66 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

Just don't blame Casino Royale for that This is a list, and like all other lists there's always something to complain about. I don't see great films like Batman Begins, The Prestige, Heat, Into The Wild, Magnolia and plenty of other pictures. I couldn't care less actually.

I don't blame CASINO ROYALE for those films not being on the list, I just don't think that CASINO ROYALE is one of the 100 best films of the last 25 years, and therefore, to me, does not deserve to be mentioned anywhere on the list.

[Jackanaples]

You know, there's nothing from the article to indicate that movies occupying the lower numbers of the list are considered to be more important than the higher numbers. If such were the case, EW would probably have counted the movies down instead.

All of the lists are presented as collections of "New Classics" and should be read that way. I think CASINO ROYALE definitely fits that category. The order seems arbitrary and done to mix things up year and genre wise more than anything else.

It's silly to compare apples like SCHINDLER'S LIST with oranges like PULP FICTION or pomegranates like CASINO ROYALE. As movies they have different intents and purposes behind them. You don't judge SCHINDLER'S LIST poorly against THE INCREDIBLES because it wasn't funny enough for example. Fairness comes not from treating different things the same; it comes from treating different things differently.

Looking at the list though, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed. THELMA & LOUISE? SHREK? SPEED? And I don't know anyone who talked about THE PLAYER, BROADCAST NEWS, or MOONSTRUCK even a year after they were out.

KUNG FU HUSTLE isn't on there. Nor is THE USUAL SUSPECTS, THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, BLADE RUNNER, THE BIG LEBOWSKI, MILLER'S CROSSING or AMELIE. Bah.

Edited by Jackanaples, 28 June 2008 - 05:03 PM.

[honeyjes]

If a film can produce oscar worthy performances from its two leading actors, generate respect and renewed interest in a 21 film franchise instead of redicule, confound critics and some fans who were waiting/hoping it would bomb I think deserves all the praise it gets.

Edited by honeyjes, 28 June 2008 - 07:39 PM.

[Turn]

You know, there's nothing from the article to indicate that movies occupying the lower numbers of the list are considered to be more important than the higher numbers. If such were the case, EW would probably have counted the movies down instead.

All of the lists are presented as collections of "New Classics" and should be read that way. I think CASINO ROYALE definitely fits that category. The order seems arbitrary and done to mix things up year and genre wise more than anything else.

It's silly to compare apples like SCHINDLER'S LIST with oranges like PULP FICTION or pomegranates like CASINO ROYALE. As movies they have different intents and purposes behind them. You don't judge SCHINDLER'S LIST poorly against THE INCREDIBLES because it wasn't funny enough for example. Fairness comes not from treating different things the same; it comes from treating different things differently.

Well, at least that explains something. It seems so many here are jumping on this list without knowing what the criteria for it was.

Besides that, does the term "classic" mean what it used to anyway? If so, a cable network like American Movie Classics wouldn't be playing such films as Braddock: Missing in Action III, Black Dog and Death Wish 3.

It's really not surprising CR made this list considering Entertainment Weekly gave it a ton of coverage as well as strong critical reaction. Besides, their lists have always been controversial. Just a year ago they placed Goldfinger on the list of the best action movies ever made, which is ironic in that it has probably less actual action than the majority of the other Bond films.

[Johnboy007]

Obviously I'm proud of Casino Royale's inclusion, but this list is awful. Pulp Fiction is #1? Really? I think "Schindler's List" and "Aliens" were shafted the most. "Do the Right Thing", "Titanic", and "Jerry Maguire" are nowhere near as good. "The Matrix", as usual, is horribly out of place.

Jackanaples: I too thought "Blade Runner" would be on there, but the list only covers the last 25 years which rules it out.

[tdalton]

While it's true that there's no specific criteria that states that they're counting the list down in order of greatness or importance, the fact that they number the films from 1 to 100 strongly implies that that's the order that they want us to consider the films in. Otherwise, why order them? Why not just put a list of 100 films in either random order or even in alphabetical order? While it may not have been the intention to do have it in order of "greatness", the way the list is put together doesn't make it clear one way or another, and it's very easy to think that the list is in a numerical order.

Either way, though, I don't understand the list one bit. There are some true classics left off the list (HEAT, INTO THE WILD, GONE BABY GONE, and THE BOURNE IDENTITY to name a few) and quite a few films that do not belong there at all (THE BOURNE SUPREMACY being the one that really stands out).

