noise in the final scene. This film flows like a river. It’s incredible.
But then compare it to a film like Touch of Evil, which is very similar to Chinatown. You can say “oh, well Heston isn’t half as good as Jack, and neither is Janet Leigh as good as Faye Dunaway. And Chinatown’s screenplay was all around stronger. I mean, the guy’s Mexican and doesn’t speak a word of Spanish in the whole movie, not even to his countrymen?” But then there’s… everything else. I mean, wow. The direction. The cinematography. And god, the editing. You could write a paper as long as Welles’ 58-page memo about the film on why everything in this film is brilliant. That low angle when Welles goes into Dietrich’s place, the scene with Heston driving the car as the world flows past him, and that finale… incredible. Editing. Cinematography. Direction. Welles’ acting is great; the “you have no future,” scene is brilliant. I could feel the bond between Welles and Calleia. I love how when Welles gets shot he uses his own massive presence as blocking for Calleia. I love Dietrich’s final line. I love it’s use of architecture in the background. I love the shadows on everyone’s faces and behind them really throughout the film. I love that unbelievable opening shot. Can we talk about that for a second? I mean hell. 3-minute long take and it’s not like the camera sits in the same place for the whole time, it moves. And boy does it move. Fast, slow, high, low, it does everything. 3 minutes without a cut of pure unadulterated tension. And they do it again too, I believe when Heston first finds out about Welles’ deception. I love it all. I was literally left totally speechless after watching it. And to believe they actually cut this masterwork differently, doing reshoots for THIS film after firing the legend behind it? I can’t even conceive of it. And as many great things you can say about Chinatown – there are soooooo many – Polanski is great, but Orson Welles is ever greater. It’s a shame the man was so maligned by Hollywood. If he was given total artistic control, like if his relationship with the studio wasn’t shattered during this film, he’d be the greatest. That I’m certain of.
@Zane– really solid work here- thanks for sharing. Honestly I almost brought up Touch of Evil in my example-
Please don’t hit me but it doesn’t seem perfect to me, it’s a great movie (giant masterpiece) but it has some small flaws but its not a big deal.
If i were to complain about something it would be because Chinatown is below Casablanca that is an interesting debate.
Polanski’s work in Chinatown is much better than Curtiz. Sorry Curtiz but Casablanca would work with almost any studio director, would actually benefit from being directed by someone like Coppola.
If you want to see a truly perfect movie without flaws, without mistakes, you should watch Nosthalgia the full package originality, creativity and ambition. And one of the most impressive shots you will see.
@drake I agree with you on your vision of chinatown and cinema in general. it is true that chinatown is one of the most perfect films ever made but I find that it lacks something more original, more surprising or more exciting without denying that it is a masterpiece. in cinema or art in general I think that originality, creativity and ambition are more important than perfection that’s why i totally agree with your rankings of chinatown
Yep. It’s perfect in every way but I wouldn’t really call it radical or revolutionary, in a sense. That’s it’s main problem. But even then I’m not sure I’d change it much. It’s too valuable in its current form.
@beaucamp- thank you for sharing your input– yeah- it is almost as if if someone disagreed with me on how good Chinatown is– they would be disagreeing with how much emphasis on certain elements cinema (say a screenplay)– more than the actual film itself
I appreciate the input from all of you. This is why I love this site, not many places where I can engage in this type of analysis and debates with hardcore cinema lovers.
Regarding Touch of Evil I have no problem with anyone putting it above Chinatown as that’s one of my favorites as well (although I think Chinatown’s better by a very small fraction)
Chinatown may not be as revolutionary as some of the other top 100 movies, that I do understand.
But as stated before I do think it’s the perfect neo-noir and would not change a single thing.
Question for group regarding another all time great noir:
Is it possible that Double Indemnity and or Chinatown is a better noir than Touch of Evil but Touch of Evil is better overall film?
Hello, I love watching movies but I am very naive in the way I approach them. Can you please list some criteria on how you choose/rank movies, what should I look at? I believe atm I Am purely being in passenger seat of directors intentions but would like develop more critical perception.
Btw, thank you so much for the effort you have put into this website!
