Best movie ever-a poll for people who know the first thing about movies

[Dracula]

I'm doing this thred as a protest to a lesser run poll thred, I think my options better cover the full spectrum of truly great movies. If you have any issues with the list of nod.s I have up there other then it's LOTRlessness feel free to say it.

[Rogue Program]

I don't think either one of you is right. He put too few movies before 1980 and you've only put like 2 movies from the last 20 years. Put both of these lists together and then you'll have something;) .

[freakyplatypus]

Maybe we should use the title:
"Best Movie Ever in Your Opinion of The Selected Titles"

This poll has much better selections, kudos.

[Mr.Matinee]

I've actually seen and enjoyed most of These..I say Apocalypse Now.

[krazy_marco74]

i haven't seen much of those movies, my choice is Pulp Fiction

[LordofKings]

LOTR, though its not up there;)

surprised gone with the wind and wizard of oz isnt up there.

so only old movies that old critics of the so called "golden years" are good enough to be up there. (except a few)

ROTK won 11 nominations, but it doesn't deserve to be up there, no, that would be wrong, its not a masterpiece, no, it can't be, because it has special effects and made lots of money

i have't even heard of some of those. love the godfather flicks, some of my fav, as is jaws. pup fiction is OK to me

people complain that LOTR was too long, but CK was nearly just as long (it was 3 hours right) and GOD was it boring and horrible

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by krazy_marco74
i haven't seen much of those movies, my choice is Pulp Fiction

i haven't seen most of them, and i haven't even heard of several of them, and i was in a 5 month film class where all we did was watch "old classics".

[Vincenzo]

YAY...Citizen Kane, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 2001, these are actulally GOOD movies. Hell, they are the BEST. Thank god you smacked some sense back into the people on CS!.

-Vincenzo

[Rogue Program]

Schindler's List not being on either of these lists is a disgrace. And if you're going to include Hitchcock at least include one of either Rear Window or Psycho.

[LordofKings]

its all about opinions. these are only the greatest films IN HIS VIEWS

[freakyplatypus]

Originally posted by LordofKings
ROTK won 11 nominations, but it doesn't deserve to be up there, no, that would be wrong, its not a masterpiece, no, it can't be, because it has special effects and made lots of money

Many of the movies listed above won many, many awards, made lots of money, and made breakthrough advancements in the SFX area. Have you seen 2001? I'm more impressed with the SFX there than any LOTR film.

I think the reason films from the last few years aren't on there is because movies are now being made only to generate profit - they are created with only the audience in mind. You have to respect those like Kubrick and Welles that broke out of the ordinary with new ways of film-making and doing very un-mainstream things. They weren't in it for the profit--- they only wanted to please themselves, and achieve their vision. Few directors like this exist today, but there are the few (such as Tarantino) that care not about feeding the public what they want, but make their movies for themselves.

God bless them.

[Vincenzo]

Actually, as I look at the poll I noticed that Citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia have gotten no votes. Those have both been rated the best movie ever made by most critics. I mean Pulp Fiction is GREAT!!! But does it REALLY compare to Lawrence of Arabia.

-Vincenzo

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by freakyplatypus
Many of the movies listed above won many, many awards, made lots of money, and made breakthrough advancements in the SFX area. Have you seen 2001? I'm more impressed with the SFX there than any LOTR film.

I think the reason films from the last few years aren't on there is because movies are now being made only to generate profit - they are created with only the audience in mind. You have to respect those like Kubrick and Welles that broke out of the ordinary with new ways of film-making and doing very un-mainstream things. They weren't in it for the profit--- they only wanted to please themselves, and achieve their vision. Few directors like this exist today, but there are the few (such as Tarantino) that care not about feeding the public what they want, but make their movies for themselves.

God bless them.

Ummm...movies have always been made for money. sorry. and more art and work and heart goes into MANY FILMS today, not all, but films like LOTR, and Gladiator and Forest Gump (which should be on the DAMN LIST, as well as The Shawshank(sp) Redemption)

and better EFFECTS then LOTR? are you crazy? and how many movies up there on that list sweept the awards, with 11 OSCARS??????????????????

[Rogue Program]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
Actually, as I look at the poll I noticed that Citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia have gotten no votes. Those have both been rated the best movie ever made by most critics. I mean Pulp Fiction is GREAT!!! But does it REALLY compare to Lawrence of Arabia.

-Vincenzo
Yes, yes it does.

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
Actually, as I look at the poll I noticed that Citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia have gotten no votes. Those have both been rated the best movie ever made by most critics. I mean Pulp Fiction is GREAT!!! But does it REALLY compare to Lawrence of Arabia.

-Vincenzo

What old critics think means nothing. so what they voted it the best, MOST OTHERS have never seen these films (i have seen CK).

im curious that in about 50 years, what the old critics (critics of today) will think and rate the best movie (prob will be LOTR, its just prob will happen) and i wonder if many of those films on that list will be disregarded. who knows what people will think in the future

critics who voted these best of all time like these films because they grew up during them (or around that time)

[Vincenzo]

Well Lord of Kings, LOTR may have had better special effects than 2001 in todays standards, but back then it was mind blowing. LOTR uses SFX that has already been accomplished by other movies, but what is better? Making a breakthrough in the world of SFX, or just making a LITTLE bit better what movies like the Matrix have already done.

-Vincenzo

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
Well Lord of Kings, LOTR may have had better special effects than 2001 in todays standards, but back then it was mind blowing. LOTR uses SFX that has already been accomplished by other movies, but what is better? Making a breakthrough in the world of SFX, or just making a LITTLE bit better what movies like the Matrix have already done.

-Vincenzo

what year did 2001 come out? im curious. and you wouldn't call MASSIVE breakthough???/MASSIVE was created for LOTR if you didn't know. LOTR was breakthrough in many fields. and the special effects weren't the only thing GREAT about LOTR

[Vincenzo]

Well LordofKings, that is ctually a good point, but its not what I meant. I meant that in GENERAL it has been rated the best movie of all time and not becuase people grew up with it, that has nothing to do with it. I am 14 and I consider it the best of all time, but I did not grow up with it. With a move like that, it is passed down, it has nothing to do with, "Well I didnt grow up with it so it is not as good."

