AFI's Top 100 Movies--How Many Have You Seen?

[Grazioso]

As someone who teaches teenagers I can assure that they don't go around quoting Pulp Fiction.  In fact the movies they've seen usually only go back a few years.  All of the funny stuff that they quote they've seen on youtube.  If there was one movie they would quote it would probably be the The Room due to it being hilariously bad.

I refer to when it came out.

Pulp Fiction was great filmmaking. It's all about style. The content is too dismaying for some to enjoy. Turning such trash into a compelling story, largely through narrative tricks that keep the first time viewer guessing about what's going on here and how these seemingly disjointed vignettes tie together, is quite an accomplishment.

I wouldn't go so far as "compelling," but it was amusing for the updated campy exploitation flick it was, and the narrative structure was definitely refreshing. The problem with Tarantino is that he's mostly style, with little content. His work tends to be unremittingly lurid and juvenile (Jackie Brown might be a partial exception), like some 15-year-old obsessive film geek trapped in a grown man's body. (N.B. I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds yet, so can't comment there.)

[DavidW]

I refer to when it came out.

I guess you don't like Monty Python then... people started quoting it when they saw it as kids and teens and haven't stopped!   I'm looking at you Karl!

[Grazioso]

I guess you don't like Monty Python then... people started quoting it when they saw it as kids and teens and haven't stopped!   I'm looking at you Karl!

He's not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy! 

[lisa needs braces]

65/100.

I think most of the ones I haven't seen simply didn't interest me, like the silent film Intolerance or The Sound of Music. I never did use this list though. When I become interested in films the list I used was the mostly consistent imdb top 250 list:

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

[DavidRoss]

The problem with Tarantino is that he's mostly style, with little content. His work tends to be unremittingly lurid and juvenile (Jackie Brown might be a partial exception), like some 15-year-old obsessive film geek trapped in a grown man's body. (N.B. I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds yet, so can't comment there.)

You've described Tarantino perfectly. Don't waste a moment of your time on Basterds.

[Grazioso]

65/100.

I think most of the ones I haven't seen simply didn't interest me, like the silent film Intolerance or The Sound of Music. I never did use this list though. When I become interested in films the list I used was the mostly consistent imdb top 250 list:

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

The Sound of Music was good for one thing, inspiring this towering classic from John Coltrane:

http://www.youtube.com/v/hugIRAe2yvw

[DavidW]

His work tends to be unremittingly lurid and juvenile (Jackie Brown might be a partial exception), like some 15-year-old obsessive film geek trapped in a grown man's body. (N.B. I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds yet, so can't comment there.)

I missed this before, I'm glad that I'm not the only one that thinks that.  I love Pulp Fiction but would describe his movies that way.  Inglorious Basterds is so no exception to that description but it does offer a fantastic performance from Christoph Waltz that makes it worth watching.

[lisa needs braces]

Tarantino is now a hack. This is my review of "Inglorious Basterds" which touches on why his post 90s films all suck:

The failure of "Inglourious Basterds" is the failure of "Death Proof" and the "Kill Bill" films. After "Jackie Brown" Tarantino jettisoned any concern with gripping storytelling and decided to focus on constructing fan-boyish collages, like an amateur film maker recreating his favorite moments from the movies. Perhaps though this change of direction for Tarantino isn't merely a matter of choice–he may simply be burned out in terms of generating story ideas. After all, one can't be gifted in every facet. Tarantino can direct and construct involving, musical dialog–but the man may no longer be capable of originating good stories, and his best work — Pulp Fiction — may have been a fluke as far as HIS contribution to the story of the film is concerned. After all, Roger Avery wrote a third of the script, though he merely gets a "stories" co-credit. "Reservoir Dogs" lifted its most important plot and story elements from the Hong Kong film "City On Fire" from the late 80s. And "Jackie Brown" — his second best work — was an adaptation of a work by a writer who Tarantino drew a lot of inspiration from. But Tarantino has given several interviews in which he claimed that he is very distanced from "Jackie Brown," a distance that no doubt stems from the fact that when audiences see it they can't help but appreciate Elmore Leonard as much as Tarantino. In Hollywood, the writer-director is the most prestigious position. But many of the greatest directors have, of course, depended for ideas on novelists and screen-writers. Perhaps Tarantino doesn't care to stoop so low as them again.

In Kill Bill, what happened to the Bride, and her subsequent quest, was largely goofy. Rather than taking a true risk and making an actual film which involved revenge, Tarantino chose a cheaper, satirical route, so that the revenge quest was treated so satirically and frivolously as to preempt any criticism of the film's plot or characters, i.e, the "it's bad on purpose!" defense. The only way to criticize the film was to take issue with the whole cold exercise and observe that Tim Roth getting shot in the stomach in "Reservoir Dogs" and the audience squirming in their seats as he bled profusely was preferable to Sofie Fatale getting her arm chopped off and the audience laughing.