I am off to watch The Searchers now, hope I can spot the reasons for being that high on the list 🙂
@Karlo- thank you for the comment and for visiting the site. If you love movies- don’t rush it- just enjoy the story, writing, acting— eventually (depending on your experience and interest level) you’ll want to start noticing things like how does the camera move, mise-en-scene (literally what is in front of the camera- which can be many things like the color, décor, used, costumes, blocking or arrangement of objects/structures and characters), editing, lighting, length of a shot, camera angles, camera distance, editing
Well, “Star Wars” is out of my top 100 and into honorable mentions. The story was already pretty banal to begin with (not to mention the subpar writing and acting), but it’s losing additional points since it’s basically a pastiche of several other movies. I knew about “Flash Gordon” and “The Hidden Fortress” serving as source material, but apparently there are quite a few other movies Lucas in some cases outright stole from. In short, it’s not nearly as original as people seem to think. Disappointing, and very Tarantinoesque. 🙂 Also, the influence of “Star Wars” was another factor keeping it in my top 100. But, upon further reflection it’s probably had as much of a negative impact on film making as it’s had a positive one. Still a great movie and a lot of fun.
Which leads me to my question: how much of a weight do you assign to non-technical elements of a film when deciding how to rank movies? I know you don’t focus much on story, writing, and acting in an attempt to remain objective, but as I was reading through your review of “Ikiru,” for example, you did mention the overwrought acting as one reason you didn’t think so highly of it. As an admirer of the movie, I can admit that the writing can be a bit heavy-handed and the acting a bit too emotional. Two reasons which prevent it from being as great as “Rashomon” or “Seven Samurai.”
However, I see you have “Metropolis” ranked very high on your list, but the writing and acting in that movie is downright awful at times. I know that it was a groundbreaking movie, beautiful visuals, etc., but it’s impossible to ignore its severe deficiencies. “The Magnificent Ambersons” is another one. Welles was a genius director, but I find it hard to look past the mediocre writing and Tim Holt’s terrible performance. Similarly, the glaring issue with “Sunrise” is that the wife gets over her near murder in like 15 minutes. Wondering how you are able to reconcile these obvious weaknesses when compiling your list. Thanks.
Interesting. There’s so much I disagree with about this post that I’m not sure I have the time to adequately grapple with it at the moment. Maybe I’ll just bookmark this for later.
@David Barwinski- thanks for the comment. I think one of the problems with leaning on writing and acting is you find that “obvious weaknesses” sometimes aren’t so obvious— I’m not going to dig through all of them here but I’d guess many cinephiles would argue with some of your suggested weaknesses here. As for your question though- I don’t really go through a film looking for flaws or weaknesses, I might make note of them occasionally but they are heavily outweighed by the strengths of the film– that is what I spend the vast majority of my time noting when watching, and writing about afterwards.
Thanks for your reply. I don’t go looking for weaknesses, either, but sometimes they are too much to be ignored. I stand by my comments about “Metropolis.” Even for 1927, the writing and acting are bad. I just re-watched “The Magnificent Ambersons” and while “terrible” is maybe a bit harsh for Tim Holt’s performance, it’s not good. I think my criticism of the writing probably has more to do with how the studio chopped up the movie. As far as “Sunrise,” it requires a bigger than usual suspension of disbelief to buy into the wife so quickly getting over her husband trying to kill her.
Speaking of “Star Wars,” I also re-watched “Blade Runner” and while I’m not ranking it as high as you do, my appreciation of it has definitely grown. The new one was very good, too.
@David Barwinski- so I guess what’s the end result for Ambersons, Metropolis or Sunrise? I’m not saying I agree — just for the sake of argument. You’re putting lesser films with superior acting or less of a suspension of disbelieve ahead of them?
I’m just saying that when ranking a film, I’m taking all of the elements into account: story, writing, acting, directing, watchability, influence. If one or more of those elements are pretty obviously deficient, then it’s going to hurt the movie’s overall ranking. So, taking “Metropolis” for example, I would rank it much higher if the writing and acting weren’t so silly at times. It seems like you did something similar for “Ikiru,” which you’re not wrong about, although I disagree with it being in the #453 spot.
@David Barwinski- totally fair- I think we’re pretty much on the same page overall. I just think think some are weighted way more or less than others. Throwing in “writing, acting, directing” like those are three equal things — well they just aren’t. But I a may be creating a straw man here– I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
@David Barwinski – About that ranking of Ikiru at #453; while Drake said on Kurosawa’s director page (written in 2019) that he thought Ikiru was Kurosawa’s most overrated film, and it’s on the current edition of his top 500 at that spot of #453, he has since changed his mind after a revisit and now considers it a MP and the best film of 1952, right ahead of Singin’ in the Rain (#2 of 1952 and #102 of all time) and Umberto D. (#3 of 1952 and #119 of all time), so Ikiru will more than likely appear in the top 100 upon the next update in a few years.