[HH007]

CASINO ROYALE's placement is amazing, but totally undeserved.

There are plenty of questionable movies on this list. Seriously, NATURAL BORN KILLERS??? Talk about Oliver Stone trying too hard to be hip and edgy. If I were to put down a great Stone film, I'd go with either JFK or PLATOON.

SOUTH PARK: BIGGER, LONGER, & UNCUT... really??? It was funny and all, but does it really belong here? And where the hell is EVIL DEAD II on this list?

I could go on and on...

[baerrtt]

You know, there's nothing from the article to indicate that movies occupying the lower numbers of the list are considered to be more important than the higher numbers. If such were the case, EW would probably have counted the movies down instead.

All of the lists are presented as collections of "New Classics" and should be read that way. I think CASINO ROYALE definitely fits that category. The order seems arbitrary and done to mix things up year and genre wise more than anything else.

It's silly to compare apples like SCHINDLER'S LIST with oranges like PULP FICTION or pomegranates like CASINO ROYALE. As movies they have different intents and purposes behind them. You don't judge SCHINDLER'S LIST poorly against THE INCREDIBLES because it wasn't funny enough for example. Fairness comes not from treating different things the same; it comes from treating different things differently.

Well, at least that explains something. It seems so many here are jumping on this list without knowing what the criteria for it was.

Besides that, does the term "classic" mean what it used to anyway? If so, a cable network like American Movie Classics wouldn't be playing such films as Braddock: Missing in Action III, Black Dog and Death Wish 3.

It's really not surprising CR made this list considering Entertainment Weekly gave it a ton of coverage as well as strong critical reaction. Besides, their lists have always been controversial. Just a year ago they placed Goldfinger on the list of the best action movies ever made, which is ironic in that it has probably less actual action than the majority of the other Bond films.

THE SEVEN SAMURAI has less action than most other action films yet also made the list. I think it's simply because they chose the critically best regarded films of the genre, regardless of action quotient (if that were the case a Michael Bay film would have entered the top 25......undeservedly imo ).

[AngryPolarBear]

Either way, though, I don't understand the list one bit. There are some true classics left off the list (HEAT, INTO THE WILD, GONE BABY GONE, and THE BOURNE IDENTITY to name a few) and quite a few films that do not belong there at all (THE BOURNE SUPREMACY being the one that really stands out).

It's not weird that neither Into The Wild or Gone Gone is on the list. Good films, but i'm under the impression that they're not well known pictures that would be considered classic.

Supremacy is a weird choice though. I like it, but it's definately the least liked in the trilogy by fans and critics. I believe Bourne needs to represented on the list, but maybe by Identity or Ultimatum.

[Turn]

Either way, though, I don't understand the list one bit. There are some true classics left off the list (HEAT, INTO THE WILD, GONE BABY GONE, and THE BOURNE IDENTITY to name a few) and quite a few films that do not belong there at all (THE BOURNE SUPREMACY being the one that really stands out).

It's not weird that neither Into The Wild or Gone Gone is on the list. Good films, but i'm under the impression that they're not well known pictures that would be considered classic.

Supremacy is a weird choice though. I like it, but it's definately the least liked in the trilogy by fans and critics. I believe Bourne needs to represented on the list, but maybe by Identity or Ultimatum.

It may be too early to tell, but outside of a few critics circles, neither Into the Wild nor Gone Baby Gone were that influential nor particular audience favorites. I don't recall seeing any pay-per-view ads touting people to watch them and don't recall any DVD release hype. Good solid pictures, probably (I haven't seen either) but would they really be that good they would make a list of 100?

I think The Bourne Supremacy is the Bourne film that did a lot of things -- established it as a viable box office and critical series; the first one did fairly well but wasn't overly admired. Supremacy brought it all together. It established Matt Damon as a solid star. And it brought soldified the new form of action cinema with the frantic camerwork and such.

I finally saw the list and wouldn't agree on the rankings necessarily either. I love Blue Velvet but at no way would find it number 4. Hannah and Her Sisters and Moulin Rouge in the top 10, if it is a top 10, well, no.

As far as the outrage over the supposed "ranking" of Schindler's List, although I've never seen the film, I can understand its importance and deserved praise. It finally gave Spielberg the acclaim to his legendary status, brought more attention to the tragedy that was the Holocaust and captured that important part of history.