-Vincenzo

[LordofKings]

why isn't the ORG STAR WARS on the list???

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
Well LordofKings, that is ctually a good point, but its not what I meant. I meant that in GENERAL it has been rated the best movie of all time and not becuase people grew up with it, that has nothing to do with it. I am 14 and I consider it the best of all time, but I did not grow up with it. With a move like that, it is passed down, it has nothing to do with, "Well I didnt grow up with it so it is not as good."

-Vincenzo

I understand you completely.

Man im making many enemies today, good thing none of you are mods

[freakyplatypus]

Originally posted by LordofKings
What old critics think means nothing. so what they voted it the best, MOST OTHERS have never seen these films (i have seen CK).

im curious that in about 50 years, what the old critics (critics of today) will think and rate the best movie (prob will be LOTR, its just prob will happen) and i wonder if many of those films on that list will be disregarded. who knows what people will think in the future

critics who voted these best of all time like these films because they grew up during them (or around that time)

I wish I had that quote from Robert Ebert, the one about people never experiencing the joys of Welles and ect... I would totally use it to serve you.

Sorry to say it, but critics aren't as close minded as all the rabid LOTR fans out right now, and will still be considering Citizen Kane, Clockwork Orange, and Casablanca great films - no matter how old it gets.

People still applaud the genius of Bach and Beetoven, and they'll still be 50 years from now. Will they be talking about the musical genius of Hillary Duff and Simple Plan 50 years from now, simply because of the fact that it's popular now, and has sold a few here and there? No! Of course not! Wine gets better as it ages.

[Vincenzo]

PERFECT WAY TO PUT IT IN WORDS FREAKY!!!! I wanna see Lord respond to that one.

-Vincenzo

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by freakyplatypus
I wish I had that quote from Robert Ebert, the one about people never experiencing the joys of Welles and ect... I would totally use it to serve you.

Sorry to say it, but critics aren't as close minded as all the rabid LOTR fans out right now, and will still be considering Citizen Kane, Clockwork Orange, and Casablanca great films - no matter how old it gets.

People still applaud the genius of Bach and Beetoven, and they'll still be 50 years from now. Will they be talking about the musical genius of Hillary Duff and Simple Plan 50 years from now, simply because of the fact that it's popular now, and has sold a few here and there? No! Of course not! Wine gets better as it ages.

That quote won't serve me, and i think i know what your talking about. i have seen Wells and ect... films and there NOT JOYS (IMO)

IM not close minded, i watch these films with open minds, i simply don't like most of them. your close minded if you think my opinions of these old films is wrong...

and to your music analogy, hillary duff and others may be popular, but not like LOTR is. you won't see duff winning grammy's

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
PERFECT WAY TO PUT IT IN WORDS FREAKY!!!! I wanna see Lord respond to that one.

-Vincenzo

well i just did...;)

[gnarley]

Jaws, I haven't seen every movie listed but of the ones I have seen, it's my favourite.

[LordofKings]

WHERES STAR WARS (ORG) FOREST GUMP, LOTR TRILOGY, SHAWSHANK (SP) REDEMPTION and others i can't think of now.

tell me FOREST GUMP isn't a "GOOD MOVIE" good enough for this list

[Vincenzo]

Jaws was good, gnarley, in my opinion not the best...but good.

-Vincenzo

[Warren]

I'm not going to vote on this poll. The question is BEST movie ever. Nobody knows the answer to that question.

People can have favourites, but there is no #1 best movie ever.

[LordofKings]

Like i said, its all opinions, but i seem to be hated for my opinions

its so funny

[Rogue Program]

Lord of the Rings isn't just a fanboys movie trilogy. It has been recognized by critics and fans alike as one of the greatest achievements in cinema history and will no doubt be mentioned in the same breath as Casablanca, 2001, Citizen Kane etc... in the future.

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Warren
I'm not going to vote on this poll. The question is BEST movie ever. Nobody knows the answer to that question.

People can have favourites, but there is no #1 best movie ever.

:applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

[Vincenzo]

No Forrest Gump is a great movie, but I mean c'mon, its hard to compile a list of the best movies of all time in the short amount of time that Dracula did.

-Vincenzo

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Rogue Program
Lord of the Rings isn't just a fanboys movie trilogy. It has been recognized by critics and fans alike as one of the greatest achievements in cinema history and will no doubt be mentioned in the same breath as Casablanca, 2001, Citizen Kane etc... in the future.

*goes to run over to ROGUE*

finally a FRIEND!!!!! thankyou, for a moment there, i thought i was going to lose this fight, it was me against like ten...

[freakyplatypus]

Originally posted by Warren
I'm not going to vote on this poll. The question is BEST movie ever. Nobody knows the answer to that question.

People can have favourites, but there is no #1 best movie ever.

Like I said before, we should instead name these types of threads:
"Best Movie Ever in Your Opinion of The Selected Titles"

And no, Lord of Kings, you're not hated for your opinions. I don't hate some one just because my opinions cross theirs. I'm just simply defending my beliefs...

[Vincenzo]

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT LORD OF THE RINGS IS A BAD MOVIE!!!!! JESUS!!!!

-Vincenzo

[Warren]

Dracula didn't put LOTR on the list probably because he knew it would win. It's so f**king popular here that better movies wouldn't stand a chance.

I think he likes LOTR, but he's just sick of it.

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
No Forrest Gump is a great movie, but I mean c'mon, its hard to compile a list of the best movies of all time in the short amount of time that Dracula did.

-Vincenzo

Huh? i didn't understand. you mean FG can't be on the list because its too recent? if so how can pulp fiction be on there?

and how is this poll created? shouldn't you take into account:
1) success (box office, acadamy awards - some of those films weren't even win oscars)
2) entertainment value
3) test of time - it only takes a few years to pass this test IMO


By the way, my brothers name is vincent...your italian right? so am i...

