August 02, 2009

My Top 100

Here it is. My very earnest attempt to conclusively define what is good and defend the institution of personal taste. For those who just want to cut to the chase, I'm including the top 100 sans essay on this blog entry.

You may also consider this my formal announcement of the new "I Viddied it on the Screen". Though there are still several pages that are outdated, everything there looks how I want it to look. Web design ain't fun. I have enormous gratitude to one reidscones, who dug up the dead site and created the current design.

So have at it guys. How do you like my choices? What do you think should be on this list that I probably haven't yet seen? What's the difference between good and bad? Why do you like the things you like?

A few things I neglected to bring up in the essay. I did not include any short subjects (sorry Rachel) and only put films on that I know people can have easy access to (Ken Park, The First 100 Years, and Destricted couldn't make the cut exclusively for this reason). And no, the Plan 9 over Citizen Kane thing wasn't supposed to be cute.
THE TOP 100
1. Pulp Fiction (1994, Tarantino)
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, Kubrick)
3. Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959, Wood)
4. Badlands (1973, Malick)
5. Blade Runner (1982, Scott)
6. The Trial (1962, Welles)
7. Gummo (1997, Korine)
8. Once Upon a Time in the West (1969, Leone)
9. Andrei Rublev (1971, Tarkovsky)
10. The Empire Strikes Back (1980, Kershner)
11. Citizen Kane (1941, Welles)
12. Dogville (2004, Von Trier)
13. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Dreyer)
14. The Grapes of Wrath (1940, Ford)
15. The Night of the Hunter (1955, Laughton)
16. Apocalypse Now (1979, Coppola)
17. Eraserhead (1977, Lynch)
18. There Will Be Blood (2007, Anderson)
19. Grindhouse (2007, Rodriguez and Tarantino)
20. Mulholland Dr. (2002, Lynch)
21. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003, Tarantino)
22. Boogie Nights (1997, Anderson)
23. Kalifornia (1993, Sena)
24. The Dark Knight (2008, Nolan)
25. Taxi Driver (1976, Scorsese)
26. Lost in Translation (2003, Coppola)
27. Rain Man (1988, Levinson)
28. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975, Forman)
29. Days of Heaven (1978, Malick)
30. Marie Antoinette (2006, Coppola)
31. Being John Malkovich (1999, Jonze)
32. Platoon (1986, Stone)
33. Blue Velvet (1986, Lynch)
34. Traffic (2000, Soderbergh)
35. Batman (1989, Burton)
36. Bringing Out the Dead (1999, Scorsese)
37. Punch-Drunk Love (2002, Anderson)
38. Marat/Sade (1967, Brooks)
39. Trash (1970, Morrissey)
40. Cries and Whispers (1973, Bergman)
41. Freddy vs. Jason (2003, Hu)
42. Y Tu Mama Tambien (2002, Cuaron)
43. Triumph of the Will (1935, Riefenstahl)
44. A Clockwork Orange (1971, Kubrick)
45. The Exorcist (1973, Friedkin)
46. Wonder Boys (2000, Hanson)
47. Kids (1995, Clark)
48. Return of the Jedi (1983, Marquand)
49. Napoleon (1927, Gance)
50. Killer of Sheep (1977, Burnett)
51. Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster (1965, Gaffney)
52. The Birds (1963, Hitchcock)
53. La Dolce Vita (1959, Fellini)
54. Pennies from Heaven (1981, Ross)
55. Come and See (1985, Klimov)
56. M (1931, Lang)
57. Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964, Kubrick)
58. Touch of Evil (1958, Welles)
59. Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975, Pasolini)
60. Eyes Wide Shut (1999, Kubrick)
61. From Dusk Till Dawn (1996, Rodriguez)
62. Detour (1945, Ulmer)
63. Woodstock (1970, Wadleigh)
64. Schindler’s List (1993, Spielberg)
65. Duck Soup (1933, McCarey)
66. A Boy and His Dog (1975, Jones)
67. Week End (1967, Godard)
68. Palindromes (2004, Solondz)
69. The Shining (1980, Kubrick)
70. Seven (1995, Fincher)
71. THX 1138 (1971, Lucas)
72. The Battle of Algiers (1968, Pontecorvo)
73. Killer’s Kiss (1955, Kubrick)
74. Ed Wood (1994, Burton)
75. JFK (1991, Stone)
76. Patton (1970 Schaffner)
77. Jurassic Park (1993, Spielberg)
78. After Hours (1985, Scorsese)
79. The Mormons (2007, Whitney)
80. The Thin Red Line (1998, Malick)
81. Cannibal Holocaust (1980, Deodato)
82. Birth (2004, Glazer)
83. Die Hard (1988, McTiernan)
84. Pandora’s Box (1928, Pabst)
85. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982, Spielberg)
86. Star Wars (1977, Lucas)
87. Broken Blossoms (1919, Griffith)
88. Masculin/Feminin (1966, Godard)
89. Last Days (2005, Van Sant)
90. Strange Days (2005, Bigelow)
91. Alice in the Cities (1974, Wenders)
92. Olympia (1938, Riefenstahl)
93. Flesh (1968, Morrissey)
94. Bully (2001, Clark)
95. Funny Games (2008, Haneke)
96. Even Dwarfs Started Small (1970, Herzog)
97. Drugstore Cowboy (1989, Van Sant)
98. Repulsion (1965, Polanski)
99. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002, Clooney)
100. The Departed (2006, Scorsese)

