I fully expected to see a CS thread already in full bloom with all sorts of gnashing of teeth and heavy bickering on which movies made the list but shouldn’t have and vice versa.
Not a peep.
Is this a dud idea for a thread?
Does it matter that the Top 100 of All Time that AFI came up with are so far away from the Top 250 at IMDB?
Wasn’t this list named several years ago?
I watched.
I wasn’t impressed.
It appears that the only addition to the list in 10 years is Lord Of The Rings.
Maybe it’s time they gave us some fresh sub-genres. We’ve already had 100 Years, 100 Laughs/Heroes & Villains/100 Screams/100 Thrills. I suggest that we need something more reflective of Hollywood. How about:
100 Years, 100 Sequels
100 Years, 100 Drive-in Classics
100 Years, 10 Good Ideas
Here’s a link to the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years…100_Movies%2810th_Anniversary_Edition%29
This correlates the old and new lists. There are twenty-three films in the new list which aren’t in the old one.
The one thing apparent to me is that the folks who come up with the AFI lists are way into old stuff like silents and early talkies, and they are way not into some of the same razzle-dazzle that IMDB voters favor.
I noticed that to get much real info at AFI’s website you have to register. I’m just not that curious.
In my own case, if that matters, any Top 100 list I would make would probably go no further back than 1930 and would include only those movies I saw as first run items, although some I have seen on TV in rerun mode would be eligible for inclusion as well. But I admit to my bias and relatively narrow range of tastes. I just wonder to what degree AFI sets boundaries on what to include or exclude. Anybody know?
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Titanic (1997)
The Sixth Sense (1999)
There were also a few additions of movies that came out just before the origi9nal list and so maybe their impact was not fully appreciated at the time:
Toy Story (1995)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
I actually only really agree with the addition of Toy Story; you could make an argument for The Sixth Sense and SPR, and while I don’t think Titanic was one of the 100 best American movies of the century it (a) certainly has a significant place in movie history, and (b) isn’t nearly as bad as some people feel obliged to say it is. I vehemently object to “The Shawshank Redemption,” which, while a good movie, is IMHO the most overrated movie in the history of popular cinema.
Up 36 slots is “The Deer Hunter,” also wildly overrated, but the really huge jump is “The Searchers,” up 84 slots. That’s bizarre. I’d agree it was a great, great movie, but why did it jump so high? Is it really the 12th best American movie ever made?
I’m also unclear as to the American pedigree of a few of the movies cited. Was “Lawrence of Arabia” an American film, really?
One amusing sidelight to my own experience of the 3-hour show is that just yesterday as I was preparing myself to watch it, I revisited an old link to 100 Years, 100 Stinkers The Worst Films of the 20th Century our parody of AFI’s “100 Years, 100 Movies” list. One film that stuck out for me was Titanic. Imagine my smile when it came up in the new list!
My wife and I came to the same conclusion at almost the same moment in the show: the main reason for the drastic shift in the many movies dropped and added as well as the dramatic changes in placement on the new list can all be attributed to the difference in the mood between now and 10 years ago. In a word: Bush.
Anybody else have that same (or similar) thought?
Sorry about that. In my defense, I tuned in late, was only halfway paying attention and mis-remembered the original list. (Also the sun got in my eyes, a rock got in my way, the dog ate my homework…)
Apparently, Buster Keaton’s The General wasn’t on the original list either, which would seem to be an oversight of galactic proportions.
It was made by Colombia an American studio. I think that is all they are counting. As long as it was made by an American studio it is an American film.
I exepected LOTR to either not place or place higher than 50th. And only FOTR? Thats a big problem with the trilogy. it is really one long movie shown in 3 (or 6 if you watch the extended DVDs) parts.
(Though I do note that Beautiful Mind is NOT on the list)
The AFI criterion is "English language, with significant creative and/or financial production elements from the United States. "
Brian
I watched part of it. It was a great show to have on while I was puttering and cleaning: no plot to have to follow. But what strikes me when comparing the old list and the new list (thanks for the link, Wendell) is how completely subjective the whole thing is – subjective to the point of being useless, IMO. The General was made in 1927. Ten years ago it doesn’t even make the list, but now it’s so amazing it ranks as the 18th best? Clearly the movie didn’t actually get any better, and it’s not like the US has undergone such a profound cultural shift in the last 10 years as to account for it being excluded last time and top-20 this time.
