View Full Version : IMDB - Top 250 films - New entry straight in at number 1
Paul Bennison
02-01-2002, 21:35
The IMDB top 250 films top 10 now look like this:
1 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001) 9.1/10 (24551 votes)
2 Godfather, The (1972) 9.0/10 (45459 votes)
3 Shawshank Redemption, The (1994) 8.9/10 (63148 votes)
4 Godfather: Part II, The (1974) 8.7/10 (23669 votes)
5 Citizen Kane (1941) 8.7/10 (27761 votes)
6 Schindler's List (1993) 8.7/10 (45961 votes)
7 Casablanca (1942) 8.7/10 (30876 votes)
8 Star Wars (1977) 8.7/10 (69198 votes)
9 Shichinin no samurai (1954) 8.6/10 (10277 votes)
10 Memento (2000) 8.6/10 (21064 votes)
Is this the shape of things to come re: public voted top 10s???
The Boogerman
02-01-2002, 23:14
The way IMDB weight their voting system, you do get the occasional current release storming up the charts like LOTR, but to be honest the rest of the top ten look the same as 2 years ago with the exception of Memento (perhaps I'll have to watch my dust gathering DVD copy after all :-) ).
WOW!
Good Man Pete!
http://homepage.eircom.net/~garryleavycomedian/DemonBreedBrotherhood.jpg
Da DEMON Brotherhood
Joe Pasquale
03-01-2002, 08:05
It'll drop a few places soon, it had a score of 9.4 about a week ago, now it's 9.1.
I wouldn't give it about 6 personally.......only seen Star Wars, half of Shawshank and half or Casablanca from that lot anyway!
jroadley
03-01-2002, 20:10
Godfather should be number 1... Haven't seen Lord Of The Rings yet but I can't see it lasting for 30 years like Godfather. Reviews I've read of LOTR states that some of the acting is kinda wooding. This however cannot be said for the likes of Godfather, Shawshank, Schindler etc etc. All these films main characters actually move you in some way.
LOTR is just another action/fantasy movie for a mass market. The rest of the films in this top 10 are aimed at a more mature audience (How many people under 12 have seen Citizen Kane?)
Out of the top ten by April? :D
Tim Fleming
03-01-2002, 21:21
Originally posted by jroadley
... Haven't seen Lord Of The Rings yet ...
LOTR is just another action/fantasy movie for a mass market. The rest of the films in this top 10 are aimed at a more mature audience (How many people under 12 have seen Citizen Kane?)
Out of the top ten by April? :D
As a piece of literature, LOTR has been lauded as one of the greatest pieces of writing generated in the 20th century (if not the greatest), and the film is reasonably faithful to the first book. Additionally, this film to date has probably been the subject of more consistent critical acclaim than any other large scale film production previous to it.
How you can assume that it is "just another action/fantasy movie for a mass market" is way beyond me - particularly as you have not even seen it.
regards, Tim...
sidebog7
03-01-2002, 21:43
Originally posted by jroadley
LOTR is just another action/fantasy movie for a mass market. The rest of the films in this top 10 are aimed at a more mature audience (How many people under 12 have seen Citizen Kane?)
Star Wars was (is) just another action/scifi movie for a mass market which I think quite a lot of people didn't expect to last. I'm also pretty certain that it wasn't aimed at a mature audience.
Also Casablanca was contantly being rewritten whilst filming on a small budget. The release was rushed and the whole thing was expected to lose money when it was first released.
Originally posted by Tim Fleming
As a piece of literature, LOTR has been lauded as one of the greatest pieces of writing generated in the 20th century (if not the greatest), and the film is reasonably faithful to the first book. Additionally, this film to date has probably been the subject of more consistent critical acclaim than any other large scale film production previous to it.
How you can assume that it is "just another action/fantasy movie for a mass market" is way beyond me - particularly as you have not even seen it.
regards, Tim...
It has been lauded,yes (by whom?)... but it is not.