26 comments:

Reds said...

Can't front. Don't wanna. Great list.

Patrick said...

If people like it, it must be good and if they don’t like it, it must be bad.

So are the movie charts a measure of quality? Is Transformers a good film? It could be argued that is has to do something right, if only revving up the hype machine. But what would you say? Is it a good film?

Or would you say that's a stupid question, that Transformers is probably a good film for many people, and a bad film for others? In other words, that statements of quality are entirely subjective?

But atheism ultimately leads us to the path of nihilism and despair. We’re out in the wilderness forced to create our own sense of meaning and create our own sense of morality. And left to our own devices, we will ultimately perish.

I'm not sure if you want to argue that, and argue that here. So let's just say that I completely disagree with you here.

...and my word verification is deiti. Just one letter off

Alex Jackson said...

So are the movie charts a measure of quality? Is Transformers a good film? It could be argued that is has to do something right, if only revving up the hype machine. But what would you say? Is it a good film?

Or would you say that's a stupid question, that Transformers is probably a good film for many people, and a bad film for others? In other words, that statements of quality are entirely subjective?


Movie charts are just indicators of how many people went and saw a movie, not necessarily if they liked it. I haven't seen Transformers 2, but the people who went no doubt are predisposed to liking movies like that and probably saw the trailer and enjoyed the first one. That Transformers 2 made a buttload of money suggests that it might be a good movie, but it hardly can be held up as proof. (Also if moviegoers are anything like my parents, they'll say they like something even if they didn't when immediately coming out of the theater, as they don't want to admit they spent some thirty to forty dollars on tickets and popcorn to a movie that was a piece of shit).

But I know you did say Transformers and if that means the first one, I thought that it was a mediocre movie. Far from great, but not terrible. In fact, I felt mildly defensive of it when it came out as it had something of a sensual movie-movie quality that you won't find in most naturalistic character-based works. I thought there was something wrong when people complain about a movie having too many beautiful women in it.

Definitely wouldn't see it again though. And I was offended when the alien robot espoused a belief in Locke-ian natural rights. Some reason Bay's cock-out casually ethnocentric imperialism doesn't register as satirical here as it did in Bad Boys 2.

But to answer your question, yes statements of quality are subjective and personal. Nobody is wrong for saying it's a good movie, they just, you know, have to put that on the line.

But atheism ultimately leads us to the path of nihilism and despair. We’re out in the wilderness forced to create our own sense of meaning and create our own sense of morality. And left to our own devices, we will ultimately perish.

I'm not sure if you want to argue that, and argue that here. So let's just say that I completely disagree with you here.


Eh, you can talk me down if you want. In my view, it's just that any discussion of what we like in film is necessarily based on our values, of which ones we want to live our life by. So somebody who likes Transformers is necessarily calling it an embodiement of their core values. So in talking about my own, I felt it necessary to discuss my spiritual conversion.

It isn't that atheism makes people immoral, it's more that all morality under atheism is ultimately relativist. My question for you would be if, as an atheist, you believe that good and bad can exist as absolutes. I don't see that they can.

Patrick said...

Let me think about the question of absolutes; it's a good one, for sure.


What I find interesting that you feel the need for good and evil to exist on an absolute scale, but have good and bad be an individual expression.

I had a long rambling post here, but I cut it. Instead, while I'm off formulating, another question: If there was someone who thought that Shakespeare was a terrible hack and a bad writer, would that person be correct? Because all rambling aside, I think (s)he would be incorrect.