[Vincenzo]

What the hell LORD, This is not a fight it is a debate.
I am not attacking your beliefs I am just defending mine.

-Vincenzo

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by freakyplatypus
Like I said before, we should instead name these types of threads:
"Best Movie Ever in Your Opinion of The Selected Titles"

And no, Lord of Kings, you're not hated for your opinions. I don't hate some one just because my opinions cross theirs. I'm just simply defending my beliefs...

ok, well others i think hate me... dont care though LOL

[Warren]

Originally posted by LordofKings
and how is this poll created? shouldn't you take into account:
1) success (box office, acadamy awards - some of those films weren't even win oscars)
2) entertainment value
3) test of time - it only takes a few years to pass this test IMO


I believe these are Dracula's favourite movies.

[Vincenzo]

Dude you getting me all wrong here. I am not talking about recnt, I am just saying that Dracula put together this list pretty fast and it is easy to leave out some movies. Believe me, and yes I am.

-Vincenzo

[Boro]

the big lewbowski takes my vote.

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
What the hell LORD, This is not a fight it is a debate.
I am not attacking your beliefs I am just defending mine.

-Vincenzo

why so angry.

im also defending my beliefs.

who said this was a fight...you did...im in as frizzo puts it " a discussion"

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Warren
I believe these are Dracula's favourite movies.

yeah, but shouldn't you take these things into account if you want to make a legit fav list, but like freaky said, you can't.

but if you want to make a legit best movie list, you should not disregard any film (any year it was made) and take everything into account

[freakyplatypus]

This list was compiled good.
Pretty much all of them are found here:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/

Plently of recents, plently of classics...

Yet no Forrest Gump. No LOTR.

So that means you'll probably discard it, then, aye?

[Vincenzo]

You just said you werent going to win this "fight" like 5 minutes ago.

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
You just said you werent going to win this "fight" like 5 minutes ago.

who's this to?

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by freakyplatypus
This list was compiled good.
Pretty much all of them are found here:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/

Plently of recents, plently of classics...

Yet no Forrest Gump. No LOTR.

So that means you'll probably discard it, then, aye?

im open minded. i won't disregard it. but yes, i tend to not agree with critics and these type of lists, but hey, we have are own opinions

[werebadger]

I really can't believe that people are still talking about the Lord of the Rings, its over everyone, they are done. 10 hours of boredom is all I got from them, and they can't compare with the brilliance of Citizen Kane or 2001, its just not possible.

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by werebadger
I really can't believe that people are still talking about the Lord of the Rings, its over everyone, they are done. 10 hours of boredom is all I got from them, and they can't compare with the brilliance of Citizen Kane or 2001, its just not possible.

are people still talking about Citizen Kane. Its over everyone. 3 Hours of boredom is all i got from it, and they can't compare to the brilliance of LOTR, its just not possible


OPINIONS OPINIONS OPINIONS thats all it is

[Tornado]

Originally posted by werebadger
I really can't believe that people are still talking about the Lord of the Rings, its over everyone, they are done. 10 hours of boredom is all I got from them, and they can't compare with the brilliance of Citizen Kane or 2001, its just not possible.

All right, so LOTR are done, fine. But don't bring up Citizen Kane or 2001 then, seeing as how they were both done before I was even born. LOTR will be talked about for generations until it is inevitably remade with a poor cast and a poor director . . .

[zamphir66]

Forrest Gump swept the Oscars, beating Pulp Fiction to a 'pulp.' But which, in my opinion, is the better film? No contest: PF. Don't get me wrong, I like Gump, but I think there's just a whole lot more going on in PF. I mean, people have mythologized this film in a way that few movies have been.

Whenever I see John Travolta walking through Jack Rabbit Slim's, it gives me chills. That was so awesome.

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Tornado
All right, so LOTR are done, fine. But don't bring up Citizen Kane or 2001 then, seeing as how they were both done before I was even born. LOTR will be talked about for generations until it is inevitably remade with a poor cast and a poor director . . .

together again, Tornodo. Were really outnumbered here. We may not see the end

*prepares for vicious replys*

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by zamphir66
Forrest Gump swept the Oscars, beating Pulp Fiction to a 'pulp.' But which, in my opinion, is the better film? No contest: PF. Don't get me wrong, I like Gump, but I think there's just a whole lot more going on in PF. I mean, people have mythologized this film in a way that few movies have been.

Whenever I see John Travolta walking through Jack Rabbit Slim's, it gives me chills. That was so awesome.

ok, and i see FG as a far better film. DIFFERENCE IN OPINIONS, thats all it is, and thats all good

[Tornado]

Originally posted by LordofKings
together again, Tornodo. Were really outnumbered here. We may not see the end

*prepares for vicious replys*

Ehh, it's all good . . .

*goes into the opinion-bashing defense pose*

[Tornado]

Originally posted by LordofKings
ok, and i see FG as a far better film. DIFFERENCE IN OPINIONS, thats all it is, and thats all good

Yeah, if we all had the same opinions it'd be one hell of a boring world . . .

[Mr.Matinee]

LoK,I'm going to agree with you on the fact that Citizen Kane is a little dull...Oh,I'm just curious(I have an idea)-what do you look for in a good movie?

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Mr.Matinee
LoK,I'm going to agree with you on the fact that Citizen Kane is a little dull...Oh,I'm just curious(I have an idea)-what do you look for in a good movie?

fair question:

1) entertainment above all else (im not wealthy and i can't spend money on something boring)
2) good acting
3) good story that holds my interest (and with consistency and no plot holes, or little plot holes because most movies have them)
4) i love visuals. so a movie with good camera work (and also i look for camera angels that have meaning like low angels and other shots)
5) hmmm...i can't think right now, umm...entertainment again, and SCORE (love music in a film)
6) i love for movie to have EMOTION - that can almost make a man cry if you know what i mean. I love deep and emotional stories (yes, love stories i like)

if i think of more ill let you know

same question to you that you asked me...

