AFI's 100 Movies: 10 Years Later, New Vote!

[criterionmaster]

They are retaking the vote, 10 years later.

Check out all the details here:

connect.afi.com/site/PageServer?pagename=100register_landing

Thanks to the hollywood saloon for pointing this out, I wouldn't have known about this if they wouldn't. What do you think of the original list? How can it be improved? Talk about the nominees they have listed.

[captainofbeef]

I watched everything on that list in about just over a year. Its a great list, I don't think that I disliked a single film on it. Its a great place for someone who needs an introduction to American films *cough* blackmoses *cough*. There are some films that deserve to be on there and certain films that probably shouldn't be on there, but overall its good enough.

[blackmoses]

That is the best number seven I have ever seen.

[Clark Nova]

what the hell is crap like Pirates of the Caribbean doing on the ballot?

[criterionmaster]

I have no idea; I can't stand lists that include films like that. Especially when they are new films, it's like they are forgetting so many of the classics. There is no way in hell Pirates is even in the top 1000 American films ever. And to only include one Cassavetes makes me want to die.

[criterionmaster]

'Citizen Kane' Again Voted Top Film by AFI
Source: IMDB

The American Film Institute has again named the 1941 Orson Welles classic Citizen Kane the best film of all time. Many other films listed in the Institute's original "AFI's 100 Years ... 100 Movies" ten years ago have changed rankings or have been eliminated, the AFI disclosed during a CBS special that aired Wednesday. For example, Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull moved to No. 4 from No. 24. Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo jumped to No. 9 from No. 61. The second- and third-place films switched position, with The Godfather moving up one place and Casablanca moving down. Others in the top ten were also rearranged. For example, Singin' in the Rain jumped to No. 5 from No. 10; Gone With the Wind dropped to No. 6 from No. 4; Lawrence of Arabia fell to No. 7 from No. 5. Only four films that were released since the original was compiled in 1997 made the new list: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring at No. 50; Saving Private Ryan at No. 71; Titanic at No. 83; and The Sixth Sense at No. 89. The AFI special drew decent ratings, coming in a close second to Fox's hit So You Think You Can Dance in both the 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. hours.

end of article.

i definitely don't think sixth sense should be on there at all. what do you guys think?

[captainofbeef]

No, it doesn't deserve to be up there. Neither does Titanic...

[wkw]

1. Citizen Kane, 1941.

2. The Godfather, 1972.

3. Casablanca, 1942.

4. Raging Bull, 1980.

5. Singin' in the Rain, 1952.

6. Gone With the Wind, 1939.

7. Lawrence of Arabia, 1962.

8. Schindler's List, 1993.

9. Vertigo, 1958.

10. The Wizard of Oz, 1939.

11. City Lights, 1931.

12. The Searchers, 1956.

13. Star Wars, 1977.

14. Psycho, 1960.

15. 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968.

16. Sunset Blvd., 1950.

17. The Graduate, 1967.

18. The General, 1927.

19. On the Waterfront, 1954.

20. It's a Wonderful Life, 1946.

21. Chinatown, 1974.

22. Some Like It Hot, 1959.

23. The Grapes of Wrath, 1940.

24. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, 1982.

25. To Kill a Mockingbird, 1962.

26. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, 1939.

27. High Noon, 1952.

28. All About Eve, 1950.

29. Double Indemnity, 1944.

30. Apocalypse Now, 1979.

31. The Maltese Falcon, 1941.

32. The Godfather Part II, 1974.

33. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 1975.

34. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937.

35. Annie Hall, 1977.

36. The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957.

37. The Best Years of Our Lives, 1946.

38. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948.

39. Dr. Strangelove, 1964.

40. The Sound of Music, 1965.

41. King Kong, 1933.

42. Bonnie and Clyde, 1967.

43. Midnight Cowboy, 1969.

44. The Philadelphia Story, 1940.

45. Shane, 1953.

46. It Happened One Night, 1934.

47. A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951.

48. Rear Window, 1954.

49. Intolerance, 1916.

50. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, 2001.