So it’s just “IMO” writ large, and worth about as much.
I didn’t see the special, but based on the list, there were quite a number of films that were dropped that should’ve been: Amadeus, American in Paris, Dances, Zhivago, Giant, Fair Lady, Patton are all cases where bigger isn’t always better. Are they bad? Not necessarily, but also not deserving a place in any American Top 100.
Some drops were obviously because they’re seen as milestones (Birth of a Nation, Jazz Singer, Frankenstein) and not necessarily admired on their own merits. The Griffith in particular remains revolutionary, but I can’t gripe because they threw in another Griffith to replace it, plus 2 more silents as well (making the grand total 4–still way too low)
The Third Man got bumped because it’s not American. Glad they fixed that.
Some of the new additions are richly deserving. Now there’s space for Buster Keaton, Fred & Ginger, Preston Sturges, F.W. Murnau, Spike Lee, and Pixar (plus 2 now for the Marx Bros & Robert Altman). Other additions (Nashville, Picture Show, President’s Men, Cabaret) may all tip things a little too heavily toward the 70s–20% of the total!–but they’re all good films. And if you have to pick a message film with Sidney Poitier from '67, better Heat than the awful Dinner.
But some additions are bad or at least wholly unnecessary. Titanic, Sophie’s Choice and The Sixth Sense over All Quiet, Rebel and From Here to Eternity?!? They’re not remotely in the same league. Close Encounters remains better than Private Ryan, and if you’re going to add a 4th Kubrick, why pick Spartacus over Paths of Glory? And the inclusions of Gump and Rocky (jumping 21 places!) remain laughable.
So overall, the list is admittedly better and slightly more balanced, but any American “Best” that still neglects Night of the Hunter, Greed, Nick Ray, Douglas Sirk, & Ernst Lubitsch (just for starters) is incredibly problematic.
While I think I would agree that the movies mentioned were worthy of a place on the list, I question a few of the top movies. Singing in the Rain was a delightful musical comody, but does it really deserve a place in the top ten? (10 in 1998, #5 in 2007) There were only four on the list that I haven’t seen (City Lights, The General, Intolerance and Swing Time) and two that I really didn’t like (Annie Hall and The Sound of Music) but I can see why they were included.
Singing in the Rain has been considered one of the, if not the finest American musical by many people. It even cracked the Sight and Sound top-10 list, which is largely dominated by non-American films.
Here’s a fun way to watch these 100 Years, 100 Self-Congratulatory Pats on the Back shows:
You record the entire three-hour show, then fast-forward through it at top speed and see how many of the movies you can name that way.
As for sitting through it in real time, I can think of better ways to spend three hours of my life. Last night we went to see Ocean’s 13 (which we loved).
Am I on crack or did the screen really say that The Bridge of the River Kwai was released in 1941 during its overview?
[aside]
There’s a funny story about how Carl Reiner ended up in these movies.
[/aside]
I downloaded & sent in a ballot myself.
Wikipedia describes the criteria correctly:
The problem is that you are given 400 nominees, and out of that if you are taking the ballot seriously - unfortunately you have to sometimes stretch your tastes and question whether or not you should pick a certain film based on all other criteria except your own like of the movie.
I would have preferred a ballot with a larger number of nominees, because there were quite a few I selected for the cultural and historical impact the film had on the art of film, or on culture itself.
Funny enough, looking through the list, I was thinking the exact opposite, that too many new films are in there. I think some of the newer movies selected (1970’s and beyond films) may not become classics in the long run, but will remain popular for a time due to the nostalgic factor that some people may have watching a film that they watched as a teen or a child.
We double checked that to be sure what you saw was what we saw. They had 1941 all right.
This is one of my pet peeves (and I’m not blaming you for it) but for some reason people take a hate to popular movies like “Titanic” and “Forrest Gump” and claim they’re the worst movies they’ve ever seen.
Let’s suppose we assume that “Titanic” was overrated, shouldn’t have won 11 Oscars, and was schlocky. Even if you add up every reasonable negative comment about it it’s not one of the 100 worst movies ever made, not one of the 1,000 worst movies ever made, and probably isn’t one of the TEN thousand worst movies ever made. Steven Seagal has personally appeared in at least twenty worse films just by himself.