Princess Bride
The Godfather
The Godfather part 2
Pulp Fiction
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Chinatown
The Silence of the Lambs
City of God
The Usual Suspects
The Searchers

Pulp fiction is rated as the 5th best film of all time on imdb. I thought it was so bad I tried watching much of it again straight away to try to see if I was missing something really obvious. I thought it was a boring film. All the characters spend ages wasting time talking about nothing. I don't understand what there is to enjoy. I could not find any redeeming features. From the first few minutes I was waiting for something to happen. After sitting though John Travolta and Uma Therman's lengthy date I was just waiting for it to end. Dull, dull, dull. What a waste of time.

Help me out FISO. What does everyone think is so good about it? I have no idea!

I thought Pulp Fiction was stunning - I was literally stunned in admiration. I admit it's a very filmic film - that is, the things about it that appeal to me are the mood, the tension, the deadpan macho dialogue, the superb acting, the distinctive and original direction. The plot is deliberately farcical - it's not meant to be taken that seriously, although thanks to its execution it remains gripping nevertheless. It's as though real people have wandered onto the set of an arthouse film, and all hell breaks loose. It's also a homage to the gangster/crime tradition both on film and TV, so part of the enjoyment is picking up on all the screen references - this is a film that the viewer becomes a part of, like a cinematic parlour game.

God, that all sounds very pretentious, but you did ask!

That's very helpful.

One of the problems I had with it is why you like it. The dialogoue was like what you would hear at the pub. As I have seen very little in the way of gangster/crime films I probably missed out on a lot.

Princess Bride
The Godfather
The Godfather part 2
Pulp Fiction
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Chinatown
The Silence of the Lambs
City of God
The Usual Suspects
The Searchers

I watched The Godfather over the weekend marking the halfway point in my FISO reccommended viewing. It was OK but I cannot see what all the fuss is about. I thought I hadn't folowed it very well but a quick look on wikipedia would suggest that I actually got the plot fine and just was not particually interested/entertained by it. It passed time but I wouldn't bother seeing it again. The best thing about it was it gave me a deeper understanding of The Simpsons, particually when Lisa [spoiler]wakes up next to a horses head[/spoiler].

Many of the films in your list are great, but I have to ask myself about some of them, in what sense? In the sense of film history, and the way certain films and filmmakers have influenced other films and filmmakers then I wouldn't deny that the majority of the films you mention are 'great'. But whether or not an influential film still holds the same power it did 40, 50, 60, 70 years ago, this is something that might not necessarilly be true.

For example, 'Breathless' is an extremely influential film, and was very cutting edge for its time. It's still interesting in a way, but overall I can't say that it's a film that I particularly enjoyed, or was moved by in anyway.

The majority of people who aren't 'film buffs' will struggle to get past the opening 20 minutes I expect. The same could be said about The Battleship Potemkin, or Rashomon, not that the direction and editing in these films isn't excellent and wasn't groundbreaking for it's time.

At least it's how I felt about those two films.

Some very thoughtful comments, McLombardo. I agree that the films you mentioned are generally most interesting for their powerful influence, although I believe the Odessa Steps sequence in Potemkin is still the most powerful example of montage ever filmed. In order to enjoy and fully appreciate the value of these films it is necessary to watch them in the historical context you referred to, something understandably beyond the interest of all but film buffs or film students. That does not make them less great in my view, it just makes their greatness a little more elusive. In addition most of the films on my list, such as The 400 Blows and Bicycle Thieves, are important because they kicked off cinematic trends, like the French New Wave and Italian neorealism, but are also among the best and most moving films ever whether that is considered or not.
To me the mark of an educated person is their acute awareness that their world view was largely formed by the cultural climate in which they were raised and their commitment to reexamining their preconceptions and comparing them to the views of other times and other cultures. Otherwise there is no hope of ever even partially transcending the limits of your own cultural box or time. To fully appreciate Shakespeare, Chaucer, Plato etc., eternal as their thoughts may be, we must grasp the cultural climate in which their work was produced and strive to understand them in that context, as well as for the transcendent value of their ideas. Simply rejecting them because "nobody speaks like that today" or "we know better than that today" is a shallow if not uncommon response. First consider Plato on his own terms, then decide whether time has passed him by. The same of course holds true for films. You have to appreciate the cultural climate in which silent films, classical Hollywood films, post-classic or postmodern films, and foreign language art films are made, to give them their due. I am not saying everyone should bother to do that, but if you don't you will be missing out on some great films and some great stimulation. If you go to movies to escape, or to turn off your brain and be entertained by magnificent spectacle for two hours, ignore this list. If you regard film as a potent art form, which can move us and provoke us and challenge our world views, if you go to a film prepared to work hard and think through the implications of what you have seen, discuss it with your friends and then watch it again (if it's worth it) then try a few on this list or on much better lists by infinitely more knowledgeable people.

