BOT's Top 100 Movies of All Time - Hindsight is 2020 Edition

[Rorschach]

15 minutes ago, The Panda said:

 

 

Hell yeah.

[The Panda]

 

 

""I beg pardon?" What are you so polite about?"

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room."

 

Its Legacy

 

"2. How did the use of schemas & stereotypes influence the juror’s thinking?

 

Obviously, many of the jurors had stereotypes about kids who grow up in slums—and who belong to certain minority groups.  Not only did these stereotypes influence the jurors’ tendency to make internal attributions for the boy’s behavior, but these stereotypes also led to biased interpretations of the evidence. 

 

6. Was there evidence of the misinformation effect (ala Elizabeth Loftus) in the eye witnesses?

 

The misinformation effect is the tendency for one’s memory to be altered by post-event information.  Our schemas and stereotypes can also influence how we interpret ambiguous events because they help us fill in the missing information with our expectations.

 

Remember that Joseph Sweeney (the old man), did not accuse either of the eye witnesses of lying. He said that these people believed they saw the boy commit the crime. In other words, they somehow misremembered what they saw and heard.  Thus, they probably witnessed an ambiguous event and filled in the missing information with details that were prescribed by their own stereotypes of slum kids. In addition, the police officers and lawyers who interviewed the witnesses may have planted false memories in them by asking leading questions. In either case, these people probably believed that they saw the boy at the scene of the crime—but this was probably due to the misinformation effect.

 

 

GROUPTHINK VS. MINORITY INFLUENCE

 

The jury situation portrayed in 12 Angry men had a lot of symptoms that would normally lead to a groupthink phenomenon. For example, the majority of the group had a belief in the moral correctness of their decision—they were punishing a bad person, they had a stereotyped view of the people who opposed them (bleeding heart, do-gooders).  There was extreme pressure to conform, an illusion of unanimity (at least in the beginning), many of the jurors engaged in self-censorship (they didn’t initially voice their opinions) and strong personalities that were trying to push the group in a certain direction.

 

Despite these symptoms, the minority was able to override the majority and sway the vote to NOT GUILTY.  So this was a rare case of minority influence in which a minority of individuals can influence the group—rather than the reverse. 

 

So what were the factors that gave rise to this phenomenon? 

 

CONSISTENCY

Hendry Fonda, the leader of the minority opinion, always remained consistent in his opposition to the majority.  In other words, he never hesitated or wavered, but always stood firm in his conviction. This makes people think more deeply about the issue.  Other people probably make the attribution—as Joseph Sweeney did (the old man) that if a person is willing to stand up against the entire group and face ridicule, then he must have some important points to make.  So this kind of consistency against the majority can lead others to augment their faith in the minority’s beliefs.

 

DEFECTIONS FROM THE MAJORITY

If the minority can get a few people to defect to their side, then this will often create a “snowball effect” in which more and more people will change their opinion. This helps puncture a hole in the illusion of unanimity and loosens the pressure to conform. Its like in the Milgram studies in which people were less likely to obey, if there were other people in the study who also disobeyed. Defections give others the strength to go against the majority.  Fonda orchestrated these defections a little by walking up to certain people that he thought were unsure and asking them directly if they really believed the evidence."

- 12 Angry men notes & discussion, University of Alberta (Psychology Department)

 

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"ALTHOUGH cameras have been focused on jurors before, it is difficult to recall a more incisively revealing record of the stuff of which such "peers" can be made than is presented in "12 Angry Men."For Reginald Rose's excellent film elaboration of his fine television play of 1954, which arrived at the Capitol Saturday, is a penetrating, sensitive and sometimes shocking dissection of the hearts and minds of men who obviously are something less than gods. It makes for taut, absorbing and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the close confines of its jury room setting.Credit the power of this lucid study to the fact that the attributes, failings, passions and prejudices of these talesmen is as striking and important as the awesome truth that they hold a boy's life in their hands. Director Sidney Lumet, who is making his debut in the movie medium with "12 Angry Men," and Boris Kaufman, an Academy Award-winning camera man, made expert use of a superb cast, which is ingeniously photographed in what normally would have been static situations.

 

Above all, they have made full use of the trenchant words and ideas of the author to plumb the characters of their principals.Mr. Rose's basic thought is that the somewhat terrifying legal ukase, "beyond a reasonable doubt," should not be regarded as just a flat phrase casually coined by the law-makers. The defendant involved (whom we see only momentarily as the film opens), is a tough 18-year-old from a broken slum home charged with having stabbed his brutal father, an erstwhile convict. All but one of the veniremen are convinced this is an open-and-shut case. This juror does not assert that the boy is innocent but the conduct of the trial, especially that of the defense lawyer, has left him with gnawing doubts.It is here that Mr. Rose begins delicately to expose the dissenter and his opponents.