However, I think when you look at such a list at what is supposedly higher, it's understandable that a Jerry Maguire, Titanic and Pulp Fiction are in there. As I said in a previous post, classic may have a different definition these days, or at least a modified one.

Whereas Schindler's List is a classic as far as being a grand production by a master filmmaker with a timeless theme, many of these other films were huge on the culture itself. People that probably never saw these films went around saying "Show me the money", saw Titanic more than once and made that Celine Dion theme so huge many will hurl if they hear it one more time. Pulp Fiction made its director as big a star as many actors. Its influence is without question, like him or not.

Seinfeld was hip enough to poke a bit of fun at Schindler's List and that kind of sums things up. The film is a history lesson that stays with you when you don't really want it to whereas some of those other films resonate to the happy place you do want to stay with you, which is why people love a line as sappy as "You complete me."

[Jackanaples]

Oops. I spoke too soon. While the list online looks as just a collection of movies, from the print magazine it looks completely as if the movies are in a certain order.

With that in mind, I still think it makes perfect sense that PULP FICTION holds the number one spot. Its impact on the culture was seismic.

[DR76]

"MOULIN ROUGE" is on this list? Forget about it.

But at least I was happy to see "CASINO ROYALE" on this list. I think it is one of the best Bond films I have ever seen.

Edited by DR76, 29 June 2008 - 04:57 PM.

[Jackanaples]

There's a number of movies on that list that had me reeling at the sense of their inclusion. SPEED for example, was and is far from a classic. It was enjoyable summer movie released in a particularly slow year for action movies. LETHAL WEAPON was far more influential and "classic" by any standard.

But then, half of the list is specious. It's difficult to take seriously any list of the 100 New Classics of the last 25 years that includes BROADCAST NEWS, AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY, NATURAL BORN KILLERS, MOULIN ROUGE, SPEED, MICHAEL CLAYTON, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THE TRUMAN SHOW and SHREK while neglecting movies like: THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, TOMBSTONE, FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, ROBOCOP, GODS AND MONSTERS, SE7EN, CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL; KISS KISS, BANG BANG; THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, THE BIG LEBOWSKI, DANGEROUS LIAISONS, MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD, THE USUAL SUSPECTS, AMERICAN BEAUTY, and HEATHERS is probably not to be trusted.

Having said that, I'm glad CASINO ROYALE made the list and think it belongs there. It turned the longest running movie franchise into a must-see at the theater experience again. I think it's stature will only grow with time. Here's what EW wrote:

CASINO ROYALE 2006 You can talk about Daniel Craig's perfectly toned bod all you like (go on, we'll wait). But in this James Bond franchise revamp--more of a rebirth, really--the actor also offers a perfectly toned performance as a killing machine who's barely aware that he has a heart until it gets slashed to ribbons.

[tdalton]

There's a number of movies on that list that had me reeling at the sense of their inclusion. SPEED for example, was and is far from a classic. It was enjoyable summer movie released in a particularly slow year for action movies. LETHAL WEAPON was far more influential and "classic" by any standard.

But then, half of the list is specious. It's difficult to take seriously any list of the 100 New Classics of the last 25 years that includes BROADCAST NEWS, AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY, NATURAL BORN KILLERS, MOULIN ROUGE, SPEED, MICHAEL CLAYTON, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THE TRUMAN SHOW and SHREK

I completely agree. I didn't even realize that MICHAEL CLAYTON made the list, but its inclusion completely takes away any credibility the list had. MICHAEL CLAYTON has to be the most undeserving Best Picture nominee in history, and it's just an awful film, IMO, and it doesn't deserve to be anywhere near a list like this. The other films that you mention here are certainly not deserving of the list either, and it's hard to imagine that this list could call these films "classics".

[Dr. Noah]

Can't you know-it-all ultra-smart super-critics just be happy that CR is getting some recognition?

[dinovelvet]

Can't you know-it-all ultra-smart super-critics just be happy that CR is getting some recognition?

Pretty sad, isn't it. Shame on EW for not checking with "Bond fans" to see if it was OK for them to say Casino Royale was a good film!

[Dr. Noah]

Incredible isn't it? A major publication lists Casino Royale as a modern classic and one of the best 20 films of the last 25 years -- and Bond fans immediately go to work trying to discredit the list.

[honeyjes]

It's becoming a common theme to diss anything that doesn't jell with your own taste.

[Safari Suit]

Isn't that fairly logical?

