[Tejstar]

I’m not going to list all 100, but here is their top ten:

10) 8 1/2
9) Some Like It Hot
8) Vertigo
7) Raging Bull
6) Citizen Kane
5) The Seven Samurai
4) The Godfather Trilogy
3) Lawrence of Arabia
2) La Regle du Jeu
1) Tokyo Story

[Gary D]

How predictable - another boardsheet, another list of snob movies. if the movie going world listened to what boardsheet reviews thought was good we would watch some really boring film - in fact they would all be made by Todd Solondz- christ he makes rubbish boring films

did anyone listen to five live's movie reviews last week? the guy on that (not Mark Kermode) was the reviewer for the one of the boardsheets, his film of the week was not Sin City but a film called Moolaade (An examination on the subject of female circumcision in Africa) now i'm not saying that its not a good film ( i haven't seen it - so i really cant say) but it seems to me that some reviews go out of their way to hate anything popular. christ did anyone read the "Sith" review in the independant a few weeks back? the guy gave it one star (and he hated sci fi as a genre!!) what was the point in sending him to review it? he was never going to give it a good or even balanced review!

i never trust papers reviews of movies - i've seen too many really boring films on the recomendation of boardsheet reviewers. (i also ignore any comments made by Paul Ross - see if you can find his almost legendary review of Shrek!)

(i should point out that i own 6 of that top ten )

Gary

[Tejstar]

Whilst I do agree with your general opinion on the ‘snobbery’ of many top ten lists, I can embarrassingly say that I have only seen 4 of the films in the above top 10 list. It is therefore difficult to say that the others do not deserve their place. At least this list differs in not putting Citizen Kane as #1 like so many others do!

However, imo, out the films I have seen the only 2 that would make my top 10 list are Seven Samurai and The Godfather Trilogy.

[Harj]

I've seen seven of that top ten, but i won't take anything the Times does seriously anyway, its just a bigger version of the Daily Mail nowadays.

[videonasty]

Weekend at Bernies is the best film ever made

[Gary D]

Originally Posted by videonasty

Weekend at Bernies is the best film ever made

thats just as bad as boardsheet elitism only in reverse



gary

[markymark34]

these lists really annoy me too. Modern films dont get included because they are modern! how stupid is that!? there have been some fantastic films over the past fifteen years, usual suspects, shawshank redemption to name but 2. What is La Regle du Jeu? never even heard of it!

oh nearly forgot battlefield earth should be on there too ;-D

[MC Hammer]

Don't see how any of them could have been listed.

None have DTS !

[Harj]

I dont see what the fuss is anyway, im sure most broadsheet reviwers watch many more films than we do, and from reading my broadsheet (The Independant), i've been able to see gems such as 'Im not Scared' (Italian), 'Zatoichi', 'Dark Water' ,'The Twilight Samurai', The Eye', all of which, the reviewer made me hunt down a cinema that showed them, also reccommended and seen recently was 'The Machinist' and on my list to see is 'Stander' a South African crime film, im glad for so called elitism if thats what it brings me, or i could just read the Sun reviews ad watch everything they reccomend.

And as for Todd Solz, isn't 'Happiness' one of the most darkest films ever made?

[Harj]

Originally Posted by Gary D

How predictable - another boardsheet, another list of snob movies. if the movie going world listened to what boardsheet reviews thought was good we would watch some really boring film - in fact they would all be made by Todd Solondz- christ he makes rubbish boring films

did anyone listen to five live's movie reviews last week? the guy on that (not Mark Kermode) was the reviewer for the one of the boardsheets, his film of the week was not Sin City but a film called Moolaade (An examination on the subject of female circumcision in Africa) now i'm not saying that its not a good film ( i haven't seen it - so i really cant say) but it seems to me that some reviews go out of their way to hate anything popular. christ did anyone read the "Sith" review in the independant a few weeks back? the guy gave it one star (and he hated sci fi as a genre!!) what was the point in sending him to review it? he was never going to give it a good or even balanced review!

i never trust papers reviews of movies - i've seen too many really boring films on the recomendation of boardsheet reviewers. (i also ignore any comments made by Paul Ross - see if you can find his almost legendary review of Shrek!)