51. West Side Story, 1961.

52. Taxi Driver, 1976.

53. The Deer Hunter, 1978.

54. M-A-S-H, 1970.

55. North by Northwest, 1959.

56. Jaws, 1975.

57. Rocky, 1976.

58. The Gold Rush, 1925.

59. Nashville, 1975.

60. Duck Soup, 1933.

61. Sullivan's Travels, 1941.

62. American Graffiti, 1973.

63. Cabaret, 1972.

64. Network, 1976.

65. The African Queen, 1951.

66. Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981.

67. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, 1966.

68. Unforgiven, 1992.

69. Tootsie, 1982.

70. A Clockwork Orange, 1971.

71. Saving Private Ryan, 1998.

72. The Shawshank Redemption, 1994.

73. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969.

74. The Silence of the Lambs, 1991.

75. In the Heat of the Night, 1967.

76. Forrest Gump, 1994.

77. All the President's Men, 1976.

78. Modern Times, 1936.

79. The Wild Bunch, 1969.

80. The Apartment, 1960.

81. Spartacus, 1960.

82. Sunrise, 1927.

83. Titanic, 1997.

84. Easy Rider, 1969.

85. A Night at the Opera, 1935.

86. Platoon, 1986.

87. 12 Angry Men, 1957.

88. Bringing Up Baby, 1938.

89. The Sixth Sense, 1999.

90. Swing Time, 1936.

91. Sophie's Choice, 1982.

92. Goodfellas, 1990.

93. The French Connection, 1971.

94. Pulp Fiction, 1994.

95. The Last Picture Show, 1971.

96. Do the Right Thing, 1989.

97. Blade Runner, 1982.

98. Yankee Doodle Dandy, 1942.

99. Toy Story, 1995.

100. Ben-Hur, 1959.

[wkw]

I'm pretty sure that Sunrise is better than most of the films on this list. Just seeing Forrest Gump on that list makes me cringe. It seems dumb to include British films like Lawrence of Arabia but not include films from other countries. And what about classics like The Third Man or Birth of a Nation? O, and not a single Cassavetes film.

[captainofbeef]

^I don't think its that bad considering its only American films. There is some stuff on it that shouldn't be on it though...

[ie]

Lacks animation.

Oh, and Pixar and Disney aren't the entirety of American animation.

[misterbalco]

Its the best list ever, Raging Bull moved from #25 to #4, and that is all I really need to hear.

Although, The Sixth Sense and Toy Story were on the list...ew. But hey, Raging Bull moved to where it belongs, in the top 5.

[criterionmaster]

wkw said:

89. The Sixth Sense, 1999.

....

92. Goodfellas, 1990.

93. The French Connection, 1971.

94. Pulp Fiction, 1994.

95. The Last Picture Show, 1971.

96. Do the Right Thing, 1989.

97. Blade Runner, 1982.

98. Yankee Doodle Dandy, 1942.

99. Toy Story, 1995.

100. Ben-Hur, 1959.

the list isn't the worst thing in the world, there are obviously some classics, but, anyone making a list will have tons of classics, it is the films they forget, and the terrible films they include on here, that make this list terrible. if they hit most of the greatest american films, and only had like one or two films that shouldn't be on here, then i would be fine, but they have like 10-15 films that shouldn't even tough a list of the top 500 american films. i mean, no film from 2000 and up should be on a list like this, especially when so many classics are missing. i mean cassavetes invented american independent film, it sickens me he is not on here. look at what is below sixth sense, please tell me this is a joke? did anyone else barf when they saw that? 9 of the best films ever made below that! ugh!

but yeah, it was nice to see raging bull move up so high. what animated films would you include, ie?

p.s. i love toy story, and think it should be included just because it did so much stuff that had never been done before in a feature-length, plus, it is one of the best kid's movies and stories ever made, in my opinion. what exactly is your guy's problem with it?