[zamphir66]

I think older movies sometimes seem dull to us today b/c life moves at a much faster pace. I mean, pop in a CD by any popular musician and you get a dozen or so 4-minute pop diddies. But pop in some Bach or Beethoven, and you have something entirely different.

Point is, the fast pace of modern TV and living in general has made us all very impatient. Example: I was watching PF a while back with a friend of mine. She liked the parts where people got hurt of killed, or were doing drugs. She got bored when it was just talking. I think the dialogue is the best part of the film! But this isn't the cast with just PF, almost any movie I watch with my friends better not have too much talking or they'll get really bored and say "this is so boring i wanna play video games." grrr.....

[freakyplatypus]

Originally posted by LordofKings
are people still talking about Citizen Kane. Its over everyone. 3 Hours of boredom is all i got from it, and they can't compare to the brilliance of LOTR, its just not possible


C'mon. You're on a movie forum.
And you diss the father of movies.
You don't go into a christian forum and bash Jesus, no?

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by zamphir66
I think older movies sometimes seem dull to us today b/c life moves at a much faster pace. I mean, pop in a CD by any popular musician and you get a dozen or so 4-minute pop diddies. But pop in some Bach or Beethoven, and you have something entirely different.

Point is, the fast pace of modern TV and living in general has made us all very impatient. Example: I was watching PF a while back with a friend of mine. She liked the parts where people got hurt of killed, or were doing drugs. She got bored when it was just talking. I think the dialogue is the best part of the film! But this isn't the cast with just PF, almost any movie I watch with my friends better not have too much talking or they'll get really bored and say "this is so boring i wanna play video games." grrr.....

I agree with you, escpecially about dialogue. LOTR is what many call "Boring" so it fits in with that catagory. My brother can't sit through it...and i know many who can't as well

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by freakyplatypus
C'mon. You're on a movie forum.
And you diss the father of movies.
You don't go into a christian forum and bash Jesus, no?

well i don't really believe in Jesus anymore...sooooo...

and yes im dissing CK, because i don't like it. Is it a LAW that to be in a movie forum i HAVE TO LIKE CK?????? so what if critics think its the BEST FILM OF ALL TIME...TO ME IT SUCKS........BORING!!!!!!!! (directed well, yes, entertaining, and good story...NO!!!!!)

[XscreamXshoutX]

LOTR is only boring if you dont understand it...if you diss LOTR...your just being dumb....IMO you dont know what a "good" movie is if you diss LOTR...

[LordofKings]

another friend..

*waves to scream*

i must warn you...there out for blodd here

[zamphir66]

I need blodd to live, mmmm

[XscreamXshoutX]

So i have read....ooo and Citizen Cane IS NOT the father of films. The father of films goes furter back than Citizen Cane...try a Chapplen flick such as THE GREAT DICTATOR...now thats what I consider father of films...the movies in the poll are only babies...

[LordofKings]

Very well put Scream....

i saw a few silent films, not my cup of tea...but funny....

[zamphir66]

what about "Birth of a Nation" or "The Jazz Singer"? Hell, I don't know what film deserves to be called the "father" of films, but I do know that CK is in that family fer shure.

[freakyplatypus]

Originally posted by XscreamXshoutX
So i have read....ooo and Citizen Cane IS NOT the father of films. The father of films goes furter back than Citizen Cane...try a Chapplen flick such as THE GREAT DICTATOR...now thats what I consider father of films...the movies in the poll are only babies...

I wasn't being literal. Just needed a quick word to complete my metaphor. I didn't mean that CK set the foundation for films, just saying that it is an important brick, for sure.

[LordofKings]

the title of this thread is all wrong. I mean saying that you have to like the films on that poll to know the first thing about movies is just close minded and ignorant and what i mean about what we are made to think....

[XscreamXshoutX]

umum...

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by freakyplatypus
I wasn't being literal. Just needed a quick word to complete my metaphor. I didn't mean that CK set the foundation for films, just saying that it is an important brick, for sure.

says whom??? many critics yes. There were plenty of films before it that did what it did. I have seen it and can't see what puts it in that catagory.

if you can explain your opinion on how CK is an important brick that would help my views...(see, who said im close minded)

[Mr.Matinee]

Hey LoK-I'm looking four for things in movies...(In no paticular order)
1.Good Visuals
2.Good acting
3.Good story
4.entertainment value

And after reading your list,I think you may want to check out 2001:ASO,if you haven't already. Good story,great score,and strong visuals(especially the last 20 minutes).

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Mr.Matinee
Hey LoK-I'm looking four for things in movies...(In no paticular order)
1.Good Visuals
2.Good acting
3.Good story
4.entertainment value

And after reading your list,I think you may want to check out 2001:ASO,if you haven't already. Good story,great score,and strong visuals(especially the last 20 minutes).

i will do that

i saw the beginning, and thats it. I will check it out though...ill give you feed back in a few days on my thoughts on it

hey me and you have similar style in how we grade and judge films

[XscreamXshoutX]

2.Good Acting...


Thats very important to me...#1 on my list.....

[Brock Landers]

A Clockwork Orange

[Mr.Matinee]

Originally posted by LordofKings
i will do that

i saw the beginning, and thats it. I will check it out though...ill give you feed back in a few days on my thoughts on it

hey me and you have similar style in how we grade and judge films
Hope you like it.And we do seem to agree.Except ,while I enjoyed Lord of the Rings,I've lately needed a break..if you know what I'm saying...

[Scythe]

Ya know, I never got into Blade Runner, whys that movie so popular? I tried seeing it for the first time last year and didnt finish watchign it, watched about an hour or so of it.

[poeman]

i think godfather is dear to me, but once upon a time in the west looks all alone and that is sure to be the top in my list!

[Brock Landers]

Even though I voted Clockwork Orange, "Pulp Fiction" is a veeery close second to me out of the ones on the list. Then "Dr. Strangelove"....