(i should point out that i own 6 of that top ten )

Gary

Yes the guy in the Independant doesn't like Sith, I read the review, but so what, he says what he wants, so one reviwer dos not find Sin City as much a viewing experience as that african film, so what thats his/hers opinion! Just because the subject mattter is alien to you it does not mean that the film cannot not be enjoyed, reviewers have to watch films at different levels, one day they are writing about sin city and one day about female genitile mutilation, its not like the tabloids where you basically review mutiplex bound films.

[Gary D]

Originally Posted by MC Hammer

Don't see how any of them could have been listed.

None have DTS !

Lawrence of Arabia (superbit) does.

Originally Posted by Harj

I dont see what the fuss is anyway, im sure most broadsheet reviwers watch many more films than we do, and from reading my broadsheet (The Independant), i've been able to see gems such as 'Im not Scared' (Italian), 'Zatoichi', 'Dark Water' ,'The Twilight Samurai', The Eye', all of which, the reviewer made me hunt down a cinema that showed them, also reccommended and seen recently was 'The Machinist' and on my list to see is 'Stander' a South African crime film, im glad for so called elitism if thats what it brings me, or i could just read the Sun reviews ad watch everything they reccomend.

And as for Todd Solz, isn't 'Happiness' one of the most darkest films ever made?

I've seen most of the films you have quoted above - and i'm not saying that they shouldn't be watched. The point i was making above is just that boardsheet reviewers seem to go out of thier way to like really obsure movies because of the kudos that gives them. its almost a sort of "i wont watch that rubbish because its popular" i like popular movies, i like seeing stuff blow up and hearing f14's cross my living room and shake the pictures on my wall. I like Tony Scott movies, hell i even like Michael bay movies (except Peral Harbour and Bad Boys 2) and i also like small independant films, but i'm not going to diss one or the other because i want to impress people at a west london dinner party. I have movies from all over the world (although not many south american or African films.) and it spans more than 60 years of movie making so i'm up for anything

As for Happiness - its certainly one of the dullest movies i've ever seen from one of the dullest of the new wave of directors - he's not fit lick Alexander Paynes shoes!!

Gary

[Gary D]

Originally Posted by Harj

Yes the guy in the Independant doesn't like Sith, I read the review, but so what, he says what he wants, so one reviwer dos not find Sin City as much a viewing experience as that african film, so what thats his/hers opinion! Just because the subject mattter is alien to you it does not mean that the film cannot not be enjoyed, reviewers have to watch films at different levels, one day they are writing about sin city and one day about female genitile mutilation, its not like the tabloids where you basically review mutiplex bound films.

Harj, read what i wrote - i'm not dissing anything i'm just saying that the vast majority of boardsheet reviews dont want to mix with the great unwashed or even like what they like as it make them feel elitist - like the way i feel when i pass a chav i the street. But why send a reviewer that dosn't like a genre to review the biggest film of the year in that genre? that makes no sense to me. it would be like me reviewing hip hop music - i hate it and nothing is ever going to change that. (for te record i shared an office with guy who loves hip hop and another guy who is a hip hop club DJ, so ive heard loads.

as for reviewers seeing more films than me i watch a about 10 -12 a week and i'm not paid to watch them.

Gary

[Battlestar]

I think that reviews of movies are a very strange thing indeed. In order for a movie to be given a fair and balanced review, you have to be totally independent but know your subject matter.

For example,

Revenge of the sith could be reviewed any number of ways by any number of different people and give any number of results.

A starwars Fan that is a reviewer may hate the movie because they love the original and not think it worthy of the franchise. A broad sheet critic might say what a load of sci-fi rubbish with no artistic merit. Average joe may over a pint down the pub rave about the movie and how exciting it is and wow, what about those lightsaber battles. The fact of the matter is, is that unless you have a totally open mind and can sit through absolutely everything with no expectations before hand, you can not give a fair review. Like has already been said if you don't like a particular genre of film and you are reviewing that type of movie, its already going to get a kick in the before its even started.

[Tejstar]

Originally Posted by Gary D

as for reviewers seeing more films than me i watch a about 10 -12 a week and i'm not paid to watch them.

And you still get time for work, girlfriend/wife and these forums! Wow!

