http://alsolikelife.com/shooting/?p=264

Jesus, how could you not see 2001 or Blade Runner, by accident if nothing else? Talk about two of the most ubiquitous movies of the last 40 years...

As for your list, Jeff, Sunrise is well worth seeing on screen with soaring music but only if you're ready for self-conscious "poetic" filmmaking (Tabu is actually an easier sit for modern sensibilities), Mrs. Miniver you can skip, it's well-made wartime propaganda, 40 Guns is actually Fuller and it's not one of his best, Louis Pasteur is kind of simple-minded but Emile Zola is quite well done, cooks right along with more fervor about the screwing of poor Dreyfus (but still, there's a million Warner Bros. movies I like better), Mildred Pierce is kind of fun as noir soap opera, The Good Earth is better than you might expect, but still, 2-1/2 hours of yellowface Dallas, basically, I haven't seen the rest (though I have Thieves Highway). Actually the Dassin movie to catch that's running on one of the HDTV channels is He Who Must Die, a neorealist Christ parable that kicks ass.

I tried to think of classics I'd never seen a while back. The only really topshelf title I could come up with was How Green Was My Valley. There are some of those second-tier MGM musicals I've never made it through, like Easter Parade and The Pirate, and somehow I've never managed to watch High Sierra, but that's all I could really think of.

Oh, and by the way, if you have the Emile Zola DVD, I'm quoted on the back cover. So far as I know, that's the only pull-quote from my movie awards book of a decade ago that's been used by anybody.

I think it's great he wrote this; and I can totally see why he didn't have them under his belt. You watch movies fanatically when you're younger, then when you get it as a paying gig; 95% of your movies that you watch are new movies for review; why waste the remaining 5% on types of movies you're not interested in?

I've seen thousands of films (here's my dvd collection of about 1,000: http://www.invelos.com/DVDCollection.aspx/lazespud) but I haven't seen:
The Wizard of Oz
Casablanca
The African Queen
Gone with the Wind

I finally saw the Sound of Music (I bought the DVD like four years ago ferchristsake!).

Haven't not seen these films doesn't bother me a whit.

Let's see how long it takes people to name one non-American film.

Isn't Mick LaSalle the guy who claimed that Click, the wretched Adam Sandler vehicle, was one of the best films of its year? And he pans Young Frankenstein. That, in itself, is embarrassing.

Dang Jeff, first the "Sorcerer" posting, now this. GET OUT OF MY HEAD! ;-)

My GF admitted to me that she had made it into her mid-thirties without ever having seen 2001. So, I bought the DVD of that and 2010, and we sat down and watched both. (She caught Blade Runner for the first time a few weeks back).

I kinda/sorta agree with LaSalle on 2001. It's fascinating, amazing, beautiful, and for a movie made in 1968, both prescient and technically superb. The effects hold up far better than most CGI crapfests today-- physical models still possess far more weight than even the best computer effects today.

As for the film, it IS boring. And soulless. HAL is the only "character" in the movie. I love it, but in the same way I love an art museum-- beautiful objects on the walls, but nothing I'd ever hang in my house.

WRT 2010, it's nowhere near as good as 2001, but it's accessible as a fun sci-fi film, a better Clarke adaptation than 2001 was. I re-watched the film constantly in the 1980s, and it still sticks with me as a smart, if slightly clunky, film.

The GF? She enjoyed 2001, but needed 2010 to make sense of the previous film.

2001 is one of the best films of all time and he hasn't seen it? Where has he been. In full disclosure I haven't seen:

Citizen Kane
Sound of Music
Gone with the wind
From here to eternity

I never get tired of the chimps beating the hell out of one another. Of course, HAL "...what are you doing, Dave." Priceless. The music alone is worth seeing the movie.

Jeez, that list really made me feel stupid. The only one I've ever heard of is Mildred Pierce. The films I'm most ashamed to admit I've never seen are Schindler's List, The Maltese Falcon and The Bridge on the River Kwai. And Mick LaSalle is right about 2001. It's boring and overrated. Sorry, Stan.

I've never seen Gone with the Wind, other than the usual references and clips, and don't actually plan on seeing it. Ever. Not out of any malice towards it, but why bother now?

There are certainly scores of second-tier stupid films that I haven't seen, probably thousands, that I will also probably never see.

As for non-American movies, I went through a phase a few years back where that was almost all I did watch. Got caught up on a lot of classics and recommends. Now they're just part of the normal cycle. But certainly, out of the hundreds of films released every year, no one could possibly watch them all.

Hell, I just want to know which Ten Movies Have Eternally Polluted Jeff's Soul.

I could now pick up a bone and beat MiraJeff with it, I know, but that's what separates me from the chimps.

The Onion:
"Area Girlfriend Still Hasn't Seen Apocalypse Now"

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38820

I've never seen WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?

Okay, in the interest of joining in this therapeutic exercise in embarrassing cinematic revelation:

I've never seen the Godfather, Godfather II, or Godfather III from start to finish. I've actually probably seen the entire movies in bits and pieces, and I'm totally familiar with the story and quotable lines and contexts, but I've never sat down and watched any of them from start to finish.

Much like a successful adult admitting his/her illiteracy, this is a secret that I, a rabid filmlover who has seen thousands of movies (including the classics), this is my secret shame.

One of these years. . .

I can understand LaSalle's underwhelmed reaction to 2001 if he watched it at home on DVD. It's a film that demands to be seen on a big screen in a theater with a good sound system. It requires total immersion.

Getting high beforehand helps too.

Your list is very obscure compared with LaSalle's list. I've seen Pasteur, Mildred Pierce, and Good Earth. I'm with Mgmax -- they're worth sitting through, but you're not missing much if you never saw them.

How old is LaSalle anyway? I didn't know they hired 14-year-olds to be big-city film critics. If I'd known, I would have applied for the gig myself back when I was 14.

I'm no critic, just a film lover. I haven't seen a lot of major films, but I always see them as "treats for the future". I do have a small confession, though.

One of my favorite filmmakers is Kubrick. It is rather easy to see all of Kubrick's films, since there are only a few of them, but I confess that I haven't yet seen Barry Lyndon and Lolita. Before I'm lambasted by Kubrick fans, let me explain why.

I watched a documentary after the release of Eyes Wide Shut, and I remember Tom Cruise saying that one of the saddest things he felt with the death of Kubrick is "that there will never be another Stanley Kubrick film, never again a movie with that look, with that style, with that camera movement", or words to that effect.

Whenever I see people talking about Lolita and Barry Lyndon, which seems to be a favorite on this site, I'm reminded that I must see them, but it will have to be a special occasion.

Probably one day, when it's late at night and I can't be bothered by anyone, I'll watch them straight through. I want to watch alone so no one can tell me after it's done that the films' are no good, even if I might agree. Just want a few moments in silence after I'm done with them to let those sad words from Tom Cruise sink in that, yes, there will never be another Kubrick film.

Jeezm Dave. I recommend that everyone read The Godfather by Mario Puzo as well.

Barry Lyndon is a great snob film, facis. Meaning, you can walk into a room, admit that you like Barry Lyndon, and immediately everyone in the room will know you're one of THOSE people.

Me? I love the film ;-).

Here are some foriegn films I'm embarrassed to say I've not gotten to: the second two films in the Apu trilogy, "Tokoyo Story", "Fanny and Alexandra" and I've never been able to make it through "Jules Et Jim". As for those who have not seen "Casablanca", "The Maltese Falcon" or "Citizen Kane" - good news, these films will not be chores to watch.

