[I] 100 Greatest films
Orjan Westin
For those who don't know, UK Channel Four has had a vote to get a list of
the hundred best films ever made, and broadcast the result in two three-hour
shows last weekend.
The vote was open to all.
Well, to all who knew about it..
... and has web access...
... and think web votes are significant...
... and feel the need to register an opinion...
Who come I'm not surprised that the best film ever made is:
<fanfare>
Star Wars!
*sigh*
The rest of the list was pretty good, though. I've missed a couple of the
English and French films, and some newish ones, so I cannot comment, but
I've seen 92 and I don't have much to grumble about, even though I wouldn't
necessarily have put them in that order, but what was Titanic doing there?
Orjan
Gurpreet Singh
"Orjan Westin" <NospamRepla...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:9tu0g8$4q6k6$1...@ID-90122.news.dfncis.de...
taped on the end for good luck) as one movie?
Barry R
wossnamed thusly...
>For those who don't know, UK Channel Four has had a vote to get a list of
>I've seen 92 and I don't have much to grumble about, even though I wouldn't
>necessarily have put them in that order, but what was Titanic doing there?
Demonstrating once again that the internet is full of wierdo's...
Barry R.
--
Philosophers never die, they just lay down to wrest
Kimmi
<Gurpree...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
<snip 100 best films>
>Which Star Wars was first - surely they can't have a whole trilogy (and one
>taped on the end for good luck) as one movie?
Well, they managed to have Godfather 1 & 2 at No2...
I think it was Star Wars. (And the Empire Strikes Back.) BICBW... It
*was* on late for me!
Kimmi
Jonathan Ellis
Barry R wrote in message ...
>In article <9tu0g8$4q6k6$1...@ID-90122.news.dfncis.de>, Orjan
>wossnamed thusly...
>>For those who don't know, UK Channel Four has had a vote to get a list
of
>>the hundred best films ever made [...]
>>I've seen 92 and I don't have much to grumble about, even though I
wouldn't
>>necessarily have put them in that order, but what was Titanic doing
there?
>
>Demonstrating once again that the internet is full of wierdo's...
I think Titanic got there because it got so many Oscars, and thus
"it has to be pretty good". No thought that it might have been merely
the only half-adequate film in an exceptionally bad year (I would
disagree with that, if it weren't for the fact that the only other film
I can remember that came out in the same year is "Tomorrow Never Dies",
and *that* is a Bond film and therefore by definition cannot be
described as "good" by any self-proclaimed film aficionado...)
Jonathan.
Stewart Tolhurst
liszt.freeserve.co.uk says...
<snip>
> disagree with that, if it weren't for the fact that the only other film
> I can remember that came out in the same year is "Tomorrow Never Dies",
> and *that* is a Bond film and therefore by definition cannot be
> described as "good" by any self-proclaimed film aficionado...)
"Tomorrow Never Dies" is pretty much my fave of the Brosnan films. Bond
films are never going to be high art - but this one is pretty good and
representative of the genre. You've got sexy and dashing leads, a
maniacal evil genius (love the digs at Murdoch and Gates), dead ex-
girlfriends, motorcycle chases and a big sunbmarine - what more could you
want from a Bond film?
Stewart
Janice Wright
>
> The rest of the list was pretty good, though. I've missed a couple of the
> English and French films, and some newish ones, so I cannot comment, but
> I've seen 92 and I don't have much to grumble about, even though I wouldn't
> necessarily have put them in that order, but what was Titanic doing there?
>
AOL on the "even though I wouldn't necessarily have put them in that order".
Most of the films I expected to be in the list were (Apocalypse Now, Citizen
Kane, Schindler's List, 2001, The Graduate, Casablanca) and a few that I
think are great films, but was surprised to see (Chinatown, The African
Queen, Dr. Strangelove). I was very surprised that Shawshank Redemption
was so high up, it's certainly a good film, but I wouldn't have called
it one of the all time greats. I also always tend to think that anything
made in the last 5 years should be automatically disqualified from this
sort of list. You can't tell from recent box office success if a film is
going to 'stand the test of time', which is one of the qualifications
for 'all time great', imho...
Janice
Andrew.Gray
> >Demonstrating once again that the internet is full of wierdo's...
>
> I think Titanic got there because it got so many Oscars, and thus
> "it has to be pretty good".