[dmoney]

These "Classics" are terribly overrated and almost unwatchable in this day and age.

I love to see "Raging Bull" at #4. I think it should be #1 or #2 along side the "The Godfather". Those are by far the two best films I have ever seen.

"Citizen Kane" is something I just don't get at all. I have no idea what makes that movie so "great". I honestly don't know how you go from "Citizen Kane" to "The Godfather".

Some movies that I think are very low:
1. “Saving Private Ryan”
2. “The Silence of the Lambs”
3. “The Godfather Part II”
4. “One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest”
5. “Pulp Fiction”

Other movies not on the list (Mostly newer movies):
1. “Dog Day Afternoon”
2. “Serpico”
3. “21 Grams”
4. “Walk the Line”
5. “The Aviator”
6. “”Mystic River”
7. “A Beautiful Mind”
8. “Heat”
9. “The Departed”
10. “Gladiator”

[dontdigonswine]

I can't believe American Beauty didn't make the list. It just seems like something that would make it in at least the top 50 of a list like this, especially by AFI's standards. Oh well though, not losing any sleep over it.

[chrisspielberg]

That list is a lot of wank is'nt it! For starts 4 of the top 10 are terribly overrated... Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia; don't get me wrong they're decent and all, just not that great. I do however love Singin' in the Rain (the film, altough actually doing it is quite fun to), it's by far my favourite musical!!! ;D

[Clark Nova]

to say that Kane and Lawrence of Arabia aren't great show you don't know where to look for greatness, buddy

[criterionmaster]

i think kane is technically great, but don't actually enjoy it that much, but i still think it should be on a list like this because these are movies you have to see, just like all the other "classics" you guys mentioned. so you might not like them, but don't you guys agree that you have to see them if you are a huge film fan? since this is basically a list of american films people should see to make your own opinions on them, it really isn't a list telling you what you need to like.

[dmoney]

criterionmaster said:

i think kane is technically great, but don't actually enjoy it that much, but i still think it should be on a list like this because these are movies you have to see, just like all the other "classics" you guys mentioned. so you might not like them, but don't you guys agree that you have to see them if you are a huge film fan?

That is why this doesn't make any sense. "Citizen Kane" is a relatively boring film. Because we are told its great doesn't mean it's great. I think huge film fans are going to watch all movies that are critically acclaimed to see if we see what the critics see.

Why not put films in the top 100 that are both great along the lines of acting and directing, but also that keep our interest in the film and hold our attention? How about some enjoyable films?

I just recently watch “Easy Rider”, “On the Waterfront”, and “A streetcar named Desire”. All of which are in the top 75 on this list. “Easy Rider” being the lowest might have actually been the best movie of the three even though I thought it was pretty bad and didn’t see what makes it so great. “On the Waterfront” is terribly outdated and almost unwatchable (The only reason is for Brando’s performance which is why I rented it to begin with.). “A Streetcar name Desire” is also very overrated. I think “On the Waterfront” is so high due to the acting performance of Brando. He was good. I don’t think it was the greatest thing I ever seen and I actually liked him more in “A Streetcar name Desire” where I thought he was much better. If that is all it takes for a film to be in the top 20 is a great acting performance, why isn’t “Capote” or “The last King of Scotland” in the top 20 as well? Because there new. That’s the main problem.

The only reason “A Streetcar name Desire” is on this list is because it was one of the first films to touch on touchy subjects like having a rape scene (Which was unnoticeable until the very end). Other than Brando’s performance the movie was boring and I fell asleep through it twice before finally finishing it. The lead actress was also very annoying and unwatchable. I thought she was terrible, and then she wins an Oscar for it. How does she act crazy you say? By crossing her eyes together and screaming. I laughed when I seen her do it. She looked retarded, not crazy.

