The Movie Forums Top 100 of All-Time Refresh: Countdown

→ in
Tools    





Shout out to Joseph Cotten. He is fantastic in Kane, and always fantastic in my opinion. Branching out past just the well know classics the last few years has really made him one of my favorite actors. Kane, Ambersons, Third Man, and Shadow Of A Doubt he really shines in all 3. I feel like I'm missing a big one too, but if anyone has some Cotten recs past those throw them my way.
__________________
Letterboxd



I think Chimes of Midnight is a better film than Kane, though I know I am in the minority on that one. I didn't vote for any Welles movies on my ballot this time around.

Random thought while looking at the list so far; Is Dustin Hoffman not on the list?
Crazy but it's true. Midnight Cowboy and The Graduate must have both finished in the top 150 or so, I would guess, but when they didn't make the cut that was it for Dusty, I'm afraid. Rain Man and Tootsie probably seem too dated to kids these days. Straw Dogs was never going to bubble to the top ahead of The Wild Bunch and other Peckinpah greats that missed the cut. Lenny was not going to beat out Cabaret or All That Jazz. Marathon Man is not going to best more popular thrillers like Silence of the Lambs and No Country for Old Men. Little Big Man is one of my favorite Westerns ever, but it wasn't going to place with the big boys of the genre. And on and on.

Hoffman is one of the undisputed all time great actors but none of his films made it this time.

I haven't updated it in a while but check out THIS THREAD for all things Dustin Hoffman.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



Citizen Kane is definitely a worthy addition, even if it didn't make my Top 25 (Had it at #57). I had seen it probably 2 or 3 times before, but hadn't seen it in several years. I rewatched it earlier this month (twice, one with Ebert's commentary) and maybe if I had submitted my list after that, it would've made the cut. But anyway, I echo what Yoda said in a previous post about how great Ebert's commentary is and how much light it shines in all the groundbreaking aspects of the film. To think that this was the first film of a 20-something radio star is just mind-blowing. Definitely one of the best films ever.
__________________
Check out my podcast: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot!



Oh, and since we're in the topic of Welles, other than Kane, I've seen The Stranger and The Lady from Shanghai. What others should I prioritize? I know Touch of Evil and F for Fake would probably be the next options, but I'd like to know what the MoFo's think.



I had three Welles films to choose from for my list, and Citizen Kane was not the one I picked (I don't expect mine to show up, although I guess there's an outside chance). It is not in the least surprising to see it here, though, with its inventive techniques and storytelling. My favorite scene:




I know Touch of Evil and F for Fake would probably be the next options, but I'd like to know what the MoFo's think.
Yes and yes, in that order. You also can't go wrong with Othello (extremely unfortunate blackface aside), The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight.



I've been meaning to rewatch Citizen Kane for ages. Might just do it in the company of Mr. Ebert.
Yeah, since I hadn't seen it in several years, I saw it one night without commentary, and the next one, with it. I also have plans of watching Mank later this month.



I think Chimes of Midnight is a better film than Kane, though I know I am in the minority on that one. I didn't vote for any Welles movies on my ballot this time around.



Crazy but it's true. Midnight Cowboy and The Graduate must have both finished in the top 150 or so, I would guess, but when they didn't make the cut that was it for Dusty, I'm afraid. Rain Man and Tootsie probably seem too dated to kids these days. Straw Dogs was never going to bubble to the top ahead of The Wild Bunch and other Peckinpah greats that missed the cut. Lenny was not going to beat out Cabaret or All That Jazz. Marathon Man is not going to best more popular thrillers like Silence of the Lambs and No Country for Old Men. Little Big Man is one of my favorite Westerns ever, but it wasn't going to place with the big boys of the genre. And on and on.

Hoffman is one of the undisputed all time great actors but none of his films made it this time.
^ Agreed. I really thought Rain Man and All the President’s Men had a shot. Haven't seen Chimes of Midnight yet but I will someday, next on my watchlist is Stalag 17.



I think Chimes of Midnight is a better film than Kane, though I know I am in the minority on that one. I didn't vote for any Welles movies on my ballot this time around.



Crazy but it's true. Midnight Cowboy and The Graduate must have both finished in the top 150 or so, I would guess, but when they didn't make the cut that was it for Dusty, I'm afraid. Rain Man and Tootsie probably seem too dated to kids these days. Straw Dogs was never going to bubble to the top ahead of The Wild Bunch and other Peckinpah greats that missed the cut. Lenny was not going to beat out Cabaret or All That Jazz. Marathon Man is not going to best more popular thrillers like Silence of the Lambs and No Country for Old Men. Little Big Man is one of my favorite Westerns ever, but it wasn't going to place with the big boys of the genre. And on and on.

Hoffman is one of the undisputed all time great actors but none of his films made it this time.

I haven't updated it in a while but check out THIS THREAD for all things Dustin Hoffman.
Damn didn't realize he would get no films. It's a shame



As a filmmaker and a fan of filmmaking I appreciate Citizen Kane as the technical marvel that it is, especially for its time. It told a story visually like no other, Unfortunately that story and the characters were never something I was that interested in.



