Maybe others simply weren't as "challenged" by other flicks as you were, especially if you take into consideration when they saw a film and what they may have seen first. No need to be condescending. The whole concept of subjective taste seems to be foreign to you, as if there's a formula used to separate the greatness of one film from the next.

I didn't say you couldn't. In fact, I believe part of my point was that a few folks, including you, probably will determine your favorites by their quality as an art form.

I think I'm realizing that the biggest challenge for me is that 95% or more of the films I watch probably would not qualify for this list. The ones I enjoy the most do tend to be of the more challenging variety, not that I think that's a requirement to make it a good film: Martyrs, Requiem for a Dream, Donnie Darko, Lars von Trier films. I even considered leaving Trainspotting off the list because I didn't want to have to debate whether or not the hallucinatory horror and terrible situations would qualify it as "half horror." Point being, I don't get too excited about my capaciity for artistic appreciation being dumbed down to whether or not it had enough explosions. All I'm really saying is that outside the realm of horrificish films, half of my top 20 is going to just be films I've watched a bunch of times over my lifetime, and not all of these are terribly challenging or artistic.

This is great, we haven't even started yet and look at all the debate and conversation. This is going to be incredible when we get into it. Really looking forward to all the inevitable arguing over someones favorite movie not deserving to be in the list and likewise. I love it when we have some good threads here and everyone gets involved.

You know it's too late for me to change. ::smile::


Besides, with so many hereabouts proclaiming their abhorrence of film as art, somebody has to stand up for Artistic Standards amidst all this Artistic Relativism.

A film doesn't impress me if it's laden with explosions, for the record.

As far as artistry goes, 2001: A Space Odyssey can be put forth as an example of cinematic artistry at it's finest. Regular viewers often lament about it's slow pace and confusing visuals but for me, it's the finest example of cinematic creativity anyone has put forth till now. That doesn't mean I rank it above The Godfather - it's just in a different plane of cinematic existence for me.

I have met people who swear by Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, etc., but I am sorry folks, those films don't make the cut for me. I would rather have Rashomon, Vertigo, To Kill A Mockingbird, etc., at my disposal.

Each one of us is unique, and has his/her own separate tastes. I don't expect anyone else to love Mockingbird as much as I did (and still do), or Glengarry Glen Ross, or Platoon or even A Few Good Men. Those are my choices and I stand by them, and if you ask me reasons then I can give you 20 or more.

Others may hail The Remains of the Day as a true cinematic masterpiece, but the fact remains that I fell asleep 15-20 minutes into the film. Never popped it back in, since.

On the other hand, I love the heck out of films such as Stand by Me, Serendipity, A Night at the Roxbury, The Goonies, etc., but do I consider them my Top 20 material? Nope.

The Godfather by the way was made by Francis Ford Coppola. And in Coppola's case, I rank Apocalypse Now as his finest film till date, and yes, I rank it above The Godfather and it's sequels. Scorcese is the man behind Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, After Hours, Gangs of New York, Hugo, Shutter Island, etc.

I always get those two mixed up. ::stick out tongue::

I blame senility!

Those are great examples, V. I like your approach. The only thing I think is unfortunate (although I don’t necessarily disagree) is that films like Night at the Roxbury and The Goonies are automatically ruled out, purely due to their less-advanced nature. Admittedly, it would be a near-impossible challenge to debate that one of those is “better” than 2001: A Space Odyssey, but if in your mind Roxbury is the best in it’s class of slapstick comedies, then it ought to get some credit somehow.

Unfortunately, I think by not breaking our submissions up by genres, entire categories of film will be neglected, purely because the class of movie doesn’t compete at an artistic level. It’s the same reason a horror film has never won Best Picture, and a slapstick comedy has no chance of even being considered for nomination. The Academy and film schools alike have their own definitions of what should and shouldn't garner respect. Even Charlie Chaplin — lauded as one of the great pioneers — was never even nominated for Best Picture. I personally feel that modern slapstick classics like The Jerk or Caddyshack deserve mention on a top 100 non-horror list, but unfortunately they’re not likely to make anybody's top 20 “best film” lists, thus will be ruled out from the get-go.