 

There is the self-made man who angrily remembers his son's defiance of authority. There is the garage owner seething with racial prejudice. There is the calm stockbroker who seriously has arrived at his verdict of guilty. There is the wise-cracking salesman anxious to vote so as to be able to get out to the ball game. There is the handsome, vacillating Madison Avenue advertising man. There is an old man, wise and benign with the years. And there is a refugee watchmaker who is appreciative of the ideals and freedoms of democracy.Henry Fonda gives his most forceful portrayal in years as the open-minded juror whose logical reasoning implants facts and doubts into the minds of his colleagues so that they finally change their vote to not guilty. In being strikingly emotional he is both natural and effective. Strangely enough, the illogical aspect of the plot is embodied in his exclusive discoveries of evidence and improbabilities in the trial itself.

 

Some of the other jurors appear capable of such perception too.A viewer may assume, however that Mr. Rose was interested solely in establishing the characters of his cast, which he has done admirably. Each of his performers has a "fat" part and they are convincingly played.Lee J. Cobb, for example, is excellent as the vengeful self-made man tortured by the memory of a son who broke away from his rule. Ed Begley is properly warped and rabid as the prejudiced garage owner. And, to single out a few others, E. G. Marshall is fine as the unperturbed broker, as are Jack Warden, as the flip sport; George Voskovec, as the watchmaker; Joseph Sweeney, as the observant old man and Robert Webber, as the vacuous advertising type.Messrs, Rose, Lumet, Fonda, et al. have kept the fair sex out of their jury room. Although it may sound ungallant, these "12 Angry Men," are all right without distaff glamour. Their dramas are powerful and provocative enough to keep a viewer spellbound."

- A.H. Weller, New York Times

 

User Opinion

 

"For anyone who liked this movie, I recommend Lumet's book Making Movies. It's a very methodical look at his approach to all his films, from pre-preduction through release, and it's fascinating to read how carefully and how detailed his plans for 12 ANGRY MEN were. For example, he slowly but surely changed camera lenses over the course of the story, moving from wider-angle lenses early on (which emphasize space), to longer lenses later (which compress space), all for the sole purpose of making things feel more tight and constricted visually. Camera placements and angles were also carefully planned to reinforce this effect.

 

It's very very rare these days for a director to have such a cohesive approach (to say nothing of understanding the technical means to reach the wanted effect), and it's why so many movies today aren't 100% what they could be." - @Plain Old Tele

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Judge with rigor, care

 

Judge the bias in your soul

 

Before the boy's judged

 

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 35, 2013 - 28, 2014 - Unranked, 2016 - 7, 2018 - 5

 

Director Count

 

Alfred Hitchock - 4, Stanley Kubrick - 4, Steven Spielberg - 4,  Richard Linklater - 3, Hayao Miyazaki - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Lee Unkrich - 3, Brad Bird - 2, James Cameron - 2, Francis Ford Coppola - 2, Alfonso Cuaron - 2,  David Fincher - 2, Akira Kurosawa - 2, John Lasseter - 2,   David Lean - 2, Sergio Leone - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Christopher Nolan - 2, Martin Scorsese - 2, Andrew Stanton - 2, Quentin Tarantino - 2, Roger Allers - 1, John G. Avildsen - 1, Ash Brannon - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, John Carpenter - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Michael Curtiz - 1, Frank Darabont - 1, Jonathan Demme - 1, Pete Docter - 1, Stanley Donen - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, Victor Fleming - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Peter Jackson - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Bong Joon-Ho - 1, Gene Kelly - 1, Spike Lee - 1, David Lynch - 1, Sidney Lumet - 1, Katia Lund - 1, Michael Mann - 1, Fernando Meirelles - 1, Rob Minkoff - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Jan Pinkava - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,  Ridley Scott - 1, Guillermo del Toro - 1, Gary Trousdale - 1, Orson Welles - 1, Peter Weir - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Lana and Lilly Wachowski - 1, Kirk Wise - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1, Robert Zemeckis - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Pixar - 9, Cameron - 2, Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Studio Ghibli - 3, Toy Story - 3, WDAS - 3, Alien - 2, Before Trilogy - 2, Nolan - 2, Scorsese -2, Spider-Man - 2,   Die Hard - 1, The Godfather - 1, Hannibal - 1, Incredibles - 1, Indiana Jones - 1, Jurassic Park - 1, The Lord of the Rings - 1, The Matrix - 1, Monty Python - 1, Oz - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1, Star Wars - 1, Terminator - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1930s - 1, 1940s - 3, 1950s - 7, 1960s - 7, 1970s - 8, 1980s - 11, 1990s - 17, 2000s - 16, 2010s - 15

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by The Panda

[The Panda]

 

 

"No problemo."

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"Over 10 years have passed since the first machine called The Terminator tried to kill Sarah Connor and her unborn son, John. The man who will become the future leader of the human resistance against the Machines is now a healthy young boy. However, another Terminator, called the T-1000, is sent back through time by the supercomputer Skynet. This new Terminator is more advanced and more powerful than its predecessor and it's mission is to kill John Connor when he's still a child. However, Sarah and John do not have to face the threat of the T-1000 alone. Another Terminator (identical to the same model that tried and failed to kill Sarah Conner in 1984) is also sent back through time to protect them. Now, the battle for tomorrow has begun." - IMDb

 

Its Legacy

 

"When Terminator 2: Judgment Day was released, it was a blockbuster to end all other blockbusters—the most expensive movie of all time that actually lived up to its price tag. It was the kind of movie that, if it was made today, would have been the subject of thousands upon thousands of bullshit internet articles that could’ve totally changed how audiences perceived it.  But in 1991, years before the internet, hot takes, or trailer breakdowns, James Cameron’s highly-anticipated sequel used a mix of secrecy and surprise to slyly set the tone for blockbusters years down the road. It was a movie that could only be made in that time, but looked ahead to what would come as well.

