RedCafe's Top 50 Films Of All Time Submission/Discussion Thread

Should I use the template provided to submit my choices?

  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
Scrumpet said:
Surely you mean 2006's The Return with Sarah Michelle Gellar?
Click to expand...
ha, rumbled. yeah by the time i got to sabrina, i just started lazily changing the dates of my original & true list of cinematic loves. jack and jill & home alone 4 forever.

Aldo said:
So I guess there is a particular minimum number of movies you need to have watched to be qualified as a 'film critic' on here? I usually watch around 5-10 movies per year including new releases, not sure if it's high enough.
Click to expand...
obviously the vast majority of ribbing of others people’s tastes is done in good fun, just ignore the rest of it. if people get enjoyment from trying to look at art/entertainment more objectively, then fair enough - when it leads to others being made to feel as if they’re not enjoying the right things in the right way, obviously feck that. experiencing art/entertainment in any way you like is part of what’s so great about it. exactly what each of us enjoys & why we enjoy it, seems to me to matter even less than most things in life.
 
I forgot several top films in my list, including Witness, the brilliant but not particularly well liked Fearless and even Blade Runner, which should make any list on style alone. Peter Weir and Harrison Ford will never forgive me. :o I also forgot Dumbo, which imo is Disney's best ever.
 
Brazil deserved some votes. Retro futuristic and Kafkaesque, what's not to love?
 
Last edited:
R.N7 said:
Toy Story 3 is probably the most evil film ever conceived.
Click to expand...
After Upstream Color.
invictus said:
Why does Toy Story warrant a mention in the Top 50 ? First full length CGI ? Pixar ? I just don't get all the fanatical hype around it, especially since the third one came along. It's a good trilogy and all, good technological innovations involved fairplay, but hardly a classic.

If there needs to be a mandatory animated movie, Studio Ghibli is light years ahead in terms of artistic beauty, storytelling, conceptualisation and poignancy that it warrants a rethink for the Disney enamoured masses. Hotaru No Haka, Spirited Away, Mononoke Hime, Howl's Moving Castle are all several notches above the Toy Story franchise.

Even some other Disney/ Pixar/ WB productions - Lion King or The Iron Giant have got Toy story beat.
Click to expand...
I don't have any problems with Ghibli, though I don't get the love they get by a lot of people. Grave of the Fireflies is the only one for me that really deserves to be mentioned as one of the best animated pictures out there. The Pixar films, on top of very good looking, manage to deal with universal themes and relate to wide audiences, both children and adults, which is no mean feat. I don't think because they're popular they deserve any less consideration than Ghibli films, I can understand the preference for one or another, but I get the feeling it's become 'cool' to hate Disney when they've done some absolutely fantastic stuff over the last decades, both alone and with Pixar.
Nickosaur said:
Up gets my animated vote.
Click to expand...
Up! is a superb little theme. Invictus talks about storytelling being one of Ghibli's fortes, which is quite true, but I remember being mesmerized by the first 10 minutes of Up, it was like nothing I'd seen before in an animated pictures and I though it took balls to do it. The rest is more 'run of the mill' but still really well done and touching, but if only for that introduction, it deserves to be mentioned as one of the top animated pictures, for me.
Spoony said:
Brazil deserved some votes. Retro futurist and Kafkaesque, what's not to love?
Click to expand...
Oh ffs I forgot Brazil! I'm ashamed, I completely forgot Gilliam, this is what happens when you rush it and do it in 20 minutes at the end of a work day! Brazil is one of my favourite films and probably would've made it into my top 10, and I even would've found place for 12 Monkeys in the top 20.
 
Brazil was brilliant, 12 Monkeys despite being good wasn't a patch on Brazil. And I left it out and all!
 
Pixar started a trend of replacing all the adventures and wonders from kids films with a huge toy store containing toys that say witty lines.
 