According to, um, something I read in a Saturday-paper TV guide, the
original list of 100 was decided on by an undefined panel; the actual
order was then voted on by The Masses (tm) - thus explaining why, say,
Battleship Potemkin got included.
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Mark
Gurpreet Singh <Gurpree...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> Which Star Wars was first - surely they can't have a whole trilogy (and one
> taped on the end for good luck) as one movie?
IIRC EpIV was first, with ESB second, whilst the other two didn't even
appear. For once a decision I agree with (that is the last two /not/ being
included. I don't believe that the other two should have been at the top).
How many more of this type of show (the top <x> of...) can be made!?!
--
__ __ _
| \/ |__ _ _ _| | __ "He's clearly a bad influence on himself."
| |\/| / _` | '_| |/ / www.russellb.ukgateway.net/mark/dmz/Index.htm
|_| |_\__,_|_| |_|\_\ E-Mail to petv...@icqmail.com
David Chapman
The same thing as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Matrix
(possibly), Gladiator and one or two others; it's recent, it was
massive, it sticks in the head. If they repeat the poll five years
hence, I'd guess none of those films will be in it except maybe
The Matrix. If they'd made the poll six months from now,
probably Harry Potter and FotR would have been in it.
--
While order does exist in the Universe,
it is not at all what we had in mind.
David Chapman
> In article <3c0295e0$0$8513$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> Gurpreet Singh <Gurpree...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>
> > Which Star Wars was first - surely they can't have a whole trilogy (and one
> > taped on the end for good luck) as one movie?
>
> IIRC EpIV was first, with ESB second, whilst the other two didn't even
> appear. For once a decision I agree with (that is the last two /not/ being
> included. I don't believe that the other two should have been at the top).
>
> How many more of this type of show (the top <x> of...) can be made!?!
Well, they haven't made "The Top 100 Best Of Shows" yet...
David Chapman
> In article <9tu0g8$4q6k6$1...@ID-90122.news.dfncis.de>, Orjan Westin wrote:
> >
> > The rest of the list was pretty good, though. I've missed a couple of the
> > English and French films, and some newish ones, so I cannot comment, but
> > I've seen 92 and I don't have much to grumble about, even though I wouldn't
> > necessarily have put them in that order, but what was Titanic doing there?
> >
>
> AOL on the "even though I wouldn't necessarily have put them in that order".
> Most of the films I expected to be in the list were (Apocalypse Now, Citizen
> Kane, Schindler's List, 2001, The Graduate, Casablanca) and a few that I
> think are great films, but was surprised to see (Chinatown, The African
> Queen, Dr. Strangelove). I was very surprised that Shawshank Redemption
> was so high up, it's certainly a good film, but I wouldn't have called
> it one of the all time greats.
I think I agreed with about 75% of the choices, overall. I
can say with a certain amount of pride that I voted for
six of the top ten (guess which if you can) and that my
other four votes all went to films in the top 40, so I guess
I've managed to achieve my lifelong aim of being typical.
I also always tend to think that anything
> made in the last 5 years should be automatically disqualified from this
> sort of list. You can't tell from recent box office success if a film is
> going to 'stand the test of time', which is one of the qualifications
> for 'all time great', imho...
Maybe, maybe not. While I do agree that there's no such
thing as an instant classic, there are some films - Star Wars
being the best case in point - that you know you're never
going to forget. There are likewise other films that, while
good, you won't love forever - case in point being ET,
which I cannot see myself being able to watch at the age
of 28 with the same sense of wonder that I did when I was
eight. It's all variable.
Mick Molloy
Andrew.Gray <Andre...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3C02B49D...@durham.ac.uk...
Well, actually, Battleship Potemkin IS one of the great films.... I voted
for it.
Mick Molloy.
Mik
news:3c029d6f...@news.ntlworld.com...
of the _100_ best films, how come there are actually *104* films on the chart
[as well as Godfather 1&2, SW & TESB, they included 'Three Colours Red, White
& Blue' as a single 'film']?
Cheers
Mik
--
"Without verticality, wisely the cochineal
emperor goes forth at teatime;
at evening the mollusc is silent
among the almond blossom" - TP, M '87
Mik
news:9tuj6s$4mr41$1...@ID-93395.news.dfncis.de...