@David Barwinski. Out of curiosity what is your opinion about Potemkin?
Don’t attack me please haha, but i could say that it is badly acted, bad history and badly written and i don’t think it matters much, all the critics hold it high, it’s 14 of all time.
Like the other movies you mention, the critics think highly of these.
Metropolis #60, Sunrise #8, Magnificent Ambersons #78.
And as for Sunrise, this could be applied to almost all movies, right? realism is a description, not an evaluation, i would accept this complaint if it were a Rossellini film.
Drake, if the magnificent ambersons had the interpretation of DDL in there will be blood, how much would it go up, is it already a masterpiece but would it be at the level of Kane?
@Aldo- yeah that’s a good question–impossible to say of course but fun to think about. I think There Will Be Blood has some of the same questions with Dano’s performance, right? I will say that overall Ambersons has some excellent acting, right? Agnes Moorehead, Cotton- I mean those two in particular are exceptional.
Hey Drake. This website really is fascinating. I haven’t been commenting much (as you may have noticed), just observing.
When did you start this website and when did you start getting lots of comments?
@Azman- as always- good to hear from you. I did one post in 2016 and then got going in 2017 really. It took some time to get comments (that weren’t spam). I don’t remember when it first happened but it has increased pretty steadily over time
Imagine this:
You place Stanley Kubrick, Billy Wilder (acting only as screenwriter for this exercise), Robert De Niro, Ingrid Bergman, Marlon Brando, Meryl Streep, Sergei Eisenstein (acting only as editor), Roger Deakins, Edith Head (costume designer), Saul Bass (credits designer), and Douglas Trumbull (optional special effects guy, can be discarded if unnecessary) together with filming equipment, adequate funding, and a year’s worth of time, and then instruct them to create a great film. Imagine that this could hypothetically be done in a timeless universe where all of the people were at the peak of their powers near the same time (roughly ’68, ’50, ’80, ’46, ’54, ’82, ’25, ’17, ’54, ’59, and ’68, respectively).
Is what emerges one of the best films of all time? Is it a lamentable mess due to clashing egos and artistic disagreements? Which genre is chosen? Which performers take the leading roles, and which are left in support? Is this a sprawling epic or a concise work? Does it ruin or boost each person’s career?
I must confess that I have no idea how to answer each of these questions myself, and thus I cannot expect others to be sure what to say.
Many of these things don’t fit. Graham, i don’t know if you’ve seen One Eyed Jacks directed by and starring Marlon Brando (very good movie).
Kubrick was fired haha.
@Aldo- haha great point
@Graham- haha this is a fun idea. Yeah I’m not sure how it goes either. Certainly with the talents involved you would think it would be a smashing artistic success but nothing seems certain. I do know the big difference is the director. You keep everything else the same and say “Stanley Kramer is the director” instead of Kubrick and everything changes.
I agree. I think the most questionable pairing is Stanley Kubrick directing a Billy Wilder script. Dr. Strangelove may prove otherwise, but I simply don’t believe the quick-witted wordplay and lack of quiet moments in Wilder’s dialogue would align with Kubrick’s cerebral, quiet style, especially emerging from the success of 2001 in 1968. This hypothetical lineup would likely be more effective if we chose Hitchcock instead of Kubrick as our all-timer director. In 1958 (his peak), he would have already worked with Bergman, Bass, and Head. I’d love to see him attempt a Wilder script, some transcendent Eisenstein editing, and even a knockout Leone score (I forgot to include a composer in the original comment).
Aldo, I agree that many of the people do not fit in the same movie. That was the point of the discussion: to surmise how a film with wildly different people of extreme talent (the best of all time in each category) would work. I have not seen One-Eyed Jacks.
@drake I know its too early but which movies from 2020 would you put in MP category ?
@Tanishk Shingala- I actually don’t have a 2020 masterpiece yet
I have a question for everyone on the site:
What is your single favorite frame in any movie whatsoever?
