- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Top 200 Movies We Agree Don't Suck: 2013 Edition
Posted on 11/20/13 at 2:19 am to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 11/20/13 at 2:19 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
That's fair. Maybe it is a generational thing. At the time I saw Take the Money and Run, Everything About Sex, Bananas, I thought they were pretty damn funny. I do think Take the Money was innovative for its time but admittedly it has been surpassed.
Zelig was a good one too.
0
Posted on 11/23/13 at 2:18 am to OMLandshark
I'm surprised Ocean's 11 didn't even make honorable mention.
I'm not surprised Team America didn't make honorable mention, but that's the movie that's highest on my own personal list that didn't make it.
I'm not surprised Team America didn't make honorable mention, but that's the movie that's highest on my own personal list that didn't make it.
Posted on 11/25/13 at 8:03 am to DeonG
quote:
I'm surprised Ocean's 11 didn't even make honorable mention.
I am a little too, not sure if they didn't age well or what.
Posted on 11/26/13 at 5:13 pm to Freauxzen
A lot of work.
I realize the listing was voted upon by young males, but some really great films were way down the list. I didn't see Yankee Doodle Dandy, a great film, on the list at all. Singing in the Rain, 10th on the AFI Top 100 list, is way down at the bottom at 197. No Lawrence of Arabia? Diehard over On the Waterfront?
At least Project X wasn't on the list ...
I realize the listing was voted upon by young males, but some really great films were way down the list. I didn't see Yankee Doodle Dandy, a great film, on the list at all. Singing in the Rain, 10th on the AFI Top 100 list, is way down at the bottom at 197. No Lawrence of Arabia? Diehard over On the Waterfront?
At least Project X wasn't on the list ...
Posted on 11/26/13 at 6:50 pm to rehtaeh
quote:
No Lawrence of Arabia?
Was #6, so pretty revered film around these parts.
Posted on 11/26/13 at 6:52 pm to rehtaeh
quote:
Singing in the Rain, 10th on the AFI Top 100 list, is way down at the bottom at 197
A Clockwork Orange completely ruined that movie. You can no longer hear that song without thinking of the rape scene.
Posted on 11/26/13 at 7:49 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
A Clockwork Orange completely ruined that movie. You can no longer hear that song without thinking of the rape scene.
Sure you can. Come on that's silly.
Posted on 11/27/13 at 9:34 am to rehtaeh
quote:
rehtaeh
There's a reason we decided 5 years ago not to call these "Best" Or "All Time Greatest"
These are the top 200 films that suck the least if you want to put it in a different term.
quote:
I realize the listing was voted upon by young males, but some really great films were way down the list.
Mostly Males 25-35 I believe.
quote:
I didn't see Yankee Doodle Dandy, a great film, on the list at all.
Musicals are lacking, yes, and that wouldn't be the first one necessary imo.
quote:
Singing in the Rain, 10th on the AFI Top 100 list, is way down at the bottom at 197.
Should be higher.
quote:
o Lawrence of Arabia?
?
quote:
Diehard over On the Waterfront?
Perfectly acceptable. Die Hard is brilliant, yeah it's better than OtW and refined an entire genre all on its own. It's too low in my opinion.
Posted on 11/27/13 at 9:40 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Perfectly acceptable. Die Hard is brilliant, yeah it's better than OtW and refined an entire genre all on its own. It's too low in my opinion.
Great point. Never thought of Die Hard as a movie that redefined action, but it really did and makes me appreciate the film more.
Posted on 11/27/13 at 11:57 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Musicals are lacking, yes, and that wouldn't be the first one necessary imo.
I love musicals and I can't imagine putting Yankee Doodle Dandy anywhere near a best of lest. It's just not that good.
Singing in the Rain OTOH, is underranked. And it's a shame a movie like High Society doesn't even merit a mention, but that's the way it goes. Musicals are a tough sell, as are animated films.
Posted on 11/27/13 at 6:39 pm to Baloo
quote:
as are animated films
I know even The Jungle Book only got one vote. Didn't even get a vote from a guy whose name is Baloo. And his wife's name is Mrs Baloo. And whose kids name is Lil Mowgli. You figure at least that guy would vote for it.
Posted on 12/1/13 at 7:53 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Some on this board (iwy and I have discussed it before) think this should hurt his overall ranking as a director and I can't entirely disagree.
I don't get this argument. Maybe that's because it seems based on an auteur theory of film I don't really ascribe to. But still, if one director produced three perfect movies, and another director produces three perfect movies, 30 mediocre movies, and 10 shitty ones, I think the "better" director (whatever that means) is probably the latter.
Posted on 12/1/13 at 7:58 pm to Freauxzen
Great list, especially compared to IMDB, though my taste is more aligned with "art cinema" than blockbusters (not that I dislike blockbusters, I just don't like them as much). I think I've seen 195/200...a higher percentage than imdb!
Posted on 12/1/13 at 10:06 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
I don't get this argument. Maybe that's because it seems based on an auteur theory of film I don't really ascribe to. But still, if one director produced three perfect movies, and another director produces three perfect movies, 30 mediocre movies, and 10 shitty ones, I think the "better" director (whatever that means) is probably the latter.