At most I watch 2 films a week, would like to watch more but don’t have the time.

[Gary D]

Originally Posted by Tejstar

And you still get time for work, girlfriend/wife and these forums! Wow!

At most I watch 2 films a week, would like to watch more but don’t have the time.

its my hobby (and Mrs. D's) i live a pretty good stress free life. i have two jobs (one P.T. at blockies for my free movies ) i buy loads, watch loads, play loads and loiter around here alot


Gary

[Tejstar]

Originally Posted by Gary D

its my hobby (and Mrs. D's) i live a pretty good stress free life. i have two jobs (one P.T. at blockies for my free movies ) i buy loads, watch loads, play loads and loiter around here alot

Sounds like a good life!

[Gary D]

i working in the public sector so life is fairly relaxed none of that work work work private sector stuff we earn less money but we have far less stress

Gary

[elicash73]

Where the hell was Die Hard!? Like, OMG The Times are so snobby. They clearly know nothing about DVDs. Oh well at least one of them is available on Superbit.

[the_pauley]

these lists really annoy me too. Modern films dont get included because they are modern! how stupid is that!? there have been some fantastic films over the past fifteen years, usual suspects, shawshank redemption to name but 2. What is La Regle du Jeu? never even heard of it!

Trust me - this is not an obscure film!

So let's see - you haven't seen the film, haven't even heard of the film, and yet you are annoyed by the list that includes it. You are also irritated at it being chosen over films that you have heard of, but you've never seen it. Hardly a logically tenable position, is it?

And why is the reaction to this unknown quantity one of annoyance? Rather than, say for example, curiosity?

If "modern" films were not included in the list for the sole reason that they were "modern", then yes, that would indeed be a very stupid attitude. But, perhaps there may be some other reasons for their non-inclusion. For example, while there have indeed been some fantastic films released over the last fifteen years, it is also the case that never in the history of the medium has Hollywood turned out such a deluge of cinematic-dross as it has done in the last twenty years. That would mean a scarcity of candidates for inclusion on any all-time-greats lists.

But its a moot point. If you look at the Times 100 it probably does include contemporary movies. You may not like them or indeed may not have heard of some of them, but contemporary cinema is doubtless represented nonetheless.

I dont see what the fuss is anyway, im sure most broadsheet reviwers watch many more films than we do, and from reading my broadsheet (The Independant), i've been able to see gems such as 'Im not Scared' (Italian), 'Zatoichi', 'Dark Water' ,'The Twilight Samurai', The Eye', all of which, the reviewer made me hunt down a cinema that showed them, also reccommended and seen recently was 'The Machinist' and on my list to see is 'Stander' a South African crime film, im glad for so called elitism if thats what it brings me, or i could just read the Sun reviews ad watch everything they reccomend.

And as for Todd Solz, isn't 'Happiness' one of the most darkest films ever made?

Agreed. "Happiness" is a stunning movie. Dark, multi-layered, profoundly disturbing at times and yet simultaneously hilarious. A totally unique cinematic experience.

Looking at the Top Ten alone I'd take this list over the likes of the recent "Empire Readers Top 100" any day! This is an excellent list and serves a valuable purpose. Namely to remind the world that there is life beyond the exercises in multiplex mediocrity that clog the media. And as to witterings of "obscure" and "unpopular", take a look at that Top Ten - if you think that those are obscure movies, then I think you seriously need to expand your horizons beyond the "straight-to-video" section of the local video library! The majority of that Top Ten -including some of the foreign titles- were also popular successes on release.

We are literally bombarded every day, on an almost hourly basis in all forms of media, by promotion of multiplex-fodder, most of it totally mindless dreck, and no one seems to get their knickers in a twist. Yet let one broadsheet reviewer dare to recommend an obscure (horror of horrors) foreign language movie, that might otherwise get lost in the Hollywood shuffle, and the howls of indignation are heard far and near, as if he'd raped a child or something. Accompanied of course by the usual tired accusations of "snobbery" and "elitism".

Just because the guy didn't make "Sin City" his movie-of-the-week doesn't mean he hated it, it simply means that he liked something else a little more.

