Boxoffice.com's Top 100 Films of All Time 2013 -- RESULTS PRESENTATION 4 PM PST/7 PM EST

[DAR]

Ric liked my list. We Kool and the Gang

[Dementeleus]

Both JAWS and the original STAR WARS are just perfectly paced mainstream entertainment. Pacing is such a slippery beast, and it's so hard to do well, not to mention sustaining it over a feature-length movie.

[Punishment]

... there's probably even more pressure to like mainstream classics than the old critic movies.

 

Agreed, plus a lot of us haven't seen the older critically acclaimed movies.

[Blankments]

I honestly cannot believe that masterpieces like All Quiet, Citizen kane, and Gone with the Wind appear only in my top 10. 

 

I haven't seen any of those three.

[luna]

Both JAWS and the original STAR WARS are just perfectly paced mainstream entertainment. Pacing is such a slippery beast, and it's so hard to do well, not to mention sustaining it over a feature-length movie.

 

jaws' pacing isn't its problem...and let's not talk about star wars. i could rant about that for hours.

[DAR]

Agreed, plus a lot of us haven't seen the older critically acclaimed movies.

Always check Turner Classic Movies

[baumer]

My problem with a lot of older films is that they are not very well made or acted.  They might have been for the time but when you compare them to a lot of the greats from today, imo, many of them pale.  I think when it comes to acting, you can take some of the worst actors today and they are still better than some of the greats from the past.  The past was just so wooden and robotic when it came to acting.  I know that will piss some people off, but imo, it's absolutely true.

[baumer]

jaws' pacing isn't its problem...and let's not talk about star wars. i could rant about that for hours.

 

I'd love to hear what it is about JAWS you DON'T like.  It's inconceivable to me that anyone could not like JAWS.

[Dementeleus]

My problem with a lot of older films is that they are not very well made or acted.  They might have been for the time but when you compare them to a lot of the greats from today, imo, many of them pale.  I think when it comes to acting, you can take some of the worst actors today and they are still better than some of the greats from the past.  The past was just so wooden and robotic when it came to acting.  I know that will piss some people off, but imo, it's absolutely true.

 

I think aside from the silent era, (where stylistically there's just a huge gap in what we expect today versus what was demanded then) there's a huge range of acting ability. Sure, many of the stars fit into certain categories or genres or only had a certain range, but that's true today as well.

[Michael Gary Scott]

Having it at #1 definitely is.

What about 5?

[DAR]

It's a movie that WILL get made at some point in the next 20 years ... and when it happens it's going to be an EPIC failure because we'll see the shark in the first 10 minutes ... the characters will be completely dull ... and it will not be the least bit scary.You know, like almost all 'shark' movies now days are.

If it was made today, think of what would get cut. The Indianapolis scene is gone. The scene with Brody and his son making the faces that's gone. Edited July 31, 2013 by DAR

[DAR]

I haven't seen any of those three.

I've never seen All Quiet. I respect Kane more than I like it. And GWTW well that and It's A Wonderful Life are two "classics" I don't get

[baumer]

I think aside from the silent era, (where stylistically there's just a huge gap in what we expect today versus what was demanded then) there's a huge range of acting ability. Sure, many of the stars fit into certain categories or genres or only had a certain range, but that's true today as well.

 

Almost every film I've seen from before the 60's really has a lot of bad acting imo.  Even some of the classic performances, imo, are just cliched and sterotypical of the times.  Men are strong and take charge and know that deep down every woman just needs to be kissed and women are weak and rely on men to take care of them.  I honestly think someone like Ashton Kutcher shows more range than some of the "greats" from back in the day.

Edited July 31, 2013 by baumerhayden

[riczhang]

Just for the record, I have no problem with ric's taste.  It's definitely diametric (for the most part) from mine but I just kid around when I make fun of him.  I'm pretty sure he knows that.  

 

Oh yeah. Just like how I slag everyone else's. B and Michael's in particular

Edited July 31, 2013 by riczhang

[riczhang]

I haven't seen any of those three.

 

SHAMEFUL

[riczhang]

Almost every film I've seen from before the 60's really has a lot of bad acting imo.  Even some of the classic performances, imo, are just cliched and sterotypical of the times.  Men are strong and take charge and know that deep down every woman just needs to be kissed and women are weak and rely on men to take care of them.  I honestly think someone like Ashton Kutcher shows more range than some of the "greats" from back in the day.

 

Really? Katherine Hepburn in Lion in the Winter? Bland? Really? Get real. 

 

What about 50?

 

FTFY

[Dementeleus]

Almost every film I've seen from before the 60's really has a lot of bad acting imo.  Even some of the classic performances, imo, are just cliched and sterotypical of the times.  Men are strong and take charge and know that deep down every woman just needs to be kissed and women are weak and rely on men to take care of them.  I honestly think someone like Ashton Kutcher shows more range than some of the "greats" from back in the day.

 

But that's more to do with the mores of the times than actual acting. If you look at the actual stars of the movies: Bogart, Bacall, Rains, Lorre, (I find I'm just naming CASABLANCA stars, )... Mifune, Grant, etc, they're all great, and reliably so. The neo-realistism of Italian cinema in the '50s has some incredibly naturalist and subtle acting.

[DAR]

I think the acting in films like Sunset Boulevard and 12 Angry Men definitely hold up today

[baumer]

Really? Katherine Hepburn in Lion in the Winter? Bland? Really? Get real. 

 

 

FTFY

 

MOST of the actors, not all.  Hepburn and Fonda are two that I think are brilliant whether in something from the 40's or 80's.

[baumer]

But that's more to do with the mores of the times than actual acting. If you look at the actual stars of the movies: Bogart, Bacall, Rains, Lorre, (I find I'm just naming CASABLANCA stars, )... Mifune, Grant, etc, they're all great, and reliably so. The neo-realistism of Italian cinema in the '50s has some incredibly naturalist and subtle acting.

 

I have no idea what neo-realistism of Italian cinema.