[snippage]
>
> I think I agreed with about 75% of the choices, overall. I
> can say with a certain amount of pride that I voted for
> six of the top ten (guess which if you can)
OK. My guesses are:
Star Wars / The Empire Strikes Back
Goodfellas
Schindler's List
It's A Wonderful Life
Pulp Fiction
Blade Runner
While we're on the subject, I'd be interested to know the froup's top 5 films
that didn't even make it into Channel 4's 'Top 100'. Mine are:
Faraway, So Close!
The Big Lebowski
JFK
Blues Brothers
An American Werewolf In London
Brian Howlett
[snip]
> Yes, it was. This is what I call 'cheating' - if you're going to have
> a poll of the _100_ best films, how come there are actually *104*
> films on the chart [as well as Godfather 1&2, SW & TESB, they included
> 'Three Colours Red, White & Blue' as a single 'film']?
>
They also had "Jean de Floret" and "Manon des Sources" as a single
entry...
--
Brian Howlett
tenticle
m...@dylandog.freeserve.co.uk says...
>
> While we're on the subject, I'd be interested to know the froup's top 5 films
> that didn't even make it into Channel 4's 'Top 100'. Mine are:
> Faraway, So Close!
> The Big Lebowski
> JFK
> Blues Brothers
> An American Werewolf In London
>
Big Lebowski
Hotshots!
Bad Taste
American Graffiti.
The Mummy(1932) the original with boris karlov.
Films deserving their listing in 100 best ever:
Alien
Usual Suspects
Casablanca
Life Of Brian
Star Wars
but in no way in that order.. and not in the positions they got.
Tent
--
Warning: Not for internal use.
Quantum Moth
> "Orjan Westin" <NospamRepla...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:9tu0g8$4q6k6$1...@ID-90122.news.dfncis.de...
> > It's been silent about this - maybe it's been discussed on IRC.
> >
Those at the Oxford minimeet watched a fair chunk of the first half..
I was eagerly watching out for my choices - only two in the first
half. King Kong and the 3 Colours trilogy (though ISTR voting only for
one of them - Blue[1]), if you must know.
> > For those who don't know, UK Channel Four has had a vote to get a list of
> > the hundred best films ever made, and broadcast the result in two three-hour
> > shows last weekend.
> >
> > The vote was open to all.
> >
> > Well, to all who knew about it..
> > ... and has web access...
> > ... and think web votes are significant...
> > ... and feel the need to register an opinion...
> >
I think the poll was discussed here back in September, but the
discussion was curtailed by the 11th.
> > Who come I'm not surprised that the best film ever made is:
> > <fanfare>
> > Star Wars!
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
And The Empire Strikes Back, but I kinda guessed that - after all, it
was popular vote (well, popular geek vote, as you point out. Hence
Titanic not being that high on the list, considering). Um, yes, I did
vote for it. Sorry.
> > The rest of the list was pretty good, though. I've missed a couple of the
> > English and French films, and some newish ones, so I cannot comment, but
> > I've seen 92 and I don't have much to grumble about, even though I wouldn't
> > necessarily have put them in that order
People kept giving me funny looks for knowing what film it was just by
the little interview clips before they put the title up. What? I know
movies! Is that abnormal? Am I coming out of some sort of closet here?
My name is Thom Willis and.. I'm I watch films. There, I said it. I
feel much better.
> > but what was Titanic doing there?
>
> The same thing as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Matrix
> (possibly), Gladiator and one or two others; it's recent, it was
> massive, it sticks in the head.
Yes, I was amused to see them in there. I mean, Gladiator was fun, but
hardly the rock-solid classic people seemed to say it was during that
show. Just because it *looks* like an old-school Biblical epic type
movie, doesn't mean it actually *is*. I mean, it didn't even have
Charlton Heston. Crouching Tiger will probably vanish into "popular at
the time art flick" obscurity, see also The Piano or The Cook, The
Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. The Matrix is doomed to be the Die Hard
of its generation - revered by those in the know as a genre-defining
piece of cinema, but remembered chiefly as a load of explosions and a
spoon.
> If they repeat the poll five years
> hence, I'd guess none of those films will be in it except maybe
> The Matrix.
I'd guess not even that. In fact, definitely not that. But I would
expect to see South Park on there. No, really. Well, okay, not really.
