Re: 100 Great Films
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because, really, you could fill up 80% of the list w/ Scorsese/Spielberg/Bergman/Kurosawa/Trauffaut/Fellini/Allen/Kubrick, etc, but what would be the point in that?
[/ QUOTE ]
To make a list of the 100 Greatest Films of the 20th Century?
GoT
[/ QUOTE ]
but like you said, it'll differ by taste anyway, so maybe you take out A Clockwork Orange and replace it with something like the Decalogue, that may get overlooked otherwise (even though it's one of the all-time greats).
in the end, the difference between 3 kubrick and 2 is minimal, but leaving out Kieslowski would be horrible.
i'm quite sure around film #80 i'll be appreciating the variety [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it'll differ by taste. But if your goal is to make a list of the best 100 films, then make a list of the best 100 films! Don't let a worse one leapfrog over a better one just because that direcctor already has more than one on the list. That's not a "Best 100" list; it's a "here's some diversified films" list.
If they really did leave those films off the list because Kurosawa already had two on it, their list has zero cred for two reasons. Ranking those two above Rashomon and Seven Samurai (again, virtually unanimously accepted as two of the best 50 films of all-time) and because that is completely counter-productive to making a "Best 100 Films" list. Call it something else if that's how you're compiling the list.
GoT
|