Even if we did attempt to form this list based on the artistic quality of the films, “artistry” is a concept that will never be agreed upon. Critics are constantly torn between judging technical prowess vs. raw creativity -- two very different, and often competing, concepts, not just in film, but in all art forms. I don’t technically know much about film, other than what I read on the internet and watch in documentaries, and don’t have any experience or education in the field like some in this forum do. But as an analogy, I do have some education in music (6 credits shy of a music minor, I didn’t want to delay graduation to finish). That education -- which included music theory, history, recording techniques, sound synthesis, some random stuff like world music and the history of rock, and of course, actually learning how to play instruments -- gives me some ability to judge music performances and recordings at an academic level. If this were a music forum, I *could* do that, but I probably wouldn’t just because those aren’t the qualities in music as an art form that I hold dear. Instead, I’d rather talk about how Joy Division, who could barely play their instruments, deconstructed rock in a way that opened the door to a baser form of music. Or how the members of Tortoise, from their post-hardcore perspective, flipped jazz on its side, helping to create a brand new subgenre. Those artists, and many of the ones I love the most, were ripped by mainstream critics during their time, and even in retrospect, are unlikely to ever get a high-profile music award. Point being, even if we could separate ourselves from our personal favorites, everyone has their own means by which they judge a film’s quality, and those standards will never be agreed upon.

I think this process would be less debatable, and probably more accurate, if we called this list “HDC’s Top 100 Non-Horror Favorites.” Nobody can really argue with whether or not someone does or does not like a movie, but they certainly can pontificate over what, in their minds, constitutes artistic merit. Besides, if someone were to stumble upon this list, it might actually be interesting for them to discover non-horror films that horror fans like. Otherwise, it’s just another attempted rehash of the “best” movies of all time, and probably one that’s going to be weighted towards genres that horror fans are drawn to.

Agreed, its always fun and good to have these type of debates, even if sometimes people end up sat on opposite sides of the fence now and then.

Its nice to see Glengarry Glenn Ross make the final cut of someone's list. I expected to be the only person who had that movie in their top 20 and was all geared up to get behind it in a bid to win a few extra votes, for what is, a beautiful character study with some phenomenal acting performances.

Most of the movies that made my list are drama/ character study as that's the type of movie I tend to enjoy. To be honest, I wouldn't consider my list particularly inclusive of all genres and styles or even that varied. There are a couple of flicks that I would back that most of you guys will probably consider 'arty', pretentious, cliché and boring, but I can live with that and will give them my full backing if I think I can sneak any of them into the final cut. But then again, I will just as happily be backing Spinal Tap.

I would still like to reserve the right to be a whiney little bitch if Happy Gilmore makes the cut though. :danger:

Spinal Tap is on my list. :)

I'd really love to see everyone's lists at some point. For me that's almost as much fun as debating the final overall list. The films a person loves says something about their personality, and it's cool that we have a diverse group around here.

I may have spent some credibility capital by revealing my Happy Gilmore vote to make a point (which I wouldn't actually back during debate), but I feel no shame about the rest of my list. Besides a few sci-fi/adventure classics, a spaghetti western, Spinal Tap and Gilmore, mine's mostly dramas too: an indie musical romance, a few indie dramas, a big budget Soderbergh drama, and a sci-fi drama. I actually stayed away from great films like 2001 A Space Odyssey and Taxi Driver because I thought they were a little too close to horror.

Should be a lot of fun no matter what.

I've often been told that my taste in movies other than horror is a bit surprising, knowing that I AM mostly a horror movie fanatic. But maybe it's only surprising to non-horror fans, who sometimes have very stereotypical expectations about what "we" are like, usually based on misconceptions about the horror genre itself.

I'm curious to find out what movies we're all into ::cool::

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.)

Waiting on a few replacements from a couple of members before I post the compiled Master List.

The 12 films which find a place in the most number of lists right now are:-


Casablanca (1942) - 7 entries
Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981) - 7 entries

Star Wars (1977) - 6 entries

Citizen Kane (1941) - 5 entries
Schindler's List (1993) - 5 entries
The Wizard Of Oz (1939) - 5 entries

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - 4 entries
Metropolis (1927) - 4 entries
Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) - 4 entries
The Godfather (1972) - 4 entries
The Matrix (1999) - 4 entries
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) - 4 entries

Can't believe three of mine made the list. Perhaps some residue of taste actually resides in my thunker. Looking forward to the Master List.

I think with Star Wars A New Hope, you might not "get it" because many of it's elements are made for the American culture circa late 60's and early 70's. Still there's so many elements that are timeless and multicultural.