[zamphir66]

Maybe someone can give more detail to this than I can, but I remember something like this from class. All of the things we expect in a film today: the structure, the camera angles, the pacing, all the things we take for granted: CK set the standards for a whole lot of these elements. example: A 2000 chevy cavalier is a car. anyone can recognize that. A ford model T is technically a car, but most would consider it an antique, not something you would drive. Kane is about as far back as one can go and say: 'that's a movie', whereas silent films, shorts, and afternoon serials would not seem like cinema to our eyes. Again, if I'm missing the target here, please jump in.

[CoanBread751]

Ehh I think THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD set a lot of standards. Didnt it come out before Citizen Kane?

[zamphir66]

with Kevin Costner? nah, that was in the 80's.

[dustindame]

Originally posted by Dracula
I'm doing this thred as a protest to a lesser run poll thred, I think my options better cover the full spectrum of truly great movies. If you have any issues with the list of nod.s I have up there other then it's LOTRlessness feel free to say it.

I am glad that you could choose all the movies that you alone felt should be up there, although i am not saying it is a bad list but it is not something that everyone would feel is fair.

[dustindame]

Holy Crap Pulp Fiction is winning(wasnt that on my list)

[Boro]

where is esb and raiders?

anyways i voted the godfather

[Vincenzo]

Well, this is pretty damn crazy. There areso any opinions flying around that I dont know what to go with. Zamphir, you came up with a great point. Now Citizen Kane is a great movie, 2001 is a great movie, LOTR is a great movie, but how can you compare a political drama, a science fiction and a fantasy movie. I mean, you just cant. It is like saying, is a documentary, chick flick or action movie the better genre. CK and LOTR are both GREAT movies, but I dont think we should get into a fight saying which one s better.

-Vincenzo

[dustindame]

I dont want to get in a fight about whose poll is better. You deal with yours and i will deal with mine i think we just have two completly different groups of people and what they like. So dont go on mine and tell everyone that they dont know what they are talking about because those are their opinions.

[Boro]

wheres the big lewbowski?

[Citizen Kane]

People who know things about movies know that there's no way to make a poll like this that is legitimate in any way...First off, it suggests that films from other countries are all but nonexistent.

[Necross]

Exactly, check out my thread, its not a poll, you post what you think because your choices should not be limited to what other people think. Don't you agree Dracula?

[gnarley]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
Jaws was good, gnarley, in my opinion not the best...but good.

-Vincenzo

Well, I think Jaws is a great movie. It's not just a monster(shark) movie but also a wonderful character movie as well. Scheider, Dreyfuss and Shaw were so perfect together especially in the 3rd act. Wow! Just about eveything about it seemed flawless, from the story, casting, direction, to the music and editing.

It may not be the greatest movie ever made but from what's on the list that I've seen, it's my choice. What's "best" is subjective to the tastes of the individual, in this case me. I may have trouble differenciating between "favourite" and "best" but it makes no difference to me, it's the same thing. In actuality, the best movie to me would probably be Star Wars (A New Hope) or Empire Strikes Back.

[André]

Originally posted by Dracula
I'm doing this thred as a protest to a lesser run poll thred, I think my options better cover the full spectrum of truly great movies. If you have any issues with the list of nod.s I have up there other then it's LOTRlessness feel free to say it.

Yes, you are right, oh high lord of the movies dracula, everyone else who hasnt got the same opinion as you are wrong. Only you can truly be right. My master...

[Dracula]

Originally posted by Necross
Exactly, check out my thread, its not a poll, you post what you think because your choices should not be limited to what other people think. Don't you agree Dracula?

I do agree, remember I just started this thin in protest of that other dudes poll

[Dracula]

Originally posted by LordofKings

people complain that LOTR was too long, but CK was nearly just as long (it was 3 hours right) and GOD was it boring and horrible

It was 119 minutes dumbass. I think it's pretty ovious that you never evan saw it. Next your going to try to excuse your stupidity by saying it felt like 3 hours aren't you. Bull****.

P.S. thats beyond the point, becaus LOTR's length has absolutely nothing to do with why the 90th best movie is not on there.

[Dracula]

Originally posted by freakyplatypus
I wish I had that quote from Robert Ebert, the one about people never experiencing the joys of Welles and ect... I would totally use it to serve you.


It go's:
"We have completed the first century of film. Too many moviegoers are stuck in the present and recent past. When people tell me that "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" or "Total Recall" are their favorite films, I wonder: Have they tasted the joys of Welles, Bunuel, Ford, Murnau, Keaton, Hitchcock, Wilder or Kurosawa? If they like Ferris Bueller, what would they think of Jacques Tati's "Mr. Hulot's Holiday," also about a strange day of misadventures? If they like "Total Recall," have they seen Fritz Lang's "Metropolis," also about an artificial city ruled by fear?

I ask not because I am a film snob. I like to sit in the dark and enjoy movies. I think of old films as a resource of treasures. Movies have been made for 100 years, in color and black and white, in sound and silence, in wide-screen and the classic frame, in English and every other language. To limit yourself to popular hits and recent years is like being Ferris Bueller but staying home all day.

I believe we are born with our minds open to wonderful experiences, and only slowly learn to limit ourselves to narrow tastes. We are taught to lose our curiosity by the bludgeon-blows of mass marketing, which brainwash us to see "hits," and discourage exploration.

I know that many people dislike subtitled films, and that few people reading this article will have ever seen a film from Iran, for example. And yet a few weeks ago at my Overlooked Film Festival at the University of Illinois, the free kiddie matinee was "Children of Heaven," from Iran. It was a story about a boy who loses his sister's sneakers through no fault of his own, and is afraid to tell his parents. So he and his sister secretly share the same pair of shoes. Then he learns of a footrace where third prize is . . . a pair of sneakers.

"Anyone who can read at the third-grade level can read these subtitles," I told the audience of 1,000 kids and some parents. "If you can't, it's OK for your parents or older kids to read them aloud--just not too loudly."