A spirited and powerful defence of artistic integrity, Pouzar. Well said.

Indeed.

Princess Bride
The Godfather
The Godfather part 2
Pulp Fiction
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Chinatown
The Silence of the Lambs
City of God
The Usual Suspects
The Searchers



At the moment I am reading a commentary on the gospel of Matthew (Matthew for Everyone by Tom Wright). Matthew was writing his gospel for a Jewish audience and the commentry is helping me to appreciate many apects that would be of great interest to a Jew that I was not aware of before I started reading it. I guess it is similar to films.

So help me out. I've watched part two of The Godfather now. Is someone able to put it is some sort of filmatic context that I am unaware of?

What other sort of audience, in that region, was there when he was writing?

Assorted Gentiles - Romans and Greeks in particular but some Africans and Europeans too. Samaritans. The other gospels ephesize Jesus's international scope.

Godfather 2 seems to have a reputation for being as good as, or even better than, Godfather 1, but in my view it's nowhere near as good as the original. Godfather 1, as well as telling a gripping story with some of the most memorable set-pieces in modern cinema, was groundbreaking because it showed how the toughest gangsters could also be vulnerable, family-loving human beings. (Without Godfather, you'd never have had The Sopranos). But in Godfather 2, which suffered from the absence of Marlon Brando and an over-complicated plot, Michael became more and more sucked into the gangster world and less his own man, and it made for a less interesting film. So IMO the cinematic context of Godfather 2, which is what you asked about, is not that significant.

The Godfather films are really about the corruption of Michael, who goes from being an all-American boy to a bloodless, joyless vampire with vacant eyes, killing people meaninglessly, including his moronic brother, on behalf of 'the family'. Some people say Michael is a symbol of the corruption of America. All the sweet homey stuff about the mafia family is exposed by the end of The Godfather, and is in total tatters by the end of Godfather 2. These are both excellent films, but I prefer the original because it is subtler and technically superior as Billy says. The opening scene of Godfather 2, full of cold, empty, Vegas entertainment with corrupt politicians, tango dancers and no Italian music at the baptism of Michael's son, makes a wonderful comparison to Connie's warm family wedding, radiant with loving immigrant touches, that opens The Godfather. Just in case we missed the hot vs cold comparison we later see Vegas covered with snow, a tad on the unusual side I would say. By the end of Godfather 2 we can surely see what a load of bodies and blood 'the family' is built on. The less said about Godfather 3 the better. I choose to believe that the body of Francis Ford Coppola was taken over by space aliens with absolutely no taste of judgment.
One more comment Billy. The Sopranos derives far more directly from Goodfellas than from the Godfather films. They are both a direct exposure of how cheap and tasteless mafia life really is, apart from all that blood in your beer. Blood-soaked money and power without brains isn't really very appealing. It's not that big a jump from Henry and Karen Hill to Tony and Carmela Soprano. I can't make up my mind whether Goodfellas or The Godfather is a better film.

That's a good thing isn't it? (As long as it's not the pub bore or local halfwit). It's reasonably rare to have dialogue that actually sounds like actual people actually having a real conversation rather than just actors saying stuff from a script.

There's nothing more off-putting than someone spouting some predictable movie cliches before the opening credits have even finished. Sometimes I find myself thinking the lines in my head before the actors have even said them like I do with punchlines in a rubbish sitcom.

Nearly as bad as that is the kind of dialogue that's there purely to advance the plot or give us some information. Eg.

man1: So how's the first week of your retirement going brov?

man2: Good. I'll be a happy man if I never see the inside of a classroom again. I hope I don't get under Pam's feet too much or we could both end up divorced this year. Ha ha ha

man1: ha ha ha.