Comedy was a bit under-represented, wasn't it? I mean, properly funny
comedy. Not just Some Like It Hot.
> If they'd made the poll six months from now,
> probably Harry Potter and FotR would have been in it.
Ford of the Rings?
[1]And I'm not sure why Blue. I mean, White sticks in the memory more
to me. But isn't as good a film, I guess.
--
thom willis
soon no longer posting from work, so not bothered about his opinions
not being representative of unipart, quite honestly.
mule
<1d7c98c.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> > If they'd made the poll six months from now,
> > probably Harry Potter and FotR would have been in it.
>
> Ford of the Rings?
Fellowship?
mule
--
"jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule"
Bob Dylan
Orjan Westin
news:2jo60uskvi7cvtum9...@4ax.com...
> willi...@hotmail.com (Quantum Moth) wrote in message
> <1d7c98c.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > If they'd made the poll six months from now,
> > > probably Harry Potter and FotR would have been in it.
> >
> > Ford of the Rings?
>
> Fellowship?
Aww... I was hoping for a JRRT/DNA crossover. I'd like to see Marvin take
on the Balrog.
Orjan
David Sander
In a recent issue of Time magazine, there was an amusing 'comic' strip,
which was applying current film titles to the 'situation' in Afghanistan.
The punchline (with ObL running away from a bombing run) was "Hairy
Plotter V Lord of the Wings".
.
.
.
.
.
Well ... *I* LOLed.
David
David Chapman
> "David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote
> > If they'd made the poll six months from now,
> > probably Harry Potter and FotR would have been in it.
>
> Ford of the Rings?
I thought you said you knew films, Thom? *Anyone*
who knows films would know that The Lord of the Rings
isn't being released as a movie next month, just The
Fellowship of the Ring.
--
While order does exist in the Universe,
it is not at all what we had in mind.
.
Rory Parle
> In article <9tun27$a8d$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> m...@dylandog.freeserve.co.uk says...
>
> >
> > While we're on the subject, I'd be interested to know the froup's top 5 films
> > that didn't even make it into Channel 4's 'Top 100'. Mine are:
> > Faraway, So Close!
> > The Big Lebowski
> > JFK
> > Blues Brothers
> > An American Werewolf In London
> >
>
> Big Lebowski
> Hotshots!
> Bad Taste
> American Graffiti.
> The Mummy(1932) the original with boris karlov.
>
I'd have included, without any actual hope that anyone would agree:
Terminator 2
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
Airplane
Blues Brothers
Clerks
> Films deserving their listing in 100 best ever:
>
> Alien
> Usual Suspects
> Casablanca
> Life Of Brian
> Star Wars
>
Having only seen 27 of the 100, I think the one's deserving of their
places are:
Shawshank
Star Wars (I've always liked this, but I've never understood why it's popular)
Matrix (I'm sure it'll remain watchable for years)
Wizard of Oz
Life of Brian
--
Rory Parle
Melody S-K
Hmmm ..Marvin the Martian ?
Melody
--
Hey, if you cut off your foot, you wouldn't keep putting it
in your mouth, but your body wouldn't be the same, would it?
Maestro
what was Titanic doing there?
>
> Orjan
>
Mary Messall
> People kept giving me funny looks for knowing what film it was just by
> the little interview clips before they put the title up. What? I know
> movies! Is that abnormal? Am I coming out of some sort of closet here?
> My name is Thom Willis and.. I'm I watch films. There, I said it. I
> feel much better.
I usually use the "my housemate subscribed to Entertainment Weekly. It
was sitting at the breakfast table every day for the last year..."
Actually, two of my other housemates subscribed to Maxim, and one to
the Wall Street Journal. I had very weird breakfast reading last year.
> soon no longer posting from work, so not bothered about his opinions
> not being representative of unipart, quite honestly.
Eh? Getting a connection again, or what?
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz --> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Sandriana
Also something I read in a Saturday TV guide, the phone poll closed two
weeks before transmission, but they kept the lines open because they
wanted the money....
--
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to
purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither
Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin
Adrian Ogden
<tricks Balrog into destroying its own bridge and falling into chasm>
Marvin: What a depressingly stupid monster.
Of course, this means Marvin was with them when they entered Moria
to begin with...
Merry: What does it mean by "speak friend, and enter"?