I'm kind of with you, I judge them on their best works, but I understand the argument. A director like Hitchcock that has more good to great movies, most people would rank higher than Allen who has some bad movies on his resume. And then there is Coppala, who's peak is incredible, but not a lot after that and 1 stinker.
Posted on 12/1/13 at 10:40 pm to H-Town Tiger
It seems to me that great direction--and the nature of a "great movie" for that matter--varies so much that you can't apply a narrow scale to it. Or at least you can apply a narrow scale, but you have to admit that the scale you are applying is suited to your tastes, moral outlook, philosophical or ideological preferences, etc. Maybe it's the veneer of objectivity that sort of argument entails that I object to. Not that I think "it's all subjective"--I absolutely don't.
But when I consider my own favorite directors--Werner Herzog, for one--often I'd be hard-pressed to say that they produced even a single perfect film, on the level of Citizen Kane, or The Searchers (which has its flaws, it must be admitted) or Lawrence of Arabia. What attracts me to someone like Herzog is the vision, the attitude, the consistently thought-provoking body of work, not the single gleaming gem. Same for Orson Welles, though he has the one great feather in his cap. Hence I'd put the Welleses and Herzogs and yes, the Allens of the world over Coppolas and Malicks.
Maybe I'm contradicting myself though, since I'm starting to sound a bit auteur-addicted. I'm not though I promise!
But when I consider my own favorite directors--Werner Herzog, for one--often I'd be hard-pressed to say that they produced even a single perfect film, on the level of Citizen Kane, or The Searchers (which has its flaws, it must be admitted) or Lawrence of Arabia. What attracts me to someone like Herzog is the vision, the attitude, the consistently thought-provoking body of work, not the single gleaming gem. Same for Orson Welles, though he has the one great feather in his cap. Hence I'd put the Welleses and Herzogs and yes, the Allens of the world over Coppolas and Malicks.
Maybe I'm contradicting myself though, since I'm starting to sound a bit auteur-addicted. I'm not though I promise!
Posted on 12/4/13 at 7:17 pm to Freauxzen
WOW, Double Indemity at 160 and Maltese Falcon at 73... 
Posted on 12/4/13 at 10:27 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
but you have to admit that the scale you are applying is suited to your tastes, moral outlook, philosophical or ideological preferences, etc.
Or as Robert Anton Wilson would call it, your neurological reality tunnel.
Posted on 12/6/13 at 8:15 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
It seems to me that great direction--and the nature of a "great movie" for that matter--varies so much that you can't apply a narrow scale to it. Or at least you can apply a narrow scale, but you have to admit that the scale you are applying is suited to your tastes, moral outlook, philosophical or ideological preferences, etc. Maybe it's the veneer of objectivity that sort of argument entails that I object to. Not that I think "it's all subjective"--I absolutely don't.
Great anything really. It's the idea of burning out or fading away in music, how much do championships matter in sports (or records), etc.
quote:
But when I consider my own favorite directors--Werner Herzog, for one--often I'd be hard-pressed to say that they produced even a single perfect film, on the level of Citizen Kane, or The Searchers (which has its flaws, it must be admitted) or Lawrence of Arabia.
I'd say Aguirre is on that level.
quote:
What attracts me to someone like Herzog is the vision, the attitude, the consistently thought-provoking body of work, not the single gleaming gem. Same for Orson Welles, though he has the one great feather in his cap. Hence I'd put the Welleses and Herzogs and yes, the Allens of the world over Coppolas and Malicks.
quote:
I don't get this argument. Maybe that's because it seems based on an auteur theory of film I don't really ascribe to. But still, if one director produced three perfect movies, and another director produces three perfect movies, 30 mediocre movies, and 10 shitty ones, I think the "better" director (whatever that means) is probably the latter.
So breadth not depth? No one should attack for that, that's a completely valid argument. I think there's a balance of the two ideas, honestly.
How much of an impact did those three films have? How innovative were they? I think Kubrick and his minuscule catalog, compared to Herzog and his enormous one is an interesting discussion to be had. I'd probably go with Kubrick just on basis of pure impact, but both were equally flexible in their approaches and incredibly innovative, though.
This post was edited on 12/6/13 at 8:19 am
Posted on 12/7/13 at 11:27 am to Freauxzen
I think the only (recent) movie comparison to Die Hard in the way it changed the canon was Star Wars.
I remember bringing this up multiple times in the 90's with all the Die Hards that came out.
Under Siege 1 and 2
Air Force One
Passenger 57
just to name a few.
I remember bringing this up multiple times in the 90's with all the Die Hards that came out.
Under Siege 1 and 2
Air Force One
Passenger 57
just to name a few.
This post was edited on 12/7/13 at 11:30 am
Posted on 12/12/13 at 8:35 am to alajones
quote:
I think the only (recent) movie comparison to Die Hard in the way it changed the canon was Star Wars.
I remember bringing this up multiple times in the 90's with all the Die Hards that came out.
Under Siege 1 and 2
Air Force One
Passenger 57
just to name a few.
But it changed the whole formula for action movies, not just inspire smoe imitators.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News