The lights went down and the movie began. I expected a lot of reading aloud. There was none. Not all of the kids were old enough to read, but apparently they were picking up the story just by watching and using their intelligence. The audience was spellbound. No noise, restlessness, punching, kicking, running down the aisles. Just eyes lifted up to a fascinating story. Afterward, we asked kids up on the stage to ask questions or talk about the film. What they said indicated how involved they had become.

Kids. And yet most adults will not go to a movie from Iran, Japan, France or Brazil. They will, however, go to any movie that has been plugged with a $30 million ad campaign and sanctified as a "box-office winner." Yes, some of these big hits are good, and a few of them are great. But what happens between the time we are 8 and the time we are 20 that robs us of our curiosity? What turns movie lovers into consumers? What does it say about you if you only want to see what everybody else is seeing?

I don't know. What I do know is that if you love horror movies, your life as a filmgoer is not complete until you see "Nosferatu." I know that once you see Orson Welles appear in the doorway in "The Third Man," you will never forget his curious little smile. And that the life and death of the old man in "Ikiru" will be an inspiration every time you remember it."

[Frizzo the Clown]

My favorite movie was on both lists, so no complaints from me.

[CoanBread751]

with Kevin Costner? nah, that was in the 80's.

No dude that was the 90's. Im talking about the original ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. Came out in the 30's Im pretty sure

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Dracula
It was 119 minutes dumbass. I think it's pretty ovious that you never evan saw it. Next your going to try to excuse your stupidity by saying it felt like 3 hours aren't you. Bull****.

P.S. thats beyond the point, becaus LOTR's length has absolutely nothing to do with why the 90th best movie is not on there.

Jeez it sure did feel that long. and yes i saw it. That reply i made was a reply to someone's post, and i just changed LOTR with CK. I coud report you to the mods for calling me a dumbass but frankly who cares.

your title of this stupid thread says you don't know the first thing about movies unless you liek your list, which is an arrogant and ignorant remark.

why's LOTR length beyond the point. again, i mentioned the length as a reply to another users post. READ AGAIN....and its length does hurt it to SOME VIEWERS (like my brother) so its NOT BEYOND THE POINT...your opinion that LOTR is the 90th best movie is beyond the point. hey how many of YOUR FAV FILMS on that list won 11 oscars. how many oscars did the LOTR TRIOGY WIN? didn't it win more then the GODFATHER? what do you take into account when you make your OPINIONS LIST? but LOTR isn't great, no, it only won like 20 oscars, nominated for BP all 3 F**KING YEARS, but it doesn't deserve to be up there with films that MOST PEOPLE HAVE NEVER SEEN

[Boods]

i admit my fav movie of all time is the LOTR trilogy but my favorite of this list is definitely Lawrence of Arabia...there are 3 or 4 movies i didnt see on this list..

[DavidGale]

I picked Blade Runner.

[flukeman]

I'm just going to jump into the fray and wonder why this huge rift has suddenly developed between LOTR and apparently all other movies. I really don't get it. I don't understand the people who love all the old classics and feel the need to hate on LOTR, and I don't understand the people who think LOTR is the end-all be-all movie experience. I absolutely love LOTR, I personally find the story and the characters compelling, and I get sucked into the world it creates, but that doesn't mean it's the greatest thing ever. But on the other side, a lot of other films are not as great as LOTR. I mean, why is LOTR the thing that people feel the need to bash into the ground? It's a wonderful film(s) that sits up there with many other wonderful films. Can't we all just get along?

And for the poll, I voted Jaws. I love the characters and how the story plays out, and the artful direction. One of my all-time favorites.

[adt100]

Originally posted by Rogue Program
Schindler's List not being on either of these lists is a disgrace. And if you're going to include Hitchcock at least include one of either Rear Window or Psycho.

Agreed!

And since when did 'The Godfather Saga' become 1 film. :rolleyes:

[Vincenzo]

Dude, Lord, you are getting into opinions again. And quite frankly, a movie can take 3 months or 3 years to shoot and its not going to make the movie better. Lets just put it at this...Ck is a great and a classic...LOTR is a great and a classic. NOW will you be quiet.

-Vincenzo

[adt100]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
... I mean Pulp Fiction is GREAT!!! But does it REALLY compare to Lawrence of Arabia.


No. But then, this thread is apparently the elitist, self-proclaimed 'for people who know what they're talking about' poll, so who am I to argue.

[Warren]

Originally posted by LordofKings
why's LOTR length beyond the point. again, i mentioned the length as a reply to another users post. READ AGAIN....and its length does hurt it to SOME VIEWERS (like my brother) so its NOT BEYOND THE POINT...your opinion that LOTR is the 90th best movie is beyond the point. hey how many of YOUR FAV FILMS on that list won 11 oscars. how many oscars did the LOTR TRIOGY WIN? didn't it win more then the GODFATHER? what do you take into account when you make your OPINIONS LIST? but LOTR isn't great, no, it only won like 20 oscars, nominated for BP all 3 F**KING YEARS, but it doesn't deserve to be up there with films that MOST PEOPLE HAVE NEVER SEEN

LOTR won 11 Oscars because most of them were technical, special effects and things like that. The Godfather didn't need effects, original song, makeup and all those things. It used excellent acting, directing and screenplay to make it such an amazing trilogy. And each movie in the Godfather trilogy was nominated for Best Picture. 2 won.

Ben-Hur and Titanic also won 11 Oscars, they're not on the list.

Alot of people have seen 2 Fast 2 Furious, but that doesn't mean it should be on the list with classic movies like these.

[adt100]

I wonder if when 2001 came out there was similar debate surrounding its merits in comparison to such 'classics' as Kane, Casablanca et al. I suspect there was.

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Warren
LOTR won 11 Oscars because most of them were technical, special effects and things like that. The Godfather didn't need effects, original song, makeup and all those things. It used excellent acting, directing and screenplay to make it such an amazing trilogy. And each movie in the Godfather trilogy was nominated for Best Picture. 2 won.

Ben-Hur and Titanic also won 11 Oscars, they're not on the list.

