Ladri di biciclette if you’re going to be picky. 
1001 movies notes the translation as Bicycle Thieves. All English references to it I’ve seen in reviews and the like are to The Bicycle Thief, which I suppose it is released under.
I think there was a thread once about mis- and odd translations of movie titles.
Or maybe the porn version, 8 1/2 inches? 
Thanks. It’s a very eclectic set of movies, ranging from blockbusters like Jaws to completely obscure art house movies.
There’s definitely a lot of movies on that list that I wasn’t aware of and would like to see.
I believe it was released in the US as The Bicycle Thief. The title Bicycle Thieves is actually kind of a spoiler since
you hardly see the first bicycle thief, who steals the protagonists bicycle. It isn’t until the end that you find out the protagonist himself becomes a bicycle thief in desperation.
Many posters here are ignoring the context, the time, when these films were made. I have seen them all except for Tokyo Story and can say what they have in common is that for their era they were groundbreaking.
Look what Citizen Kane introduced. Stuff we now take for granted in films. But before CK? Wasn’t done.
2001? Sure it can drag, but NOTHING like it had ever been done. Again, we now take for granted things it introduced.
Taxi Driver may not have been pioneering in the sense of cinematic technique, but no film has captured its era any better.
From the link: “Ingmar Bergman disliked the film and called it ‘a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie has is absolutely unbelievable!’”
Just goes to show even a great director can be a misguided jackass when it comes to assessing the films of other directors.
I’ll check it out, but if it takes place in Paris, I’ll be plenty pissed!
In terms of total number of films watched over my lifetime, I’m probably in the top 0.001% of movie watchers and very little of that is popcorn flicks. But I never felt any particular desire to hunt out watch lists or to try and model my opinions on the opinions of professionals or reviewers. I just watched lots of films - enough so that I still ended up watching half of ten films that each independently very few (modern) people have seen.
For some reason, people - even famous people - tend to flock to the person who first did something as an inspiration. And while I appreciate that it takes inspiration to be the first person to do something, rarely is the first person the one who perfected the technique. It’s later generations who get things down to a precise art. I’d rather watch those than the earlier iterations.
Similarly, when I look at cave paintings or ancient literature I generally think that they’re poorly done, where others marvel at their ancient beauty. To be sure, as an example, it’s no fault of our ancestors that they had no understanding of perspective, let alone how to translate it from 3D to 2D in a way that made sense. But, factually, the inability to do perspective is just being a bad artist in modern day (even if you choose to not use it) and you’ll learn more about perspective by looking at the works of MC Escher or analyzing stereoscopic images than by spending years and years trying to recreate the lost works of Filippo Brunelleschi or looking at the works of the early Renaissance painters.
By all means, the works that served as the major milestones deserve accolades. But those accolades should be in the form of “historic notability” not “everlasting bestness”. No one would hold up the Wright Flyer as the best airplane ever. While impressive for its time, a recreation would be a really crappy airplane and you would do well to avoid flying in it if you don’t want to get hurt.
In the technical realm, we’re more reasonable about the difference between milestones and quality. In artistry, most people don’t separate the two. Personally, I’m more technically minded.
Well if you are going to talk about groundbreaking then you need to include movies before 1941. For example like the Jazz Singer:
It was technologically groundbreaking. It wasn’t groundbreaking in terms of plot, acting, filming techniques, or direction.
Yep. I accidentally typed in “8 1/2 weeks” into Google, to confirm that it was what I thought it was before I wrote my post then failed to notice that the top result was for 9 1/2 weeks.
Ignore that.
I’ve probably seen the name of the film around, but possibly ignored it because I had made the same mistake. (My dad was a fan of “weeks”.)
Looking at the full top 100, I am somewhat impressed by how few of them I have seen or even heard of (given that I had at least seen half of the top 10 and I think that I’m pretty well-covered on something like the IMDB top 100 and other lists that I have seen historically).
Considering how tightly the years are clustered and the presence of movies like Husbands - which seems to be just some relatively decent film from its era, of no great note otherwise - I’m inclined to think that we’re looking at an age issue:
40s: 2%
50s: 21%
60s: 30%
70s: 24%
80s: 10%
I’d say that it’s safe to say that most of the directors polled were born in the late 40s/early 50s.
My off-hand guess was that most of the directors polled were born earlier than that, Sage Rat. To check if that was true, I found a list of all the film-related people who voted in this poll. Remember, the list we’ve been looking at is based on just the directors who voted in the poll. This is the list of all the voters:
I went through the poll and checked a few of the directors by looking up the years they were born in the IMDb. To my surprise, in the set of directors I had time to check, the average birth year was more like in the mid-1960’s. So my guess was actually further off than yours, Sage Rat. If someone wants to check all 358 directors who voted in the poll, please do so and tell us what the average birth year is.