I think The Deer Hunter is still a rather underrated movie. It’s definitely not one I feel compelled to watch over and over like maybe some other war films, but I still think it’s incredible. It reminds me of The Best Years of Our Lives in that respect. Anyway, I was glad to see it on there.
I’ve not seen Talk to Her, or any Almodovar movies, because I am worthless. I will rectify this in 2009, though.
What a gutless embarrassment of a list.
the few almodovar films i’ve seen have left me unimpressed. true, i haven’t seen enough. but i didn’t care for his films at all.
I’m sorry about the title guys. I realize it’s Cahiers du Cinema, not Cashiers du Cinema. Although, that’s a pretty good name as well. I don’t know how I can change the title, however. I don’t see an edit button for it. Does anybody know a way I can change the title?
I love using lists like this one to check off my movie watching queue. Besides AFI’s or this one..does anyone know any ALL INCLUSIVE film list? Not just American, or British, but internationally?? I find that so many have a bias or are specifically listing only national films. IMDB used to be a good source to find high rated foreign films, but every new movie that comes out has 1,000,000 people giving it 10 stars because Vince Vaughan has amazing one-liners.
this list is one reference.. only one.. I have my (and you have …) precious collection of the best films with my favorite directors..
It’s a “gutless embarrassment?” Oh, my.
Among the other Fritz Lang Films, they should have added Metropolis or Murnau’s Faust. I’d like to see more silents on lists. I’m afraid that one day people will forget them
When did ‘Night of the Hunter’ suddenly become the best film of all time (minus “Citizen Kane”)? Other bizarre choices: Ray’s “The Music Room” but nothing from the ‘Apu Trilogy’, nothing by Keislowski, “Rio Bravo” (this isn’t even a top ten western, let alone top 20 of all time), “The Barefoot Contessa” (and 56 others) better than “Seven Samurai”, and John Huston’s “The Dead”, but no ‘Maltese Falcon’ or ‘Treasure of the Sierra Madre’ the better choices. Otherwise, all good films, naturally, just not the order I’d put them in.
“the barefoot contessa” is a horrible film to me. borderline unwatchable. i was expecting it to be at least average, if not good.
After looking over some of the favorites on your profile, Bobby, I recommend you see Almodóvar’s Live Flesh, if you haven’t already. It’s possible his films simply don’t do it for you, but I think you ought to give Live Flesh a try.
Archie- Sight and Sound publishes a list every ten years.
I’ve never seen Freaks, but I can say I agree on Bicycle Thieves—I mean, why #99?
And I’m surprised Woody Allen’s Manhattan is on there but not Annie Hall. Manhattan is kind of esoteric and boring by contrast.
We also have to remember that this is a French list, and therefore I think we have to take their American picks with a grain of salt. Manhattan is probably far more appealing to European art cinema fans in the way it romanticizes New York. Its especially appealing if you’ve never been to New York, and don’t know what a gloss job that movie is too. The French do this with Clint Eastwood too.
I always found it funny that he photographs the most narrow claustrophobic city in the country in 2:35 deep focus wide shots.
It looks nice sure. But that isn’t New York. Probably never has been.
At least The Royal Tenenbaums is up front about it being a fantasy snow globe New York.
@kevin
i’ve never even heard of “live flesh”. but if i’m able to track it down, i’ll take a look at it and see.
Melville is actually not very popular among French critics in general, let alone Cahiers. They came around but I guess not enough. He’s more popular in America, just like Eastwood is more popular in France.
Well, it doesn’t seem I can change the title. Cashiers du Cinema it is. I kind of like that name better anyway.
Overall, I like this list.
I think they came up with 100 films, made Citizen Kane #1, and picked the rest of the numbers out of a hat.
Firstly, I think lists are absurd, just like awards, and maybe awards are a bit more rational, since people deserve to be recognized for what they do, but anyway, I think that comparing films is a waste of time. How can you compare The Godfather to Bicycle Thieves? I think you just can’t do that, they’re different views on different subjects, made, by the way, in very different times with different historical contexts and even worse, different countries, and obviously, different people.