Last edited:
Rooney in Paris said:
I don't have any problems with Ghibli, though I don't get the love they get by a lot of people. Grave of the Fireflies is the only one for me that really deserves to be mentioned as one of the best animated pictures out there. The Pixar films, on top of very good looking, manage to deal with universal themes and relate to wide audiences, both children and adults, which is no mean feat. I don't think because they're popular they deserve any less consideration than Ghibli films, I can understand the preference for one or another, but I get the feeling it's become 'cool' to hate Disney when they've done some absolutely fantastic stuff over the last decades, both alone and with Pixar.
Click to expand...

Oh no don't get me wrong mate. I have nothing against Disney because it's popular and personally I don't feel it's 'cool' or hipster-ish to hate Disney. They have produced some absolute classics over the years - Fantasia was a landmark in the animation genre, Bambi a beautiful masterpiece that has withstood the test of time, The Lion King which is till date one of the most engrossing films I've ever seen or Up! as you rightly suggested.

But while Toy Story offers a good laugh and some eye candy, it was just so glossy, cliched and formulaic and it started a horrible trend for compensating lack of story with special effects whence subsequent Disney/Pixar CGI films completely sucked the charm and fantasy out of animated movies on top of in-your-face excessive merchandising. I was blown away by the other Disney movies mentioned above and emotionally staggered by Lion King and Bambi in particular. Any great movie warrants a second, third rewatch, I've found myself thinking about certain films days after watching them. But Toy Story is just a basic theme party - so generic and shallow with such little texture or scope for imagination, the characters are mostly over the top and not palatable and it has such little heart that even as a 5 years kid I felt nothing while watching it and I still can't comprehend the bandwagoning about it almost 20 years later. Fair to say I've watched it both as a child and an adult but I'm yet to find an emotional connect or get its universal themes.

So to rank it amongst the 50 greatest movies ever is a bit of a stretch IMO when it shouldn't even be among the Top 5 for Disney. Or stand in the company of Wall-E, the Iron Giant, Ratatouille, Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Finding Nemo which all deserve to be ranked above Toy Story in the this particular list. I'm not very good with analogies but Toy Story is similar to Avatar or Citizen Kane. Extremely popular popcorn flicks (in the former's case) sure, even critically acclaimed. However are they great movies just because they set new trends ? I don't think so. Then again people have different tastes. Just because I didn't happen to find it great doesn't mean others can't. But purely from a technical point of view still it would be really undeserving of a spot in the top 50 over some superior animated movies and maybe 45+ much superior non-animated ones.
 
I loved Toy Story, didn't think much of Ratatouille and Finding Nemo though. Sadly most CGI animated films churned out these days by Disney are utter dross. My main gripe with Disney or Dreamworks is they don't push out the boat in terms of animation in CG movies. Yet there are some absolute drop dead gorgeous 2D animated movies around. To be fair that criticism can be levelled at anime too.
 
invictus said:
Oh no don't get me wrong mate. I have nothing against Disney because it's popular and personally I don't feel it's 'cool' or hipster-ish to hate Disney. They have produced some absolute classics over the years - Fantasia was a landmark in the animation genre, Bambi a beautiful masterpiece that has withstood the test of time, The Lion King which is till date one of the most engrossing films I've ever seen or Up! as you rightly suggested.
Click to expand...
Fair play, didn't mean to judge or make assumptions, I've just heard a lot of harsh comments directed at Disney recently!

I don't agree with your assessment of Toy Story, but I think a lot of it is down to personal preferences. I'm a bit surprised at how you're putting it on the same level as Avatar or Citizen Kane, well more surprised that you're putting Citizen Kane next to Avatar. Why don't you think Citizen Kane is a great movie? It's right up there with the very best imo.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Fair play, didn't mean to judge or make assumptions, I've just heard a lot of harsh comments directed at Disney recently!

I don't agree with your assessment of Toy Story, but I think a lot of it is down to personal preferences. I'm a bit surprised at how you're putting it on the same level as Avatar or Citizen Kane, well more surprised that you're putting Citizen Kane next to Avatar. Why don't you think Citizen Kane is a great movie? It's right up there with the very best imo.
Click to expand...

