Posted on 03/24/2009 1:12:46 AM PDT by iowamark
Many movies are good, some are great, but only a select few can be called truly "essential." After heated discussions, long negotiations, and a shouting match or two, the staff at Yahoo! Movies has put together this list of the 100 films you must see before you die.
To choose the titles for the list, we considered factors like historical importance and cultural impact. But we also selected films that we believe are the most thrilling, most dramatic, scariest, and funniest movies of all time. Some of these films you've seen, and some you may not have heard of, but we believe that each one is a timeless classic that you absolutely have to see.
12 Angry Men (1957) Directed By: Sidney Lumet Starring: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, E. G. Marshall
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Directed By: Stanley Kubrick Starring: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester
The 400 Blows (1959)Directed By: Francois Truffaut Starring: Jean-Pierre Leaud, Patrick Auffay Why You Should See It
8 ½ (1963) Directed By: Federico Fellini Starring: Marcello Mastroianni, Anouk Aimee
The African Queen (1952) Directed By: John Huston Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, Robert Morley
Alien (1979) Directed By: Ridley Scott Starring: Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Veronica Cartwright
All About Eve (1950) Directed By: Joseph L. Mankiewicz Starring: Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, George Sanders
(Excerpt) Read more at movies.yahoo.com ...
I loved Bubba Ho Tep. What a concept film!
Ive seen 70 of the 100. My two favorites are on there (Animal House and Fast Times at Ridgemont High).
Not sure about the John Wayne choice. I would have put “True Grit” or “Red River” on there before “The Searchers”
The Vietnam movie choice was a mistake. “Apocalypse Now” over “Full Metal Jacket”? Travesty. “FMJ” is Kubricks best film (IMHO) and the second greatest war movie after “Saving Private Ryan”. I would have put “Platoon” on there before “Apocalypse Now”. The last half hour of “Apocalypse” is an absolute snoozer.
It’s people like you who turned Roger Corman from “Schlockmeister” to “Legendary Film-Maker”.
“Young” is better than that.
Only in the way that my grandma's paint-by-numbers and a Caravaggio are both paintings, but only one is art. The Super 8s my mom shot in 1964 are "movies" but they're not "cinema."
With Key Largo I'm talking about the sense of using the unique characteristics inherent in the form to tell the story, rather than just plunking down the camera in front of a set and letting the actors do all the heavy lifting. Editing, camera movement, POV--all those things that the movies have over plays are basically absent from Key Largo. I mean, sure, there are close ups and edits, but at the end of the day, it's still basically a filmed play--a bunch of people in a single room. On the other hand, 12 Angry Men is also a play consisting of a bunch of people in a single room, but the telling of that story on film uses the form a lot better than Key Largo does. (I don't know that I'd put it on my top 100 list, though)
By the way, I saw a trailer a few weeks back for a Russian remake of 12 Angry Men that looks like it might be good.
ZZZzzzzzzzzz
Kinda how I feel about Key Largo, other than Robinson going on about "champagne and pompano."
The worst movie on the list I think is Groundhog Day. I’d like to see that replaced with Uncle Buck, a true classic comedy.
“I agree. What was that chick flick where Mel Gibson can hear women’s thoughts?”
It was “what women want” and it really is very good - its not a movie I would have actually have ever put myself out to see...the wife insisted - but Im glad she did. It was excellent.
“Definitely. They were both very convincing, classic performances. I’m not saying that just because a pic is a certain genre, it doesn’t contain direction, photography, script or acting. All of that exists in all films.”
Well, that is what I am getting at in this list. I am looking at the standard of acting, direction, production, storytelling and all the other things that go into making a movie “great”. I think sometimes its a bit like trying to define style - nobody can say what it actually is, but everyone knows it when they see it :) All I am trying to say is that in my list of 100 films there arent too many westerns - not that there arent good westerns out there, but I think that films of other genres top them in those stakes.
“Maybe, but I don’t think so. I think if you polled actual Clint Eastwood fans, GBU wouldn’t be top 5, and probably wouldn’t even be top 3 in the western category.”
That doesnt really surprise me - Clint was the nominal star but he got totally overshadowed by Eli Wallach in that film (Hey, Blondie). But that doesnt mean anything. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly stands on its own as a film - it isnt just a vehicle for Clint Eastwoods talents (nor should it be).
“I think critics put a Clint western on the list as a token, and they pick GBU as the default token choice.”
Perhaps. Its very sad if that is what they are doing. For me its the most memorable of his films.
The Passion of the Christ.
(I’m no expert, but other movies I have loved: Shadowlands (w/ Debra Winger); Popeye; Best in Show (you’ll laugh yourself silly); and the beginning scenes of Joe Versus the Volcano.)
Well! Fiddle Dee Dee!
“Gone with the Wind - unwatchable.”
Ditttttttttttttto!
Thanks for the ping Quix. Thankfully I’m not much of a movie goer or watcher. But I can see how the enemy will use every avenue possible to deceive the masses, and that includes T.V., movies, and music. That’s the thing with deception, if it was “in your face obvious” than it wouldn’t achieve it’s desired end.
"Apocalypse Now" had maybe two good scenes wedged in between hours of boredom.
I also have trouble with a list that does not have “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”.
And for simple cinematic history, another Burton-Taylor work should be there - the most expensive movie ever made - “Cleopatra”.
Also, “The Defiant Ones” - probably Stanley Kramers best work.
But, to be fair, it’s not a totally bad list. I own about forty of them.
Sorry.
No theory.
I’m nearly done with any significant priority to help chronic, ill-informed, etc. ‘true unbelieving’ skeptics see much of anything.
1. It’s an exercise in futility regardless of the rooms full of evidence piled to the ceiling.
2. It’s bothersome to the max.
3. Other priorities are increasing in importance and that former priority is rapidly decreasing.
4. Those with ears to hear and eyes to see already see plenty of evidence in front of their faces nearly 24/7. I don’t have to start from lower than scratch with folks who are awake with their eyes open; ears to hear; eyes to see.
5. I HAVE studied such for more than 45 years. Lots of things that used to be somewhat theoretical are far from that now. Folks who don’t realize that are just begging to suffer more at the hands of such demonized globalist stooges. I do what I can to wave a flag and blow a whistle. After that—it’s up to them. They have a ton of stuff to play catch-up with. But that’s the price for being the willfully blind; for walking around with eyes closed; for being the walking dead.
Just the way I increasingly see it. Nothing particularly personal about it in the least.
Would have to see such and ponder . . . may not be a priority.
I don’t recall enough of Alien to say one way or the other.
A lot of stuff is just geared to wind up the fear factor. The oligarchy is big on fear because their boss—satan is.
Some stuff is geared to play one side or the other of setting up various good-cop/bad-cop scenarios and dynamics . . . toward increasing chaos once things get really rolling.
Thanks.
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.