Yeah I was surprised by how average it was given the critical reception.
Film Hollywood Reporter's top 50 films of the century
- Thread starter Rooney in Paris
- Start date
Yeah I was surprised by how average it was given the critical reception.
Inside Llewellyn Davis?!
Good lord.
Good lord.
Fell foul of the over promotion and over hype due to the narrative around its production
It didn't even occur to me that the Lord of the Rings movies aren't in this. A laughable omission if you're gonna put Black Panther.
Forget LotR, even Attack of the clones is better than Black Panther.
Its that hipster mentality at play where including legitimately good big studio movies like Return of the King, Mad Max Fury Road or The Dark Knight is a no-no and uncool, and the blatant desire to show off how culturally broad they are by including obscure foreign films or films that are about identity politics.
This list is like the polar opposite of someone loading a list which 80% of it is comic book movies, popcorn movies and jumpscare movies, and then they add Wolf of Wall Street because they want to live their life like a character from that.
A list put together by the type of people I hope I never have to talk to at the pub.
I guess they'd feel the same way if they saw the Caf's list
Wow what a shite list. So snooty.
Pretty hard to take any of the moaners seriously when they probably haven't even heard of half of these movies. Do yourselves a favour and watch a few of them before crying about the omissions.
Why is there the constant need for people to have their opinions validated instead of just being curious to watch or listen to something a bit different? That's what these lists are all about, so you may as well try to take something positive from them, or just ignore them if you're not open to exploring anything new.
No Country For Old Men is a particularly weird and boring hill for the Caf to die on. A violent movie with a message that violence is bad and sometimes random, mindblowing stuff right there. You'd swear the Coen brothers had invented film noir based on the reactions in here.
Why is there the constant need for people to have their opinions validated instead of just being curious to watch or listen to something a bit different? That's what these lists are all about, so you may as well try to take something positive from them, or just ignore them if you're not open to exploring anything new.
No Country For Old Men is a particularly weird and boring hill for the Caf to die on. A violent movie with a message that violence is bad and sometimes random, mindblowing stuff right there. You'd swear the Coen brothers had invented film noir based on the reactions in here.
Amen to this.
Also agree on the No country... point, weird to complain about when another of Coen's films, A serious man, is on there and is a pretty worthy inclusion.
Shows why Oscars have seen a nest 50% decline in ratings and viewership due to the movies they showcase and reward. The trend of "top" movies becoming something that only niche people enjoy.
I have no interest in watching most of these.
You can blame the big studios and streaming services for this. A24 and other Oscar bait will dominate the award shows when most big productions are low-brow stuff targeted towards middle-schoolers. The film industry has changed so much in the last 2 decades.
Maybe they're not critically aclaimed because they're not as good as the other more popular choices? The list is trying to hard to be "different"
One or two random admission could be interesting, but when most of it are movie that even the premises sounds dodgy you'd know that they're only fishing for reaction.
Yes, top 50 movies or even top 10 are boring because it'll mostly be the same 70% of the popular movies everyone rated like Godfather, Shawhanks, etc. But they're there on merit, anything else is there just to garner reaction.
How do we calculate this merit? If a film is popular with both critics and regular watchers then it's easy, but what do we do when audiences and critics agree less and less often? And how should the power balance between these two "competing" factions be? 50/50? 80/20 in favor of the critics?
If I have to choose between critics and regular watchers then I will always pick the former. That's how you get nice things like the Criterion Collection.
Most of the IMDB top 50 are both acclaimed by critics and viewers. Yes, they're the boring same old titles, but again there's a reason why they're there.
I know some of the arthous listed is very interesting and watchable, but the number one spot is a chinese Movie called Yiyi? You gotta be kidding me.
https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/
1. Shawshank's Redemption
2. The Godfather
3. The Dark Knight
4. The Godfather Part II
5. 12 Angry Men
6. Schindler's List
7. LOTR Return of the King
8. Pulp Fiction
9. LOTR Fellowship of the Ring
10. The Good The Bad and The Ugly
11. Forrest Gump
12. Fight Club
13. LOTR The 2 Towers
14. Inception
15. SW : Empire Strikes Back
16. Matrix
17. GoodFellas
...
