The Top 100 Films You've Ever Seen

[moonmaster]

IMO, 2001: A Space Oddysey might be the most overrated movie ever made.*

A significant portion of it is good(the HAL plot, mainly), and the effects and technique are very impressive when you consider that it was made the same year as Planet of the Apes, which seems a lot older to me, but on the whole, I found it sooooo pretentious and boring. It was total Kubrickian overkill, and as mentioned earlier, he completely missed the point of the story, while Arthur C. Clarke nailed it in his novel, which really is one of the greatest science-fiction stories ever told.

But as we clarified once before, Kubrick was doing a different interpretation of the same premise, meaning that he didn't really "miss the point" so much as he made up his own point.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

I still don't understand how you can miss the point of a story you wrote.

 

[SSJmole]

*Schindler's List would be up there as well. It's a great movie and everything, but it usually gets a spot in the Top 5 of most 100-movie lists, and I think that's a bit much.

I disagree but then again it is in my top 5 as I think it's a flawless movie

 

[Joe Kalicki]

I disagree but then again it is in my top 5 as I think it's a flawless movie

What about the 1988 Ford Festiva in the background fo one of the Concentration Camp scenes?

 

[ProjectX2]

I still don't understand how you can miss the point of a story you wrote.

You can't. Kubrick went his own direction, the author of the novel went in antoher one. I believe the author said Kubrick got it right, though.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

You can't. Kubrick went his own direction, the author of the novel went in antoher one. I believe the author said Kubrick got it right, though.

It was a smuch Kubrick's story as Clarke's so I don't see where Clarke gets off saying it was right or wrong anyway.

 

[SSJmole]

What about the 1988 Ford Festiva in the background fo one of the Concentration Camp scenes?

Wrong thing. Mistakes like that are in every film.


I say flawless as in story , direction , camera lighting acting , dialogue all perfect. Same with the Godfather 1+2

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Wrong thing. Mistakes like that are in every film.


I say flawless as in story , direction , camera lighting acting , dialogue all perfect. Same with the Godfather 1+2

I suppose you think Ralph Fiennes drinking a Coke Zero and eating a Kit Kat before gunning down some Jews isn't a flaw either.

 

[Planet-man]

Your list conflicts me, Joe. It contains a few of my least favourite movies, but also a handful of underrated ones which I thought would only appear on my own list(Time After Time and Falling Down, for example).

I went through everybody's list and picked all of the movies that I'm really interested and would like to see before I make my first draft Top 100. I'm also planning to see Amadeus, which I'm surprised isn't on anyone's list yet.

- The Shawshank Redemption

- Blazing Saddles

- Silence of the Lambs

- The Royal Tenenbaums(seen - Ausgust 9th, 2007)

- Princess Mononoke

- Se7en(seen - April 1st, 2008)

- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

- Being John Malkovich(seen - March, 2008)

- Edward Scissorhands

- Dog Day Afternoon

- Being There

- American Beauty

- I Heart Huckabees

- Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

- Donnie Darko(seen - April 3rd, 2008; April 5th, 2008)

- Amadeus (seen - August 24th, 2007)

- Lost Boys

- Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

- Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

- The Sting

- Trainspotting

 

[ProjectX2]

I think The Shawshank Redemption would be #1 on my list, or close to it.

 

[SSJmole]

I suppose you think Ralph Fiennes drinking a Coke Zero and eating a Kit Kat before gunning down some Jews isn't a flaw either.

Well it's a flaw all films have something like that.


E.g A film I like Godfather - Has a 1953 Chrysle when the film is set in the 40s.

All movies have little nitpicks like that. I ignore them most of the time.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Your list conflicts me, Joe. It contains a few of my least favourite movies, but also a handful of underrated ones which I thought would only appear on my own list(Time After Time and Falling Down, for example).

I'm mult-faceted.

Spoiler

Time After Time just got bumped as I went through the 50s and 60s today.

 

[Planet-man]

But as we clarified once before, Kubrick was doing a different interpretation of the same premise, meaning that he didn't really "miss the point" so much as he made up his own point.

Here's the thing though(I can't remember if you've seen the movie or read the novel or either, so... yeah): Kubrick didn't make up any point at all, let alone a different one. The movie ends about 5 minutes earlier than the novel does, and leaves out the best part of the whole story.

Clarke's novel has an actual ending, a sublime, perfect, and mind-blowing one that ties into something else he put in the prolouge that Kubrick didn't have either.

Kubrick's just ends with

Spoiler

a dramatic shot of the Starchild.

I'm sorry, but can you tell me what the point he's making is?

I still don't understand how you can miss the point of a story you wrote.

He didn't write it himself. Kubrick and Clarke wrote it together. From there, Clarke went on to give the story a perfect ending, and Kubrick didn't give it an ending at all.

You can't. Kubrick went his own direction, the author of the novel went in antoher one. I believe the author said Kubrick got it right, though.

But the movie doesn't go in a different direction so much as just.... leave stuff out. I also find it hard to believe Clarke said Kubrick's version got it right, unless he was just talking about the atmosphere and production of the film and everything, and not the actual story.

 

[moonmaster]

Here's the thing though(I can't remember if you've seen the movie or read the novel or either, so... yeah): Kubrick didn't make up any point at all, let alone a different one. The movie ends about 5 minutes earlier than the novel does, and leaves out the best part of the whole story.

Clarke's novel has an actual ending, a sublime, perfect, and mind-blowing one that ties into something else he put in the prolouge that Kubrick didn't have either.