For me – and this is probably not my real answer but it’s up there (I’m mostly saying it cause it’s one that’s coming to my mind at the moment even though it is brilliant and visually arresting) – I’m going to say the shot from Brazil with Michael Palin wearing the baby mask in the foreground on one side and Pryce in the Ludovico Technique-sort of thing in the background. It’s on here in the Terry Gilliam page if you have not seen Brazil yourself. Really interested in hearing some of your responses.
@Zane — fun question- but really impossible for me to answer. Interested to hear what others think- but maybe the final shot of Tarkovsky’s Nostalgia? Tied with 20-50 others at least so I’d have a different answer tomorrow.
Yeah it’s not really an easy question given the sheer number of shots you could pick from. I felt about the same as you do in that last sentence picking the shot from Brazil. The famous shot from Days of Heaven (I think we all know the one I’m talking about) is a great pick too.
@Zane. I love this question, there is so much to choose from, my choice would have been (Drake got ahead of me) Nosthalgia last shot.
There is a picture of the bridge in Apocalypse Now, the Ikiru swing shot, the shot of Ordet funeral, the shot of lake in Gertrud, the image of the vertigo effect in Sugar ray (raging bull), the house burning at the sacrifice, the shot of the beach in Roma, the church in Cold War, the final shot in L’avventura.
There are many, just mention a few that i quite like
I love these choices to death! These are all excellent. You could also pick any of several shots from 2001: A Space Odyssey I think as well, or that shot from A Clockwork Orange from right before the gang beats up the old man (https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/clockwork-orange-a-1971-026-droogs-underpass-black-white.jpg?itok=rHyy7H3l). The great freeze frame from Jules and Jim also cannot be forgotten but I’m still not certain it belongs amongst these images, as great as it is. I’m an admirer of this shot (http://thecinemaarchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/breaking-the-waves-image-alone-aldkjflja-von-trier-1024×437.jpg) from Breaking the Waves as well. There’s really an endless number of shots you could pick.
@Zane- great choices- and yes- The Days of Heaven shot was on my very very short list
Here are some options. A few of these have already been mentioned.
1910s-20s:
https://i0.wp.com/lilliangish1893.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/intolerance-1916-lillian-gish-the-cradle-endlessly-rocking.jpg?fit=1500%2C1254&ssl=1
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/53bc843ae4b065e0b42a692e/1406670199813-O5FQXHI49VEZHPXGTR5E/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kFTEgwhRQcX9r3XtU0e50sUUqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIIIbLZhVYxCRW4BPu10St3TBAUQYVKcW7uEhC96WQdj-SwE5EpM0lAopPba9ZX3O0oeNTVSRxdHAmtcci_6bmVLoSDQq_pb/image-asset.jpeg
1930s:
https://filmfork-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/content/M1.jpg
https://ronrozellewordsmith.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/gwtw.jpg
1940s:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7a/e5/e6/7ae5e62e2d3827c91e942518cee35d70.png
https://offscreen.com/images/Narcissus_Bell_Precipice_hires.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/11/d1/eb11d128980cccd3cd23eb3556f501ad.png
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/df/6f/b5df6f08a2f2e336991aac05447ea807.jpg
1950s:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/0b/c4/070bc41a506b83dae37ab419aba4a84f.png
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/edcHOwTD8i2565rIx33fBF7enlmRoGXNn90ans_i4w5XW7NUvESHRXYCsM0CpPIasl0WvjpzvdZ4nOKNzBHwmHoAQRRw9NZD23e0qfVSGKJ-OEccPcOHJfLYFHtHkIWmSDccyRPbv8d426niS1pVnOgGGhqPHg
https://filmcapsule.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/seven_fourgraves.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5e/40/93/5e4093e1bfb17054263bbf7b91bb8e83.jpg
https://www.eastman.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_overlay/public/Searchers_1956_1.jpg?itok=vLsfq0qb
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/54/25/98/5425983f7aeee793c320190fd46d09bd.png
1960s:
https://pics.filmaffinity.com/L_avventura-814401532-large.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0c/ae/8c/0cae8cdcb666d2b54b5d4c7e719b28b1.jpg
https://brianwelk.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/apartment-office.jpg
https://www.closeupfilmcentre.com/download_file/view_inline/7601/
https://i1.wp.com/thependragonsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/lawrenceofarabia-1.jpg?fit=1600%2C728&ssl=1
https://shots.filmschoolrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/the-trial-1.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-miq4PFqj0Uw/TimKghSxYrI/AAAAAAAAAB4/20nADOKDyYU/s1600/persona-432.jpg
https://miro.medium.com/max/5172/1*KcF3P1puyKLIEc_Ku1evyw.png
1970s:
https://i.redd.it/5ct0l1ozj4m21.png
