1 Star Wars (6)
2 The Godfathers (3)
3 Lord of the Rings (3)
Monday, September 20, 2010
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
25 Top Movies Ever
Here is my list, my own version of the American Films Institute's (AFI) Top 100. I think that it is a tremendous improvement from their list for any number of reasons which I will briefly touch upon and I would like to think that had you the quality of superior taste and refinement, you would have to agree that an improvement has been made. Star Wars not included for reasons that to analyze any one picture doesn't do justice to the hexology as a whole. Same justification holds for the Godfather Trilogy not being in here.
So as I state already with a minus in the category of good taste by eliminating a handful of the singer greatest movies ever made; however, personally, in understanding the "whole picture" of these series, I find it hard even to give credit to particular movies, perhaps partly because these movies are not significant solely to themselves; their relevance emanates from the fact that they tell a mu ch larger story, contributing to every other movie within the series. So therefore, the AFI placed Godfather as their own number 2; and yet, it is part Godfather1 and Godfather3, so why not give 1 and 3 credit for the success of 2?
Other large changes include Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind; the AFI's number1 and number4 have been omitted. Gone with the Wind is not on it because it just plain sucks and frankly, I don't give a damn neither. If someone ever wanted to really torture me I give you this, make me watch Gone with the Wind until it breaks me. One of the worst movies ever made. Citizen Kane is different for me. I think it is a good movie however it is nonsense to place it at one; maybe 100; but as you can see, I think that their number wasn't taking true quality to mind, only that 100 was a nice big round number; (eerily they also said they would like to put 400 movies on here and I think that that just dilutes the quality of the list. Since the list is 100 they don't have to be real accurate of where they place the movies, just as long as they can put it in. But in the end, that not the part that really bothers me.
What really bothers me is that these monkeys is chiefly it lack of accuracy. Well, that and the utter egotism involved in picking an obviously inferior portrayal of the human existence as their number 1, Citizen Kane, and as only Film majors can even fathom why they would value it so highly; inherently, I would argue, they have lost sight of the true intrinsic value inherent within movies and movie making; and that is t6o move us, to stir our soul, to awaken us with brilliant rays; it is the movies that transform us and ones where we can identify with a particular character and because we respect that character so much as being part of the greater angst and human condition; that this intangible that meets us in a relatedness which is value transfigured, revealed and revealing. It is the higher forms of art alone that give us a portal of ourselves and our capacity to be better people, ands in my opinion, it is the movies on this list which better represents this existential and lonely spirit; the first five I consider to be modern day Bacchus's by the way in which they lend themselves to meaning and rites of passage.
The AFI by their choosing of Citizen Kane 1, believes that the technical merit of a movie is an end itself and supercedes all other values. I disagree. I grteat movie teaches me, not once but again and again; not about the trade in being a good director; but it instead teaches me about life, spirit, myself, others, god or godlessness; everything. Most people agree with me, or would were the question posed to them. A question I have is, why else is their list so inferior? It clearly should have been much better, but it wasn't. Tiss tiss. Its about your audience you dummy's. Question: who were they trying to impress by placing Gone with the Wind on there? Nobody likes that movie, and even were they to tell you they really like it, do something for me. Ask them how many times they saw it, how long ago was the last time they saw it, and how often they viewed it. My guess is they will say they saw it once 25 years ago, fell asleep twice and had to go the bathroom after they woke up; and didn't press pause. Then they will say "it was so long ago, I really can't remember it that well." Hmmm... I wonder why; was it that it sucked and you never wanted to see it again unless you were trapped in the jungles of Vietnam with a very cruel taskmaster?
So everyone knows that a quarter of these movies really aren't all that good; and yet they put them on there for the purposes of posterity and filmmakers wanting to be historians. Its pompous really and an insult to the intelligence of the public. For these reasons and this list that I here present to you here that I say: I rest my case.
So as I state already with a minus in the category of good taste by eliminating a handful of the singer greatest movies ever made; however, personally, in understanding the "whole picture" of these series, I find it hard even to give credit to particular movies, perhaps partly because these movies are not significant solely to themselves; their relevance emanates from the fact that they tell a mu ch larger story, contributing to every other movie within the series. So therefore, the AFI placed Godfather as their own number 2; and yet, it is part Godfather1 and Godfather3, so why not give 1 and 3 credit for the success of 2?