Don't bother with Godfather III. You'll scream with pain. Certainly do not start with Godfather III, or else you'll never go on to watch the much better I and II.

I know, I know George. . . like I said, I'm ashamed to say it. In fact, it's not something I've ever admitted to any of my friends, only here.

Personally, I've been hoping to catch a showing of it up at the AFI Silver theater. This way I can turn to my friends and say, "Hey, you want to see the Godfather as it was meant to be seen?" and they'll never know the difference.

Hell, it's how I finally got to see Lawrence of Arabia in 2004 for the first time ;-).

Man, I'm awful.

LaSalle is one of the worst critics writing for a major paper in the US. He takes great pride in being contrarian for contrarianism's sake (see: Click). To call 2001 overrated is one thing, to call it "unwatchable" is just preposterous.

Prager: I'd recommend reading Puzo's pulp novel just so you can see how Coppola elevated it.

2001 is without peer the greatest motion picture ever made. It deserves to be considered alongside the canon of great artworks ever committed by humanity.

"Sunrise" is a must-see for its technical achievements alone, and on that count it's a hell of a lot shorter than "Napoleon." Pick up the fine Fox edition ASAP.

Do not waste another minute. Watch Sunrise immediately. It is one of the most rewarding cinematic experiences ever conceived (right up there with 2001).
Don't bother with Emile Zola or Louis Pasteur or Good Earth or anything else with Paul Muni that isn't a gangster movie. They are all boring as all get out, and Good Earth is especially bad. Mrs. Miniver is pretty tedious, too.
On the other hand, Mildred Pierce is a fun movie, framed in a murder mystery, and 40 Guns & Fixed Bayonets are good for a bucket of popcorn, too.

Mgmax, I'd like to see you try. Seriously, I'm waiting for you buddy. Name the time and place.

MILDRED PIERCE is terrific. An easy watch.

It took me a long time to watch Casablanca too, finally watched it on DVD at home a couple of years ago, at about 5am, because I arrived at 3am and wasn't able to fall sleep.

And no, I didn't fall asleep, loved it and finally understood what the hype was all about.

With Citizen Kane, I had seen it in my teens on TV and wasn't impressed, only with the pristine looking Special DVD I finally realized that it is indeed a special film.

I think one of the worst things that can happen to a movie is for it to be tagged a "great movie." Most people then assume that it is stuffy, boring and/or has subtitles. Most of all, they believe it is not accessible.

Nothing could be further from the truth when talking about Casablanca, Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon. Above all, these movies are just plain entertaining and fun. In many ways, they're the reason why movies are made.

Young Frankenstein is much, much funnier if you are familiar with the movies it makes fun of (same with Blazing Saddles and High Anxiety). Since LaSalle couldn't be bothered to see 2001 and Blade Runner, I doubt he's ever seen any of James Whale's Universal classics.

And it is pointless to debate 2001. You either get it or you don't. I've seen it at least a dozen times (only once on the big screen), but I just watched it again in HD, and it was if it were brand new. To me, it is part of the very fabric of movies and its complete and utter genius is self-evident. If someone doesn't understand that, I can't explain it to them.

"especially if you’ve been warned by just about everyone (including people who like it) that it’s the most boring movie on earth."

It's okay to not have seen it, but to pull this line out as validation is pathetic. I don't find 2001 boring at all. It's endlessly fascinating and simply Kubrick's most beautiful, hopeful film.

And despite it's "boring" reputation, it's still his biggest hit and was one of the most seen films of 1968. Imagine a three hour metaphysical sci-fi film breaking the box office today.

And honest, if you have only watched 2001 on a tv, you literally are not seeing it unless you have a screening room. Even then, it's not enough. 2001 is one of the few movies that MUST be seen in a theater. And you folks who have only seen it on DVD better go check it out at the Cinematheque. And nemo is correct: if you can, toke or drop beforehand. The Ultimate Trip.

Oh, confession: I haven't seen any Ophuls, Lubitsch or Tarkovsky. But I have seen ASSAULT ON PRECINT 13 about 20 times.

And Jeff, go rent SUNRISE. It's one of the most visually stunning films ever made. EVER. It's as if you're watching the most expensive, experimental studio film ever...next to 2001. Fantastic, impressionistic sets and some amazingly sexy moments. Murnau owns.

film critic or merely a chump who wanted a newspaper job that didn't involve doing actually journalism?

Even worse is this guy sat down to watch these five films not because he realizes he's got an incomplete eduction, but needs an excuse to write an article. And then he watches them as if he's a little kid who attempts to eat the food that mom declares is good for him. Why not review Brussel Sprouts?

There will be no tears when this guy loses his newspaper gig.

Well to my shame I have never seen IKURU, THE SANDS OF IWO JIMA, RED RIVER, LA DOLCE VITA, and many more.

I did just catch HEAVEN'S GATE for the first (and last) time just this past weekend, and BLACK NARCISSUS also.

WELLS- your blog gives me the impression that you don't have much interest in or knowledge of some of the great foreign masterpieces that are presented via less american narrative means... not that there's anything wrong with that. as this is only an impression, i'd instantly relent if you gave the word, but i imagine that there is a veritable SLEW of foreign classics you've never bothered with... any early kiarostami, mizoguchi, oshima, kim ki-young, bela tarr, sergei parajanov, nelson pereira dos santos, raymond bernard... i don't think you necessarily need to be a connoisseur of the esoteric in order to be a credible film blogger, but when you routinely ignore the best foreign films every year (your coverage of 4 months doesn't atone for ignoring secret sunshine, silent light, in the city of sylvia, flight of the red balloon, etc...), i can't help but think that there's a world (pun intended) of films that are passing you by. films that are of SIGNIFICANTLY greater value than fixed bayonets...

I somehow managed to miss "Gone With The Wind" and I'm from Atlanta. But, I'm now like Dave on this one in that I'm waiting to see it on the big screen instead of homevideo. Of course, they don't roll it out so much here in L.A. as they do in the ATL (or used to anyway.) As for "Barry Lyndon" I finally saw that a few years ago and was stunned at how much I liked it. After years of hearing it belittled, I think it's one of Kubrick's best. Well, it's one of my favorites of his films, anyway. And yes, a lot of the classic mentioned already -- "Maltese Falcon", "Casablanca" , "Citizen Kane" and "Mildred Pierce" are all a joy to watch. Not at all a chore.

I dare say that you really haven't seen 2001 until you experience it on the big screen. Kubrick filmed it to be shown in Cinerama and that's why the film comes across as soulless and boring on the small screen. I was able to see it years ago in 70mm at the IMax on the Navy Pier in Chicago. One of my all time great movie theater experiences.

Another shout out for "Sunrise", a must see. And "Ikuru" is incredible, a film that could be life changing. And I confess that the only Garbo film I've seen is "Ninotchka".

Oh, and this is a great thread. This is why I come to this place.

I just read LaSalle's article. I gave him far too much credit when I wrote my last post. At least I know another critic I can ignore on Rotten Tomatoes.

My first time seeing 2001 was at the Cinesphere at Ontario Place in Toronto in 1982. I was nine years old, and it still ranks as one of the great cinematic experiences of my life.

I just watched 2001 on my iPod and damn if he's not right: it's no Click.

Classic films I have not seen:

Gone With the Wind (I've never had much interest in seeing it.)
Bridge Over the River Kwai (I would like to see it on the big screen.)
The Maltese Falcon (maybe someday)
Most of Chaplin's catalogue (again someday)

I saw Sunrise back in film school and thought it was cool if mostly for the German Expressionism.