 

With all the major pieces in place, Cameron and Wisher finished the entire script for Terminator 2 in six and a half weeks, which is insane considering how well it all works (and that in 2017, James Cameron has been working on Avatar sequels for about six and a half years).  Once the script was done, co-producer Stephanie Austin, who was working at the film’s production company, Carolco, came on board. She recalls going to Cameron’s office, stifled by the blazing California heat, and reading the script in a conference room. That’s because the script was not allowed to leave the building—a precursor for what was, at the time, an unprecedented level of security.

 

“People were shocked at the level of confidentiality and secrecy that went on during that production,” Austin said. “I’m not sure about other films but everybody thought we were crazy. Every script was coded and watermarked. In fact, today, I’m sitting here in my office staring at a shredder that I had in my office [back then] that I used to shred every single script that ever was issued, because of the need, even then, for secrecy.”  Practices like that are commonplace today. But, in the early 1990s, they were almost unheard of. Austin credits Cameron with the change.

 

“We were all onboard because it was unusual,” she said. “And until the trailer came out, nobody really understood how you could make a sequel to The Terminator because of the way the first one ended. So there was a lot of secrecy, a lot of confidentiality, and a real need to keep that under wraps until we could make the big reveal.”  That big reveal didn’t happen in the media either. Austin explains it wasn’t until audiences first got a glimpse at the teaser trailer that the ideas behind the movie were revealed—specifically that Terminators could be mass produced.

 

Wisher agrees that he never really felt the weight of any expectations, from fans or the studio, when making the movie.  “We were kind of left alone and there was no outside pressure other than delivering,” he said. “Nobody was telling us, ‘Oh, it should be this and it should be that.’ We decided what we wanted it to be and everyone said, ‘Sounds good to me.’ And I’m not saying there wasn’t pressure. There’s always pressure. It was a very expensive film for its time. The most expensive film at that time. But honestly, you can’t work and think about that. You just work.”  Leading up to the release of the film, that budget—the first film to ever cost more than $100 million—was the big story. However, Wisher suggested while that was a story in the press, it was never an issue behind the scenes.

 

Of course, it all worked out. The film made its July 3, 1991 release date, enjoyed a massive opening weekend, and became the highest-grossing film of the year by almost $40 million. However, something that feels completely alien today is that both the writer and producer agree there was never any discussion of continuing the franchise beyond part two.  “When we sat down to do Terminator 2, we approached it as ‘This is going to be it,’” Wisher said. “‘We’re finishing the story we’re telling and we’re done.’ Having said that, and working this business, you always know that if someone wants to make a third or a fourth or a fifth, they can and they will. But we just didn’t put our heads there.”"

- Germain Lussier, Gizmodo

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"As sequels go, the wait until 1991 for a follow-up to James Cameron's 1984 film "The Terminator" was a long one. An incredible hype machine built up around the release, and for once audiences were not left disappointed with a sci-fi action flick that delivers the relentless excitement it promised.  At its most basic, "T2" is a big budget remake of the original film - a chase movie with Sarah Connor (Hamilton) being pursued by a Terminator sent back in time to kill both her and her son, who will lead the rebellion against Skynet. The neat twist is that Connor's son, John (Furlong), has sent back a re-programmed friendly T-800 terminator (Schwarzenegger) from the future, to stop the evil T-1000 terminator (Patrick) from killing the young John and his mother.

 

The other key difference in this sequel is that Arnie's no longer playing the bad terminator. He's now T-800 - the lumbering underdog to the far cooler and more deadly liquid metal shape-shifting T-1000.  With a massive budget at his disposal, writer/director James Cameron exploited this battle of the cyborgs to the max with a new standard of special effects, but he didn't swamp the film with them. They enhance the movie by introducing dangerous threats to the survival of the heroes, while retaining the all-important physical essence of the fear of the chase that made the first film so exciting. Five stars all round."

- Almar Haflidason, The BBC

 

User Opinion

 

"Okay okay okay, I'm still not over the psychic wounds of my BLACKHAT club. But T2 is an iconic and tremendously loved movie, there's now at least two generations who've grown to love it, and it's a movie that really demands (and rewards) being seen on the big screen. 

 

Some comparisons:

- Way back in '97, the SW:SE made $138m (admittedly, this also included new footage). However, the thought of T2 in 3D (done by Cameron, who's one of the best at using that format) is enticing to a good swath of action fans, IMO.

 

- TITANIC 3D grossed $57 in a fairly modest 2,600 release in April.

 

- THE LION KING 3D grossed $94 in a September release. That adjusts to $103m.