I don’t fall asleep through interesting movies (I did during “Minority Report” and “Thank You for Smoking” as well and I guess those are considered not boring, but they were). So the obvious question is: What makes these older films so good? Is it because it’s old? Because it’s in B & W? Even the newer movies that are in the top 10 are in B & W. I wonder if every movie like “Saving Private Ryan” was done in B & W if they would get rated higher. I bet that’s all it takes. Then we can view them as “classics” because films from the 30, 40s, and 50s just don’t hold up against the films of today. And how could they? We are so much more technically advanced. We pour millions of dollars into a film to get the best quality we can. We have more people trying and doing new things constantly to better films and acting. It’s only natural that the newer films be better than films from the 50s and 60s and before that. Also the acting pre 1970 was pretty bad IMO. Before the “method” really started to show on screen. If you watch “Casablanca” you see each and every actor stone faced without any emotion 90% of the time. They “read” their lines like reading a book. Each actor starts the exact second the other is finished. There are no pauses or anything. It doesn’t even look like they know what each other is saying because their so into their own lines.

I will never understand what makes a “Classic” film a “Classic” film.

[wkw]

Looking at this list, I don't necessarily see all of these films as deserving to be on a 100 English language films. Some of these are classics because they were extremely popular and well made. Some of them like Kane are technically or stylistically groundbreaking. Some films might be a great representative of the spirit of an era. Everyone has different tastes, so what each person consider great in a movie differs. I don't think whether a film is B&W or color makes any difference to how great it is, that would just be silly. Just because a modern movie has great production values and special effects does necessarily make them a "good" movie of course. I'm no expert on acting but some of these performances that seem bad if they were used today were probably suitable back then. Also acting doesn't necessarily have to be realistic. For example in Jean Pierre Melville's Le Samourai, Alain Delon is a cool, stone faced killer, that kind of performance IMO makes the movie work because it is so unrealistic. Beside acting isn't always that important in a film.

[dmoney]

wkw said:

I don't think whether a film is B&W or color makes any difference to how great it is, that would just be silly.

That was exactly my point. It is silly and is the main reason.

Can you say "Yankee Doodle Dandy" or “The Wizard of Oz” or “Sunset Blvd.” are better films than say, "Gladiator" or "A Beautiful Mind" or "Walk the Line" or any other top film of this decade? IMO there is no comparison. “The Wizard of Oz" is the only one of those three that I actually found entertaining or enjoyable. At the same time, I didn’t say to myself: “This is one of the greatest films I have ever seen.” Not even close.

Films like “ET”, “The Sixth Sense”, “The Lord of the Rings”, and “Toy Story” make it on this list for modern films when they shouldn’t even be in the top 100 movies made since 1980. “Signs” was a better movie than “ET”.




I think acting is the second most important thing to a film. First is the screenplay, then the acting, then the directing. Suitable performances back then aren't used now because it looks cheesy and looks like someone is trying to act. Back then these film were the greatest things ever. Now though. They can't hold up against some of the films made over the last 30 or 40 years. They just don't.

Maybe I'm not anywhere near old enough to think differently, but I go into "Classic" films with an open mind, hoping to see something great and I am disappointed every time. The acting the lack luster camera shots, everything is just boring. It's like watching a play on film.

[Clark Nova]

you have to go to the older films first, well before the more contemporary and well-known ones, because those contemporary movies were undoubtedly influenced by the older classics. You have to appreciate those older films for setting a precendent and making films today what they are.

[wkw]

dmoney said:

I think acting is the second most important thing to a film. First is the screenplay, then the acting, then the directing. Suitable performances back then aren't used now because it looks cheesy and looks like someone is trying to act. Back then these film were the greatest things ever. Now though. They can't hold up against some of the films made over the last 30 or 40 years. They just don't.