Although I do think there can be a list of the greatest films ever, since out there’s stuff like Plan 9 From Outer Space (and even that’s got its fans) that is just terrible, according to my taste, of course (although I actually enjoyed it), there shouldn’t be an order in it. I don’t think there exists such thing as THE best film ever. I think that such a film should be part of every film current and every style, as well as every genre so that it could be considered the best above any other ever made.
Secondly, of all the lists I’ve read this is clearly the most European one, Why? because all the films in the list are either from there or the kind of films Europeans like to watch, that’s why there’s (I think) no Scorsese, Tarantino or Spielberg, since their filmmaking is very different from the European style, (although Scorsese, actually learnt a lot from them) so, if you make a list with a paradigm in mind
(something that no human being can avoid), why making a list like this?
So that leads me to thinking that lists must exist, since you can learn about the tastes of the kind of people who made them, and also get recommendations of great things such as books or films, but you must always keep in mind that it’s a subjective point of view as well as yours is, since no perspective has ever been or will ever be objective. Just look at the imdb.com 250 greatest films ever list, you can clearly see that the tastes of the people who chose the films is more American-like.
By the way, I hope no one takes my comments as xenophobic, I was just trying to sample the difference in tastes between Europeans and Americans (meaning not only the US, but the whole continent, except for some Southamerican countries like Argentina and maybe Brasil, which have a more European-like taste).
my score is 30 on 100.
these are in my pending to-watch-list,
Andrei Rublev, rules of the game and M.
Any other recommendations are most welcome.
It’s a good Cahiers-y list: polemical, Euro-centric, at times baffling. I’ll be glad to see it eventually get thrown into the They Shoot Pictures aggregation.
Well, Cahiers du Cinéma usually come up with plenty of goodies that are undervalued or relatively neglected in the West, and of course (like Positif) they recognise Mizoguchi’s greatness. Any such list is likely to have a few surprise inclusions in the lower reaches- as unless there’s a huge number of voters it doesn’t take much for a film to squeeze in. For that reason Moonfleet also just made the top 100 in John Kobals’ Top 100 Movies in his critics’ poll of the late 80s- it’s long been admired by the French.
good list. enough movies i’ve seen and agree with to make me check out ones i haven’t seen.
NIGHT OF THE HUNTER? When did that become the second greatest film of all time?
And that damned SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN thing still gets into the top ten. Jesus.
Because it IS, Roscoe!
But this is a weird list.
Where’s “Out 1” ?
Why “M. Hulot’s Holiday” instead of “Playtime”?
Where’s “Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train”?
Night of the Hunter’s high placing isn’t that unusual. It was #3 in Time Out’s poll of 1989, and #4 in a German poll of critics in 95. As for Singin in the Rain, well i still think it’s marvellous (even if i slightly prefer The Band Wagon). Different tastes; no list can satisfy us all, but i generally like CduC.
Oh, David. Not you too!
Kifah Foutah
Kevin
I don’t mean to suggest that I’m indignant towards “talk to her”, I just don’t quite get it. I saw the film when It came out and thought it was alright. It appeared on most ten best lists that year to which i was indifferent too. I started to notice that the film has obtained canonical status when Paul Schrader put it in his canon in his film comment article a couple of years ago and noticed it showing up more and more.
The only other film of this decade that shows up on lists like these is “In the Mood For Love”, which I totally agree with.
I’ll concede that I probably just don’t see what everyone else is seeing and should see the movie again. I guess I feel out of the loop. Of all the fine films of this decade why that one? I just haven’t heard that case made.
I would also hesitate to start having “why Isn’t _ on the list” debates too. They’re so many films, they’re not always gonna suit us.
Also, I think freaks is quite great. I wouldn’t quite put it on my own list, but I wouldn’t begrudge it either. I think the films influence and power is evident even if you don’t quite like it. Its fingerprints are on so much, its easy to see it in a canon.