 

I think T2:3D has a shot -- assuming it gets a halfway-decent release date and theater count. I'm willing to take that risk

 

The "No Problemo" Team -- $100m+

Tele"

- 
"Easy Money" - T2:3D re-release over 100m domestic club, @Plain Old Tele

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Easy money?  It wasn't

 

Robots and nukes, what a team

 

Lay 'em all to waste

 

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 16, 2013 - 12, 2014 - 33, 2016 - 25, 2018 - 14

 

Director Count

 

Alfred Hitchock - 4, Stanley Kubrick - 4, Steven Spielberg - 4,  James Cameron - 3, Richard Linklater - 3, Hayao Miyazaki - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Lee Unkrich - 3, Brad Bird - 2, Francis Ford Coppola - 2, Alfonso Cuaron - 2,  David Fincher - 2, Akira Kurosawa - 2, John Lasseter - 2,   David Lean - 2, Sergio Leone - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Christopher Nolan - 2, Martin Scorsese - 2, Andrew Stanton - 2, Quentin Tarantino - 2, Roger Allers - 1, John G. Avildsen - 1, Ash Brannon - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, John Carpenter - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Michael Curtiz - 1, Frank Darabont - 1, Jonathan Demme - 1, Pete Docter - 1, Stanley Donen - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, Victor Fleming - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Peter Jackson - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Bong Joon-Ho - 1, Gene Kelly - 1, Spike Lee - 1, David Lynch - 1, Sidney Lumet - 1, Katia Lund - 1, Michael Mann - 1, Fernando Meirelles - 1, Rob Minkoff - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Jan Pinkava - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,  Ridley Scott - 1, Guillermo del Toro - 1, Gary Trousdale - 1, Orson Welles - 1, Peter Weir - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Lana and Lilly Wachowski - 1, Kirk Wise - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1, Robert Zemeckis - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Pixar - 9, Cameron - 3, Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Studio Ghibli - 3, Toy Story - 3, WDAS - 3, Alien - 2, Before Trilogy - 2, Nolan - 2, Scorsese -2, Spider-Man - 2, Terminator - 2, Die Hard - 1, The Godfather - 1, Hannibal - 1, Incredibles - 1, Indiana Jones - 1, Jurassic Park - 1, The Lord of the Rings - 1, The Matrix - 1, Monty Python - 1, Oz - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1, Star Wars - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1930s - 1, 1940s - 3, 1950s - 7, 1960s - 7, 1970s - 8, 1980s - 11, 1990s - 18, 2000s - 16, 2010s - 15

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by The Panda

[Borobudur]

So are we safe to assume that Titanic will again be the highest ranked Cameron's film? Or Titanic won't even make it into the list?

[Ethan Hunt]

14 minutes ago, Borobudur said:

So are we safe to assume that Titanic will again be the highest ranked Cameron's film? Or Titanic won't even make it into the list?

I would guess it's gonna be here somewhere. It was number 8 last time 

[The Panda]

 

 

"Use the Force, Luke."

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"The Imperial Forces, under orders from cruel Darth Vader, hold Princess Leia hostage in their efforts to quell the rebellion against the Galactic Empire. Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, captain of the Millennium Falcon, work together with the companionable droid duo R2-D2 and C-3PO to rescue the beautiful princess, help the Rebel Alliance and restore freedom and justice to the Galaxy." - IMDb

 

Its Legacy

 

"First, in the late 1970s, Star Wars revived the marketplace for space science fiction as a genre. Space adventures had found wide audiences in the 1930s through characters such as Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon that began in short stories or comic strips and developed through movie serials and radio programs. The toys from Buck Rogers even have a holiday story of their own. But by the 1950s, space science fiction appeared mostly in alien monster movies or as children’s television programming that was cheaply produced and melodramatic. The unexpected success of the first Star Wars movie in 1977 inspired other production houses to rediscover space adventures as a bankable genre. For instance, the planned television series Star Trek: Phase II was revamped and greenlit as Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). The success of science fiction and fantasy movies in the 1980s and beyond owes much to Star Wars.

 

Second, in addition to reviving the genre, Star Wars fundamentally changed how licensed toys and memorabilia were created and marketed. After Star Wars creator George Lucas initially had trouble finding a manufacturer for toys associated with the movie, the Kenner Products toy company signed on. Their 3 ¾-inch action figures, created to be small and affordable, became a runaway success. In fact, Kenner became overwhelmed by the demand. In a true story that has become legend in toy marketing, Kenner actually dealt with a Christmastime shortage of action figures in 1977 by selling “Early Bird Certificate Packages” through toy stores. The mail-in raincheck entitled the bearer to action figures that would not be available until the spring of 1978. The package also included a cardboard display for all twelve characters—encouraging buyers to order complete sets.

 

Third, Star Wars introduced the concept of toys as collectibles, not just children’s trinkets. As author and toy historian Sharon Scott has argued in her book Toys and American Culture: An Encyclopedia, “When vintage Star Wars toys in good condition became quite expensive, consumers began to realize that other toys in good condition might be valuable over time as well. From the 1980s onward, it became common for Americans to purchase toys and keep them for collectible purposes.” Beanie Babies and other toys that were marketed with the aim of being collectible owe part of their appeal to Star Wars.