Hmm about Citizen Kane I don't refute the fact that it was technically ground breaking and a highly intricate piece of work. Orson Welles rendered a technological marvel in the 40s but it has just aged really horribly. Honestly I could be a poser and just go with the flow in gushing with acclaim, but that wouldn't be fair because (for me) it was so blatanly lacking in entertainment value and the art of storytelling. I found it really tedious and boring despite picking up the subtle innuendos scattered throughout the movie. This after some of my friends had branded it the greatest film ever and a must see. Guess I expected too much and it turned out to be really underwhelming for me, personally there was no resonance. No offence to those who liked it BTW. I think that it's vastly over-rated solely because or the era it was made in and the symptomatic themes of those times. Is the story poignant or inventive ? No. Were the characters engrossing ? No. Was it was grand technical accomplishment for Welles and his never seen before meticulous film-making techniques ? Yes absolutely. Honestly I can appreciate the detail that went into it, the labour of love for Welles who directed, produced and starred in it, the rich background opposed to earlier painted walls, the cinematographic scope. But is it great just because of Welles' talent or the effort put into it ? For me no. It was good. But not great. I just think there's a whole load of nostalgia involved with it being great for its time and it's forced down the throat of younger generations who risk being deemed culturally ignorant if they don't rate it. Again it's all IMO, no offence intended to anyone. Some love apples or oranges or mangos, while others hate it. As you rightly pointed out it's all about preference. I myself have a fair few on my list that many would find over-rated or plain out rubbish. :)
 
Last edited:
Will start the countdown when home this evening, so probably about 5pm. See how we go but at least try and countdown 50-31.
 
Duffy said:
Will start the countdown when home this evening, so probably about 5pm. See how we go but at least try and countdown 50-31.
Click to expand...


5446231583_yay_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg
 
malappapper said:
Sorry to reply to this post after such a long time has passed, but I just saw it and I find it objectionable to say the least. "300" is masterpiece for me and I will explain. The film wildly succeeds in its primary aim which is to convey the Spartan martial ethic. The viewer is left in no doubt as to what kind of society ancient Sparta really was. For anyone remotely familiar with ancient history and political thought, the importance of this can not go unnoticed. The fact that the action is choreographed in an exaggerated and theatrical manner serves to underline the resonance of the events depicted through the ages and the sheer heroism of the Spartans in standing up to the mighty superpower of its time. Gerard Butler and Lena Headey are also awesome in their roles.
Click to expand...
:confused: How on Earth '300' and a masterpiece are on the same sentence without the word not between them?
 
Revan said:
:confused: How on Earth '300' and a masterpiece are on the same sentence without the word not between them?
Click to expand...

OK, it's not a masterpiece in the same way that "Citizen Kane" or "The Shining" are. But for the kind of film that it is, it is quite good. It also succeeds in its main aim, namely to convey the Spartan martial ethic to the contemporary viewer.
 
malappapper said:
OK, it's not a masterpiece in the same way that "Citizen Kane" or "The Shining" are. But for the kind of film that it is, it is quite good. It also succeeds in its main aim, namely to convey the Spartan martial ethic to the contemporary viewer.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Spartans fight on formation while on 300 they fought like this:



The complete opposite of how apparently Spartans fought. They put their big shields and spears above them and let the opposite forces come, not get completely seperated, transform on superheroes, put heavy music behing and fight like lunatics.
 
Revan said:
No, it doesn't. Spartans fight on formation while on 300 they fought like this:



The complete opposite of how apparently Spartans fought. They put their big shields and spears above them and let the opposite forces come, not get completely seperated, transform on superheroes, put heavy music behing and fight like lunatics.
Click to expand...

How would you know? YOU WEREN'T THERE MAN!!!
 
Revan said:
No, it doesn't. Spartans fight on formation while on 300 they fought like this:



The complete opposite of how apparently Spartans fought. They put their big shields and spears above them and let the opposite forces come, not get completely seperated, transform on superheroes, put heavy music behing and fight like lunatics.
Click to expand...