Kubrick's just ends with

Spoiler

a dramatic shot of the Starchild.

I'm sorry, but can you tell me what the point he's making is?

I haven't seen the movie yet, and I have no intention of reading the book, but we've had this argument before. I understand why you think one is better than the other, but you don't seem to get that they're not meant to be the same story. Clarke and Kubrick were making two different stories from the same premise.

But the movie doesn't go in a different direction so much as just.... leave stuff out. I also find it hard to believe Clarke said Kubrick's version got it right, unless he was just talking about the atmosphere and production of the film and everything, and not the actual story.

He didn't leave anything out,...because it was his story.

 

[Planet-man]

I haven't seen the movie yet, and I have no intention of reading the book, but we've had this argument before. I understand why you think one is better than the other, but you don't seem to get that they're not meant to be the same story. Clarke and Kubrick were making two different stories from the same premise.

Moony, no offense, but if you haven't looked at either, you really don't know what you're talking about here.

They're NOT different stories. They're the same story, but one has more scenes. One of the scenes happens to be the ending.

Kubrick's story goes in the exact same direction Clarke's does. All the same things happen. Then, Kubrick's stops for no reason with no conclusion at all, and Clarke's goes on tells the rest of the story.

He didn't leave anything out,...because it was his story.

It was very much both their stories, and we don't know who came up with what. For all we know, Kubrick came up with the extended bits, but then decided not to put them in, thus leaving them out.

But even if Kubrick had no knowledge of the other stuff at all(which I don't think is possible, seeing as the place where Kubrick ends it makes no sense and comes from nowhere and would be pretty much impossible to think of without the extended bit), fine. I'm using "leaving out" as a general term meaning "the act of not putting something in".

All I mean is that Clarke put things into their story that Kubrick didn't put in, and as a result one of the stories goes somewhere, and the other one goes nowhere(nowhere... not somewhere different, seeing as Clarke's version does everything Kubrick's does, it just does a bit more afterwards.)

 

[ProjectX2]

I always thought 2001 was more of an experience than a story. I mean, there's only like 45 minutes of dialogue in the whole thing. The movie is more about the music, the effects etc.

 

[Planet-man]

I always thought 2001 was more of an experience than a story. I mean, there's only like 45 minutes of dialogue in the whole thing. The movie is more about the music, the effects etc.

This is completely true. I'm just talking specifically about the story aspect here, which could've given the experience more meaning.

Even so, I found much of the experience tedious and boring.

Fun fact: "HAL" is "IBM" with each letter shifted forward one place. Arthur C. Clarke swears this was unintentional.

 

[moonmaster]

Moony, no offense, but if you haven't looked at either, you really don't know what you're talking about here.

They're NOT different stories. They're the same story, but one has more scenes. One of the scenes happens to be the ending.

Kubrick's story goes in the exact same direction Clarke's does. All the same things happen. Then, Kubrick's stops for no reason with no conclusion at all, and Clarke's goes on tells the rest of the story.



It was very much both their stories, and we don't know who came up with what. For all we know, Kubrick came up with the extended bits, but then decided not to put them in, thus leaving them out.

But even if Kubrick had no knowledge of the other stuff at all(which I don't think is possible, seeing as the place where Kubrick ends it makes no sense and comes from nowhere and would be pretty much impossible to think of without the extended bit), fine. I'm using "leaving out" as a general term meaning "the act of not putting something in".

All I mean is that Clarke put things into their story that Kubrick didn't put in, and as a result one of the stories goes somewhere, and the other one goes nowhere(nowhere... not somewhere different, seeing as Clarke's version does everything Kubrick's does, it just does a bit more afterwards.)

I'm tired of arguing about this.

It just seems to me like you're trying to make it sound like your opinion of something is the definitive and undeniable truth, which is just kind of annoying.

 

[Planet-man]

I'm tired of arguing about this.

It just seems to me like you're trying to make it sound like your opinion of something is the definitive and undeniable truth, which is just kind of annoying.

It isn't even a matter of opinion.

Here is what I'm saying, summed up to its most simple: Clarke's version of the story contained scenes at the end which Kubrick's version of the story didn't. Kubrick's version didn't replace those scenes with anything, but simply stopped telling the story during an earlier scene.

Hate to say it, but that IS an undeniable truth. It contain's no opinion or slant.

Now, for the part your arguing: You say Kubrick didn't "leave anything out".

I clarified myself in that last post by saying "sorry, by leave something out, I just meant that it's not there". That settles that.

The opinion part came in when I said by leaving that stuff out, Kubrick also left out the entire point of the story.

I don't even know how you think you can argue with this, since you haven't read the novel or seen the film, so you don't even know what the point of the story is, let alone who made it.

Now comes the part where you accuse me of "annoyingly" trying to state my opinions as fact.

You're also "too tired" to actually show me a single place where I've done this. That's convienient.

I can tell you right now, though, I'm not going to just let you insult me like that without a defence. I do have an opinion here, and I believe in it because it has facts and evidence to back it up(which is VERY different from the opinion being a fact itself).

If you actually want to defend what you just said about me by listening to the facts and evidence, I'll be glad to explain them more thouroughly.

If you're not so big on actually defending what you say about people, feel free to post a picture of a bunch of puppies or something.

 

[ultimatedjf]

It just seems to me like you're trying to make it sound like your opinion of something is the definitive and undeniable truth, which is just kind of annoying.

Annyong!



Oh, wait. Nevermind, I thought you meant...