To Christian et al --

I've seen 2001 like 15 times; but only once in the theater. They had a revival about 7 or 8 years ago at the Cinerama theater is Seattle (the one that Paul Allen spent millions refurbishing). They pulled out all of the stops; showing it on their special curved screen (as the movie was shown originally in the 68 road show release). The print was spectacular and the sound was perfect.

I fell asleep 20 minutes in, and woke about an hour later.

I love the movie beyond all rational explanation, but I don't think it's quite THAT critical to see it in the theater. Besides, if you're telling someone that a movie is completely a MUST SEE, and if they don't see it then they are a philistine, then it's a little unfair to tell them that unless they've seen it in a theater they haven't really seen it. How many times has 2001 played in YOUR city in a theater in the last decade?

Back when Columbia Pictures had their 75th anniversary they roadshowed some of their classics, which enabled me to see KWAI, CE3K and NAVARONE on the big screen at a gorgeous Art Deco theater in Toronto. It's true; the big screen makes all the difference. Same thing that keeps me seeing LAWRENCE OF ARABIA every time it plays.

Mgmax, I'd like to see you try. Seriously, I'm waiting for you buddy. Name the time and place.

A double bill of Equinox Flower and Floating Weeds at Facets Multimedia. I'll beat you silly, then the camera will cut away to a low-angle shot of an empty kitchen.

Ooh, Perfect Tommy found a foreign classic I've never seen, though, Japanophile though I am: Ikiru. I am ashamed.

Though I have a very low opinion of LeSalle's tastes (positive reviews for "Catwoman" and "Fantastic Four - Silver Surfer", tepid review for "There Will Be Blood"), he does have a point about catching up on a comedy like "Young Frankenstein". Many of the jokes have been spoiled or stolen, so it doesn't have the same impact. I watched it recently with my kids (teens) and they loved most of it, but thought it dragged after "Putting on the Ritz". Still, that song and dance number may only be topped by "Springtime for Hitler" as one of the funniest put on film.

How many times has 2001 played in YOUR city in a theater in the last decade?

At least twice, probably more.

My embarrassed admissions: The Bridge on the River Kwai, Annie Hall, and anything with John Wayne. Nope, never seen a John Wayne movie.

My not-so-embarrassed admissions: Mary Poppins, The Sound of Music, Gandhi, and anything I happened to have missed pre-1950. I mean, I've seen a lot of them, but I'm not going to kill myself for not being encyclopedic about it. I'm 32, and hopefully have many years to catch up.

Is Juno too recent to put on this list? I just can't bring myself to go see it. The commercials are irritating enough to put violent thoughts in my head; I'm afraid I'd end up with murder charges if I went to a theater.

Also, Airplane! raised the ante on spoofs by being so much faster paced, I find Brooks' films seem slow by comparison now.

Two more incidental notes before I start selecting femurs:

1) 2001 will be on HDNet movies on Saturday night.

2) LaSalle is not uninformed about film history, read this piece about a Norma Shearer silent (which has played TCM since):

http://tinyurl.com/3y8tzc

"How many times has 2001 played in YOUR city in a theater in the last decade?

Fortunately it plays about once a year in Los Angeles. Other big cities get it too, so I'm just saying, it's a different experience in a theater than on a TV. I waited YEARS before I saw LAWRENCE OF ARABIA because I wanted to see it onscreen. I finally did and it was worth the wait.

And if you fell asleep during 2001, lazespud, you weren't taking the right drugs;]

And really CASABLANCA is just plain great. To me it's the ultimate Hollywood studio classic. You will not regret finally watching it. Then immediately watch PLAY IT AGAIN SAM for a wonderful movie sandwich.

And IKIRU is my favorite film.
It was life-altering.

Have to agree with all the "Sunrise" love. Of all the titles on your list, Jeff, that's the one I'd see first. A great movie, and entertaining. "Mildred Pierce" is totally enjoyable - I'd see that next.

Christian - no Lubitsch? Coming from such a big Preminger fan, I'm a little surprised. "The Shop Around the Corner," "Ninotchka," "Trouble in Paradise" - you'd like all of these.

Confessions: I've never seen a Chaplin film. Not a single frame. Nor any Harold Lloyd. And only one Marx Brothers picture.

Do you realize how childish you sound when you say that 2001 is "boring" and "stupid?" You don't have the attention span to sit through such a contemplative movie more than once, okay, I get that, fair enough. But to call such a meticulously created film "stupid" really calls into question your credibility, not as a human, but as someone whose job calls on them to sit and watch movies. What, pray tell, is stupid about 2001? The history of mankind vis a vis how it relates to technology, told with a minimum of dialogue, elliptical editing, and some of the ONLY efx that still hold up even though it's been 40 years. Do you mean the message of the movie is "stupid," and if you do, I would like to hear your interpretation of what the message is, if there is even a message, and if there isn't, then maybe that's what you so strenuously object to, what makes you feel stupid, because you're not getting something.

As for movies I have never seen that I am supposed to have seen:

Gone With The Wind
The African Queen
Amadeus
Out of Africa
The Sound of Music
Ben-Hur
Gandhi
1900
The Last Emperor
Driving Miss Daisy
M
The Color Purple
Rashomon
In the Heat of the Night
Bonnie and Clyde

And I agree with Aguirre about those foreign films. Everyone should see Silent Light and Secret Sunshine. Except for you, MiraJeff. Whatever you do, don't see Silent Light, or, for that matter, Japon or Battle in Heaven. They're totally boring and stupid. Maybe you could watch Jumper again instead. I hear that is totally entertaining and goes well with popcorn.

I've tried to watch 2001 a few times but can never get through the first five or ten minutes. It's funny because another Kubrick film, Paths of Glory, is my all-time favourite film.

You're fired for lighting cheap hit boom, boom, boom fireworks.

I've seen all those Wells hasn't, with Mildred Pierce being the best, despite the rugged manliness of J. Crawford. Like Wells, I don't care for musicals, never having seen West Side Story or Mary Poppins all the way through, but then again I've never seen a Rossellini film all the way through either. I'm ashamed to admit not having seen a Middle Eastern movie before seeing the delightful Caramel recently. Because I have a resistance to cinema as sociology, I've avoided Do the Right Thing and Philadelphia. Hey, Christian, Lubitsch and Ophuls are gods. Otto would be ashamed of you.

The first paragraph from Mick LaSalle's review of Click:

"Maybe Adam Sandler and his team intended to make a serious movie, and maybe they didn't, but in "Click" they've made one, all right, one of the best American films of the year so far. The filmmakers take what might have been just a gimmicky premise and pursue it meticulously, following wherever it leads. Along the way, they create a shrewd and moving metaphor for the way people live their lives in 21st century America."

Is anyone surprised he'd be bored by 2001?

How does someone as bad as this get to where he is in life?

I have never seen nor do I ever plan on seeing Gone With the Wind or On Golden Pond, and I don't feel the least bit upset about it.

There's so much good Lubitsch out, hard to know where to start, but one should. Personally my favorite is the very underrated The Smiling Lieutenant; that last scene, when she's finally ready and he's oblivious, is just lovely in its unabashed, yet basically sweet, pre-Code sexual frankness. Here's something I wrote about some of the German silents recently released, which are very different from his later films:

http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?t=70

Ophuls: see The Earrings of Madame De, one of the ten best of all time. Then work through anything else you find, French or American.

It seems worse when you think of what you have seen.

For instance, I've never seen The Maltese Falcon, but I've seen every Police Academy - some of them more than once.

Ooh, never mind, bad idea. I'm going to stop playing that game now.