When I was younger and really getting into movies, the only two movie magazines I had seen at the time were "Film Review" and "Photoplay", two titles that pretty much plowed the same furrow as "Empire" does today, namely, the promotion of current releases. Then one day I had my cinematic equivalent of a "Road to Damascus" when I happened upon a copy of "Films and Filming" and shortly after a copy "Sight and Sound".

"Sight and Sound" published one of their "Top 100" lists and I was introduced to a plethora of titles and I had never heard of. Rather than finding my self "annoyed" I found myself to be curious to see these films that so many people seemed to know and rate so highly.

I began to actively seek out these films, and suddenly there was a whole new world of film opened up to me that I had never known existed and "BAM!" my cinematic horizons expanded one-hundredfold. I was also fortunate enough to be exposed to this broader range of movies while being young enough and still in the process of developing my tastes, not to have become bogged down in dogmatic pre-conceptions of of form, style, technique and subject matter. And I thank my lucky stars for it! So yes thank God for lists like the "Times 100".

And please - cease with these tedious accusations of snobbery and elitism, simply because someone else sees film as something more than a medium for the latest flavour-of-the-month action drone to blow things up, or an excuse for untalented hacks to replace dramatic substance with inane doodlings from their digital paint-boxes. Amazing isn't it how no-one gets emotional over the recommendations of a cinematic dilettante like Paul Ross ("Reign of Fire" anyone?), yet let someone wax lyrical about something that hints at a filmic experience that might actually demand something of the viewer other than passive, drooling acceptance, and some come over positively pre-menstrual. Speaks volumes to some people's insecurities...

Look at it this way - if someone were to come on these forums and start using words like "moron" and "idiot" to attack people's tastes, there would be a near riot. Yet somehow it seems to be quite acceptable to use terminology such as "snob" and "elitist" as a derisory means to attack tastes that veer from that of the herd. That in itself is nothing more than a form of inverse snobbery.

Someone else summed it up perfectly on another thread; there are two types of animal wandering these forums, those that primarily love cinema, and those that primarily love home-cinema. Just let's say that the "Times 100" is a list for the former group and leave it at that.

If it isn't what floats your boat you are free to ignore it.


EDIT: Er, just decided to have a look at the other 90 of the "Times Top 100 Films".

I suggest that whoever claimed it to be a list compiled by The Times, takes a closer look at the story.

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by the_pauley

So let's see - you haven't seen the film, haven't even heard of the film, and yet you are annoyed by the list that includes it. You are also irritated at it being chosen over films that you have heard of, but you've never seen it. Hardly a logically tenable position, is it?

I disagree - it is an entirely tenable & logical position.

Cinema is a mass media art. By it's very nature ascertaining 'quality' must have at least some relationship to 'consumption'. There are no absolutely objective criteria that can be used, so the perception of the person viewing becomes key. And whether we like it or not, the number of people who choose to go and see or purchase a film is at least a contributor towards assessing how good a film is.

Now this is not a hard and fast rule, as obviously low 'quality' films can be extremely popular and vice versa. For instance, The Phantom Menace was IMHO low quality, but also a big box office film. The Shawshank Redemption is a fantastic film, but was also a relative box office failure.

So you make some valid points that we cannot JUST rely on popularity, but for films in the top ten it should IMHO be a given that these are films that generally have a track record of popularity with the film viewing public.

Originally Posted by the_pauley

And why is the reaction to this unknown quantity one of annoyance? Rather than, say for example, curiosity?

I agree to a point, but I can certainly understand the annoyance.

I've never heard of the film either, and I have to admit that it does make me want to see the film.

But I can certainly understand how the list may annoy some as it may be seen as one put together by a self appointed group of elitists.

[Gorshin]

Here, for the sake of amusement is my spur-of-the-moment top 10 (in no order):

1. Godfather Part 2
2. The Third Man
3. Dr Strangelove
4. 2001
5. Memento
6. Citizen Kane
7. Once Upon A Time In America
8. Terminator 2
9. Vertigo
10. North By Northwest

IMO these 'best ever' polls are superflous in that my own top whatever is constantly changing, depending on mood etc. Top lists are very good at illustrating general quality however, ie. imdb top 250 The trouble is the more films you watch and acquire the more difficult the task of defining favourites becomes. A top 500 is more necessary for those with a fetish for dvdsoon and home cinema

[Blondie]

Originally Posted by Tejstar

I’m not going to list all 100, but here is their top ten:

10) 8 1/2
9) Some Like It Hot
8) Vertigo
7) Raging Bull
6) Citizen Kane
5) The Seven Samurai
4) The Godfather Trilogy
3) Lawrence of Arabia
2) La Regle du Jeu
1) Tokyo Story

what the hell is La Regle du Jeu, please whose opinion, bloody Lord i don't work for a living

[Blondie]

Originally Posted by the_pauley

Trust me - this is not an obscure film!