I know you didn't say you didn't like A New Hope, but I'd always be shocked if I heard someone say they didn't like it. Not only is it fascinating, visually rich, but I think Mark Hamil's performance of Luke was Oscar worthy. He brought so much heart and sincerity. He was OK in Empire, and ghastly in Jedi. He was in a really bad accident at the start of Empire. I don't know if gave him some brain damage. Not kidding.

I pretty much just chose 20 films that popped into my head when I think of "great," without too much thought. If I had stopped to think about it the task would have been too daunting and I would have been bogged down for weeks with internal debate.

It's a terrible task when there are directors, like Kubrick, Scorsese, Coppola, Hitchcock, Robert Altman and Akira Kurosawa, whose entire bodies of work can be considered masterpieces or near, with few missteps. Now I'm regretting RAN wasn't on my list... Nor were any Woody Allen films; like him or hate him, he's one of the most influential filmmakers of the modern era.

I probably broke some rules here mentioning some films by name.

Personally, I am a big Star Wars fan with my favorite being A New Hope. Honestly though, I enjoy all of the Star Wars films including the prequel series.

In regards to Star Trek, despite my love for Star Wars, I am a far bigger fan of Star Trek than Star Wars. In my opinion, Star Trek is a more compelling, universal series. To me, it has many more layers and levels of meaning than Star Wars. Related to this, it is absolutely loaded with philosophy, which is a topic I intimately love. By the way, I only regard on screen material as part of either series. I do not take the books and so forth for either series into account. Also, the term "Star Trek" refers to all the shows and movies, not just TOS ("The Old Series").

Okay, here's the latest.

- We have a total of 229 nominated films from 17 HDC members, myself included.

- The number of films which figure in TWO or more lists stands at 60.

- This means, we have to find 40 more films (and 25 Honorable Mentions) from the rest (which is 169 in number).

- Debating will be phase-wise, which means, we shall tackle the films in the order of the most number of representations, proceeding on to the next batch, and so on.

- Debating should be interesting once we reach the TWO and single nomination films.


First batch will be up later today. Sharpen your pencils and get ready to rap those gavels!

I really just hoped that a lot of the great ones I missed were on other lists.

I started off with a rough draft of about 40 or so movies then started to thin it out as best I could, but I wasn't ever really satisfied with my final 20. I'm hoping some people have picked up on a few classics that didn't quite make my cut or that I just overlooked altogether and that some of the lesser known classics aren't completely ignored. Its not easy picking just 20 movies.

Whittling down my 55-odd to the final 20 which are my favorites AND are equally great in their standings in their own genre (IMO) was a really tough task as well.

Be sure I'll be fighting tooth and nail for the ones I listed and which ended up in the two or less votes' sections. :halloween:

Picking just 20 movies was incredibly hard - much harder than when we made the horror list, because at least that was limited to one genre. With all genres BUT horror, there was so much to choose from.

As you'll probably find out, I have 4 movies from the same movie franchise on my list, and I debated that a lot with myself - should I just pick the best one of them, and make room for 3 completely different movies. But then again, I couldn't actually choose between what I consider to be 4 incredible works of art, and hated the thought of picking what I felt was a less deserving movie over one of them.

So... my list might be a little "boring" in that way, but my choices came from the heart, and I have a "defence" for every choice... I also fully expect that I'm going to need it! ::big grin::

Okay, here we go.

The first set of films, which have scored FIVE or more nominations, are:-





Arguments/objections for/against, if any? Majority decides.

If not, then we can waive all SIX films through and move on to the next set.

Not all that crazy for Star Wars but I won't fight against. More influential than good, I just thought it was an okay story with very impressive special effects. If they would have put all that time, effort and technology into something like Edmond Hamilton's The Star Kings they'd have had a bona fide classic on their hands. My unqualified opinion, of course.

I picked Annie Hall (one of my favorites) from Allen. I think it has good story flow, which can sometimes be disjointed in his films. We'll at least have one. Something tells me our group won't have a lot of Allen.

I wouldn't say the Star Trek films necessarily have more layers of meaning than Star Wars, but the TV shows had more per min than Wars films.

I ran up about 30 films off the top of my head, and then I looked at about 3 of the more highly regarded lists to catch the ones I missed.

I think it's proper to pick more than one film from one franchise if you think they're the best.