Here's another sad list of Films I Still No See:

RED RIVER
DOUBLE INDEMNITY
SABOTEUR
NATIONAL VELVET
IMITATION OF LIFE
THE THIRD MAN
PATHS OF GLORY
PERSONA
MY FAIR LADY
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
GANDHI
CHARIOTS OF FIRE
FANNY AND ALEXANDER
TELL ME THAT YOU LOVE ME JUNIE MOON

And I still have not seen THE SOUND OF MUSIC.

Milkman, I've seen all on your unseen list except "1900" (yeah, I know I need to), but "Rashomon" is clearly the most important film on that list to catch.
(If I made Wells soul polluting list, I'd include "Out of Africa".)

It seems worse when you think of what you have seen.

For instance, I've never seen The Maltese Falcon, but I've seen every Police Academy - some of them more than once.

Ooh, never mind, bad idea. I'm going to stop playing that game now.

I'm most shocked by To Kill a Mockingbird! WHAT critic hasn't seen this before? My god...

And yes, he's a total hack, so it's no surprise. Locally, we joke about the reviews in the SF Chronicle constantly...

Oh God, then it double-posted.

"Hey, Christian, Lubitsch and Ophuls are gods. Otto would be ashamed of you."

I know, they're all on my next to-watch list.
Still I'd like to think Otto would be proud of my SKIDOO pimping. Or more ashamed.

Jumper was a big disappointment. So was Vantage Point. And The Signal. Don't see the latter under any circumstances. It's worse than 2001.

Christian, the only film on your list I would say you "must" watch is DOUBLE INDEMNITY... great film.

Films I haven't seen that I can think of offhand...

- Mildred Pierce (on my Netflix queue)
- 2001 (has been on my netflix queue for 5 years and I keep sliding it back)
- The African Queen
- How Green Was My Valley
- In The Heat of the Night (on my queue)
- Ben-Hur (I've seen parts of it)

Christian, I urge you to see Fanny and Alexander as soon as possible. I just watched it for the first time myself and I was absolutely blown away. I can't remember the last time a film moved me so deeply and so strongly. Of all the movies on your list, I think you should put that one at the top.

"Don't see [The Signal] under any circumstances. It's worse than 2001." -- MiraJeffAICN

I can't tell whether that's meant to be an insult or a compliment.

I have a real blind spot for "classic" films, I must admit.

I have seen Casablanca, Maltese Falcon and some others but haven't seen any Hepburn/Tracy or anything like that. No West Side Story and very few musicals from that era overall.

I've seen most Kubrick but not Lyndon or Lolita (and not Paths of Glory in total). I'm okay on Citizen Kane, Bridge on the River Kwai, A Touch of Evil but definitely missing some things I should see. That said, I'm not a professional critic...

It's most amusing seeing everyone's omissions - how can you avoid The Wizard of Oz?? I haven't seen Gone With the Wind but mostly on purpose...always struck me as an overblown soap opera but maybe one day I'll sit through it.

And as for Bergman, Fellini, Truffaut and those guys? Seen very little, I'm sorry to say...

"Though I have a very low opinion of LeSalle's tastes (positive reviews for "Catwoman" and "Fantastic Four - Silver Surfer", tepid review for "There Will Be Blood"), he does have a point about catching up on a comedy like "Young Frankenstein"."

Tommy brings up an excellent point-- comedy doesn't age very well. It's not that these movies aren't *funny*, it's just that tastes in humor changes far more than drama. And let's be honest, these movies have been seen so many times, their lines quoted by so many drunk frat boys, that anything approaching genuine laughter has long been reduced to a pleasant smirk.

Case in point: ANOTHER movie my GF hadn't seen, The Blues Brothers. I know Jeff doesn't like it, but I love the film. The absurdity, the energy, the music. Plus, I'm from Chicago, so it's practically a holy document for me.

Watching it the other night, with someone who has never seen it before? It felt flat and tired.

Now, I would never criticize the film-- nothing about the movie has changed since the first hundred times I've seen it. But I know that *I* have changed, and it holds no new mysteries for me, and after thirty years of pop culture saturation, not many mysteries for a new audience.

If you look back at all the great comedies, they're all like that-- mysteries solved long ago.

Jumper was a big disappointment. So was Vantage Point. And The Signal. Don't see the latter under any circumstances. It's worse than 2001.

Posted by: MiraJeffAICN at February 28, 2008 11:40 AM

And don't even bother with Thomas Kinkade's "Snowy Cabin at Sunset", it blows even more than Van Gogh's "Starry, Starry, Night".

Jeff, I'm not sure it's commendable for a professional critic (much less one who works for an actual paper) to admit that until very recently he hadn't seen a significant number of genuine cinematic classics. I am a paid and therefore professional critic who has not seen some of the films on some of the above posters' lists, but there are some films that are fundamental not merely for being great movies, but for being important and influential works. 2001 in particular is the most important science fiction film ever made, whether you're particularly entertained by it or not (and I am), and his responsibility is not to love it but understand that and apply that understanding to future films. Many, many, many sci-fi films (much less films of other genres) owe an enormous artistic debt to 2001 that needs to be acknowledged even if at a subconscious level, and it compromises his credibility to say the very least if he cannot contextualize the achievement of the film at the time of its release, much less its enduring impact now. This is a constant problem with readers because they are not beholden to any cinematic traditions other than dutifully going to the movies on a weekly or monthly basis, and so must only look at each film they watch in the context of the now - which is why garbage like Meet The Spartans cleans up, since they're only interested in Sanjaya jokes or whatever references what happened last week - but a critic's job isn't to adhere to this spectacularly short-sighted point of view, it's to place a work of art in a historical and cultural context and examine its artistic merits. The fact that he admits that the movie is too slow or boring doesn't just speak to his Click-loving point of view, it compromises his credibility as a critic whose opinion should be taken seriously as a person who not only enjoys and appreciates but understands film.

"And don't even bother with Thomas Kinkade's "Snowy Cabin at Sunset", it blows even more than Van Gogh's "Starry, Starry, Night"." Perfect, Tommy.

"It's worse than 2001."

Well, considering 2001 is the greatest motion picture ever made, yes, invariably it would be worse.

"not many mysteries for a new audience."

I disagree. I watched Harold Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN with an audience of young, primarily black students; their snickers at the start were replaced by laughter an applause at the end. Gave me hope for the future.

When THE PARTY played with SKIDOO, the audience was laughing from the git-go. Some comedy ages quite well. I'd put up Woody's early films too.

See GONE WITH THE WIND on a big screen. That way you can't tune out. I'm always surprised by how awesomely made it despite the behind the scenes chaos. And Gable's last line still KILLS.

isn't mick lasalle the guy who gave gus van sant's last days zero out of four and called it a piece of trash? 'nuff said.

"Well, considering 2001 is the greatest motion picture ever made, yes, invariably it would be worse."

But Mutinyco, you must be forgetting about The Crow, surely a more worthy cinematic endeavor than a little old Space Odyssey.

Maybe I'm biased because it was my mother's favorite movie and I saw it when I was very young, but you guys should set aside some time and watch Gone with the Wind. If you're pressed for time, you can cut it off after the burning of Atlanta. But you really should catch at least the first two thirds.

Is it realistic? Not really. And it does have some soap opera elements. But there was a reason people would have rioted had Clark Gable not been chosen to play Rhett Butler. It was one of the most perfect marriages of actor and role of all time. And though audiences didn't know it when she was cast, the same could be said for Vivian Leigh.

It's a big, splashy colorful epic of the type Hollywood just doesn't make any more (right Academy?). And, if nothing else, it is absolutely gorgeous. GWTW, The Wizard of Oz and The Adventures of Robin Hood are must sees for the Technicolor alone.