So let's see - you haven't seen the film, haven't even heard of the film, and yet you are annoyed by the list that includes it. You are also irritated at it being chosen over films that you have heard of, but you've never seen it. Hardly a logically tenable position, is it?

And why is the reaction to this unknown quantity one of annoyance? Rather than, say for example, curiosity?

If "modern" films were not included in the list for the sole reason that they were "modern", then yes, that would indeed be a very stupid attitude. But, perhaps there may be some other reasons for their non-inclusion. For example, while there have indeed been some fantastic films released over the last fifteen years, it is also the case that never in the history of the medium has Hollywood turned out such a deluge of cinematic-dross as it has done in the last twenty years. That would mean a scarcity of candidates for inclusion on any all-time-greats lists.

But its a moot point. If you look at the Times 100 it probably does include contemporary movies. You may not like them or indeed may not have heard of some of them, but contemporary cinema is doubtless represented nonetheless.

Agreed. "Happiness" is a stunning movie. Dark, multi-layered, profoundly disturbing at times and yet simultaneously hilarious. A totally unique cinematic experience.

Looking at the Top Ten alone I'd take this list over the likes of the recent "Empire Readers Top 100" any day! This is an excellent list and serves a valuable purpose. Namely to remind the world that there is life beyond the exercises in multiplex mediocrity that clog the media. And as to witterings of "obscure" and "unpopular", take a look at that Top Ten - if you think that those are obscure movies, then I think you seriously need to expand your horizons beyond the "straight-to-video" section of the local video library! The majority of that Top Ten -including some of the foreign titles- were also popular successes on release.

We are literally bombarded every day, on an almost hourly basis in all forms of media, by promotion of multiplex-fodder, most of it totally mindless dreck, and no one seems to get their knickers in a twist. Yet let one broadsheet reviewer dare to recommend an obscure (horror of horrors) foreign language movie, that might otherwise get lost in the Hollywood shuffle, and the howls of indignation are heard far and near, as if he'd raped a child or something. Accompanied of course by the usual tired accusations of "snobbery" and "elitism".

Just because the guy didn't make "Sin City" his movie-of-the-week doesn't mean he hated it, it simply means that he liked something else a little more.

When I was younger and really getting into movies, the only two movie magazines I had seen at the time were "Film Review" and "Photoplay", two titles that pretty much plowed the same furrow as "Empire" does today, namely, the promotion of current releases. Then one day I had my cinematic equivalent of a "Road to Damascus" when I happened upon a copy of "Films and Filming" and shortly after a copy "Sight and Sound".

"Sight and Sound" published one of their "Top 100" lists and I was introduced to a plethora of titles and I had never heard of. Rather than finding my self "annoyed" I found myself to be curious to see these films that so many people seemed to know and rate so highly.

I began to actively seek out these films, and suddenly there was a whole new world of film opened up to me that I had never known existed and "BAM!" my cinematic horizons expanded one-hundredfold. I was also fortunate enough to be exposed to this broader range of movies while being young enough and still in the process of developing my tastes, not to have become bogged down in dogmatic pre-conceptions of of form, style, technique and subject matter. And I thank my lucky stars for it! So yes thank God for lists like the "Times 100".

And please - cease with these tedious accusations of snobbery and elitism, simply because someone else sees film as something more than a medium for the latest flavour-of-the-month action drone to blow things up, or an excuse for untalented hacks to replace dramatic substance with inane doodlings from their digital paint-boxes. Amazing isn't it how no-one gets emotional over the recommendations of a cinematic dilettante like Paul Ross ("Reign of Fire" anyone?), yet let someone wax lyrical about something that hints at a filmic experience that might actual demand something of the viewer other than passive, drooling acceptance, and some come over positively pre-menstrual. Speaks volumes to some people's insecurities...