Alex Jackson said...

Let me think about the question of absolutes; it's a good one, for sure.

What I find interesting that you feel the need for good and evil to exist on an absolute scale, but have good and bad be an individual expression.


Aha! That does sound like a contradiction on my part.

For me, faith is something that you need to come to yourself or else it's going to be superficial. So yeah, my growing faith which leads to my belief in an absolute right and wrong is personal and subjective, but still is not pliable or plastic. In my opinion, it's just the best possible answer to this great existential confusion.

I'm sure that there are people who agree with what I say who nonetheless don't find Pulp Fiction to be the best film of all time because while the destination may be the same, the path we took to it may be radically different and so the things we emphasize are different.

It is profoundly important to me that I retain the atheistic dictum that the universe is predisposed to emptiness, indifference, and randomness and order, whether created by man or found through God, must be imposed after the fact.

I had a long rambling post here, but I cut it. Instead, while I'm off formulating, another question: If there was someone who thought that Shakespeare was a terrible hack and a bad writer, would that person be correct? Because all rambling aside, I think (s)he would be incorrect.

Oh, I wouldn't dismiss this off-hand, but yeah that's a hella bold claim. Wouldn't say they're wrong though. If you only like Shakespeare out of duty or because you know intellectually that it's "supposed to be good" then to hell with you.

Not all Shakespeare hate is created equal. If somebody complains about it being too dense and requiring too much concentration, I don't see that as nearly as offensive as complaining that nobody really talks like that in real life.

Tangentally related, just saw the Branagh version of Hamlet for the first time recently. Fuckin' kick ass. Winslet's Ophelia humping the air in a straight-jacket has to be among the all-time greatest movie moments.

Patrick said...

Okay, here goes.

My question for you would be if, as an atheist, you believe that good and bad can exist as absolutes. I don't see that they can.

The reason why I struggled with that question is because I do believe that moral judgements are relativ in two senses: one, they are open to argument, i.e. not dogmatical, and two, the judgment is dependent on context.

As to one, for example I believe that killing unwilling innocents is always wrong, i.e an evil act. However, I am open to people trying to argue that it need not be, that maybe killing an innocent person along with the whole Nazi leaderhip in WWII would not be evil, but morally justified.

For two, while I believe that killing an innocent is always wrong, that is not so with all acts. Lying, for example, can be morally justified, depending on the lie and the situation, and can also be morally neutral (or almost so).

However, while I do think morals can be argued about, I don't think everybody is entitled to their own morals. Torturing someone or killing an unwilling innocent are always wrong, and for everybody. I don't care whether there's a society built upon sacrificing an unwilling innocent every year, it is still wrong.

That doesn't mean that different opinions of the "best" morals don't exist, they do. And they must prove themselves until the best one survives and is allowed to leave the thunderdome.

For example, I don't regard selfishness as bad; it's a biological prerogative that humans act selfishly, i.e. to gain some satisfaction or lessen some pain they feel. My first question is who, if anyone, is harmed by a given (in-)action, who would be harmed without it, and would those people be okay with being harmed? That's where the "unwilling" comes in above.

The difficult question, for me, is whether or not a person is allowed to harm themselves, or to be more correct, whether there's a point in which a person is no longer allowed to do so. In other words, can you give yourself up to be slaughtered and eaten if you so desire? Or is that a point where society should step in and save you from yourself? What about amputating your thumb? Hanging from steel hooks? Getting a tattoo?

But still, I do think that whatever is the answer here, it will be one that can be argued for logically, and that it should apply to everybody.

----

As to Shakespeare: One, I often cringe at Mel Gibson's Hamlet because it seems to me that's the most recognized version, almost canonized, whereas I think the Branagh is superior in so many ways, so I here you.

Two, criticism of Shakespeare is definitely allowed and encouraged. And you can also say "I don't like Shakespeare". That's different, to me, from saying "Shakespeare is bad". Which is the confluence of enjoyment and quality, again.

When I was a kid, I watched a lot of TV shows which, when I look at them now, I find terrible. I like to think my tastes improved, not that they simply changed. Maybe that's the underlying thing here: I'm unwilling to accept my formerly favorite shows are not crap *g*

Patrick said...

Ack! I hear you, of course, about Branagh.

Bill C said...

"Hell isn’t a place of fire and brimstone where little devils goad you with pitchforks because you were raised in the wrong religion. Rather, it’s a lot more like it was portrayed in the classic “Twilight Zone” episode “A Nice Place to Visit,” where a damned-to-Hell thief wins every time he gambles, lives in a mansion, and has beautiful women making eyes at him."