Other large changes include Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind; the AFI's number1 and number4 have been omitted. Gone with the Wind is not on it because it just plain sucks and frankly, I don't give a damn neither. If someone ever wanted to really torture me I give you this, make me watch Gone with the Wind until it breaks me. One of the worst movies ever made. Citizen Kane is different for me. I think it is a good movie however it is nonsense to place it at one; maybe 100; but as you can see, I think that their number wasn't taking true quality to mind, only that 100 was a nice big round number; (eerily they also said they would like to put 400 movies on here and I think that that just dilutes the quality of the list. Since the list is 100 they don't have to be real accurate of where they place the movies, just as long as they can put it in. But in the end, that not the part that really bothers me.
What really bothers me is that these monkeys is chiefly it lack of accuracy. Well, that and the utter egotism involved in picking an obviously inferior portrayal of the human existence as their number 1, Citizen Kane, and as only Film majors can even fathom why they would value it so highly; inherently, I would argue, they have lost sight of the true intrinsic value inherent within movies and movie making; and that is t6o move us, to stir our soul, to awaken us with brilliant rays; it is the movies that transform us and ones where we can identify with a particular character and because we respect that character so much as being part of the greater angst and human condition; that this intangible that meets us in a relatedness which is value transfigured, revealed and revealing. It is the higher forms of art alone that give us a portal of ourselves and our capacity to be better people, ands in my opinion, it is the movies on this list which better represents this existential and lonely spirit; the first five I consider to be modern day Bacchus's by the way in which they lend themselves to meaning and rites of passage.
The AFI by their choosing of Citizen Kane 1, believes that the technical merit of a movie is an end itself and supercedes all other values. I disagree. I grteat movie teaches me, not once but again and again; not about the trade in being a good director; but it instead teaches me about life, spirit, myself, others, god or godlessness; everything. Most people agree with me, or would were the question posed to them. A question I have is, why else is their list so inferior? It clearly should have been much better, but it wasn't. Tiss tiss. Its about your audience you dummy's. Question: who were they trying to impress by placing Gone with the Wind on there? Nobody likes that movie, and even were they to tell you they really like it, do something for me. Ask them how many times they saw it, how long ago was the last time they saw it, and how often they viewed it. My guess is they will say they saw it once 25 years ago, fell asleep twice and had to go the bathroom after they woke up; and didn't press pause. Then they will say "it was so long ago, I really can't remember it that well." Hmmm... I wonder why; was it that it sucked and you never wanted to see it again unless you were trapped in the jungles of Vietnam with a very cruel taskmaster?
So everyone knows that a quarter of these movies really aren't all that good; and yet they put them on there for the purposes of posterity and filmmakers wanting to be historians. Its pompous really and an insult to the intelligence of the public. For these reasons and this list that I here present to you here that I say: I rest my case.
2 Taxi Driver
3 Papillon
3 Papillon
4 American Beauty
5 Lawrence of Arabia
6 Kawansquati
7 Casablanca
8 The Shining
9 Network
10 Seven Samurai (Japanese Version)
11 Easy Rider
12 Wizard of Oz
13 Pulp Fiction
14 Groundhog Day
15 Caddy Shack
16 One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
17 Reservoir Dogs
18 The Graduate
19 Apocalpse Now
20 Bridge over the River Kwai
21 Gladiator
22 Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
23 Dr Strangelove
24 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
25 Young Frankenstein
5 Lawrence of Arabia
6 Kawansquati
7 Casablanca
8 The Shining
9 Network
10 Seven Samurai (Japanese Version)
11 Easy Rider
12 Wizard of Oz
13 Pulp Fiction
14 Groundhog Day
15 Caddy Shack
16 One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
17 Reservoir Dogs
18 The Graduate
19 Apocalpse Now
20 Bridge over the River Kwai
21 Gladiator
22 Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
23 Dr Strangelove
24 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
25 Young Frankenstein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)