Sight & Sound Unveil Full 'Greatest Films Of All Time' List; Robert Altman, Ridley Scott & More Crack Top 100

24 Comments

• | Reply

• Tmi | August 17, 2012 4:09 AMReply

  Anyone have a clue whether the singular director votes can be soon seen?

• dave | August 17, 2012 2:07 PM

  Aug. 22

• S | August 17, 2012 1:00 AMReply

  I think you've copied this list from the magazine. The websites full list of the top 250 includes Fassbinders "Fear Eats the Soul" at equal 93rd. Dont know why the discrepancy but noticed it this morning when going over the results.
  Dont know why the discrepancy but thought it worth noting.

• Ryan | August 17, 2012 12:41 AMReply

  I feel like Zizek is trolling moviegoers with his list. He practically admits it.

• cirkusfolk | August 16, 2012 10:29 PMReply

  Whatever u guys. Ok forget Raiders, I just used that as a completely random example, but what about Schindlers List? U gonna hate on that one too u fucking antisemites? In fact there isn't a single Speilberg film on the list and he's considered by many to be the best director of all time.

• ben | August 17, 2012 2:14 PM

  Cirkusfolk, I don't think anyone cares what your favorite movies are. I personally was responding to: "I've only seen 1/5 of the movies on this list, but the whole thing is hogwash!" and "I don't watch those movies as often as I do these movies, so how could they be better movie?" Which is one of the more hilarious things I've ever read. ... And yeah, disliking Schindler's List = anti-semitism? I bet you're so anti-semitic you've never even seen Shoah!

• Fred | August 17, 2012 1:40 PM

  Wow, allegations of bigotry...u must be a different cirkusfolk than the one who replied "Yeah, that's cause black movies suck. Well I guess the original Friday was decent" in the May 11 thread entitled "Watch: Will Ferrell Punches A Baby In The Trailer For 'The Campaign' With Zach Galifianakis"...

• wes | August 17, 2012 2:32 AM

  What about Schindler's list? The lack of Speilberg films is a result of the taste that was polled. I, for one, do not especially like Speilberg's films as they are overly sentimental (I do like Duel and Jaws though). I have never been deeply moved by a Speilberg film in the profound way, say, a Marty Scorsese, Terrence Malick, or Michael Powell/Emeric Pressburger picture can. None of his films have staying power for me. I do not feel the need to return to them, nor do I think about them often. I can say that some of his films are entertaining in the moment, but to call them the greatest films of all-time...I don't think so. I think a great film should be more than sentimentality and entertaining. But that's my opinion. Perhaps some will agree. You will obviously disagree. This list reflects a particular taste in film. You have another taste. There is no reason for you or anyone to get upset and become a taste-Nazi. Really, it's not very classy. For some schooling on different tastes in the film world, why don't you check out this site: http://www.phi-phenomenon.org/taste/

• Lucy | August 16, 2012 6:38 PMReply

  I'm going to save this list because I haven't seen a majority of them! I have to say even though I enjoyed Vertigo my favorite Hitchcock films are definitely Notorious and Rear Window! :-)

• cirkusfolk | August 16, 2012 4:38 PMReply

  If u say u watch any of these films more often then you watch The Big Lebowski or Raiders of the Lost Ark then youre fucking liar or someone I wouldn't want to hang around because I'd rather quote those films 8 1/2 (as if anyone could tell me a quote from that). So if all these films are then better than the two I mentioned, how come I don't watch them more?

• Wes | August 16, 2012 6:47 PM

  My collection of DVDs looks very similar to such lists. I re-watch them all every year. QED.

• E'le | August 16, 2012 6:24 PM

  Raiders of the Lost Ark is boring and The Big Lebowski is overrated.

• ben | August 16, 2012 6:01 PM

  You're in luck! I don't want to hang out with you either! (To answer your last question, it's because you have shitty taste.)

• Tom | August 16, 2012 5:00 PM

  It's uncalled for to call someone a fucking liar because they claim to watch these kinds of movies more than something like Big Lebowski or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Those are both great movies to be sure, but some people have different taste than you, Cirkusfolk. And there are legitimate arguments to be made that films like 8 1/2 and Citizen Kane should be on lists like this. If you feel that Big Lebowski is one of the Top 10 greatest artistic achievements in film then please make a case for it. I'm not being sarcastic; I would legitimately love to hear your argument.

• Neil | August 16, 2012 1:46 PMReply

  The Best Picture category in the Oscars is a bit of a joke, average films are consistently nominated and occasionally win due to "buzz" or cheesy sentimentality. Also a foreign film cannot be nominated. Would your list contain only American or British films? World cinema has been integral in shaping today's visionary directors and I think these Sight and Sound lists try to convey that.
  
  The lists, however, are almost self consciously "high-brow" and snobbish, created by the votes of those that consider themselves cineasts and would probably look down their collective nose at the Criterion Collection. So while your assertion that the Oscars' Best Film category should be a barometer for a list like this is absurd, I'll admit that the Sight and Sound voters have over indulged the pre 1950s and certain directors they view as "masters".
  
  NB: There is a point to be made that bestowing an award such as "Best Film" in the year the film is released is too early. Perhaps this is one reason why the winners are so often simply beneficiary's of hype and that judging the continuing merits of a film 10 years later is a better method of evaluation.

• Tom | August 16, 2012 4:55 PM

  While I certainly don't agree with everything on this list, it'd be absurd to call this list overly snobbish. The films on this list are made by filmmaking masters. How would your Top 100 look?

• Tom | August 16, 2012 4:55 PM

  While I certainly don't agree with everything on this list, it'd be absurd to call this list overly snobbish. The films on this list are made by filmmaking masters. How would your Top 100 look?

• jaso | August 16, 2012 2:57 PM

  In defense of the S&S voters, "snobbish" is an easy way to dismiss hundreds of lists containing movies you haven't seen and know nothing about. In my experience, critics/cinephiles of the more highbrow variety are -- for the most part -- friendly, not snobbish, and they certainly wouldn't "look down their collective nose at the Criterion Collection."

• Neil | August 16, 2012 2:20 PM

  Yeah, my post was supposed to be a reply to CIRCUSFOLK also.

• John | August 16, 2012 1:30 PMReply

  Yes, we should all just rely on AFI lists because only Americans can make great films...

• John | August 16, 2012 1:32 PM

  That should read "Yes, we should all just rely on the Oscars because only Americans can make great films..." and is a response to CIRKUSFOLK.

• TimmaeXVX | August 16, 2012 1:30 PMReply

  For all those bored with seeing the same films on every list I encourage you to check out Mark Kermode's. The man put Ken Russel's The Devils on there for fuck's sake. My favorite list out of about 40 I've seen so far.

• cirkusfolk | August 16, 2012 1:08 PMReply

  Personally I think this list is a bunch of hogwash. Granted I've only seen about 20 films on it, but there's way too much Hitchcock love and Casablanca at 85?? I wonder how many of these films are Best Picture winners. Aren't those supposed to be the best films? Guess not.

• ben | August 16, 2012 1:16 PM

  "Granted I've only seen about 20 films on it." Then stop talking. "I wonder how many of these films are Best Picture winners. Aren't those supposed to be the best films?" No, winning an Oscar generally doesn't mean anything when it comes to lists like this (maybe the AFI lists, where things like Forrest Gump show up).