And christian, I was generally surprised by some of the films on your list. Get a DVD of The Third Man, stat!

While there are plenty of films that I haven't seen, I think the smartest thing I did was sign up for a DVD rental service last fall. It's a smaller outfit up here in Canada, but I went through imdb's top 250 and then requested any Criterion the site had - so my request list constantly hovers around 160 films, and I may never get to watch every single film on that list, but I'm gonna give it a shot.
Recently I watched BECKET, which was worth every single damn post Wells has made over the past few years.
Right now I've got IF.... and REIGN OVER ME sitting on my coffee table, with BLOODY SUNDAY on the way...suffice to say, I almost always have a new DVD to watch.
There are lots of films that I'll probably never see, but I really care more about older and hard to find films than whatever's new. Still a few that I haven't seen that I should:

- LOLITA
- SUNRISE
- HAROLD & MAUDE
- a lot of Woody Allen

And so it goes on. I also missed out on a lot of supposedly classic 80s family films that my parents had the wisdom not to expose me to. The ones I have caught up on haven't exactly thrilled me - but I'll give 'em a whirl eventually I suppose.

PS the first time I watched 2001, it put me to sleep. Then again, I was 16 and wasn't really well versed in what makes a movie great. Suffice to say, at this point in my life I think it's one of the greatest films ever conceived.

Also, christian, considering the state of the world today and your observations about them, you should probably also make Paths of Glory a priority. I won't promise you will "enjoy" it, but I think you especially will be moved by it.

And you will never, ever look at Kirk Douglas the same again.

"...you must be forgetting about The Crow, surely a more worthy cinematic endeavor than a little old Space Odyssey."

Funniest thing I've heard all day... You said it with a straight face too. Perfect delivery.

I think I've made up a bit for not seeing THE THIRD MAN by seeing PSYCH-OUT at least 15 times.

Aladdin Sane, get thee to HAROLD AND MAUDE.

And what's great about seeing HAROLD AND MAUDE for the first time is seeing it for the first time.

You can't experience 2001 in any video form. You can watch it on TV, but you can't experience 2001 until you have seen it in a theatre. Preferably in 70mm, which LaSalle certainly has had the chance to do a number of times in the past forty years. Ditto Blade Runner, Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Alien, Aliens, Tim Burton's Batman...

Funny part is, I'm not a huge sci-fi fan either, but there are a number of sci-fi movies which are cinematic milestones that anyone with even a modicum of love for movies should have seen at least once in their life, in a movie theatre where you're supposed to experience them.

LaSalle's stock just fell below Earl Dittman's in my eyes.

Christian, to clarify, I should have said "the bigger the comedy, the less well it ages." The Freshman (which one?) and The Party are fairly (hell, very) obscure, and thus would stand to appear fresh to a new audience.

But any 30-year-old out there has by now internalized pretty much ever funny line in any of the major comedies of the last thirty to forty years, no?

That's why I used the "mystery" analogy. The Sixth Sense, Presumed Innocent, The Crying Game, etc. are all good films, but the moment the big "aha!" moment is unleashed, well, they lose their power. Comedies are the same way-- the instant the funny moments are unleashed, they lose their power. In time, the only power that they *do* have is in their familiarity, i.e. you can get ten people in a room to quote every funny line in Caddyshack, Anchorman, Woody Allen's early (popular) works, etc., and you're going to have a grand time. But the films themselves will have diminishing returns (that is, unless, there is something deeper underneath them-- but what deep undercurrent is there in Airplane! or Blazing Saddles?).

All this before I bring in the *cultural* changes that affect how comedy is seen. For instance, racist jokes can be funny to a certain degree, but they have to be so over-the-top that the audience is laughing along, not at. Crude blackface isn't funny anymore, if it ever really was in the past.

Fifteen years ago, a swearing elderly person was the height of hilarity. Now, it's been done to death.

Will Ferrell screaming and showing his gut? Highlarious at one point. Now? Overplayed.

Mel Brooks movies? Blazing Saddles has been parodied to death. Spaceballs made a teenager piss his pants in the 1980s. Now? It's unfunny throughout, and not just because I got older.

I'm sticking with my original point: most comedy requires a cultural moment for its maximum impact, and the greater impact it has, the faster it stops being funny.

See lots of Ozu, Fassbinder, Makhmalbaf and Kiarostami films.

"Well, considering 2001 is the greatest motion picture ever made, yes, invariably it would be worse."

Bullshiiiit.

I know at least five movies which are better. Maybe six.

"and the greater impact it has, the faster it stops being funny.'

Every audience I've seen for THE GRADUATE laughs and cheers. Everytime. It always surprises me.
Most Woody Allen holds up beautifully for crowds too.

And even BLAZING SADDLES does have an undercurent. Race relations played for laughs against the western back-drop.

I get what you're saying, but I think some old popular things still play fine. Look at DUCK SOUP, it bombed but got more famous over time. And it's still fucking hilarious.

what deep undercurrent is there in Airplane!

The cheesiness of mainstream filmmaking. I could watch it 100 times for the cast of inauthentic actors (from stars to bit players), the beige backgrounds, the sound of a prop plane under the unconvincing model of a jet flying...

"Well, considering 2001 is the greatest motion picture ever made, yes, invariably it would be worse."

"Bullshiiiit."

"I know at least five movies which are better. Maybe six."

So which Police Academy movies would those be, Josh?

I request that Massey be banned from this site until he has watched a John Wayne movie. Anything. Even MCQ.

See lots of Ozu, Fassbinder, Makhmalbaf and Kiarostami films ...

right on man, now that is what a film critic should have on his list, let's see I have not seen 3 Fassbinder films, et cetera ... but not to have seen classics from the silent era to the present is a dereliction of duty ... in the last year 2001 screened theatrically one and a half times in houston ... once as a midnight movie at the landmark river oaks, then the angelika had it listed one night followed by a Q&A with keir dullea across the street at the alley theater ... to my shock the alley sponsored the screening and showed it in a movie theater projected on DVD - worst experience ever ... but not to worry for me it is a win-win year: vote for Obama in the primary next tuesday, vote for Nader in the fall ... William Buckley in the laste 60s on his show? mentioned that he sailed to international waters to smoke a joint (so as not to break US law at the time)

"See lots of Ozu, Fassbinder, Makhmalbaf and Kiarostami films."

I still have yet to see anything by Makhmalbaf, but yes!!! to the others.

When you see GWTW, leave after Atlanta burns and Scarlett declares she'll never go hungry again. It's all laughable soap opera after the Civil War is over.

How can anyone avoid seeing a John Wayne movie? Especially on cable?

When I moved to New Mexico for a few years, I used to tell my friends back East that basic cable there included the Rodeo Channel and the John Wayne Channel.

Josh, I'm shocked such a conservative has yet to see a John Wayne film. I've seen plenty, hippie.

This is just regoddamndiculous.

I'm not aiming to disparage comedy, just place it in context compared to other forms of filmmaking. I just think that most of it is:

1. Dependent on the cultural/historical moment it was made;

2. Diluted through success via repetition/emulation/imitation.

Of course, to a certain degree this applies to all movies. Pulp Fiction on the day it comes out feels fresh, new, and to anyone other than Danny, revolutionary. Ten years later, it's been copied, ripped-off and parodied that it's hard to look at the movie with the same eyes.

With comedy, after all the jokes are ruined? Even tougher. The more opportunities to see it, the faster it gets diluted.

And that's even if you GET the jokes.