......
22. Seven Samurai
25. City of God
32. Spirited Away
Tell me those films don't merit being there.
Keep in mind that this list only includes films from this century.
Looking at the IMDb top 50 films from this century: 15 titles, with most of them being Nolan, Marvel and LOTR. Personally I would have included LOTR, but not the Marvel and Nolan films. Parasite and Spirited Away are on both lists and I agree with both there.
Most of the films on there, as far as I know, are indeed critically acclaimed. They may not be as popular as others, but I don't think there's any that didn't receive critical acclaim.
Perhaps time will tell. For example, Shawshank Redemption was a box office bomb when released, but became a phenomenon later. Maybe some of these will be viewed differently over time.
But despite any excuses, that list is way beyond any normal expectations to not have some agenda.
But despite any excuses, that list is way beyond any normal expectations to not have some agenda.
But even the agenda is weird. Unless they plan to piss everyone off.
People with different tastes, probably from a panel of people from more diverse background than the Caf in general = must have an agenda.
Their agenda is to make every kid gay and foreign!
Starting to think the word agenda is becoming to now mean opinion. Which makes thing’s very confusing.
Not even Paul Feig's mom would put Bridesmaids above movies like No Country for old men, Memories of Murder, Infernal Affairs, There Will be Blood etc.
Hell, she wouldn't even put it above Infinity War and Transformers.
Hell, she wouldn't even put it above Infinity War and Transformers.
I get it's all about tastes, but come on, it's a brutal list. I actually like vast majority of the movies listed, but they simply don't belong on any of these all time lists.
Not really an agenda, but quite obviously an attempt on driving clicks on rage, and not on quality, which is the go to option for news nowadays.
The problem with the the description "critically acclaimed" is that there are essentially 3 types of critics:
1. The young journalist who knows nothing about film
Not all publications can afford to hire an actual film expert to spend a considerable amount of time watching and reviewing films. It typically becomes a side gig where the journalists just give their own biased opinion, copy other critics or try to guess if the film will be popular or not. And in some cases they will be contrarian just for clickbait and rage. These reviews are basically useless.
2. The actual film expert
There is practically no correlation between their opinion and the general public's opinion. These reviews will also be useless unless you are a bit of a film nerd who actually watches a lot of different films.
3. The compromiser
This is a film expert who also tries to consider what people like. For the average watcher these are going to be the most fair reviews.
Overall, I think it's good to listen to the critics because the aggregated result is a good mix of expertise and compromise. In any case it's important to remember that there is a difference between a film receiving stellar reviews and a film making an all-time great list. Those are kind of different discussions. Not to mention, there will always be more critically acclaimed films than there are room for on a relatively short list.
1. The young journalist who knows nothing about film
Not all publications can afford to hire an actual film expert to spend a considerable amount of time watching and reviewing films. It typically becomes a side gig where the journalists just give their own biased opinion, copy other critics or try to guess if the film will be popular or not. And in some cases they will be contrarian just for clickbait and rage. These reviews are basically useless.
2. The actual film expert
There is practically no correlation between their opinion and the general public's opinion. These reviews will also be useless unless you are a bit of a film nerd who actually watches a lot of different films.
3. The compromiser
This is a film expert who also tries to consider what people like. For the average watcher these are going to be the most fair reviews.
Overall, I think it's good to listen to the critics because the aggregated result is a good mix of expertise and compromise. In any case it's important to remember that there is a difference between a film receiving stellar reviews and a film making an all-time great list. Those are kind of different discussions. Not to mention, there will always be more critically acclaimed films than there are room for on a relatively short list.