Look at it this way - if someone were to come on these forums and start using words like "moron" and "idiot" to attack people's tastes, there would be a near riot. Yet somehow it seems to be quite acceptable to use terminology such as "snob" and "elitist" as a derisory means to attack tastes that veer from that of the herd. That in itself is nothing more than a form of inverse snobbery.

Someone else summed it up perfectly on another thread; there are two types of animal wandering these forums, those that primarily love cinema, and those that primarily love home-cinema. Just let's say that the "Times 100" is a list for the former group and leave it at that.

If it isn't what floats your boat you are free to ignore it.


EDIT: Er, just decided to have a look at the other 90 of the "Times Top 100 Films".

I suggest that whoever claimed it to be a list compiled by The Times, takes a closer look at the story.

The end of the day it should not be in the top ten if Joe Bloggs of the street has not even heard of it, ask any lay person if they've heard of Jaws, Star Wars, Ther Good the Bad the ugly etc.......... they instantly now it was a good if not outstanding film most film lovers don't want some boring culture rubbish, when that's all we get all day long on the news.
so pauley who replies with bloody essays you have your opinion, (Musicals, and La bloody whatever), and the majority have there's, DIE HARD, PREDATOR, ETC

[elicash73]

How can a list containing "Some Like it Hot" be elitist? The unashamed ignorance in this thread (exemplified by blondie) makes me want to set myself on fire.

"boring culture rubbish"
& "La bloody whatever"

rock on, man. rock on.

unless you were being ironic in which case, you're a genius.

[Blondie]

Originally Posted by elicash73

How can a list containing "Some Like it Hot" be elitist? The unashamed ignorance in this thread (exemplified by blondie) makes me want to set myself on fire.

"boring culture rubbish"
& "La bloody whatever"

rock on, man. rock on.

unless you were being ironic in which case, you're a genius.

I'd like to think genius if only to highlight french film making

[Gary D]

Pauley,
The first thing i'd like to say is that a really respect your posts - you have not only provided me with a different POV on many issues, you have made me laugh and made me think. in short i enjoy reading your concidered and thoughtful posts, and while i agree with 70% of the board thrust of your post i have to take issue with some of it:

Originally Posted by the_pauley

Trust me - this is not an obscure film!

Yes it is!! Its a french farce from 1939!! stop ten people in the street and ask them if they have heard of it - if you lucky you might find 1 person thats heard of. if you think about it your comment is ironically - elitist expecting people to know that. ssshhh.

Originally Posted by the_pauley

For example, while there have indeed been some fantastic films released over the last fifteen years, it is also the case that never in the history of the medium has Hollywood turned out such a deluge of cinematic-dross as it has done in the last twenty years.

Human output in everyfield went through the roof towards the end of the 20th century. i dare say that the ratio of good film and bad films is no worse today than it was in the 30's and 40's.

Originally Posted by the_pauley

Agreed. "Happiness" is a stunning movie. Dark, multi-layered, profoundly disturbing at times and yet simultaneously hilarious. A totally unique cinematic experience.

Sorry it went straight over my redbrick educated, cinema loving brain. it was just really boring. hey if you enjoyed it then thats cool. Out of intrest are you a Peter Greenaway fan?

Originally Posted by the_pauley

We are literally bombarded every day, on an almost hourly basis in all forms of media, by promotion of multiplex-fodder, most of it totally mindless dreck, and no one seems to get their knickers in a twist.

That will be Batman Begins then Franchise resurrecting, video game playing, toy selling media onslaught - multiplex-fodder (Time Warner - not exactly a small independant ) Sorry you walked into that one

Originally Posted by the_pauley

Yet let one broadsheet reviewer dare to recommend an obscure (horror of horrors) foreign language movie, that might otherwise get lost in the Hollywood shuffle, and the howls of indignation are heard far and near, as if he'd raped a child or something. Accompanied of course by the usual tired accusations of "snobbery" and "elitism".

Thats just slightly hyistical there pauley. For the love of mary, joseph and all the little chrildren - we have an Asian movie forum.