[Dr. Noah]

Oh yeah. Incredibly logical. God forbid you spend your time on something you like...

[Safari Suit]

So like what you're doing? (Childish, me?)

[bond 16.05.72]

There's a number of movies on that list that had me reeling at the sense of their inclusion. SPEED for example, was and is far from a classic. It was enjoyable summer movie released in a particularly slow year for action movies. LETHAL WEAPON was far more influential and "classic" by any standard.

But then, half of the list is specious. It's difficult to take seriously any list of the 100 New Classics of the last 25 years that includes BROADCAST NEWS, AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY, NATURAL BORN KILLERS, MOULIN ROUGE, SPEED, MICHAEL CLAYTON, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THE TRUMAN SHOW and SHREK

I completely agree. I didn't even realize that MICHAEL CLAYTON made the list, but its inclusion completely takes away any credibility the list had. MICHAEL CLAYTON has to be the most undeserving Best Picture nominee in history, and it's just an awful film, IMO, and it doesn't deserve to be anywhere near a list like this. The other films that you mention here are certainly not deserving of the list either, and it's hard to imagine that this list could call these films "classics".

How you champion genre dreck like National Treasure 1 & 2 is beyond me and then call Michael Clayton an awful film.

I agree it's certainly not a materpiece or shouldn't have an inclusion in this list but an awful film it certainly is not and to consider some of the other rubbish that has not only been nominated but won Oscars, (Forest Gump I'm looking at you)
Michael Clayton was a well made gritty thriller with a great performance from Clooney maybe not Oscar worthy but neither was Tom Hanks for either of the films he's won for.

Tom Wilkinson was on great form and I thought Clayton while not one of the greats like All The Presidents Men was an efficient thriller, to call it awful is ridiculous.

Schindlers List is one of the most overrated films of the last 25 years too, agreed it's a great film but it contains hollywood devices mawkish sentimentality when it's not needed.

If Spielberg hadn't made this, it certainly wouldn't have the attention it got, Private Ryan is another case, it only got the boxoffice because SS was attached. Malick's Thin Red Line was much better.

With the exception of Munich Spielberg shines best with big blockbuster pictures like Jaws, Raiders & Close Encounters.

Casino Royale's inclusion is silly, it's a very fine film and for me the best entry so far but one of the best films of the last 25 years.... NO!

Where's JFK, Nixon, certainly better than the visually impressive and experimental NBK. Se7en, Heat, The Insider & Batman Begins if your gonna include Bourne Supremacy then these were worth an inclusion. I agree Identity is easily superior to Greengrass's enjoyable but vastly overrated sequels, esspeicially Ultimatum.

These lists are always bollocks, the fact Titanic is there just proves my point, it's like seeing Star Wars in the 100 best films of all time, of course it's not but it always is in there high or at no 1.

[HH007]

There's a number of movies on that list that had me reeling at the sense of their inclusion. SPEED for example, was and is far from a classic. It was enjoyable summer movie released in a particularly slow year for action movies. LETHAL WEAPON was far more influential and "classic" by any standard.

But then, half of the list is specious. It's difficult to take seriously any list of the 100 New Classics of the last 25 years that includes BROADCAST NEWS, AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY, NATURAL BORN KILLERS, MOULIN ROUGE, SPEED, MICHAEL CLAYTON, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THE TRUMAN SHOW and SHREK

I completely agree. I didn't even realize that MICHAEL CLAYTON made the list, but its inclusion completely takes away any credibility the list had. MICHAEL CLAYTON has to be the most undeserving Best Picture nominee in history, and it's just an awful film, IMO, and it doesn't deserve to be anywhere near a list like this. The other films that you mention here are certainly not deserving of the list either, and it's hard to imagine that this list could call these films "classics".

How you champion genre dreck like National Treasure 1 & 2 is beyond me and then call Michael Clayton an awful film.

I was thoroughly unimpressed by MICHAEL CLAYTON, but I didn't think it was awful, either.

[Dr. Noah]

So like what you're doing? (Childish, me?)

Yes.

[Safari Suit]

I'll get me coat

[tdalton]

How you champion genre dreck like National Treasure 1 & 2 is beyond me and then call Michael Clayton an awful film.