I dunno, Alex--you make Hell sound fucking awesome.

JF (nee theoldboy) said...

Well, I've seen both Cannibal Holocaust and The Rules of the Game, and while I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the former is some kind of worthy film on a purely aesthetic/visceral level, as a statement of values (which is to me a rather limited way of looking at cinema and seems to lead to a good deal of interesting and vital movies being thrown out because they don't fit your paradigm) it's fundamentally corrupt and incoherent and useless. Deodato, though a talented filmmaker, is just full of shit intellectually and morally, and a kind of contemptible human being. You could say that the movie's condemnation of itself is part of its strategy, but Deodato isn't smart enough to really pull that off. There's a similar problem with Funny Games. While Haneke's movie is a more controlled and ethical piece of filmmaking than Deodato's, as an argument it's almost as worthless. I don't mind filmmakers that are audience-punishing assholes (e.g. Von Trier), I just like them to say something coherent and interesting, which Deodato and Haneke (at least in Funny Games) aren't.

tomarense said...

:)

O'JohnLandis said...

Once more unto the breach...

What you like tells us nothing more than what it is you tend to like. A film is nothing more than a burly guy swinging a mallet at a county fair--for you, the little progress bar for Pulp Fiction got closest to the top--and the process isn't entirely anti-intellectual, but it is entirely anti-scientific. You loved 2001 and you loved Pulp Fiction but your dick was just the slightest bit harder for Pulp Fiction and because of your belief system, you have no possible way to explain why that is. Which is fair enough for those two, but becomes a massive failure on your part if you can't explain why Plan 9 is better than Badlands, or more importantly, why it's worse than 2001, or indeed why anyone should take seriously your attempt to remember your slight differences of affection for any two films.

What you think is good--if it's not the same thing as what you like--tells us what criteria you use in ranking films. It establishes a kind of bias, sure, but it also proves you understand that artists try to achieve quality, and they do so through various methods, and some of those methods might have something to do with ultimately liking a film and some might not. A screenwriter might try very hard for his story to make sense, and that might, in general, lead you to like stories that make sense. And if people think The Big Sleep is great despite not making sense, they can say, "Yes, the screenwriter might have failed at that common attempt at quality, but look at all the other successes." And in that process of caring about some qualities and forgiving others and explaining yourself, we get to know what you stand for as a critic. It's scientific and intellectual and it makes you vulnerable to debate. Your system reminds simply of a child unwilling to admit the possibility of being wrong about anything. But to say Plan 9 is great because it happened to fail in so many perfect ways as to be extremely entertaining is an insult to any artist who has ever tried not to fail.

Other than Plan 9, there's no other Ed Wood on your list. You think it tells us something about you that you really enjoyed Plan 9, the most popular "sit around and laugh your ass off at a bad movie" movie in the history of film? It's like saying you don't like Billy Joel but you like to sing Piano Man at karaoke bars. It tells us NOTHING about you, except that you are so insecure about what your enjoyment of Plan 9 means to your belief system that you have to tie yourself in knots to explain it. If someone were to release a feature-length film of funny outtakes, it might be entertaining, but it's not art.

A person who sees films only as entertainment might not even agree that films are art. In considering ourselves lovers of film and in considering films as art--not higher or lower art, just a form of art--we are possibly contradicting those entertainment-seekers to such an extent that their opinions are simply irrelevant to our discussion. That is, there are different rules for us than for them.

Think about mathematics. For some, math is just a means to an end--get the right tax refund, don't overdose, etc. But for some, math is art. They can read a complex proof or paper and find in it not just scientific fulfillment but visceral joy. Even a clever attempt at a problem that ultimately fails can leave them appreciating the elegance of the attempt. The beauty and originality is lost on me because I don't understand complicated math well enough to see the art. But for those who can, they are able to separate in their heads the essentially inarguable objective qualities of right and wrong from the beauty, elegance, originality, or erection-facilitating qualities.

This is what we do--we few, we (occasionally) happy few, we band of brothers. We know what's good and bad and we know what we like. We can tell people we loved Plan 9 and we can admit that we loved it because of how bad it is.

Si said...

Ah...controversial, Alex. Schindler, E.T. and Jurassic Park ahead of Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters and Raiders? Can't say I agree...