Alot of people have seen 2 Fast 2 Furious, but that doesn't mean it should be on the list with classic movies like these.

since when aren't the technical aspects, WHICH IS A MAJOR PART OF THE "ART" OF FILM, not considered in how good a movie is? you don't think the technical aspects help qualify a film for its greatness? and the reason why LOTR didn't have acto oscars is because the story revolves around so many characters. AND TELL ME SEAN ASTIN DIDN'T DESERVE AN OSCAR NOD FOR ROTK!!!!!!

winning an oscar for makeup, song, effects etc: make the movie better in my book. shows theres more "ART" involved in the filmmaking

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Vincenzo
Dude, Lord, you are getting into opinions again. And quite frankly, a movie can take 3 months or 3 years to shoot and its not going to make the movie better. Lets just put it at this...Ck is a great and a classic...LOTR is a great and a classic. NOW will you be quiet.

-Vincenzo

im not argueing that, DUDE....

where did i saw that the length of how long it takes to make a film makes it better or not? and what do you mean "you are getting into opinions again"? thats all this stupid thread is, and that stupid poll is, OPINIONS!!!!

[Vincenzo]

Oh yeah sorry, I misread. Yea but c'mon, your taking this too seriously. Like I said before, LOTR is great, CK is great, Godfather is great. Now are you freakin happy???

-Vincenzo

[Vincenzo]

No. But then, this thread is apparently the elitist, self-proclaimed 'for people who know what they're talking about' poll, so who am I to argue.

Come on man, don't be a jerk here.

-Vincenzo

[Warren]

Originally posted by LordofKings
since when aren't the technical aspects, WHICH IS A MAJOR PART OF THE "ART" OF FILM, not considered in how good a movie is? you don't think the technical aspects help qualify a film for its greatness? and the reason why LOTR didn't have acto oscars is because the story revolves around so many characters. AND TELL ME SEAN ASTIN DIDN'T DESERVE AN OSCAR NOD FOR ROTK!!!!!!

winning an oscar for makeup, song, effects etc: make the movie better in my book. shows theres more "ART" involved in the filmmaking

They definitely help the movie, I'm not arguing that. I was saying that about how you think the LOTR trilogy is better because it has more Oscars, which IMO is wrong.


And Astin didn't deserve an Oscar nod.

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by Warren
They definitely help the movie, I'm not arguing that. I was saying that about how you think the LOTR trilogy is better because it has more Oscars, which IMO is wrong.


And Astin didn't deserve an Oscar nod.

WHERE DID I SAY THOSE WORDS? i mentioned the awards for the simply fact to show the critical success of the film, and yes it does help it, but i never said it was the best for that reason. LOOK AT TITANTIC....no way is that near a great film and it won 11 awards

[dustindame]

Lord of the kings is the man i havent dissagreed with a thing you have said yet.

[LordofKings]

thank you Dame...your one of the few

[André]

in this thread...i must say that the best movie ever is Gigli.......

[ip_guru]

Wow, this is an out of control thread, huh? Ok, I'll take the bait as well..


First, it is as impossible to compare movies from different eras as it is to compare athletes from different eras. That's why the opinions always get so confusing and heated - it is an impossible argument for both sides. You end up comparing apples to oranges.

Second, the purpose of films is subject to debate. Are you comparing films that are art or films that are commercial or films or films that are both. Again one ends up comparing apples to oranges.

Third, age does not make things better, age makes it older. Age forces you to view in context. In order to watch an old movie, you have to put your midset in context of the era, or else you will easily be distracted by things that are not up to current standards.

At the end of the day, story is where it all starts. Story rules all, without a good story the best actors and directors cannot save the movie. Once you have a good story then the actors must make it real.

Just because a movie is old, and did something new, does not mean it is good. It might have been good when released, and it might have been good for decades after that. But, as we evolve, why should we be forced to sit and watch movies with bad acting, bad effects, and so on, simply because they are old? Are we supposed to love a movie simply because it did something first? Most things first in life are not good, it is only later once they are improved upon that they become good.

I find almost all acting of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s to be stiff or overly dramatic - the actors seem to be simulating stage acting for the camera. Well, they were, that was their style. But, if I want to see the overacting style of the stage, then I'll go to the stage and love it there. I don't want to see that on screen.

To me awards mean nothing other than the movie was well received during its current era. They do not mean that all future generations must be forced to like them. Positive critical reviews mean nothing other than the current era of reviewers liked them, they, as well, do not mean that future generations must like them. The Deer Hunter sure did well at the awards, but watching that movie is just slow drawn out pain to me. Is it a bad movie? Absolutely not. Could I call it a great movie, as of today? Absolutely not. Was it great in its time? Yes it was.

This analogy here will only work for those of you that are older, and are honest with yourself: Have you ever gone back and done something or saw something as an adult that you loved as a kid? Did the level of disapointment hit you hard, as it does for nearly all of us? We evolve, our tastes evolve. Why is it that our tastes in movies are not supposed to evolve?

[Rogue Program]

^^Great Post:applaud: .

[Dracula]

Originally posted by ip_guru


I find almost all acting of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s to be stiff or overly dramatic - the actors seem to be simulating stage acting for the camera. Well, they were, that was their style. But, if I want to see the overacting style of the stage, then I'll go to the stage and love it there. I don't want to see that on screen.



I can see what your saying about the 40's and 50's, but you may be pushing it with the 60's, and 70's

In the 70's you have performances like De Niro in Taxi Driver, Pachino in the Godfather, Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest so on and so forth.

Note that this is a comment on a conversation seprate from the subject of this thred, not one of a list of my [justifide] criticisums.

[adt100]

As an aside, I've just remembered something. Wasn't it you Dracula that in a fairly recent thread comment on how good a movie you thought Titanic was? And you are preaching to others as to what are/are not great movies, and self-proclaimed someone "who knows the first thing about movies".

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by Rogue Program
^^Great Post:applaud: .

Thanks.