 

The Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum has long had an interest in how space flight has been imagined. The “Star Wars: The Magic of Myth" exhibition in 1999 was immensely popular and survives online. SpaceX founder Elon Musk even named his Falcon series of launch vehicles after the Millennium Falcon. So if you watch one of the movies or purchase any merchandise this holiday season, remember how Star Wars not only helped to influence real spaceflight but also shaped business and economics. "

- Margaret A. Weitekamp, Space History Department of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

"The logo, the opening blast of the score, the scrawl, the shot of the Star Destroyer - within seconds, Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (which I'm going to call Star Wars from here on in) is instantly distinctive and iconic. It's the most recognisable film on this list, even for people who haven't seen it. From the samurai-influenced grab of Darth Vader to the clean lines of the stormtroopers, from the rolling trash can of R2D2 to the cinnamon bun hairdo of Princess Leia, almost every single element of the film is etched into the collective unconscious.  Even the sound design is iconic - can you say that about any other movie? The ventilator rasp of Vader, the scream of a TIE Fighter, the ignition of a lightsaber, the beeps and whistles of R2D2 - the mere mention of these things conjures the sounds in your head. And none of these sounds existed prior to Star Wars (and the miraculous ingenuity of Ben Burrt).

 

Few films are ingrained in pop culture like Star Wars, partly because few films changed cinema like Star Wars. In 1975, Steven Spielberg's Jaws (I'll get to that one in a few months) set a new box office record as the highest grossing film of all time. Star Wars almost doubled that figure when it came out just two years later.  "Star Wars drove home the lessons of Jaws," wrote Peter Biskind in his potentially bullshit bestseller Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, "that kids and young adults would come back again and again to a movie without stars. But unlike Jaws, it showed that a phenomenally successful movie could be made from original material. It woke up the studios to the potential of merchandising, showed that the sale of books, t-shirts, and action figures could be a significant profit centre."

 

By tapping into this millenium-old style of storytelling, Lucas gave Star Wars the innocent simplicity of a fairy tale or the similarly structured The Wizard Of Oz. "(Star Wars) is for 10- and 12-year-olds," Lucas said. "I wanted to make a kids' film that would... introduce a kind of basic morality."  But doing this in a sci-fi setting was a bold move. Sci-fi was a predominantly scoffed-at genre in 1977, and if it hadn't been for the massive success of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey less than a decade earlier, it's likely Star Wars would not have been made. Lucas wanted to tap into the "fantasy in the Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon tradition" - influences from his childhood that were out of favour (and that Star Wars would inadvertently revive). The TV shows and film serials that Rogers and Gordon spawned were dismissed for their campy styles and ropey effects, which often included spaceships on visible strings or aliens in dodgy-looking costumes.

 

As 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die puts it, "most people in the mid-1970s expected 'sci-fi' to mean wobbly Star Trek sets or effects on a par with Ed Wood's hubcap-on-a-string from Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959)".  Key to Lucas' success was not only the myth-like story, but taking the sci-fi setting seriously. To do this, he created Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) to make his effects. The new company moved slowly and failed at first, but eventually they adapted pre-existing technology to create new ways to make everything look real. The space battles, the robots, the lightsabers - Star Wars doesn't work without them, and they don't work without ILM. It's impossible to overstate how mindblowing that opening shot of the blockade runner and the Star Destroyer flying in from top of screen was to audience in 1977. They'd never seen anything like it before."

- Matt Neal, ABC Radio

 

User Opinion

 

"I saw this when I was probably 7 years old around Christmas time, probably the perfect age to watch it. It truly captured my imagination at the time and made me an instant fan of the series. I still have a great time whenever I watch the film. A blockbuster classic that lives up to its reputation." - @Rorschach

 

"I don't trust anyone that gives this below an A." - @That One Guy

 

"C+" - @Ethan Hunt

 

"GOD DAMMIT ETHAN THE ADULTS ARE TALKING!!!!" - @DAR

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Father's lightsaber

 

Swing that laser sword, honey boy

 

Chop down the troopers

 

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 6, 2013 - 4, 2014 - 3, 2016 - 5, 2018 - 7

 

Director Count

 