Ah, the films list got posted a few minutes before my last post...

All of those films were on my list. So yes, those all pass for me.

It's tough to say I pass the entire group without knowing what else is in store.

Having said that, the only two I don't care for that much are Indiana Jones and Star Wars. I remember watching Star Wars during its first week of release, with a group of friends. They all loved it, but I, film snob even back then, felt it set science fiction cinema back to the Flash Gordon era, just as it was finally making strides in presenting sophisticated ideas in films such as 2001 and Silent Running. Still, C3PO, as an homage to Metropolis, was fun.

I won't argue against them.


Many years ago (MANY) I read a book contrasting the films of Woody Allen and Mel Brooks. They quoted an interview with Allen saying he wanted to elevate comedy film making; he felt that comedy films never got big budgets, and invariably looked cheap. The prevailing wisdom being that comedy didn't need a budget to be funny. Allen finally got his chance with Annie Hall, and got an Academy Award for his efforts.

I'm a sci-fi buff. The more detailed, science orientated and philosophical the better. So I know what you mean. Still, I think the key element of Star Wars was the multiple metaphysical/paranormal/Eastern philosophical elements of the force. Most of which isn't alien to sci-fi.

The only one i have a problem with is Citizen Kane. I always felt that it was highly overrated. I feel like it gets included on lists like these because its been called one of the best movies of all time without actually being one. People just instinctively throw it in. I never really understood the hype.

Those look good to me. I was never a big fan of Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it is not a bad inclusion. I have to disagree with what some have said on Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. While the others are debatable, the original film was incredible. in my opinion, the best of the series, though Empire Strikes Back is a close second. I will agree it is simpler than other science fiction works (including its main competitor Star Trek), but it still does have a good deal of layer. The film encompasses universal ideas and, honestly, I felt it was a solid story. It could have been better, but it was still interesting. There were also some excellent performances by all involved. Sure, Mark Hamill was not perfect, but still a solid performance. Not to mention the fact that it introduced one of the most menacing villains of cinema: Darth Vader. The film also contained a beautiful score by John Williams, which has since gone down as one of the greatest scores of all time, not to mention one of the most recognizable. This does not even take into account the special effects, which were incredible and the film was equally stunning visually. One unfortunate aspect of the Star Wars films of note is that it seems George Lucas is always releasing a new version. I do not want to get on the Lucas hating bandwagon, but, personally, I think, better or worse, he should not have touched the films. I am sure they were fine as is. Most of the other films speak for themselves, so I won't go into them. All of the others are tremendous films though.

To be clear, when I refer to Star Trek, I refer to everything collectively, unless I specifically define, not just the movies per say.

That is one film I did not think I would have to defend. I have to disagree strongly. I agree that it is not the greatest film of all time, but there is no doubt it is among the greatest. The story was compelling. It was interesting to see the evolution of the character Kane. The film also pioneered many film techniques and narrative techniques never used in film before. Related to this, the cinematography was incredible. It added just what was necessary to the film. There were some excellent performances, particularly the main character. When I first saw the film, I was blown away. It was definitely one of the best black and white films I had ever seen. It has been a while since I have seen it, so I can't discuss it in great detail.

Same here. Orson Welles did a great job, but the film as a whole isn't as awesomely great as people make it to be.

Don't get why people love Casablanca and Gone With The Wind so much either.

Brando's On The Waterfront is a much better film, IMO, and doesn't get as much attention as the big 3 afore-mentioned.

This qualifies it as one of the best films of all times? ::stick out tongue::



Yes, I know I just cherry picked a single sentence from your entire post, ignoring the rest. I'm just saying.

::wink::

I entirely disagree on Citizen Kane, as discussed and I also disagree on Casablanca. Casablanca had a compelling story that drew me in. I was captivated until the very end. There were some terrific performances as well particularly Humphrey Bogart. I also enjoyed the romance. I am not a big romance persnon, but I thought it was well done in this film. Not to mention the classic ending at the end of the movie. All-around a great movie and definitely a worthy addition to a greatest films list. I do agree on Gone with the Wind. I think that one was overrated. It's good, but not as much as is often said, in my opinion. I will have to check out On the Waterfront.

I was just saying that the story could have been a little more complex and been tweaked a little, but the other elements of the film more than make up for it, in my opinion (that part of my statement was really referring to the story, not the film as a whole, by the way).