I'd disagree on Jurassic Park not having iconic performances, even if they're not necessarily on the same level as a Martin Brody or an Indiana Jones. Sam Neill as the curmudgeonly palaeontologist, Laura Dern as his capable offsider, Jeff Goldblum as a rockstar mathematician of all things, RIchard Attenbourgh as the "spared no expense" idealist founder of the park, even Wayne Knight as the treacherous I.T. guy.. The plot's basic, sure, but Spielberg has shown time and time again that films don't need to have complex plots to be good (and that complicating them can be for the worst, as the Jurassic sequels[/i] tend to show)

I think by mentioning Brodie and Indiana Jones, you are bringing up the two kinds of iconic characters Spielberg is good at. There is a tremendous amount of humanism in the character of Brodie, never more fully articulated then in the dinner table scene with his son. It's a simple moment that shows us so much more of what is going on underneath the somewhat gruff exterior. And with Jones, you have maybe not the most realisitcally humane of characters, but Spielberg harness' the off the charts charisma of Ford, and gives you someone to root for, even if he's occassionally a bit of a bastard.



I like Sam Neil as an actor. He's great in The Piano, and he has one of the greatest unhinged performances of all time in Possession. And he's fine here to. He just doesn't seem to have either that simple humanism or icnonic heft, which are two of the elements I think Spielberg is in desperate need of to make his films truly transcend. Even if we isolate particular quirks or motivations about the characters in Jurassic Park, they don't transcend, allowing the film to be much more then popcorn entertainment.


Now, there's nothing wrong with popcorn entertainment. But for them to really stand out in any meaningful way for me, there has to be something unique there. I don't see it with this one, outside of the special effects, which honestly are about as good as CGI gets (saying this from a person who is very skeptical about CGI and how it has been untilized the last 30 years)


As for the standard plot? That's not an issue I actually have, I couldn't care less about those things, but I just was looking for what it was that gets its hooks into its ardent admirers. And it's about as standard as it gets.



Are we doing one movie a day now? Cool.

Citizen Kane is certainly a technical masterpiece. Everything about it from the cinematography, editing, shadows and lighting is truly brilliant. I love watching older films for their technical innovations in the sense of them being either the first or one of the first films to show a groundbreaking technical aspect and Citizen Kane is definitely in the top-tier at this. With that being said, I had a stronger emotional reaction to Welles' Touch of Evil and Chimes at Midnight.



rbrayer's Avatar
Registered User
If I'm being honest and putting the best argument forward on your behalf, they only kinda do. They would not be satisfying on their own. I'll leave it to each person to decide how much they care about the distinction between the story being entirely written before publication (which I guess was the case with LOTR? I don't know offhand), or just in the filmmaker's head. Anyway, I find the whole thing interesting to unpack, I will shut up as well (even if you wanna make one more point).
To clarify a bit more as I don't think I'm being clear enough, it's not the distinction between a story being entirely written before publication that I'm focused on. It's about being entirely written before being adapted into a film or films, but really that is just an outgrowth of the main point: the issue with a series of films being structured as a single story.

If The Lord of the Rings is one story split into 3 parts for convenience of publication and filming, it's still one story. In contrast, Star Wars is one story. Empire is one story. albeit one connected to other stories. BTTF is too, and really BTTF 2 and 3 are as well. It's not that the movies can't be connected or you don't need knowledge of one to enjoy the other, it really is a question of if the "episodes" are built as their own story within the larger story. Assuming that LOTR doesn't work that way, I don't think it makes sense to treat each film separately. Big assumption though. I will be watching the films eventually and promise to weigh in again then.



CITIZEN KANE is one of the beautiful moments in film history where technical innovation, instead of just asking us to marvel at it, cracks open a window into the internal world of its central character. Orson Welles, being a well known as a magician and trickster, is not simply happy enough to reinvent the way movies look in order to play a little slight of hand with his audience (as some naysayers seem to accuse). These visual marvels are invested, step by step, along side both the rise and fall of Kane. The look of the film responds to who he becomes, or maybe who he becomes can't help but make us begin to look at the film differently. Such is the beautiful paradoxes that are opened when a genius makes a movie into an emotional labyrinth. As a result, it gave movies the ability to speak beyond simple narrative and character arcs and turn the sensual experience of watching a spectacle into something intimate. A portrait of a single man and his ambitions. It is a movie that is both infinite in its grandeur, and miniscule in how this grandeur slowly grinds a man into dust. It inspires awe even as we pity the poor fool who thought making it big would solve the empty hole inside of him. A film with endless treasures to find with each viewing.



Ultimately, I didn't include it on my list, mainly because of the stupid reason that its a boring film to talk about being 'the best'. It's been done to death. But it really is about as close to 'the best' as we have gotten and is probably undoubtedly a top 5 film ever made.



So on other notes, is my count right that so far, De Niro is the biggest "winner" with five films on the list? (Taxi Driver, The Godfather Part II, Raging Bull, Heat, and Brazil)

Other than him, I have the following with three...

Jack Nicholson - Chinatown, The Shining, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
James Stewart - Vertigo, Rear Window, It's a Wonderful Life
Brad Pitt - Se7en, Fight Club, The Tree of Life
Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, Toy Story
Morgan Freeman - Se7en, The Shawshank Redemption, Unforgiven

...and the whole LOTR cast (Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, Orlando Bloom, etc.) with 3 films each.



EDIT: Well, there's Hugo Weaving, with three LOTR films AND The Matrix, so there's that too.



And Taxi Driver (#14) for Bobby DeNiro. Plus GoodFellas is still coming to give him a total of six.

Harrison Ford will have four when Raiders of the Lost Ark and Blade Runner are added to Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. It'll be five if/when Apocalypse Now shows as well. And it would be six if his cameo hadn't been cut out of E.T.




And Taxi Driver (#14) for Bobby DeNiro. Plus GoodFellas is still coming to give him a total of six.

Harrison Ford will have four when Raiders of the Lost Ark and Blade Runner are added to Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. It'll be five if/when Apocalypse Now shows as well. And it would be six if his cameo hadn't been cut out of E.T.

How did I miss De Niro in my count? Thanks!