https://i.redd.it/bq11mqz9ij9y.png
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KK9SIrIFf74/maxresdefault.jpg
https://thesouloftheplot.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/hellandlocusts_daysofheaven1.jpg
https://madmuseum.org/sites/default/files/styles/5_x_3/public/2015/03/01_Stalker%2C%201976%2C%20Andrei%20Tarkovsky%2C%20image%20courtesy%20of%20Kino%20Lorber.jpg?itok=Ofzn7rcK
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BY2YyMGMyMWQtYWVkMC00NTEyLTgyZmEtYWNkM2RmZmU3ODQzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTAwMzgzNjIz._V1_.jpg
1980s:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e2/1d/7a/e21d7a424a0a1676d58b82c7d03fd429.jpg
https://unaffiliatedcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/BR.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/35/af/c5/35afc59f6b70104f762988eba0f30eff.jpg
http://prod3.agileticketing.net/images/user/CACE_3663/tumblr_l7r89nB42P1qduy7io1_r1_1280WEB.png
https://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/51-cooling-tower.png
1990s:
https://s23527.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/067.png
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/htra217_vv188_h.jpg
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/542227c8e4b01cc5399bd3df/1414975980906-4LM5OOQFXWU2VXEHZUVT/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kMKOeCMPmdxE9GvDQmBmRJgUqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIIIbLZhVYy7Mythp_T-mtop-vrsUOmeInPi9iDjx9w8K4ZfjXt2dj0DkpoLLmTo-sF0AVARlKfUXn5rqG2Y871IVFyCwuZ-ZDqXZYzu2fuaodM4POSZ4w/image-asset.jpeg
https://theplaylist.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/the-thin-red-line-terrence-malick.jpg
2000s:
https://film-grab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/47-kissing.png
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/48/84/ad/4884adac96e82cad63580c029a8ec95c.png
https://24framesnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/shakhes.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3LBnelWAAAC4iZ.jpg
https://nofilmschool.com/sites/default/files/styles/facebook/public/the_dark_knight_1.jpg?itok=Imq81Nxi
2010s:
https://64.media.tumblr.com/1c2d4ba2a9c91eda0f7157c74a6395dd/tumblr_nuqu1eFO9Z1s535xbo1_1280.png
https://vaguevisages.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/the-master-movie-eleven.jpg
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/grand-budapest-saoirse.png?w=794
https://hd-report.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/mad-max-fury-road-tom-hardy-trailer-still1.jpg
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/01/15/17/the-revenant.jpg
http://blueprintreview.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/roma-1.jpeg
Sorry for so many cumbersome links.
This conversation about the greatest single frames in cinema has inspired me to create a list of the best single use of certain cinematic techniques. I included some of these in my response above. Here are my choices:
Cut: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XmDxOJIKRcA/WvXhyEq6IFI/AAAAAAABmOU/ZsQTSDAfTc0AYz-dqRO6PNYhWZKNZkAhgCLcBGAs/s640/arabia%2Bgif.gif
Superimposition: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/9n4H7SYT5R3dUQWcWjXMiaLK9p7ORGNZZQrPCg1ncWBp00P4WiFqqaXajPIUBnnrh4AEBvuUxuLqF8QJ6CEJrEYpIShjIpjzMrBJQWNSTDNtBKdFyGTz5E7qqMF9Wpaw_A
Freeze frame (most would certainly pick the one from The 400 Blows, which also a superb choice): https://bethanytompkins.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/freezeframe.jpg
Dissolve: https://www.ourgoldenage.com.au/film/mulholland-drive/GAC-Mulholland%20Drive.jpg
Close-up: https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/grand-budapest-saoirse.png?w=794
Extreme close-up: https://theplaylist.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/the-thin-red-line-terrence-malick.jpg
Extreme wide shot: https://plentyofpopcorn.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/lawrence-of-arabia-desert.png
Camera move/dolly: https://64.media.tumblr.com/769d20a48a04e6d02a86482fbf97090e/tumblr_n8qnxtQWYZ1qm3k33o2_500.gif
Dutch angle: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOAkyVkWoAMZvV2.jpg
Low angle: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/595bdfa4414fb51e2862f53c/1593042835115-SCBMAYVUA83DBOX710U6/2001-A-Space-Odyssey-A-Thoroughly-Nietzschean-Film.png?format=2500w&content-type=image%2Fpng
High angle: https://offscreen.com/images/Narcissus_Bell_Precipice_hires.jpg
Regular zoom: https://i2.wp.com/talanhorne.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Harry-Lime.gif?resize=500%2C270&ssl=1
Dolly zoom (also perhaps the best slow motion shot): https://media0.giphy.com/media/7UHb8eAQjie6Q/source.gif
Split screen: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-Y37wK9fO0E/maxresdefault.jpg
Crane shot: https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ShamelessLavishAfricanjacana-mobile.mp4
What are others’ opinions for each of these techniques, and what techniques would you like to add?