Gandalf: Time was I knew every language under the sun from here to
the western mountains...
Marvin: Oh, is that all?
Gandalf: Oh right, I suppose you and your brain the size of a planet
have got this all figured out already.
Marvin: I'd've got there quicker than you if I had a brain the size
of a plant.
Gandalf: OK, if you're so smart why don't you just tell us instead
of complaining how stupid we are?
Marvin: It's right in front of you. You're going to kick yourself,
really, you are.
Gandalf: Can it Marvin, this is serious.
Marvin: I could tell you weren't really interested.
Gandalf: <strikes door with stick> Edro! Edro!
Marvin: Even a halfling could get there quicker than you.
Gandalf: Yeah, like that's going to happen.
--
<< Adrian Ogden -- "Sic Biscuitus Disintegrat" -- www.rdg.ac.uk/~sssogadr/ >>
"There is no such word as 'impossible' in my dictionary. In fact,
everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade' appears to be missing."
Suzi
news:3c139f1c...@news.cis.dfn.de...
[Snip]
> Also something I read in a Saturday TV guide, the phone poll closed
two
> weeks before transmission, but they kept the lines open because they
> wanted the money....
Surely that's
a) not legal
and
b) reportable to the body which governs these sorts of things
Suzi
Quantum Moth
> "Quantum Moth" <willi...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > If they'd made the poll six months from now,
> > > probably Harry Potter and FotR would have been in it.
> >
> > Ford of the Rings?
>
> I thought you said you knew films, Thom? *Anyone*
> who knows films would know that The Lord of the Rings
> isn't being released as a movie next month, just The
> Fellowship of the Ring.
Gosh, and here was me thinking it was Lord of the Rings: the
Fellowship of the Ring (LotR:FotR).
I suppose it's like referring to A New Hope as Star Wars. I mean,
honestly! Who does that?
--
thom willis
yes, i do know.
Andrew.Gray
> > According to, um, something I read in a Saturday-paper TV guide, the
> > original list of 100 was decided on by an undefined panel; the actual
> > order was then voted on by The Masses (tm) - thus explaining why, say,
> > Battleship Potemkin got included.
>
> Well, actually, Battleship Potemkin IS one of the great films.... I voted
> for it.
I never said it wasn't one of the great films... I suggested that The
Phoning-In Masses (tm) were about as likely to vote for it had it not
been prelisted as they would have been for, say, the video I made of my
last holiday.[1]
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
[1] Okay, so I didn't make one. The point still stands.
James Green
says...
[Marvin vs. Balrog]
> Hmmm ..Marvin the Martian ?
But wouldn't that produce an Earth shattering KABOOM?
There's suppoosed to be one, I'm told.
James.sigless
CCA
> I guess
>I've managed to achieve my lifelong aim of being typical.
>
Yeah, but who'd want to be typical?
CCA:)
CCA
>While we're on the subject, I'd be interested to know the froup's top 5 films
>that didn't even make it into Channel 4's 'Top 100'. Mine are:
>Faraway, So Close!
>The Big Lebowski
>JFK
>Blues Brothers
>An American Werewolf In London
In no particular order:
The Fisher King
Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
The Long Kiss Goodnight
Moonstruck
The Fifth Element
Although I must say that ever since the days of the Smash Hits Poll back in the
early eighties, I've always resigned myself to the fact that stuff I like
doesn't usually have a snowball's chance of getting into any sort of poll you
care to mention. Well, except for reading matter, obviously.
CCA:)
Lawrence Mitchell
> Mik (>m...@dylandog.freeserve.co.uk) wrote
>
>>While we're on the subject, I'd be interested to know the froup's
>>top 5 films that didn't even make it into Channel 4's 'Top 100'.
>>Mine are:
>>Faraway, So Close!
>>The Big Lebowski
>>JFK
>>Blues Brothers
>>An American Werewolf In London
>
> In no particular order:
> The Fisher King
> Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
> The Long Kiss Goodnight
> Moonstruck
> The Fifth Element
Komm Suesser Tod
Evil Dead (or was that there, I missed some of them)
Nowhere Fast
Platoon (though I haven't seen Apocalypse Now)
hmmm, running out of clues.
PS, finally back on net after arriving at uni (well, with time to use
it for useful things anyway)
--
Lawrence Mitchell <we...@gmx.li>
mule
<20011127130601...@mb-ms.aol.com>...