Anyway, I guess this is a long way of saying my main point: Juno will NOT age well ;-)

Christian, I'll movie it up on my queue.

I'm a little shocked that a film geek hasn't seen a John Wayne film. By no means have I seen a plethora of Wayne films, but The Searchers was one of the first DVDs I ever bought back in 2000. It's just phenomenal.

Howling: I know the stuffy "critics" repeatedly praise the nuances and subtlety of Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment, but for my money, it just doesn't get any better than Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol. Sir Guttenberg at his finest. The mise en scene during the hot-air balloon chase is breathtaking.

And upon further review, I actually have seen two John Wayne movies - one I can't believe I forgot (The Searchers), and one I absolutely believe (Angel and the Badman).

Gee, I hate to sound like a '60s throwback, but:

You have to see 2001 on the big screen. Stoned. Very stoned. First time I saw it, I was high on hash. The whole audience in downtown Philly - a packed house - was wiped out on drugs. It was a fucking wonderful experience.

And oh, yeah, things I haven't seen:
Just about everything by Jean-Luc Godard.

Bah, only a fool would place "Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol" above "Police Academy 3: Citizens on Patrol." Its use of mise-en-scene is sublime.

And if you dare to take good acid and watch 2001, I've heard from a very close personal friend that it's, like, the most. You will see a form of God.

My apologies, "P3: Back in Training."

See what lethal exposure to those movies does to the brain?

Don't kill me, but I have to ask... WHAT is so god damn special about The Third Man? I watched it because it's supposed to be so great and was far from impressed. I mean, I like Orson Welles and all (respect Citizen Kane, love Touch of Evil), but just because he's in it doesn't necessarily make it great.

Oh, and I agree that The Searchers is a must see... definitely one of the best westerns of all time, although calling it a "western" almost feels a little cheap or degrading.

I've only seen one Truffaut film. Two if you count CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND.

See The Searchers. See True Grit. See Red River. See Stagecoach.

Wayne is terrific in his second tier movies too. And his second tier is far better than most actor's first. See Hondo. See The Spoilers. See anything with "Rio" in the title (well, maybe you can bypass Rio Lobo, the last one). The list goes on and on.

See the two movies where he appears with Gail Russell, especially Angel and the Badman. Wake of the Red Witch is not as good, but his scenes with Gail Russell are excellent. She brought out a tenderness in him you rarely see in his other films. No wonder his wife at the time thought he was having an affair with her.

As John Ford said to Howard Hawks after seeing Wayne in Red River: "I didn't know the big son of a bitch could act."

When I finally saw STAGECOACH a few years back, I was shocked at how GREAT it was. Ford really set out to make Duke a star in this.

Next to Sean Connery in DR. NO, Wayne has possibly the greatest iconic entrance on film.

This may depend on where you live but a tip: Instead of Netflix, try your local library. Mine has a great collection of Criterion stuff and it's allowed me to see some stuff like Rashomon which the sort of thing I doubt I ever would have grabbed (or even found!) at Blockbuster.

Throw a bunch of DVDs in your queue, put em on reserve, wait for em to come in and enjoy em for a week for free. It ain't cheap - it's systematic.

I almost caugh The Searchers on AMC the other day but can't bear the commericals. That means I have seen ZERO John Wayne movies, unless you count A Bridge Too Far...Overall, I've seen basically none of the classic westerns and should at least be watching Morriconne's films because Once Upon a Time in America is one of my all-time faves. Oh, the shame...

I thank God my dad has no idea how to access the Internet (slight exaggeration, but not much of one). We're conservatives from Georgia - I mean, Wayne is a deity to the man. He has a few framed Wayne lobby cards in his house, a half-sheet from The Alamo, and even a John Wayne LP personally autographed in the '70s.

He introduced me early on to The Great Escape, The Dirty Dozen, and Where Eagles Dare, but I must have resisted westerns when I was a kid. I only saw The Searchers for the first time about five years ago. BUT I HAVE SEEN IT!

Anyway, LaSalle inspired me. I've never admitted the following derelictions but here goes. I've never seen F.W. Murnau's Sunrise, William Wyler's Mrs. Miniver, Budd Boetticher's Seven Men From Now, Samuel Fuller's 40 Guns, William Deterle's The Story of Louis Pasteur and The Life of Emile Zola, Michael Curtiz's Mildred Pierce, Sidney Franklin's The Good Earth, Fuller's Fixed Bayonets, Jules Dassin's Thieves Highway, and LeRoy's Little Women, A Majority of One and Mary, Mary.

SUNRISE is a triumph of 20s stylization. THIEVES' HIGHWAY--another great film noir from the pen of A.I. Bezzerides; Lee J. Cobb's performance foreshadows his later work in ON THE WATERFRONT.
SEVEN MEN FROM NOW--worth seeing for Lee Marvin's film-stealing performance.

Ha ha ha. . . I'm right there with you Christian.

"Who is that guy?"
"Famous French director."
"What's he done."
"Dunno, never seen anything he's done."

Okay, films of a more recent vintage I have not seen:

Boogie Nights

Punch Drunk Love

I know you PTA fans are appalled, but as a seminary graduate, the porn kept me from BN. And as a college grad (high school grad? elementary school?), Adam Sandler kept me from PDL.

And I second using the library as Netflix. Cheap can be good.

Sad to say, the only Truffaut film I've seen is Fahrenheit 451.

Another great, and I mean great, place to find old movies is TCM. I know, duh. But the best thing to do (especially during "31 Days of Oscar") is to go through the listings on your DVR hour by hour and record away. You would be stunned by some of the stuff they play in the middle of the night, completely uncut. It's where I first saw Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill, West of Zanzibar, The Unholy Three and, yes, Skidoo! I just recorded Pennies from Heaven the other night, just to watch Chris Walken's "Let's Misbehave" (which I believe is they same version they play over the opening credits of Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex).

To really enjoy the Third Man, don't let anyone tell you anything about it beforehand. And if they do, try to put it out of your mind. (SPOILER) Orson Welles' reveal was the Crying Game/Sixth Sense moment of its day.

Good calls on the screen entrances of the Ringo Kid and Bond, Christian. I would put Indiana Jones in Raiders and the Sundance Kid in Butch Cassidy up there as well.

You know, LaSalle's within his rights to call "2001" "boring." But to then add "impenetrable" is basically saying, "I'm a dumbass." The movie's not all that difficult.

thoughts:

this has got to be first thread in HE history that has ever evoked the name or works of the great MOHSEN MAKHMALBAF... and probably the first time jeff has ever heard the name. THE CYCLIST is phenomenal, and kiarostami's CLOSE-UP, a meditation on the film's power (among other things) is one of the 5-10 greatest films ever made in my opinion.

2nd... PERFECTTOMMY... i followed the link to your blog as i often do when posters make such things available here... and was a bit disturbed by this snipped from your review of the oscar-nominated films:

"Daniel Day Lewis gives a larger than life performance as Plainfield, an unbeliever who is willing to confess Christ in a church in order to make a land deal. We also see a believer in the film deny Christ for financial gain. I was thinking after the film -- which is worse, someone who calls “Lord, Lord” yet doesn’t believe in Him or someone who denies Christ? Two sides of the same coin, both hopeless paths."

this saddens me, as i've always appreciated your posts. you're certainly entitled to your own creed, but i don't know if i have the capacity to separate such a narrow-minded statement from your thoughts on filmdom. that being said, i couldn't agree with you more about IKIRU being a life-changer.