I referred to the Spartan martial "ethic". Namely the values by which their society was run. Not their military tactics. To now go to the military tactics, during the film, Leonidas describes to Ephialtes how the Spartan phalanx works etc etc. We get a glimpse of that in the beginning of the first battle scene, but then the battle quickly transforms into Hollywood slo-mo style. But to be completely fair, there were indeed cases in which the Spartans broke rank and engaged their opponents in hand-to-hand combat. Reportedly this happened against the Persians as well.
 
malappapper said:
I referred to the Spartan martial "ethic". Namely the values by which their society was run. Not their military tactics. To now go to the military tactics, during the film, Leonidas describes to Ephialtes how the Spartan phalanx works etc etc. We get a glimpse of that in the beginning of the first battle scene, but then the battle quickly transforms into Hollywood slo-mo style. But to be completely fair, there were indeed cases in which the Spartans broke rank and engaged their opponents in hand-to-hand combat. Reportedly this happened against the Persians as well.
Click to expand...
On the battle of Thermophylae no. Th entire tactics was to find a place where the numerical advatage of Persians won't have any effect because you know, only a few people can fight at the same time.
 
Duffy said:
Will start the countdown when home this evening, so probably about 5pm. See how we go but at least try and countdown 50-31.
Click to expand...

It's freaking 5 ! :mad::mad::mad:

Just kidding (:
 
Revan said:
On the battle of Thermophylae no. Th entire tactics was to find a place where the numerical advatage of Persians won't have any effect because you know, only a few people can fight at the same time.
Click to expand...

Reportedly, the Spartans beat the Immortals by feigning retreat and then turning on their running opponents and cutting them down. There are also claims that one Spartan soldier could engage up to three Persians at the same time. The fact that the Spartans needed a narrow terrain on which to fight, does not preclude the possibility that there were hand-to-hand engagements as well. Far from it, the narrow passage of Thermopylae meant that the colossal Persian numbers could only matter for so much.
 
Oh, and 300, I'm okay if people like it because it's good fun and they like the look, but I'm finding it to take you seriously malappapper. Shows us the Spartian ethics? Historically correct depiction of those battles? Meh. It's just some brainless good fun.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Oh, and 300, I'm okay if people like it because it's good fun and they like the look, but I'm finding it to take you seriously malappapper. Shows us the Spartian ethics? Historically correct depiction of those battles? Meh. It's just some brainless good fun.
Click to expand...

Forget the overblown and stylized visual take of the film, some like it, some do not. But the film tells many truths:

1. Spartan society valued bravery in battle and little else. Not wealth, not art, not comfort.

2. Spartans were professional soldiers from age 6. They did nothing else.

3. Going against the Persian Empire of the time was like going against the USA today. Total lunacy, and it took limitless courage.

4. The ruthlessness of the Spartan regime was absolutely essential if that city-state could ever survive in the ancient world.


My view of this particular film, coincides with that of the great Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek: http://www.lacan.com/zizhollywood.htm
 
Yeah but even if you feel the film portrayed those elements well (and I don't think it did, particularly), how does that make it a worthy film, or a great film? I mean that's just basically textbook history stuff that I could find out by opening a Wiki page.
 
I was just thinking that the original King Kong should be in a top 50. It was so far ahead of it's time with effects, has a great story, is fairly well acted and still entertains today. Imagine what it must have been like seeing this in the theatres at the time...must have been incredible.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Yeah but even if you feel the film portrayed those elements well (and I don't think it did, particularly), how does that make it a worthy film, or a great film? I mean that's just basically textbook history stuff that I could find out by opening a Wiki page.
Click to expand...

I think it does that very well tbh. Lots of historical films wildly miss the mark and totally fail to re-create the zeitgeist of the era and society they are supposed to be portraying. What we usually get, is what mainstream American ideology likes to think that things were like. "300" resists this temptation for the most part, and goes right to the root of what Spartan society was like. Just re-watch the first 5 minutes or so. Almost everything is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.