Originally Posted by the_pauley

Just because the guy didn't make "Sin City" his movie-of-the-week doesn't mean he hated it, it simply means that he liked something else a little more.

Fair point

Originally Posted by the_pauley

When I was younger and really getting into movies, the only two movie magazines I had seen at the time were "Film Review" and "Photoplay", two titles that pretty much plowed the same furrow as "Empire" does today, namely, the promotion of current releases. Then one day I had my cinematic equivalent of a "Road to Damascus" when I happened upon a copy of "Films and Filming" and shortly after a copy "Sight and Sound". "Sight and Sound" published one of their "Top 100" lists and I was introduced to a plethora of titles and I had never heard of. Rather than finding my self "annoyed" I found myself to be curious to see these films that so many people seemed to know and rate so highly. I began to actively seek out these films, and suddenly there was a whole new world of film opened up to me that I had never known existed and "BAM!" my cinematic horizons expanded one-hundredfold.

There are many members of this very forum that have had their horizons widened by threads here.

Originally Posted by the_pauley

I was also fortunate enough to be exposed to this broader range of movies while being young enough and still in the process of developing my tastes, not to have become bogged down in dogmatic pre-conceptions of of form, style, technique and subject matter. And I thank my lucky stars for it! So yes thank God for lists like the "Times 100".

Pauley - that comment is one of the most patronising things i've read on here - what do you think we do now? i was bought up watching John Wayne, War Movies, Westerns and Carry On films - so is that all i want to watch now? RUBBISH!

Originally Posted by the_pauley

And please - cease with these tedious accusations of snobbery and elitism,

And this from someone who above is making out to be Mr World Cinema at an age when the rest of us were watching Scooby Doo.

Originally Posted by the_pauley

Look at it this way - if someone were to come on these forums and start using words like "moron" and "idiot" to attack people's tastes, there would be a near riot. Yet somehow it seems to be quite acceptable to use terminology such as "snob" and "elitist" as a derisory means to attack tastes that veer from that of the herd. That in itself is nothing more than a form of inverse snobbery.

"snob" and "elitist" - i have fond memories of "laughing" Derck Malcome in the Guardian - going to the cinema with that level of cynicism would be scary



Gary

NOTE: as you can imagine this took a while to write, i woulds therefore like to disassociate with any implication that i'm with Blondie on this - the comments are just plain insulting.

[Blondie]

Think i've missed the point with pauley and others who blab on about class systems, which is the main argument!!
ignore the arguments watch films for the reason i do and joe bloggs (he's back), beacuse it's FUN, you know something us Brits get a bit reserved over. Have fun enjoy whatever you fancy, horror, musicals (pauley), action, romantic just not bloody french

[pjclark1]

Originally Posted by the_pauley

Someone else summed it up perfectly on another thread; there are two types of animal wandering these forums, those that primarily love cinema, and those that primarily love home-cinema. Just let's say that the "Times 100" is a list for the former group and leave it at that.

Lets not, if we look in the classic cinema section of this forum, there are not many posts from people looking for the best releases of those 100 movies. This list seems more about wanting praise for having "good taste" than anything else.

[elicash73]

Blondie thinks that "french" is a genre....

[Harj]

Originally Posted by Gary D

Harj, read what i wrote - i'm not dissing anything i'm just saying that the vast majority of boardsheet reviews dont want to mix with the great unwashed or even like what they like as it make them feel elitist - like the way i feel when i pass a chav i the street. But why send a reviewer that dosn't like a genre to review the biggest film of the year in that genre? that makes no sense to me. it would be like me reviewing hip hop music - i hate it and nothing is ever going to change that. (for te record i shared an office with guy who loves hip hop and another guy who is a hip hop club DJ, so ive heard loads.

as for reviewers seeing more films than me i watch a about 10 -12 a week and i'm not paid to watch them.

Gary

I understand yoyur point Gary, but i beleive the whole point of a reviewer is to wrie an impartial review, so that particular person may not be a sci-fi fan but i still find it interesting to see why he didn't like it, im not a big drama fan, but I have gone to see some drama films based on reviews, and have enjoyed them.

As for watching 10-12 films a week, where do you get the time? Maybe you should submit some reviews? I go through phases, some days I blitz my dvd player and some times i dont watch anything for a week.