I disagree. Direction is usually the most important aspect of any film. A good director can make an ordinary script shine. A bad director can turn the same script into a bad film. Otherwise there would be no such thing as auteurism. The director has the most influence on the final film. Take a film like Jules Dassin's Rififi for example. It's a heist film that was based on what Francois Truffaut called "The worst noir novel he'd ever read". Yet Dassin made it an incredible heist noir that has been imitated endlessly by creating a 30 minute heist sequence without any dialog to create suspense.

Acting is important in some films, but it can be very overrated in others. The acting in a Bresson or Ozu film is very restrained, which is fine because the film goes for the minimalist approach, it focuses on the character's actions instead of their expressions.

There are many fantastic performances before the 70's. One of the greatest performances ever is by Renee Falconetti in The Passion of Joan of Arc, which was made in 1928. Another incredible performance is by Giulietta Masina in The Nights of Cabiria, she could teach Chaplin a thing or two about physical acting.

[criterionmaster]

okay, wow, i missed a bunch of discussion....

first off, i definitely agree with wkw that direction is the most important, who do you think gets the great performances? the actors don't just show up on set and know what to do, they have to be told how to perform, and many directors are great at getting good performances. you can't put american films from pre-late 60's - early seventies era up against films after that, because they are two completely different acting styles. you really have to be used to both, since actors approach roles in different ways. there are so many fantastic performances from before the seventies, but then i can agree with you that a lot suck, and many of the films you talk about, will seem dated to us, and many won't. there are films being made now, that seem super great, that will seem like dated crap in the future. the films called "classics" normally did something that makes them very noteworthy, but they might not be detectable to us nowadays, since they have been copied so many times. i mean, try and think of your favorite films, and how fucking much they stole from films you are calling terrible or dated. i am not saying doing something first makes it good, but it might make it called classic. i mean, it sounds like you are giving up on classic films or something, definitely don't do that. there are many you will like, see the films: rear window, treasure of the sierra madre, double indemnity, etc. for some great-ass early american films.

and also, do like wkw said, and see some foreign films. they have always had great performances, and other things, though sometimes it might seem "fake" in asian cinema because they were trained to overact, which is just the style (in older films).

easy rider is so well-shot, it changed cinema. without easy rider, you would have no "new films". there would be no difference in how films are made. people on drugs went out and made realistic films with an artistic vision. they also experimented and the film has a masterpiece of a soundtrack. it has a message AND captures a time. i don't know how you couldn't see the greatness in that film.

i guess it is all personal opinion, but really, you need to think about how much the films you liked copied these films, and while they may seem dated to you, it is how you got some of your favorite new films and stuff.

oh yeah, and acting is definitely one of the least important things. i fucking hate acting for the most part. it is so unimportant in the final film that it is insane. i mean, how the film is done, shown, or told is the most important. the best story ever written could be told TERRIBLY, or the worst, could be told amazingly, and original. i mean, wouldn't you agree?

[dmoney]

There will always be someone doing something new and innovative. Just because someone does it first doesn't make me think, well, this should be rated higher because they were the first to do it. It's like sports. Babe Ruth couldn't do what he did then, in the current era. The guy played games drunk and still hit homeruns. The level of competition was far lower than it is today. It’s like technology. Would you prefer technology of the caveman or modern day technology? The caveman was inventive. Does that make him the smartest human being to ever live?

The point I'm making is that, when there is so many more people involved in film there are going to be higher standards and there will be more money, time, and thought spent in trying to make film innovative and better. I mean you can’t look at the opening scene from “Saving Private Ryan” and find that in any other movie before it or since. Where does that come in? Low 70's? If it was a true story then it’s already in the top 10. If it were in B&W I swear it would be another 50 spots higher.

I guess I have to look at them in a different light.

As far as acting not being important, that's just something I don't get. A director can only do so much, an actor can only do so much, and a screenplay can only do so much. I think you have to have at least two of three to make a good film. Acting helps bring meaning and purpose to the story. If what the actor is doing is unreal or comes off as phony and unbelievable then the whole movie can be shot. Bad acting can kill a movie, just like bad directing, or a bad screenplay.