> Although I must say that ever since the days of the Smash Hits Poll back in the
> early eighties, I've always resigned myself to the fact that stuff I like
> doesn't usually have a snowball's chance of getting into any sort of poll you
> care to mention. Well, except for reading matter, obviously.
In which case you are probably a discriminating individual with
excellent taste -- or at the very least, individual taste. Who wants
their favourite film to be everyone else's favourite too?
David Roy
news:9u06o4$6ia$1...@vins1.reading.ac.uk:
Florin sits down and sings about gold
David
Quantum Moth
> Quantum Moth wrote:
>
> > soon no longer posting from work, so not bothered about his opinions
> > not being representative of unipart, quite honestly.
>
> Eh? Getting a connection again, or what?
>
--
\\\\\ .o0(thom willis - Corinne's Worse Half)
\\\\\\\__o(http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz | http://www.maskerade.org.uk)
_\\\\\\\'/_(i'm back)
Brian Howlett
[snip]
>
> Having only seen 27 of the 100, I think the one's deserving of their
> places are:
>
> Shawshank
> Star Wars (I've always liked this, but I've never understood why it's
> popular)
> Matrix (I'm sure it'll remain watchable for years)
> Wizard of Oz
> Life of Brian
>
For those who haven't seen the full list, don't get Channel 4 or don't
know what those crazy Brits are wittering on about, you can find it at
<http://www.channel4.com/greatest/>
--
Brian Howlett
--------------------------------------------------------------
The cat crept in to the crypt, crapped, and crept out again...
Simon Waldman
> According to, um, something I read in a Saturday-paper TV guide, the
> original list of 100 was decided on by an undefined panel; the actual
> order was then voted on by The Masses (tm) - thus explaining why, say,
> Battleship Potemkin got included.
This would be why the films weren't all from the last ten years, in the
same way that the top music of the *millenium* was mostly recent...
I thought I noticed an approximate correlation between age and placing
though. (may be wrong, I only saw part of the first half while waiting
to start work and I was only half-watching it...)
--
"Then there are those who care not about extraterrestrials,
searching for meaning in other human beings. Rare or lucky are those
who find it. For although we may not be alone in the universe,
in our own separate ways on this planet, we are all... alone."
- 'Jose Chung's "From Outer Space"'.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, England email: swal...@firecloud.org.uk
http://www.firecloud.org.uk/simon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman
> b) reportable to the body which governs these sorts of things
>
was that a deliberate Dogbert quote?
Simon Waldman
> Yes, I was amused to see them in there. I mean, Gladiator was fun, but
> hardly the rock-solid classic people seemed to say it was during that
> show. Just because it *looks* like an old-school Biblical epic type
> movie, doesn't mean it actually *is*.
I'm not a film buff... but I thought Gladiator deserved to be there.
(where did it come? I had to stop watching before it appeared)
I remember coming out of the film thinking that at the story level it
was a nice epic-type-thing, but technically was brilliant... just my 2p.
Eric Jarvis
> > hence, I'd guess none of those films will be in it except maybe
> > The Matrix.
>
> I'd guess not even that. In fact, definitely not that. But I would
> expect to see South Park on there. No, really. Well, okay, not really.
> Comedy was a bit under-represented, wasn't it? I mean, properly funny
> comedy. Not just Some Like It Hot.
>
as I have posited elsewhere and elsewhen
we live in a culture where the value of art is largely judged by how
well it is critiqued...now, it is easy enough to write a compelling
essay about allegory and look clever and knowledgeable...it is
possible to write a study of political context and appear wise and
intelligent...but 1000 words about a gag is going to make anyone
look like an idiot
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
"money can't buy you love, but sometimes dinner
is much more important"
David Jensen
Eric Jarvis <nos...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote in
<MPG.166e33ae8...@news.dircon.co.uk>:
>Quantum Moth wrote:
>> "David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote
>>
>> > If they repeat the poll five years
>> > hence, I'd guess none of those films will be in it except maybe
>> > The Matrix.
>>
>> I'd guess not even that. In fact, definitely not that. But I would
>> expect to see South Park on there. No, really. Well, okay, not really.
>> Comedy was a bit under-represented, wasn't it? I mean, properly funny
>> comedy. Not just Some Like It Hot.