Alfred Hitchock - 4, Stanley Kubrick - 4, Steven Spielberg - 4,  James Cameron - 3, Richard Linklater - 3, Hayao Miyazaki - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Lee Unkrich - 3, Brad Bird - 2, Francis Ford Coppola - 2, Alfonso Cuaron - 2,  David Fincher - 2, Akira Kurosawa - 2, John Lasseter - 2,   David Lean - 2, Sergio Leone - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Christopher Nolan - 2, Martin Scorsese - 2, Andrew Stanton - 2, Quentin Tarantino - 2, Roger Allers - 1, John G. Avildsen - 1, Ash Brannon - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, John Carpenter - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Michael Curtiz - 1, Frank Darabont - 1, Jonathan Demme - 1, Pete Docter - 1, Stanley Donen - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, Victor Fleming - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Peter Jackson - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Bong Joon-Ho - 1, Gene Kelly - 1, Spike Lee - 1, David Lynch - 1, George Lucas - 1, Sidney Lumet - 1, Katia Lund - 1, Michael Mann - 1, Fernando Meirelles - 1, Rob Minkoff - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Jan Pinkava - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,  Ridley Scott - 1, Guillermo del Toro - 1, Gary Trousdale - 1, Orson Welles - 1, Peter Weir - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Lana and Lilly Wachowski - 1, Kirk Wise - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1, Robert Zemeckis - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Pixar - 9, Cameron - 3, Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Studio Ghibli - 3, Toy Story - 3, WDAS - 3, Alien - 2, Before Trilogy - 2, Nolan - 2, Scorsese -2, Spider-Man - 2, Star Wars - 2, Terminator - 2, Die Hard - 1, The Godfather - 1, Hannibal - 1, Incredibles - 1, Indiana Jones - 1, Jurassic Park - 1, The Lord of the Rings - 1, The Matrix - 1, Monty Python - 1, Oz - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1930s - 1, 1940s - 3, 1950s - 7, 1960s - 7, 1970s - 9, 1980s - 11, 1990s - 18, 2000s - 16, 2010s - 15

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by The Panda

[The Panda]

 

 

"You're gonna need a bigger boat."

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"It's a hot summer on Amity Island, a small community whose main business is its beaches. When new Sheriff Martin Brody discovers the remains of a shark attack victim, his first inclination is to close the beaches to swimmers. This doesn't sit well with Mayor Larry Vaughn and several of the local businessmen. Brody backs down to his regret as that weekend a young boy is killed by the predator. The dead boy's mother puts out a bounty on the shark and Amity is soon swamped with amateur hunters and fisherman hoping to cash in on the reward. A local fisherman with much experience hunting sharks, Quint, offers to hunt down the creature for a hefty fee. Soon Quint, Brody and Matt Hooper from the Oceanographic Institute are at sea hunting the Great White shark. As Brody succinctly surmises after their first encounter with the creature, they're going to need a bigger boat." - IMDb

 

Its Legacy

 

"Released 42 years ago today, Jaws effectively changed the world of movies, fandom, and the public perception of the natural world. In fact, the film was so successful in its initial release that it became the seminal "summer blockbuster," setting the trend that continues to this day of releasing films full of action, adventure, excitement, and humor to cater to the hordes of theater-goers looking to get out of their houses in warm summer months.  Based on Peter Benchley's novel of the same name, the film features a small island town off the coast of New England that mysteriously has a large great white shark looming its waters, picking off swimmers who venture too far off the shore. Police Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) enlists the help of scientist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and shark fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) to use the town's resources to kill the shark once and for all.

 

Many audiences have cited Jaws as the reason why they're afraid to go into the ocean or the reason they're afraid of sharks, but in reality, a shark like the one in the film hasn't been seen in millions of years. Estimated to be over 25 feet long and weighing three tons, that is far larger than the 15-18 foot long sharks that are more typical of the species. The difference between the shark on film and the shark in reality is similar to comparing King Kong to an average gorilla.  Regardless of the discrepancies between fact and fiction, what's more important about the film is the way our main characters react to the threat, rather than the time spent focusing on the threat itself.  The inclusion of a shark makes the film feel more grounded in reality than if it was to feature some sort of monstrous abomination, which would push the tone into more of a science fiction realm. Whether they were fighting a shark, the Kraken, or Cthulhu, the film's most compelling sequences involves the human characters and their responses to it, not the scenes of the giant fish itself.

 

Speaking of how it didn't matter what loomed underneath the water's surface, the film itself rarely shows the behemoth in full. This could be considered a directorial decision to allow the audience's imagination to conjure images of the beast, refusing to confirm the terrifying images our brains thought up, or it could be because the shark rarely functioned properly.  Spielberg was adamant about shooting the film on the actual ocean instead of in a pool on a studio, but when the mechanical sharks created for the film were submerged, they often sank and the saltwater would corrode important mechanical equipment that would make them function. The sharks constantly needed to be drained, cleaned, and repainted. These complications with the props forced Spielberg to improvise how he could convey terror without being able to show the audience exactly what our heroes were up against. Those improvisations ultimately made the film more effective than were we to have regularly seen the shark, which would have reminded us it was really just a big metal puppet.  Initially, the film was supposed to shoot for less than 60 days but ultimately shot for over 150, in addition to costing double its original budget. Universal Studios might have been nervous about the film's cost at the time, but considering it went on to gross $470 million worldwide, it was a gamble that paid off.

 

In retrospect, Jaws contained many of the elements that became expected ingredients in his films going forward. As proven with films like Saving Private Ryan, Lincoln, and Catch Me If You Can, the director has been able to attract incredibly accomplished actors who play off one another impeccably. Although the studio initially wanted stars like Robert Duvall and Charlton Heston to play the lead roles, Spielberg knew exactly what Shaw, Dreyfuss, and Scheider would bring to the characters, giving the performers defining roles of their careers.  Whether he's working with accomplished actors or new talents, Spielberg has a knack for capturing a sense of adventure like no other. He might be showing an archaeologist exploring tombs like in the Indiana Jones films, it could be a group of kids trying to hide an alien from authorities in E.T., or it could be a reinterpretation of the Peter Pan story for Hook, few directors so effortlessly capture whimsy quite like Spielberg. Admittedly, some of the whimsy in this film involves people getting eaten by a shark, but the director still somehow imbued a sense of fun into the endeavor.