It's a boring conversation but they've crammed in a load of details we need to know. The two men are brothers, man1 has recently retired from a teaching job he didn't like, he's married to Pam, man2 has recently got divorced. All that in a few seconds but it's such a laboured and generally rubbish exchange they may as well just put the words up on screen with arrows pointing 'this bloke has just retired' etc.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this but basically I liked the dialogue in Pulp Fiction. Often the dialogue in films is rubbish.

p.s if anyone is currently writing a tedious drama about a recently retired teacher and his brother feel free to use my scene

Pouzar - that's a good list

Whatever - words fail me

I watched The Lives of Others again last night on BBC4 - a fantastic film which gets better with repeated viewings.

There are a few films which haven't got a mention yet ........................

Infernal Affairs ( on which The Departed is based)
Oldboy (korean tale of revenge )
Moon
The Pianist (Adrien Brody is superb in this)
House of Games
Das Boot
Once Upon a Time in the West ( the best western)
Cinema Paradiso
Jean De Florette/Manon Des Sources
Grosse Point Blank
Withnail & I
Broadway Danny Rose

Have you had a chance to see Enemy At The Gates yet?

Not yet.

I watched Goodfellas the other day. I thought this was a much better film than the two Godfathers. Maybe I just cannot get into the head of a gangster so I need a narrated film to get the gangster genre such as Goodfellas or City of God.

Yes!



Yes! Yes! Yes! Its a big statement to say its 1 of the top 100 films of all time or anything, but its definately the most satisifed i've come out of the cinema in recent years and will no doubt stand up to the test of time in the future.



You obviously haven't seen 'The Good, The bad, the Weird'! (more Korean genius)

I watched Enemy At The Gates the other evening. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The charaters were engageing enough to keep me interested even though it was obvious what the outcomes of the film would be from an early stage. Would have prefered it to have been in Russian and German with English subtitles. Would have prefered it without Bob Hoskins. I just can't take him seriously!

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I know what you mean about Bob Hoskins. I get the same thing whenever I see Cuba Gooding Jr and Ashton Kutcher in a film!

Whtaever must be in I.T. and over 35.

I'm in IT but I'm not over 35

Don`t knock Bob Hoskins. Have you seen The Long Good Friday or Mona Lisa? He`s brilliant in both.

I'm not saying he's bad. I just keep thinking he going to say "It's good to talk!"

Princess Bride
The Godfather
The Godfather part 2
Pulp Fiction
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Chinatown
The Silence of the Lambs
City of God
The Usual Suspects
The Searchers

I liked Chinatown. I found it a very enjoyable film noir. I particually liked the way everything was being told from Jack Nicholson's point of view so we were becoming aware of things at the same time he was and shared in his attempts to piece together the evidence.



Could someone put it in context for me?

Princess Bride
The Godfather
The Godfather part 2
Pulp Fiction
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Chinatown
The Silence of the Lambs
City of God
The Usual Suspects
The Searchers

One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. It was OK I suppose. Interesting in parts. Some good plot twists and turns. Felt a bit disjointed to me but maybe that's the idea. Two to go....

Saw the former a few days ago funnily enough. Enjoyed it (was expecting it to be set in America so pleasantly surprised it was London).

Agree re Bob Hoskins though - I just don't like the guy. Nowhere near enough screen presence to carry off the role he played in my opinion. Hardly a Pacino or Brando is he...

Barry will be dissapointed that Stand By Me has had to drop out of my top 100 films to fit The A-Team in.

I went to see The Last Airbender last night and I think it's the first time I've seen an M. Night Shyamalan film and not put in into my top 100. It's just as well I engaged with the premise and storyline so much as that meant I could still enjoy it despite the bad script and acting.

Are you sure you're not related to M. Night Shymalan

A quick summary of the great director's works;

The Sixth Sense admittedly a great twist (albeit slightly obvious) but once you know what it is this movie is a real snooze fest.

Unbreakable the only truly great movie he's ever made & he still manages to fluff the ending (the twist deserved a little bit more than a simple 'it was me').

Signs the cracks are beginning to show, a very decent movie until the last ten minutes or so (aliens invade a planet covered in a substance that can kill them ).

The Village his biggest failure, first half is great but the second half (including the offensive twist) makes you angry that you bothered investing time in the first half of the movie.

Lady In The Water generally reviled but I actually thought this was okay, but maybe it seemed okay because it wasn't anywhere near as bad as 'The Village'.

The Happening he's finally lost the plot , so bad it's almost good with a stunningly awful performance from Mark Wahlberg .

I haven't seen 'The Last Airbender' (& have no intention to do so) but as it's managed to achieve a score of 4.3 on IMDb I'm a little surprised that it hasn't made it into your top 100 ...