The difference between all (or most, anyway) of the people here and Mick LaSalle is that you guys don't get paid by a major american newspaper to review movies. For this inveterate hack/"professional cineaste" to admit that, over the course of nearly two decades, he couldn't be bother to see some of the most influential films of our time is nothing short of shameful. It's also indicative of how many major US film critics (looks at Richard Roeper and Bunghola Dargis) got their jobs through ass-kissing and political machinations than any sort of talent or cinematic insight. DISGUSTING.

Glenn-- I'm interested if your opinion is based on a first viewing or on seeing it now.

Obviously, that doesn't excuse LaSalle in 2008, but I can imagine that many millions of people unfamiliar with the Clarke story, or the handholding 2010, watched 2001 in 1968 or even for years afterward and went. . . "Huh?"

Especially that ending, which let's face it, doesn't make much sense by itself (Bowman gets swallowed by the Monolith, got it. He witnesses "creation", got it. But what's with the aging?).

It's a great film, but c'mon, it's WEIRD. Kubrick WAS weird.

I agree with Dave. Somehow the 2001 discussion is also taking place on the Buckley/Lives of Others thread so I'll just duplicate my post here - cuz, why not? Reading the book of 2001 (or seeing 2010) is definitely a big help, though you could kind call it "cheating."

PASTE...
2001 is NOT an easy movie to watch the first time. I don't believe anyone who says they "got it" on first viewing.

Calling it boring is a bit easy but there are some sequences (Dawn of Man, Stargate, some of the spacewalking) which would probably work perfectly fine at half their length. That said, the film IS about something, it DOES make sense when you watch it all and though I find some segements a bit long, am willing to defer to Mr. Kubrick's superior knowledge of the medium.

I don't expect everyone to love the movie (I appreciate more than LOVE it) but if you like movies you should certainly give it a shot, start-to-finish and then make a call.

Looking at some of these "confessions," I am stunned by the omissions for some of you. I have seen almost everything listed on this thread except BOOGIE NIGHTS.

I am dumbfounded that there are self proclaimed movie buffs who have never seen 2001, The Maltese Falcon, Mildred Pierce, GWTW, Casablanca, Ikiru, Tokyo Story, Double Indemnity, The Third Man, The Godfather (I and II), etc...

As for the confessions of the critic for whom this thread was started, he should be fired.

I am taking notes on the rest of you guys...

I remember as a kid (probably around 1973 or so) watching a documentary about the history of movies. They did a section on science fiction films, and showed scenes from the iconic movies in the genre up to that point.

Remember, this was before video and before our house had cable, so it wasn't easy to see movies once they left the theater. You really had to be vigilant with the TV Guide and your 4 or 5 channels.

Anyway, they showed scenes from two movies that I had never seen, and they absolutely floored me. The first was from The Day the Earth Stood Still where Gort first opens his visor and shoots the tanks. The weird Theramin music, the black visor opening with the pulsing light underneath, the reverse gun ricochet sound of the laser.

The second was a simple shot of the Starchild, floating in space, implacable. It was other worldly, but familiar. And I'd never seen anything like it.

I immediately did all I could to track down the two films, and they remain two of my favorites to this day. That documentary was the first time I can recall understanding the power of images in film. And even though I've seen a lot of movies since then through much more "educated" eyes, I'll still never forget those two scenes, which I still consider some of the best in movie history.

Sorry to get all Harry Knowles, but in all this discussion, I did want to try to explain one of the things that makes 2001 such a great film.

Well, here's what K himself had to say about it: http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q12.html

Aguirre, Don't see this as a site to talk theology, but the point that I was trying to make at my blog was that both Lewis and Dano's character's are willing to deny their fundamental beliefs for financial gain. Whether that is saying you believe in God when you really don't (a fairly common practice in American politics) or a believer denying God in front of others (Peter at the trial of Jesus.) Anyway, have enjoyed your posts as well. I'd hate to think religion or politics would keep us from getting pleasure and insight from others on this site.

"And if you dare to take good acid and watch 2001, I've heard from a very close personal friend that it's, like, the most. You will see a form of God."

Seconded.

Dropped then tried to sit through double bill of '2001' and 'Star Wars'; when the star child stared at us we panicked and bolted out into the Manhattan street.

Haven't seen Star Wars on the big screen since 1978.

PLAYBOY: Some prominent critics -- including Renata Adler of The New York Times, John Simon of The New Leader, Judith Crist of New York
magazine and Andrew Sarris of the Village Voice --apparently felt that 2001 should be among those films still exempted from the category of
art; all four castigated it as dull, pretentious and overlong. [KAEL: 'It's a monumentally unimaginative movie'; ADLER: 'Incredibly boring';
SARRIS: 'A disaster' || from Ciment, p. 43 -- B.K.] How do you account for their hostility?

KUBRICK: The four critics you mention all work for New York publications. The reviews across America and around the world have been
95 percent enthusiastic. Some were more perceptive than others, of course, but even those who praised the film on relatively superficial
grounds were able to get something of its message. New York was the only really hostile city. Perhaps there is a certain element of the
lumpen literati that is so dogmatically atheist and materialist and Earth-bound that it finds the grandeur of space and the myriad
mysteries of cosmic intelligence anathema, But film critics, fortunately, rarely have any effect on the general public; houses everywhere are packed and the film is well on its way to becoming the greatest moneymaker in M-G-M's history. Perhaps this sounds like a
crass way to evaluate one's work, but I think that, especially with a film that is so obviously different, record audience attendance means
people are saying the right things to one another after they see it -- and isn't this really what it's all about?

"I am dumbfounded that there are self proclaimed movie buffs who have never seen 2001, The Maltese Falcon, Mildred Pierce, GWTW, Casablanca, Ikiru, Tokyo Story, Double Indemnity, The Third Man, The Godfather (I and II), etc..."

Oh come on, if we tried long enough we could find your forehead-slapping omission. I'm convinced everyone has one.

Wow Christian-- I just finished reading that interview and came here to post *that very paragraph*.

For reasons obvious to the HE readership, of course.

Damn, beat me to it!

This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it, Dave.

And here I was hoping you'd sing me "Daisy" ;-)

"I tried to think of classics I'd never seen a while back. The only really topshelf title I could come up with was How Green Was My Valley. There are some of those second-tier MGM musicals I've never made it through, like Easter Parade and The Pirate, and somehow I've never managed to watch High Sierra, but that's all I could really think of." -Mgmax

Try watching "The Pianist" again, so the next time you try to pigeonhole it as "just another Holocaust movie" you might actually remember enough key plot details to convince me how it's so "run of the mill" (this would also help convince me that you've actually seen the film in its entirety).

For all you completists out there, maybe it's not the sheer number of films you see, but how well you choose and watch the ones you do see...

I can see your really upset about this. Why don't you take a stress pill and we can talk it over?

Mgmax:

Maybe so, but it hasn't been listed on this thread...yet...

And we are not talking about "one" omission here and there - nor obscure cult faves - we are listing bonafide classics - and for anyone who spends time opining on a movie blog to have not seen "The Godfather" or several of the other classics repeated on this thread is stupefying.

But I note that some of the very same folks are still whining about "Zodiac" getting shafted by Oscar...gee, is there a connection?

I "got" Young Frankenstein, but was fairly bored by it. And I'm one of the few people who'd defend "Dracula...Dead and Loving It".

I missed seeing Tokyo Story at a screening in Vancouver last year. Hopefully the theater brings it back. It's on my list of stuff that's must see.
Ikiru is on that list too. I remember renting it when I was a teenager, but never did watch it. Glad I didn't actually, since I'm not sure I could have appreciated it as much as I am apparently going to when I get around to it.

Never seen 2001?