There is no good story in Inglourious Basterds either, and just as in Kill Bill the revenge and dealing out of justice are treated too outlandishly to be taken seriously as plots. It isn't that the lack of seriousness which undermines the story but that the lack of seriousness covers up the poor nature of the storytelling. We are asked to accept the premise of The Basterds solely on the basis of such a group of characters having been featured in World War 2 films previously. There is no reason for the "Basterds" to be comprised primarily of Jews except that Tarantino requires it to fit in with the revenge theme. And it is not required that the film be replete with overt verbal allusions to cinematic figures other that Tarantino wants to be too cute by half.

The use of chapter breaks in Pulp Fiction elegantly delineated the separate plot threads. Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds (and in Kill Bill) has become dependent on chapter breaks as a way to cut into any scene without having to get there through a narrative. Why establish the details of how Shoshana came to possess her a new identity and a theater? Just cut to the exact place the character needs to be to enact her revenge! Why, indeed, bother with the details of how to get from one set piece to another? Just give each one it's own "chapter" to relieve the director/writer and the audience of the bothersome details of a smooth narrative.

Gratuitousness abounds. We aren't shown the bodies of the murdered Jews, yet we're given full view of the scalping of Nazi soldiers. Did Tarantino think that the former undercut his whole "lolz...violence!" shtick? In two instances a narrator intrudes and embellishes arbitrary details. Michael Fassbender's character is painstakingly introduced...only to lamely die the next scene. Tarantino kills of Shoshana in an anti-climatic fashion just so he can resurrect her on the big screen. Two of the Basterds get so carried away in pummeling the Nazis at the theater with bullets that they forget the bombs they're strapped to, but just why they would be suicidal isn't made clear.

But it doesn't make sense, I suppose, to get too worked up over any of its details. As said before, the only recourse is to question the whole exercise and the artistic dead-end it represents. The films of the post-Jackie Brown Tarantino will not inspire anyone. They are the products of a fearful film maker aware that, like Orson Wells, he made his greatest film too young. And rather than settling into a comfortable routine of Jackie Brown like films–i.e, substantive and effective thrillers not stylistically overdone based on novels or screenplays not by him– he has opted to produce a flow of pastiches whose failure on a storytelling and character level critics won't hold him accountable for due to the -mere exercise- nature of the films. But at least he gets sole credit.

But man oh man the reputation that Tarantino continues to have! No one will even ever give up grief for lifting a lot of the ideas for "Reservoir Dogs" from a Hong Kong Asian film without giving credit to the source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgbSAL8OKY

[DavidW]

Great, insightful review Abe.

[lisa needs braces]

Great, insightful review Abe.

Thanks David.   

[Renfield]

I think calling Tarantino a 'hack' might be overdoing it a little.

Again, I realise I don't exactly belong to the club of 'people who know about cinema' in any genuine sense, but I find much to enjoy in his work, including at an intellectual level. I think David(Ross)'s assessment is quite fair.

(At a purely personal level, I love the guy, and his work: it's an immense pleasure to watch it. But that's not what I'm talking about.)

[SonicMan46]

The Sound of Music was good for one thing, inspiring this towering classic from John Coltrane:

 

Well, I really enjoy The Sound of Music - love the music & lyrics by Rodgers & Hammerstein, love Julie Andrews, and also love the filming in Austria; yes a 'corny' film (and my wife refuses to watch the movie w/ me, so I have a critic living at home!).  And I do own the album by John Coltrane - of course, keep in mind that Rodgers wrote the music that Coltrane played off on, so where is the genius?  I suspect in both the composer and the musician.

For those who may be interested in Broadway/Film musicals (and I know there are not many fans here from past threads), but the DVD on Richard Rodgers added above is outstanding - I've seen the documentary at least a dozen times and don't tire of the presentation - at least a cheap rental for those who may be interested - covers Rodgers from start to finish w/ both Hart & Hammerstein.

[eyeresist]

54.

But there are others I have seen only part of, or may have watched enture and then forgotten.

As far as being a measure of quality goes, I'd say the list is obviously nothing more than a collection of "notable names": award winners, elitist badges, nostaligia curios. Is "It happened one night" really a better film than "Groundhog day"?

[mc ukrneal]

54.

But there are others I have seen only part of, or may have watched enture and then forgotten.

As far as being a measure of quality goes, I'd say the list is obviously nothing more than a collection of "notable names": award winners, elitist badges, nostaligia curios. Is "It happened one night" really a better film than "Groundhog day"?