I don't recall ever "championing" the National Treasure films. I did say that they were reasonably entertaining films, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're particularly well made films either. They're like most of Bruckheimer's other films (save for THE ROCK, which was, IMO, one of the great action films) in that they're a good way to pass a couple of hours, but they're not something that's going to stay with you after you're done. Both of those films do have a little something extra, which was the great trio of Nicholas Cage, Diane Kruger, and Justin Bartha, but I wouldn't call either film, as a whole, particularly well made films.

As for MICHAEL CLAYTON, I just couldn't find anything about it to like, except for perhaps Tom Wilkinson. I couldn't connect in any way with the film and I didn't find it to be particularly well made either. Obviously quite a few people disagree with me, and that's perfectly fine and I wouldn't want to try to change someone's opinion of that, as it's a film that was nominated for several Academy Awards and made EW's list. All I'm saying is that I don't find it a particularly good film. Does that mean that it's not a good film, I don't know as it's not for me to decide, but it's just my opinion that it's not.

[Jackanaples]

I was the one who raised the idea that MICHAEL CLAYTON perhaps could have been removed from this list in favor of something more deserving. It's not that I've seen the movie and think it sucks --I haven't and have no opinion.

It's just that if it were truly worthy of inclusion on this list of the 100 New Classics of the last twenty-five years... more people would be talking about the effect it had on them, urging their friends, loved ones, strangers on the street, etc. to see it. I live in and have a Hollywood zip code. Nobody talked about this movie when it was out. The word "classic" and MICHAEL CLAYTON were never linked until EW did their list. If it were some sort of "instant classic" I think everyone would know.

Anyway, I'd say GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK; O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?, and OUT OF SIGHT are all George Clooney movies far more deserving of inclusion on that list.

CASINO ROYALE definitely earned it's right to be there though. It's effect on the culture even before it's release was huge. Once it was out, not only did it garner the best reviews of any movie of 2006, it reinvented the longest running movie series (and character) for the 21st century, reclaimed James Bond for the sophisticated adult audience (something it hadn't enjoyed since OHMSS), was nominated for some BAFTAS, announced the arrival of Daniel Craig into the league of major movie stars, AND opened the doors on an all you can eat crow buffet that annoying gits the world over are still trapped in.

CASINO ROYALE is a movie that will get bigger the farther we get away from it. You may not understand it, but it's the Bond movie everyone couldn't stop talking about and pleaded, and forced, and cajoled their friends to see with them. That's a classic.

Edited by Jackanaples, 06 July 2008 - 02:39 AM.

[honeyjes]

We are a contrary lot, we bemoan the critics who dismiss the franchise and films, and yet turn our noses up when they make an acknowledgement. Does seem strange that some aren't able take a compliment with good grace.

Edited by honeyjes, 06 July 2008 - 06:45 AM.

[tdalton]

We are a contrary lot, we bemoan the critics who dismiss the franchise and films, and yet turn our noses up when they make an acknowledgement. Does seem strange that we don't seem able take a compliment with good grace.

I actually don't really mind critics dismissing the franchise all that much. For the most part, they have fairly good reason to do so, especially recently as, before CASINO ROYALE, there really hadn't been, at least in my opinion, a good Bond film in well over a decade (although many would also argue that there have been good movies within a decade of CASINO ROYALE and others would argue that it's been even longer than a decade). I think that, when critics have to watch every film that is made (or just about every film), they want to see something truly spectacular, and to them franchise films (like Bond) are very similar to each other whereas fans of the franchises are more focused on the individual franchise and are able to distinguish them more, which is why critics are going to give more favorable reviews to the more "distinguished" fare like those films that are often nominated for the major awards rather than to franchise films, or at least that's my perspective on it.

As for CASINO ROYALE getting mentioned, it's good that the franchise is respected again. But, as far as being one of the 100 best films of the last 25 years? I'm not sure that it is, although I appreciate very much the fact that others (including EW) do think that it is. All I'm saying is that, to me, there are easily 100 films made in the last 25 years that are better than CASINO ROYALE, and there are several truly great films that have been left off this list.

Edited by tdalton, 06 July 2008 - 06:58 AM.

[honeyjes]

I think what some posters are fed up of is the highbrow attitude that is taken with regard to certain films. We all have differing tastes hence why we are not carbon copies of each other. So for some to dismiss a list because it doesn't contain what they consider better films is a tad spurious. We all have our own critique of what we think is good/bad. This list may not be our cup of tea but that doesn't make it bad either.

To add my tuppence worth, I haven't seen all the films on this list but of the ones I've seen I think Casino Royale is noteworthy.