If he lived in Kansas City or Las Vegas where there's very little Rep / Revival activity I could buy it.
But he works in San Francisco. He works in the city with the Castro.
This is grounds for firing.

And the Castro is the first place I saw it in 70 mm. Come on La Salle.

Speaking of revivals... 2008 is the 40th anniversary of 2001...

My biggest non-see.... "Ben-Hur".... waiting for the big screen.

"Sunrise" I have Tivo-ed... I'll watch it someday soon.

See "Gone With The Wind".... it's simply one of the most entertaining movies ever made. It's not a chore, it's not even "high art", it's just great fun. Nearly four hours and there's not a boring minute of it. The restoration is mind-blowing. Seeing it on TCM recently it looked like they filmed it last week, not 1939.
It isn't the weepy, soap opera, costumed chick flick it might appear from the outside. It's Hollywood hitting on all cylinders.

And everyone needs to see MASSACRE AT CENTRAL HIGH

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XKvgOpf9SWM

PERFECTTOMMY - the way you worded your review, it made it sound in no uncertain terms that anyone who doesn't follow the words of Jesus Christ is on a hopeless path. if you believe that, the lens through which you view any on-screen character's journey is so particularly skewed that anyone who disagrees with you on that point couldn't possibly relate to your analysis. such a sentiment wouldn't make me dislike you in the slightest, but it would demand that i view the majority of your comments in a vastly different light.

that being said, the way in which you re-phrased it in this thread was both a lot more accepting and a lot fairer to the characters involved, and no grudge will be held by me. obviously this is not the place for theological discussion unless jeff decides it is, and i'm not quite sure why i bothered to mention my qualm earlier given how wildly off-topic it was... i think - given my initial impression of your words - i was just a bit disgruntled at your very ted baher-ish movieguide.org-ian analysis of my favorite film of 2007.

MASSACRE AT CENTRAL HIGH

I watched this literally every time it played on HBO circa 1982 or so. I mean, every single time.

Where's the DVD?

And if you haven't seen it, then you don't know what's going to hit you when I seek my vengance on those who haven't...

I'm the rock music critic for a major daily newspaper. Who are these Beetles I keep hearing people talk about?

Thanks, Arguirre. TWBB isn't my favorite from last year, but I am a fan. And I'm not really concerned about the eternal destiny of any fictional characters. But I appreciate that PTA does wrestle with the spirtual journey of his characters.

I saw BEN-HUR for the first time at Egyptian's Chuck Heston tribute. Very cool film. And when Heston came out, we gave him a standing O that made him so happy, he seemed to get 20 years younger.

Since getting Netflix 1.5 years ago I've tried to cross a movie off the IMDB Top 250 and/or the AFI Top 100 each week or two (I know, not the best lists and not a very impressive rate, but it serves its purpose for me). I still have my work cut out, but at least I've seen 2001 (on a reasonably big screen at school, no less).

I would list a few of the ones I most want to see, but I fear reprisals for my Wire gaffe on Monday. One I have no interest in seeing, simply because it has already been so ingrained in me, is It's a Wonderful Life.

Greatest...thread...ever? I've bookmarked this one.

This is what I get for being gone most of the day - missing the post and discussion that reminds me why I still keep coming here.

"I think one of the worst things that can happen to a movie is for it to be tagged a "great movie." Most people then assume that it is stuffy, boring and/or has subtitles. Most of all, they believe it is not accessible.

Nothing could be further from the truth when talking about Casablanca, Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon. Above all, these movies are just plain entertaining and fun. In many ways, they're the reason why movies are made."

Perfectly true, and I can't tell you how many times I've come across that attitude in person and online. As someone brought up on old movies (though of a specific type - musicals, Bogart movies, Cary Grant movies, Marx Brothers, Chaplin, and Fields movies, and other 30's comedies - as my dad bought all those for our family, and since he wasn't a film noir fan (except for MALTESE FALCON and BIG SLEEP, for obvious reasons) or Western fan, I had to discover those on my own in college), I find it sad but not surprising.

Having said that, I'll admit I have my own blind spots. Because my dad showed us a really bad print of GRAND ILLUSION when I was young (the subtitles were hard to read), and I couldn't understand it anyway, that turned me off of foreign movies for about ten years (it didn't help that when I finally got over my prejudice, the video stores I went to didn't stock many of them, and the library didn't have many that were subtitled). I've since seen a lot of the biggies - the Apu trilogy, the best known of Truffaut, Godard, and Fellini, and have seen almost all of the available Bergman and Kurosawa, as those two are my favorites - but I haven't seen a lot of Ozu except TOKYO STORY (which I love), Bunuel, Fassbinder (though that can partly be excused by the fact that I didn't get along wtih the co-worker who kept shoving him in my face, and also my already known predilection against Douglas Sirk, one of Fassbinder's acknowledged influences), Chabrol, and there's several others I could think of.

Another one is documentaries. I'm of the generation who was taught documentaries in school as if they were medicinal - taste bad, but they're good for you. I still haven't seen a lot of Barbara Koppel's work except for HARLAN COUNTY U.S.A. (which was very good, and not at all dated) and her more recent stuff like her Woody Allen and Dixie Chick documentaries, nor have I seen THE SORROW AND THE PITY, SHOAH, or any like works.

Finally, I can't stand Joan Crawford. I know this is heresy in many quarters, but while I was watching MILDRED PIERCE (an otherwise fun movie), I kept thinking to myself, "If Bette Davis were in this role, she'd have dispensed with Ann Blyth with one hand tied behind her back." She's too much of a martyr for my tastes.

Oh, and while I took Mgmax to task in another comment thread, I must again agree with him that Max Ophuls is a must see, if you can find his movies (which aren't readily available yet in this country on DVD, I'm sad to say), and I also heartily endorse SUNRISE.

"Greatest...thread...ever?"

Close. But that would have to be reserved for the massive 200 plus comments for the Indy and 80's films last month.

Now let's see if we can't get this one up to 201...for LaSalle.

"She's too much of a martyr for my tastes.'

Then you must see TROG.

I think this dicussion requires the inclusion of age to some degree. For example, I'm 28, so a great deal of these films were released before I was in high school or even born, so going back to watch them is far more of a task than if I had been around. When you consider that Mick LaSalle is nearly 50 years old, that makes these omissions even more pathetic.

Finally, I can't stand Joan Crawford. I know this is heresy in many quarters ...

Three years ago I said these words - JOHNNY GUITAR

"Johnny Guitar" is -- well words can't begin to do it justice. It must be seen. Great batshit crazy movie. And I mean that with all due respect.

'Great Movies' that actually suck:

Grand Illusion
Brief Encounter
The Best Years of Our Lives
Fort Apache
Scenes from a Marriage (theatrical version)
Au Hasard Balthasar
Gigi
Traffic

'Great Movies' that ought to suck, but don't:

Grapes of Wrath
Tokyo Story
Chariots of Fire
Death in Venice
JFK

Another 'Great Movie' that sucks:

A Woman under the Influence

"'Great Movies' that ought to suck, but don't:

Grapes of Wrath
Tokyo Story
Chariots of Fire
Death in Venice
JFK"

Doug: I would bump 3, 4, and 5 to the top of your suck list where they belong (and I concur with your suck list).

"The Grapes of Wrath" and "Tokyo Story" are great - neither will be appreciated by Jeff's "Gorilla Nation" but nonetheless...

Alright, I'm turning in my movie geek card here, but whatever - was anybody else not impressed with Rashomon?

I mean, I consider both Seven Samurai and Throne of Blood to be in my top 25 of all time, but I have never gotten the adoration for Rashomon.