But glad to see Lost In Translation on the list. Saw it again last week, still holds up beautifully. I seem to spot something new on every viewing... this time it was someone playing a "guitar" in the arcades in the pre-Wii, pre-Guitar Hero era. Funny that a mere six years have passed and now I'm doing something similar on a DS...

DJR said...

I noticed a positive rating for Frankenheimer's The Island of Dr. Moreau by Chaw over at RT. I'd love it if he would share some thoughts, however brief, on what compelled him to do so. Mind you that I actually found value in the film as well.

RLV said...

From AJ's blog

"Keller narrows good and evil down to one principle: anything that brings us closer to God is good. Anything that brings us away from God is evil."

Now watch Martyrs and see the infantile stupidity of that argument taken to it's horrific conclusion.

Ryan said...

Interesting thought, RLV. I think Martyrs would be a significantly better film if it spent some more time arguing theology as justification for atrocities, but instead it's content with letting us watch half an hour of never-ending torment and then ending on a pretentious, inexplicable sour note. From my viewings, I feel the cult's reasoning behind what they do is left in passing.

I don't agree with Alex's arguments for theism but I'm at least pleased that he acknowledges his belief that atheism equals or leads to nihilism. I think that ideology is foolish, but at least acknowledging it is a step above most religious people who argue against atheism without understanding it. To propose that atheists are nihilistic is an unfair, unrealistic assumption - consider that Christians will do good because they believe, ultimately, in positive reinforcement - if they do good in life, they get access to Heaven in the afterlife. That strikes me as selfish and pitiful - that you'd only do good because there is a reward in it, a positive consequence. Whereas an Atheist who does something positive does it just to do something positive. Because they think it's right, or because doing good is reward in itself, or whatever. So, the Christian belief basically remarks that without the positive reinforcement, we devolve into animals and fuck/rape/murder/rob/maim/repeat. To me, that sounds like a shittier worldview than not believing in a supreme being or creator.

Rick said...

Alex, I thought Cannibal Holocaust would be top 10 for you. And I thought you said Gummo was higher at one point. Did those depreciate over time somehow? Also expected you to be more of a Peckinpah guy.

Dan said...

Lists like this are impossible to do, so any attempt is brave. For eg: you like From Dusk Till Dawn more than The Shining? Seriously? :-)

Rick said...

And would have Bash: Latter-Day Plays made it on the list if anyone could actually get a copy of it?

Alex Jackson said...

On theology:

I don't agree with Alex's arguments for theism but I'm at least pleased that he acknowledges his belief that atheism equals or leads to nihilism. I think that ideology is foolish, but at least acknowledging it is a step above most religious people who argue against atheism without understanding it. To propose that atheists are nihilistic is an unfair, unrealistic assumption - consider that Christians will do good because they believe, ultimately, in positive reinforcement - if they do good in life, they get access to Heaven in the afterlife. That strikes me as selfish and pitiful - that you'd only do good because there is a reward in it, a positive consequence. Whereas an Atheist who does something positive does it just to do something positive. Because they think it's right, or because doing good is reward in itself, or whatever. So, the Christian belief basically remarks that without the positive reinforcement, we devolve into animals and fuck/rape/murder/rob/maim/repeat. To me, that sounds like a shittier worldview than not believing in a supreme being or creator.

Well, a few thoughts and we might be able to suss out a rebuttal out there somewhere.

Of course, atheists deny that bad actions have any consequence at all except that which can be externally applied. Like you shouldn't murder people because if you get caught you will be put in jail. That idea does little to console us when it comes to genocide.

I mean one reflect that Hitler and the victims of the Holocaust essentially met the same end. They are all rotting away in the same earth.

The atheist's motivation for doing good sounds pretty weak to me. Saying that doing good is its own reward is ultimately still a reward. It's just as reward/punishment motivated as committing evil. (The atheist's motivation for NOT doing evil sounds similiarly weak).

Atheists must define their lives to maximize their rewards and decrease their negative consequences. My shift didn't come as much from seeing how much evil and depravity there is in the world and seeking some kind of reprieve from it. It came more from realizing that ANY reward coming from a result of my actions is meager and petty.

It's necessary to understand that heaven and hell are natural extensions of your life as you have lived it on earth. God isn't doing anything for you or to you. Hell consists of nothing but empty small rewards for all of time. It is an existence spent on the self. Heaven is spent in the eternal presence of God. It is a reward only to those who would find such things rewarding.