Being reasonably faithful to the book - even if its 100% - means bugger all. It has to stand on its own two feet as a film, or fall for the same reasons. This HP/LOTR literary faithfullness trend is, frankly, bad for cinema. Think 'good film' before 'faithfull adaptation' every time.
Taking away the 'action' from the quote (not yours) - how does it compare to other fantasy films of a similar nature? Most fantasy films are pretty awful, with a good new film appearing maybe once a decade (Hawk The Slayer, anyone?). Can LOTR truly compare with the 40 year old Jason & The Argonauts? Not even close, in my book.
Take a pill for the hysteria, folks. It's a better than average blockbuster, a good film. Nothing more, nothing less.
Tim Fleming
04-01-2002, 00:34
It has been lauded,yes (by whom?)... but it is not.
Sorry, no offence intended, but I didn't really understand what you were getting at here:) It has been lauded by the vast majority of critics (both the professional and armchair varieties) - something that is very rare indeed as they are usually only too willing to knock down the tall poppies.
Being reasonably faithful to the book - even if its 100% - means bugger all. It has to stand on its own two feet as a film, or fall for the same reasons. This HP/LOTR literary faithfullness trend is, frankly, bad for cinema. Think 'good film' before 'faithfull adaptation' every time.
In the case of LOTR I believe that it is essential that the story telling be faithful to the book. I could think of nothing worse than (for example) rewriting the end of each book just so that the film can be neatly wrapped up.
Taking away the 'action' from the quote (not yours) - how does it compare to other fantasy films of a similar nature? Most fantasy films are pretty awful, with a good new film appearing maybe once a decade (Hawk The Slayer, anyone?). Can LOTR truly compare with the 40 year old Jason & The Argonauts? Not even close, in my book.
Much better in my opinion. Jason and the Argonauts is a fine film considering when it was made, but as far as Hollyweird story telling goes and with the application of advanced CGI, there is absolutely no comparison.
Most fantasy films are terrible because they have very little in the way of a decent story behind them (no I am not refering to Jason here) and because they tend to use rather flakey effects to take us into their world - that is most definitely not the case with LOTR.
Take a pill for the hysteria, folks. It's a better than average blockbuster, a good film. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would argue that mine is not an hysterical response, but more the response of someone who is ****** off with the tall poppy syndrome. Just because LOTR has come out of what many would call the mainstream, and because it is touted as being a major epic, some people still tend to feel the need to look for faults rather than just being able to sit back and enjoy the experience. It is an epic, and it is an extremely well made and delivered epic.
regards, Tim...
Originally posted by Tim Fleming
I would argue that mine is not an hysterical response, but more the response of someone who is ****** off with the tall poppy syndrome. Just because LOTR has come out of what many would call the mainstream, and because it is touted as being a major epic, some people still tend to feel the need to look for faults rather than just being able to sit back and enjoy the experience. It is an epic, and it is an extremely well made and delivered epic.
regards, Tim...
Tall Poppy What? I'm sure there is a reverse to that that means anything 'Epic' being put down by the unenlightened is just a case of 'tall poppy syndrome' as well. I'm sure it works both ways - and indeed, just has!
No, there was nothing in LOTR that conquered Jason. The majestic Talos scene was not bettered in LOTR, not even after 4 decades of SFX. And no, for the last bloomin' time, if the original book doesn't suit, the format of the films COULD have been changed, especially as all the fanboys keep saying it's not a trilogy, it's just one book!
Some people do look for faults, its only natural for critics I'm sure, but I went hoping for the best - it WAS NOT a stand alone film of the quality of any of the original Star Wars Trilogy. It WAS NOT as dramaticaly interesting as The Deep End which I saw the night before. It WAS NOT the best fantasy ever made.
It went NOWHERE dramatically for a ruddy hour!!!! Oh, did JRRT write it that way, oops, better not change it then!
