What I'm really into is never the movie, but my relationship to the movie. In the end, the impact it has on me - to the degree it can get me thinking and keep me thinking - is what determines the amount of love I have for any film of any genre.

Of course, I have my lists of movies I respect or admire for one reason or another & most of them are on the standard "top" lists you'll find on any given internet search. I honestly would never own most of these though.

They are great films & I do respect them but they have no real place in my heart - only my critical appraisal. And so my 'lists' would also most likely seem a bit 'surprising' as you say.

I generally keep those lists to myself since arguing what your heart loves usually goes nowhere fast. ::wink::

It's kind of the same for me, although it's not nescesarily because a movie makes me think - sometimes it's because of what it makes me feel. I think there's value in both.

I also have to admit that sometimes I love a movie simply because it's visually beautiful... I guess that's the artistic debate again. It doesn't always mean that the movie as a whole is any good, though.


I can relate to that completely. There are plenty of "great classics" that I definitely respect, and would never deny that they are extremely well done, but they didn't really move me -or make me think. And that brings me back to what I said earlier, about art - there IS such a thing as personal taste that just isn't "right" or "wrong".

I'm sure we can all find a famous painting by a famous painter that we would never hang on our own walls, even if we acknowledge that technically, it's perfect.

Sorry, by 'think' I simply meant 'evoking mental attention' which would include feelings and being artistically spellbound. I didn't mean to imply exclusive intellectual dissection. That's my bad & I do apologize for the confusion. It typically happens when I'm being over-economical on a post's word count. ::roll eyes:: We actually agree on your point 1,000%. ::cool::

Some movies evoke feelings that I'll sit & ponder long after they're over. Dwelling on the emotion, beauty, sadness, horror, etc also count - in my mind - as "thinking" about. It's the film keeping my mind focused on it after it ends & I love any movie that can exert that kind of influence over me at any level.

Those "top-list" films we referenced, though certainly memorable, don't tend to actively stimulate my mental faculties in this way.

For example: There's nothing intellectually commanding about The Ring [2002], but I love it because of how beautiful Naomi Watts is in it - both physically and emotionally. It's a sad & haunting gem for me mostly because of her lovely, melancholic presence in it. I'm sure Ebert would spit on me for saying so but... c'est la vie. ::smile::

As for the famous painter you were speaking of; the recently deceased H R Giger would count for me. I find his work awesome, but I'd never decorate my place with it. I'm sure there are Alien fans who would spit on me for saying so but... c'est la vie. ::smile::

The guys at Empire magazine asked their readers to send in their votes for the Top 301 Movies of All Time, and the results will be posted in their July 2014 issue.

Guess which film came out at #1?

Read - http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=41132

The Full 301, ranked - http://www.empireonline.com/301/301.asp

It's natural to get that movie (which I also love) @ no. 1 for the "EMPIRE" magazine::wink::

Bicycle Thieves @ #301 whereas films like Man of Steel, Scott Pilgrim Vs The World & Silver Linings Playbook respectively at # 286, 274 & 180.

There is a difference between the term "most favorite" & "greatest"...when someone or a group of people making a list based on the votes/choices from people with different background & tastes..then IMO...it should better be called as MOST FAVORITE, instead of GREATEST or BEST. Cause, as long as we have (& we always have) different point of views on matters (& as I said numerous times before that) none can actually able to produce an accurate listing of Greatest or Best for anything.

I'm one of those heathens who don't really get Star Wars - well, I DO, because they're obviously great movies, but I don't get why they're THAT popular. I've watched them all, my favourite being... I *think* the second prequel, which I really loved, but to be honest I find the original a bit... boring in places ::embarrassment::

Maybe it's because I'm a Trekkie ::big grin::

Will post the updated Master List on Sunday.

I agree-I may be wrong but I'm predicting a lot of movies with just one vote and the ones with more will be surprising. It will be fascinating how the list develops. Even if I don't agree with someone's choice I think it will still be interesting to hear their argument for it.

I like the Empire list of best films. Have some really good modern films that tend to be marginalized by AFI (such as Matrix, Fight Club, etc).

Yes, I can't disagree with that... many people certainly love some bad films. I guess in my experience exchanging fav flims with friends, MOST of their favs are the widely accepted 200 odd films you'd find on AFI's list. Maybe that's not your experience.

I enjoyed The Godfather, and it was mainly for the educational stimulation - the cultures I'm not familiar with... like Sicilian, American-Italian-Sicilian, Roman Catholic and Mob family life. That was fascinating. I was also taken with the technical artistry - the filming technique of telling the story, building tension and contrast... such as the baptism plus whacking enemies scene.

I could say the same things for Raiders of the Lost Ark... the exotic locations and cultures, info on archaeology and Ark, political structures/processes... and of course the technical artistry of the film technique of telling the story, building tension and contrast.

They're different types of films, both done well. If Spielberg used the subtly in Raiders that Coppola used in Godfather, he would have failed in doing the Raiders' genre correctly.

To me, it's about knowing what style and story your doing, and doing that well. Not doing the wrong style, or trying to put every style in one film.

AFI tends to highly value the melodrama and film adaptations of literary and playwright classics, it's moderate on romance and comedy, and devalues the Sci-fi, Fantasy, Action and Horror. I don't feel the need to copy that predilection.

Mods, excuse my use of the new post, but it's a new subject to me. And I don't like making posts so big people don't want to read them.

Extreme Beauty of Age of Innocence 1993

One film of extreme visual artistry and beauty is Age of Innocence 1993. The interior design: the wood work, gold inlays, wall paper/paint, wall hangings, rugs, art work, dinner table place settings... oh man, they knocked me off my chair! The beauty was overwhelming. And I'm the farthest thing from an interior decorator there is. This amazing visual art is great, period. It helped the setting, but it didn't make the story or film great. I think it's an elegant film full of nuance, but not one of my best 20 for sure.

This, by the way was a Martin Scorsese film. It won Oscars for won the Academy Award for Best Costume Design, and nominated for Best Art Design. No doubt the Costumes were great, but that's somewhat over my head. I can't imagine a any film being better in Art Design. (Schindler's List won the Oscar for Best Art Director and Set Decoration... no way was it better than Age.)