 

Considering all of these strengths the film has, to reduce the film to merely being a "shark movie" does it a disservice and inaccurately represents the scale of the masterpiece."

- Patrick Cavanaugh, PopCulture

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"Like Warners' Exorcist of years ago, Universal's Jaws reeks of the sweet smell of success. Rarely has a picture generated quite so much advance want-to-see — and, significantly, for many of the same reasons that accounted for the previous box-office triumph. Its theme is already thoroughly familiar, even to those who have never read the book on which it is based. (Universal's shark's head logo should fill in the blanks for those few who have never even heard of the Peter Benchley novel.) And its multitudinous production problems, again well-publicized, could only generate further interest.   At bottom, however, lies an even stronger similarity. Both present as their central characters wholly demonic creatures — the Devil himself in The Exorcist, a 25-foot long Great White Shark in Jaws. Both attack their victims at random; it could be you, it could be me. Our fundamental belief in a logic of right and wrong is suddenly toppled; virtue here is neither rewarded nor recognized. We are all prey to the evil that walks the earth, or lurks in the waters just off our shores. And both demand as the price of their ultimate exorcism the life of at least one brave, believing soul. 

 

Again, as in The Exorcist, there may be those too fainthearted to face the nightmarish terrors of this ordeal by water. Those who know going in that they will see bodies mangled, boats capsized, will be forced to peer down the throat and into the dead, bright eyes of the most fearsome creature of the deep, may well decide not to. Certainly, Jaws is not for the faint of heart.

 

Ultimately, the three — the chief, the seaman and the scientist — set out in a 39-foot boat to kill the wily monster, and the last hour of Jaws becomes as gripping and terrifying an adventure story as has ever been put on the screen. But the screenwriters, while never permitting the underlying tension to slacken, find time to bring us closer to their protagonists, so that when the final onslaught begins, our fears and frustrations run as deep as theirs. And in the film's climactic moments, one forgets everything he or she may have read or heard about synthetic, mechanical sharks used on the production. That huge, hideous head snapping at the bows, forcing its way onto the deck of the Orca is too palpable not to be real.

 

So skillfully has the live shark footage filmed by Ron and Valerie Taylor been intercut, in Verna Fields' masterful editing, with that of the studio's creation, that it becomes literally impossible to say for sure which is which. More important, under Steven Spielberg's direction, any desire to do so completely disappears, so persuasive are his narration and his characters. No less helpful is Bill Butler's agile, often-handheld camerawork, whether on the cramped deck of the Orca, or from a shark's eye view looking up through murky depths at the Orca's dark hull, or from just below the waterline, where myriads of arms and legs on holiday are splashingly oblivious to their peril.

 

Above all, Jaws has been made in tremendous care and concern for the texture of life in a summer colony. Although not pursuing either the sexual or the economic entanglements of the islanders as fully as the novel (which, in retrospect, are made to seem a good deal more than absolutely necessary), it nevertheless quickly establishes the cross-motivations of humanism vs. mammonism that dominate its inhabitants and sets these against the increasingly selfless devotion of the Orca crew to their cause.  As the salty, cynical Quint, Robert Shaw easily dominates all of his scenes — flippant and profane but all pro when it comes to the business of hunting sharks. Roy Scheider is no less effective in a less colorful role; and Richard Dreyfuss, now bearded and scholarly in rimless glasses, demonstrates again how far he has come since American Graffiti. Nor should John Williams' totally supportive score be overlooked.

 

All in all, Jaws should make Universal nothing but money — and maybe pick up a few Oscars next year as well, particularly in the special-effects department. What it may do to the value of beach properties in the meantime, however, is another story." - Arthur Knight, THR 1975

 

User Opinion

 

"What a weekend. Saturday I got to watch Raiders and Temple at the theater.But yesterday I got to see, for the first time in my life, JAWS at the theater. When the opening scene hit the screen, I had a swell of excitement hit me. I was finally here. I finally got to see it. 38 years after its release, I got to sit in a half full theater and watch the greatest film ever made on the big screen with a bunch of other JAWS enthusiasts. I'm not sure if there is a heaven, but that was as close to it as I can get.I sat back and took it all in. I had a dumb goofy grin on my face the whole time. Seeing Bruce come out of the water the first time was still thrilling, even after the 1000th time seeing it. The Indianapolis story was still as horrific today as it was 38 years ago.I was truly blessed this weekend. I got to see some of my all time favourite films at the theater, where they were meant to be seen. Raiders, Temple, Gremlins ands JAWS. I'm still on a high." - @baumer

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Shark in the water!

 

It's my right to be on the beach!

 

Shelter in place dummy.