It WAS the best blockbuster of a dire year in that department (the worst ever?). Nothing more.
jroadley - I'd recommend you SEE the movie before casting a critical eye over FOTR -
After seeing it myself, and loving every minute of it - I WOULD agree with you though, It shouldn't be ahead of half of the top ten list - But who knows, maybe with repeated viewings, we have witnessed the birth of a modern classic... DEFINATELY one of the better films of the past 3 years....
http://homepage.eircom.net/~garryleavycomedian/DemonBreedBrotherhood.jpg
DA DEMON BROTHERHOOD
:D
Technically, or is that anally, it's 6 books published as 3 volumes.
I haven't seen it yet, I'll probably wait for the DVD, but I have read LOTR at least 5 times.
I think it's important that it stays reasonably close to the literature, on the other hand film is its own medium and changes necessary to work in that medium should be accepted, as long as they are sympathetically done.
:argue:
:D
tj_director
04-01-2002, 19:48
Originally posted by jroadley
Godfather should be number 1... Haven't seen Lord Of The Rings yet but I can't see it lasting for 30 years like Godfather.
I certainly can see the LOTR trilogy standing up for a good long while to come. We can't really compare it to Godfather, as that's not a fantasy film, in fact it might as well be based on a true story as far the subject matter is concerned. LOTR is obviously a completely different film from The Godfather, but i personally think it's entered the same leagues of classic.
For many FOTR has already entered the Classics Hall where Star Wars sits. Having seen the film virtually 3 times within the space of 2 weeks, which is a definate record for me, i've been able to see the film for what it is, and not compare it to the book (which may not be THE official literary masterpiece ever made, but goddamn, does it come bloody close!!), and i must say it's one heck of a spectacular film. And i'm not saying this from some fanboy's exageratted point of view, and while i may not be some proffesional critic, i'd like to think i know something about films, and what is good and bad, and can give a decent unbiased view of a film ---
I still think this film is excellent, and i have nothing but absolute praise for it. I can see how many people find moments feeling very slow, and not much going on, but for those who've either read the book, or have just been totally sucked into the film -- then like me they are people who love literally every minute of the film -- and to give this film less than 9/10 would be unimaginable to these people.
Obviously i've yet to see the next two, but if (touch wood) they even come close the quality and hardwork that is clearly present in FOTR -- then i personally can't see why the whole LOTR epic, can't be considered one of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time. -- who knows though, maybe they'll just end up being average films, and that would be a great shame to me and many others, but abviously a great boost to naysayers of the film :(
as for the IMDB score, i imagine it will decrease in due time, as not all the audience are fans of the film -- but i'll say one thing, i've never seen a film shoot up to the top this quickly, and with so many votes! :nuts:
and one last point -- (well two really) the acting is far from wooden, every cast member is great, i think people are just picking on the characters who have little screen time -- but hopefully they'll get to shine later on, as their characters will have much more involvment later on. Secondly, this isn't some typical mass market film.. a film like Pearl Harbour is, LOTR isn't though... if it was, then i assure you, a lot of Tolkein fans would have made sure this film wouldn't recieve top spot on the IMDB chart. And LOTR is mature film, just because a film has wizards and elves, doesn't mean it's just some matinee kiddy film. Even still, why do the Top 10 films, have to be serious high profile dramas made purely for adults?? aren't kids valid movie goers?? in my opinion Kids are the best litmus test for a truly great film -- as film should speak through visuals and not necersarily through dialogue.
jbroadley, -- if and when you see the film, please try and remove your expectations, and see it for what it is, you may be suprised... if so, you'll be lucky enough to see why so many people are crazy about it :)
jroadley
04-01-2002, 20:51
OK, time to defend myself... ;)
jroadley, -- if and when you see the film, please try and remove your expectations, and see it for what it is, you may be suprised... if so, you'll be lucky enough to see why so many people are crazy about it
Going to see it on Thursday, I was just repeating what I had read/seen. Loads of people I know have seen it and have come back gob smacked - I know I'll be the same :D
jroadley - I'd recommend you SEE the movie before casting a critical eye over FOTR
Yeah obviously, again I was just quoting what I'd read on the net and in some film mags. :brickwall
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.