It Happened One Night is the model that many romantic/screwball comedies follow even today, setting the bar and standard high. So while you may prefer Groundhog Day (a good movie), it doesn't have the same historical impact as the former. Personally, I think IHON a very tight movie - well acted, cleverly done, very well written, and still pretty relevent 80 years on. It makes me laugh every time, and some parts are so well scripted - too many movies today don't have the wit that this one did. The banter is sheer genius. And that is why I (personally) think IHON a better film.

But these sorts of lists are totally debateable and that is part of their fun. They also will (I hope) push people to see better quality films. There are so many spine-tingling moments in them, and I think most of them well chosen. I would disagree with one thing you wrote - there aren't any nostalgia curios here. The movies you refer to are great films in their own right, and we've seen comments by other posters who wish more (slinet films, for example) had been included. Sure, some may be dated in certain ways, but then they still have the ability to make us laugh or cry and shout out to the screen. What could be more revelent?

[DavidRoss]

It Happened One Night is the model that many romantic/screwball comedies follow even today, setting the bar and standard high. So while you may prefer Groundhog Day (a good movie), it doesn't have the same historical impact as the former. Personally, I think IHON a very tight movie - well acted, cleverly done, very well written, and still pretty relevent 80 years on. It makes me laugh every time, and some parts are so well scripted - too many movies today don't have the wit that this one did. The banter is sheer genius. And that is why I (personally) think IHON a better film.

QFT

[The new erato]

It Happened One Night is the model that many romantic/screwball comedies follow even today, setting the bar and standard high. So while you may prefer Groundhog Day (a good movie), it doesn't have the same historical impact as the former. Personally, I think IHON a very tight movie - well acted, cleverly done, very well written, and still pretty relevent 80 years on. It makes me laugh every time, and some parts are so well scripted - too many movies today don't have the wit that this one did. The banter is sheer genius. And that is why I (personally) think IHON a better film.

Well put, brilliant movie and it has stood up very well (better than eg Sunset Boulevard) to the ravages of time. IMHO.

I found many questionable selections on the list, but this was one of those that made me suspect that the people behind it really had some inkling of good taste.

[SonicMan46]

As far as being a measure of quality goes, I'd say the list is obviously nothing more than a collection of "notable names": award winners, elitist badges, nostaligia curios. Is "It happened one night" really a better film than "Groundhog day"?

Boy, I have to agree w/ the subsequent responses to the post above - what a poor comparison - 

It Happened One Night has been one of my favorite movies (of all time) since first watching the film probably in the early 1960s on TV when I was in high school; I've own the film first on VHS tape and of course now on DVD (will have to see if there has even been an HD update attempt?).

After all of these years of watching this film (probably approaching several dozen times at least), I cannot imagine a better actor in this role that Clark Gable in his 'early ' prime - his screen presence is just explosive (has any other actor even approached his performance in these screw ball type comedies, and this was the early 1930s?); and, Claudette Colbert I find just wonderful in her role although a number of other actresses of the time may have pulled it off?

So, just another big THUMBS UP for this classic & enjoyable film which I'll be watching until the end of my life!   

[Bulldog]

Boy, I have to agree w/ the subsequent responses to the post above - what a poor comparison - 

It Happened One Night has been one of my favorite movies (of all time) since first watching the film probably in the early 1960s on TV when I was in high school; I've own the film first on VHS tape and of course now on DVD (will have to see if there has even been an HD update attempt?).

After all of these years of watching this film (probably approaching several dozen times at least), I cannot imagine a better actor in this role that Clark Gable in his 'early ' prime - his screen presence is just explosive (has any other actor even approached his performance in these screw ball type comedies, and this was the early 1930s?); and, Claudette Colbert I find just wonderful in her role although a number of other actresses of the time may have pulled it off?

So, just another big THUMBS UP for this classic & enjoyable film which I'll be watching until the end of my life!   

I also have enjoyed this film for decades.  However, I have to admit that I never had much use for Colbert.  I tend to put her in the same basket as Julie Andrews, Carol Burnett, Susan Haywood, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis. 

[SonicMan46]

I also have enjoyed this film for decades.  However, I have to admit that I never had much use for Colbert.  I tend to put her in the same basket as Julie Andrews, Carol Burnett, Susan Haywood, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis.

Well, Don, my 'tongue in cheek' response is that your category above is not all that bad!      Dave

[Bulldog]

Well, Don, my 'tongue in cheek' response is that your category above is not all that bad!      Dave

Well, the category has nothing to do with acting ability.  I just have trouble looking at them for more than a few seconds.