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by Dracula
I can see what your saying about the 40's and 50's, but you may be pushing it with the 60's, and 70's

In the 70's you have performances like De Niro in Taxi Driver, Pachino in the Godfather, Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest so on and so forth.

Note that this is a comment on a conversation seprate from the subject of this thred, not one of a list of my [justifide] criticisums.

There are great moments and actors for every era, no doubt. Cuckoo's Nest is awesome. The Manchurian Candidate is awesome. For the sake of not getting the thread into even more confused territory, I was being general. :)

[LordofKings]

Originally posted by ip_guru
Wow, this is an out of control thread, huh? Ok, I'll take the bait as well..


First, it is as impossible to compare movies from different eras as it is to compare athletes from different eras. That's why the opinions always get so confusing and heated - it is an impossible argument for both sides. You end up comparing apples to oranges.

Second, the purpose of films is subject to debate. Are you comparing films that are art or films that are commercial or films or films that are both. Again one ends up comparing apples to oranges.

Third, age does not make things better, age makes it older. Age forces you to view in context. In order to watch an old movie, you have to put your midset in context of the era, or else you will easily be distracted by things that are not up to current standards.

At the end of the day, story is where it all starts. Story rules all, without a good story the best actors and directors cannot save the movie. Once you have a good story then the actors must make it real.

Just because a movie is old, and did something new, does not mean it is good. It might have been good when released, and it might have been good for decades after that. But, as we evolve, why should we be forced to sit and watch movies with bad acting, bad effects, and so on, simply because they are old? Are we supposed to love a movie simply because it did something first? Most things first in life are not good, it is only later once they are improved upon that they become good.

I find almost all acting of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s to be stiff or overly dramatic - the actors seem to be simulating stage acting for the camera. Well, they were, that was their style. But, if I want to see the overacting style of the stage, then I'll go to the stage and love it there. I don't want to see that on screen.

To me awards mean nothing other than the movie was well received during its current era. They do not mean that all future generations must be forced to like them. Positive critical reviews mean nothing other than the current era of reviewers liked them, they, as well, do not mean that future generations must like them. The Deer Hunter sure did well at the awards, but watching that movie is just slow drawn out pain to me. Is it a bad movie? Absolutely not. Could I call it a great movie, as of today? Absolutely not. Was it great in its time? Yes it was.

This analogy here will only work for those of you that are older, and are honest with yourself: Have you ever gone back and done something or saw something as an adult that you loved as a kid? Did the level of disapointment hit you hard, as it does for nearly all of us? We evolve, our tastes evolve. Why is it that our tastes in movies are not supposed to evolve?

Man, your posts are sheer brilliance. whenever im in an arguement, im PM'ing you to drop in and say a few words

[Vincenzo]

Wow, that is a really good post, seriously.

-Vincenzo

[Dracula]

Originally posted by adt100
As an aside, I've just remembered something. Wasn't it you Dracula that in a fairly recent thread comment on how good a movie you thought Titanic was? And you are preaching to others as to what are/are not great movies, and self-proclaimed someone "who knows the first thing about movies".

I don't mutch like titanic, and haven't been talking about it recently. I don't know what the **** your talking about

[obsessedwithsnl]

I've only seen 5 of the movies on the poll and they were all great, but my favorite was The Third Man. I just finished watching it and it was so awesome.

[kel thuzad]

I dont know who asked, but 2001 came out in 1969.
Well IMHO Wild Bunch and Notorious have nothing to do on the list and id say there really should be Raging Bull included. Though i picked 2001 i couldnt really decide which of all the others is best. If i could name more at once itd be Citizen Kane, Godfather, Apocalypse Now Redux, Fight Club and damn it! all of those flicks from above except for Treasure from SM which i havent seen.

[kel thuzad]

Originally posted by adt100
I wonder if when 2001 came out there was similar debate surrounding its merits in comparison to such 'classics' as Kane, Casablanca et al. I suspect there was.

What i know in its days it was in a similar position as now are sequels of the Matrix. Some are praying on their kneels before them and some really hate them.

[adt100]

Originally posted by Dracula
I don't mutch like titanic, and haven't been talking about it recently. I don't know what the **** your talking about
Sorry, I realised after I'd posted that that it might actually have been Dr_evil who made the comments about Titanic. :o

BTW, I think you ought to check out your keyboard, as for some reason it seems prone to typing out a string of asterisks quite regularly.

[Dracula]

Originally posted by adt100
Sorry, I realised after I'd posted that that it might actually have been Dr_evil who made the comments about Titanic. :o

BTW, I think you ought to check out your keyboard, as for some reason it seems prone to typing out a string of asterisks quite regularly.

The asterisks come whenever I say one of my favorite words, like **** or ****, to put those in perspective moter****er bull****. hope there's less confusion nextime, *****

[dustindame]

Thats awesome using those things, because everyone likes you so much.

[Aaargh!]

I voted Lawrence of Arabia. Of those films, it was the most cinematic. God, I wish 70mm cameras would make a comeback.

[André]

Originally posted by Warren
LOTR won 11 Oscars because most of them were technical, special effects and things like that. The Godfather didn't need effects, original song, makeup and all those things. It used excellent acting, directing and screenplay to make it such an amazing trilogy. And each movie in the Godfather trilogy was nominated for Best Picture. 2 won.

Ben-Hur and Titanic also won 11 Oscars, they're not on the list.

Alot of people have seen 2 Fast 2 Furious, but that doesn't mean it should be on the list with classic movies like these.

Actually you could in one way say that Ben Hur won more oscars then Titanic and ROTK. Because there wasnt that many categories at that time (like best special effects and stuff).

So i would say that Ben Hur is the most oscar winning film. Not that it makes it the best film though. But, just a sidenote :)

[Boro]

im a huge fan of lotr and stuff, but i really dont like it when people flaunt all the oscar wins. the oscars dont always go to the best film, director, score, etc.

in this case i do think rotk did deserve best picture, but i really dont think it deserved all eleven.

[Vincenzo]

Me neither boromir. I think there were many other movies that could have taken home some awards if LOTR hadden taken all 11.