 

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 36, 2013 - 11, 2014 - 18, 2016 - 17, 2018 - 18

 

Director Count

 

Steven Spielberg - 5, Alfred Hitchock - 4, Stanley Kubrick - 4, James Cameron - 3, Richard Linklater - 3, Hayao Miyazaki - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Lee Unkrich - 3, Brad Bird - 2, Francis Ford Coppola - 2, Alfonso Cuaron - 2,  David Fincher - 2, Akira Kurosawa - 2, John Lasseter - 2,   David Lean - 2, Sergio Leone - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Christopher Nolan - 2, Martin Scorsese - 2, Andrew Stanton - 2, Quentin Tarantino - 2, Roger Allers - 1, John G. Avildsen - 1, Ash Brannon - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, John Carpenter - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Michael Curtiz - 1, Frank Darabont - 1, Jonathan Demme - 1, Pete Docter - 1, Stanley Donen - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, Victor Fleming - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Peter Jackson - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Bong Joon-Ho - 1, Gene Kelly - 1, Spike Lee - 1, David Lynch - 1, George Lucas - 1, Sidney Lumet - 1, Katia Lund - 1, Michael Mann - 1, Fernando Meirelles - 1, Rob Minkoff - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Jan Pinkava - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,  Ridley Scott - 1, Guillermo del Toro - 1, Gary Trousdale - 1, Orson Welles - 1, Peter Weir - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Lana and Lilly Wachowski - 1, Kirk Wise - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1, Robert Zemeckis - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Pixar - 9, Cameron - 3, Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Studio Ghibli - 3, Toy Story - 3, WDAS - 3, Alien - 2, Before Trilogy - 2, Nolan - 2, Scorsese -2, Spider-Man - 2, Star Wars - 2, Terminator - 2, Die Hard - 1, The Godfather - 1, Hannibal - 1, Incredibles - 1, Indiana Jones - 1, Jaws - 1, Jurassic Park - 1, The Lord of the Rings - 1, The Matrix - 1, Monty Python - 1, Oz - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1930s - 1, 1940s - 3, 1950s - 7, 1960s - 7, 1970s - 10, 1980s - 11, 1990s - 18, 2000s - 16, 2010s - 15

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by The Panda

[Borobudur]

38 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I would guess it's gonna be here somewhere. It was number 8 last time 

Another round of Top 10!

[The Stingray]

So close to top 10... @baumer

 

[Tower]

Star Wars not making the top 10 for the first time? I'll take that. But I till hold out hope for the impossible dream of Star Wars (and its sequels) missing the list entirely, hopefully this is a sign that ESB isn't winning.

[The Stingray]

Btw, great job with the countdown, @The Panda. The presentation is just amazing and very professional-looking. Out of curiosity, how long does each post/movie take to do, what with all the pictures, text and whatnot?
 

[Jake Gittes]

7 hours ago, The Panda said:

 

 

 

 

Shame about the Coens too.

[baumer]

9 hours ago, Borobudur said:

Don't you all think we have way too many Pixar film on the list that make many deserved film left out of competition?

 

Forget it Borobudar....it's the forums. 

[baumer]

Jaws and SW outside the top 10?

Aliens and the Matrix way down the list? 

Halloween not making it?

 

You fucking people.... You have no idea how to make a top 100 list (before anybody gets all offended, I'm not being serious, that's just I take off on Jack Nicholson's similar line in A few Good Men.). 

[baumer]

If anyone wants a nice piece on Jaws, and you really want to see how much I love the movie, you can check out my 45 year anniversary tribute to the film.

 

https://www.top10films.co.uk/60197-45-things-about-jaws-you-might-not-know/#comments 

 

I certainly don't want to hijack This thread but I don't feel like it's worth starting an entire topic for it either. But to make it relate to the countdown, I truly believe Jaws did more to change cinema than any film in film history. I can tell you I've personally seen Jaws over fifteen hundred times and it's not an exaggeration. It's a security blanket for me at night when I want to go to sleep. It's a go to film when I can't decide what else to watch. It's got three perfectly defined and succinct Acts..it's probably the finest directed movie ever in my opinion and the acting is just incredible and also the editing of the film is second to none. I can't begin to tell you how much I just love the movie. I know this site is filled with a lot of people under the age of 30 so to see it make it even this high is actually pretty cool.

 

As others have mentioned, You've done an incredible job with this countdown    Panda... truly set the bar way too high for the rest of us. Thanks for all your hard work it is truly appreciated.

[The Panda]

4 hours ago, The Stingray said:

Btw, great job with the countdown, @The Panda. The presentation is just amazing and very professional-looking. Out of curiosity, how long does each post/movie take to do, what with all the pictures, text and whatnot?
 

Once I get my routine down, I can prepare a write up in about 15 minutes, maybe a bit longer if I have a hit up.  About the same length to do the mini-write up honorable mention posts

[Daxtreme]

ESB still in the top 10... it's not even the best Star Wars 

 

[Cap]

4 minutes ago, Daxtreme said:

ESB still in the top 10... it's not even the best Star Wars 

 

Yeah, but, we couldn’t vote for Clone Wars. 

[SchumacherFTW]

1 hour ago, Cap said:

Yeah, but, we couldn’t vote for Clone Wars. 

You could vote for the clone wars movie..... 

[Cap]

38 minutes ago, SchumacherFTW said:

You could vote for the clone wars movie.....