Understand that the importance of giving to charity is so that you will have less wealth. It is not so much to help the poor and needy. That is just a natural byproduct of you having less wealth.

Bill C said...

You know, I don't like to moderate, but I really see no good coming from this religious debate. Maybe we should stick to talking about the list proper--or really anything that isn't as combustible as the merits of faith.

Anonymous said...

I give to charity to be less wealthy? No, I'm pretty sure me being less wealthy is the natural byproduct of me helping the poor and needy. If it were the other way around, me donating to charity is on par with me burning my money.

Alex Jackson said...

On the list:

I like Plan 9 From Outer Space and see it as considerably more than "so bad it's good", but the mention that this was the only Ed Wood film on the list gave me pause. Like Tarkovsky, who also only has one film on the list but made it into the top ten with Andrei Rublev, Wood is a director who I was really into in high school but kind of fell away from in recent years. I fear that I may have idealized Andrei Rublev and especially Plan 9 from Outer Space as gateway drugs into film fandom and overfamiliarizing myself with the director's other work may compromise that fragile idealization.

The reason Plan 9 From Outer Space ranked higher than Badlands is because it's more artificial, cut more out of whole cloth than "external reality", and of course less "naturalistic". The reason that it ranks lower than 2001 is because 2001 is just as artificial as Plan 9 from Outer Space, but it has a broad epic scope that makes it less personal. Again, what I want from a film is a sense of anonymity but also a feeling of complete authorial control. (For some, Badlands may even be an anamoly compared to the rest of my titles, but the fact that it takes place in the 1950s does a lot to help fight against "reality" as does the fact that Malick's style is very disassociated and dream-like).

Anyway.

From Dusk Till Dawn gets a lot of heat for seeming like two different movies in one. But funny enough, I didn't really understand what Tarantino was doing as a screenwriter until I read the novel of The Shining. It's a family drama that doesn't really turn supernatural until the last fifty pages. In discussing From Dusk till Dawn in a promotional featurette, Tarantino compared the time he took developing his characters to that of a Stephen King novel. So really that's what he was doing. He's not making a "grindhouse film" (which was what Death Proof was come to think of it), but was making an illustrated version of a pulp novel. He was trying to convey that aspect of the novel to film.

I still love the film version of The Shining of course, but I like From Dusk Till Dawn better. The Shining is a bit too heavy and self-serious I guess. Maybe I prefer my horror films to be transgressive to be sure, but also maybe just a little nutty. I don't want parody, just nuttiness. Strangely, there is something in From Dusk Till Dawn that I don't have in my grasp quite yet. I don't feel I've mastered it as much as I have The Shining. Yeah, that's an odd bit of ranking.

I like Peckinpah OK. The Wild Bunch is pretty incredible and Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia is a great movie though I never really considered it for the top 100. Those "guy" directors though, Peckinpah, Sam Fuller, Walter Hill, John Carpenter, even Howard Hawks actually. I've never really been a part of those cults. They're not bad, just overrated. Maybe I'm just not too much into "genre" films themselves. Funny huh? As much as I love his movies, not sure I'd ever make friends with Tarantino.

Bash, man. Read the play never saw it performed. May have made the list if I had seen it and a copy was widely available. That's an incredible incredible piece of work. Gave me nightmares. Neil LaBute has secured his reputation in my mind based just on that.

simonsays2 said...

Solid list. The Kubrick collection seems to tally quite often. Pulp Fiction @ 1 - still an amazing experience. Where's Walt's 2 cents on this ?

jer fairall said...

The Kubrick collection seems to tally quite often.

6 Kubrick films on the list, in fact, easily the highest of any director on here.

4 for Scorsese, 3 each for Malick, Welles, Lynch, (P.T.) Anderson and Spielberg. 2.5 for Tarantino. 2 each for Coppola (Sophia, that is; daddy only registers once), Stone, Godard, Lucas, Burton, Riefenstahl, Clark and Van Sant. Throw in Rodriguez's technical 1.5, those are the only directors with multiple entries.

(I get bored sometimes.)

No Truffaut or (Wes) Anderson, both of which have films on the master list. I'm also kind of surprised to see that Alex seems to have cooled on Bowling For Columbine, The Passion of the Christ and Soderberg's Solaris.

mimo70 said...

I'm all for personal favourites, but "Plan 9 From Outer Space" better than "Citizen Kane?" Better than "8 1/2?" Or most of the rest of the list? It's unintentionally funny and all, but it's horrible.

Wow Gold said...

Very Nice Blog.