@Graham- great collection here! I’ll have to dig in a little
Great List
For dissolve edit:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CIrvSJwwJUE/maxresdefault.jpg
Freeze Frame:
https://bethanytompkins.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/freezeframe.jpg
Close Up:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f1/19/2c/f1192cbd5f7aed71ffe4c487d23d9cc2.jpg
Split Screen:
https://nofilmschool.com/sites/default/files/styles/facebook/public/sisters2_0.jpg?itok=Ul2OnAHu
Wonderful selections!
In fact, I was considering making superimposition a tie with that Apocalypse Now shot, but I ultimately chose the Persona double-face shot.
I’m not able to reply to the old thread, so I’m starting a new one.
Drake, agree that we’re mostly on the same page. Thanks for your comments.
Zane, thanks for the update on “Ikiru.” It will be nice to see it much higher where it belongs! 🙂 What about “The Apu Trilogy”? Movies don’t get much better than that, but it’s only in the 300s here.
Aldo, “Battleship Potemkin” is another one I think the critics overrate. It’s nowhere near the top 10 or 20 for me. The overriding problem with it is that it’s blatant propaganda. But it certainly has its place in film history. Kind of like “The Birth of a Nation,” but at least the message in “Potemkin” is much less despicable than in “Nation.”
I know these comments may be controversial, but I think the film canon should be challenged when appropriate rather than accepted at face value. Take “L’Atalante,” for example. I’ve watched it three times and I do not understand how it can be considered a top 10 or even top 100 movie. The critics will also sometimes underrate a movie. It only took them about 40 years to catch on to just how great “Vertigo” is.
So while the consensus of people who know movies best is the best thing we have (the BFI Sight and Sound lists, in particular), it’s still not perfect. That’s one thing I like about this site. Although I don’t agree with all of the rankings, I agree with many of them, and it’s clear that the rankings are independent of critical consensus.
@David Barwinski- I just wanted to chime in on Potemkin as I think the content vs. form/style is a trap. Seeing Potemkin as propaganda and not cinematic art is missing why so many have selected as one of the art form’s finest films
To be clear, I have “Sunrise” in my top 100, but not very close to the top 10. “The Magnificent Ambersons” and “Battleship Potemkin” are in my honorable mentions. “Ambersons” I’m sure would have easily been well into my top 100 had it not been hacked by the studio.
@David Barwinski- thanks for sharing “hacked” feels strong for a consensus top 100 film– #31 for me
Well he’s not referring to that, but to the fact that an entire hour of Welles’ original cut was removed by RKO. I mean an entire hour is gone from the film. It could be even better than Citizen Kane if we recover that footage someday.
@Zane- I’m aware- a version none of us have ever seen- and the resulting work is already one of the best films of all-time.
It’s definitely one of the greats, but top 100 is not a given. In the Sight and Sound polls, it’s #81 for the critics and it’s not in the directors’ top 100. Kind of surprising, I would think it would be the other way around. Welles himself said, “They destroyed ‘Ambersons.'”
@David Barwinski- yep- TSPDT takes Sight and Sound into account. Andrew Sarris “I must say that I much prefer it to Citizen Kane (1941).”
Since we are talking about the magnificent ambersons, you know there will be a “new version”. I hesitate to say new version because the missing footage was destroyed.
It’s more to give you an idea of how the full movie would have been.
https://lwlies.com/articles/the-magnificent-ambersons-animated-reconstruction-orson-welles/
https://www.animationmagazine.net/features/animation-to-help-restore-original-version-of-magnificent-ambersons/
Yeah I heard about that when reading about the search for the original cut in South America. Interested in how it turns out.