>>
>
>as I have posited elsewhere and elsewhen
>
>we live in a culture where the value of art is largely judged by how
>well it is critiqued...now, it is easy enough to write a compelling
>essay about allegory and look clever and knowledgeable...it is
>possible to write a study of political context and appear wise and
>intelligent...but 1000 words about a gag is going to make anyone
>look like an idiot
Marx Brothers comes to mind. Okay, the prints are generally horrendous
and the "Western Electric Noiseless Recordings" are anything but, yet
they are hilarious. Explain them? I'd rather roast with the chestnuts,
even if we are talking about one that is allegorical.
Speaker-to-Customers
"Brian Howlett" wrote ...
> For those who haven't seen the full list, don't get Channel 4 or don't
> know what those crazy Brits are wittering on about, you can find it at
> <http://www.channel4.com/greatest/>
Thanks for posting the link. Now I can read the list, and ....
...collapse in shock!
No "Leon". No "The Princess Bride". No "Shrek". No "Zulu". No "Restless
Natives." And no "Gregory's Girl".
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Mary Messall
> Mary Messall <m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk> said...
> > Quantum Moth wrote:
> > > soon no longer posting from work, so not bothered about his opinions
> > > not being representative of unipart, quite honestly.
> > Eh? Getting a connection again, or what?
> read the headers and weep.
news.cis.dfn.de? Very nice. But not an actual internet connection,
technically...
However, by reading the .sig, I find a website, and by reading the
website, I find: "Having said that, Corinne made a firm decision on our
life, which means now that we'll have a land line in by Tusday. Are you
excited? Well, are you? Because it means I'll be back on-line in my
full, frank and explicit capacity from 27/11/2001"
Which is very good news and the cause for much rejoicing. Although a
few days too late to allow for vicarious participation in the Oxford
meet via IRC...
geoff...@hotmail.com
What "body that governs these sorts of things"?
Apart from the people making and screening the movies (and paying
for and selling the advertising), who cares?
The body that governs these sorts of things is, in fact, the group
of people running the poll.
Geoff
--
Geoff Field, Professional geek, amateur stage-levelling gauge.
Spamtraps: geoff...@hotmail.com, gcf...@bigmailbox.net, or
geoff...@great-atuin.co.uk; Real Email: gcfield at optusnet dot com dot au
My band's web page: http://www.geocities.com/southernarea/
MikeXXXX
>
> Suzi <Bra...@mothernature.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Sandriana <sand...@eurobell.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3c139f1c...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > [Snip]
> >> Also something I read in a Saturday TV guide, the phone poll closed
> > two
> >> weeks before transmission, but they kept the lines open because they
> >> wanted the money....
> >
> > Surely that's
> > a) not legal
> > and
> > b) reportable to the body which governs these sorts of things
>
> What "body that governs these sorts of things"?
>
> Apart from the people making and screening the movies (and paying
> for and selling the advertising), who cares?
In .au that'd be the ombudsman and the Consumer and Competition
Commission ( http://www.accc.gov.au/ )
If the poll closed and they kept the lines
open for voting for the (closed) poll and if that were true
they need to be reported so that they get their comeuppance.
A complaint from someone who voted via the lines after they closed
would probably get things started. It would in .au anyway. ACCC can
be very aggressive.
regards
Mike
--
New to afp/abp? check http://www.lspace.org/
afp welcome message: http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/welcome.html
http://www.elfden.freeserve.co.uk/further/further7.html
Orjan Westin
news:MPG.166e33ae8...@news.dircon.co.uk...
>
> we live in a culture where the value of art is largely judged by how
> well it is critiqued...now, it is easy enough to write a compelling
> essay about allegory and look clever and knowledgeable...it is
> possible to write a study of political context and appear wise and
> intelligent...but 1000 words about a gag is going to make anyone
> look like an idiot
No wonder abp has been quiet of late :-|
Orjan
Suzi
news:3C041D8...@firecloud.org.uk...
> Suzi wrote:
>
> > b) reportable to the body which governs these sorts of things
>
> was that a deliberate Dogbert quote?
Nope. It was a deliberate Suzi quote.
Suzi
(doesn't recall having seen that in "It's obvious you won't survive by
your wits alone" which is the only Dilbert book I've ever 'read')
Suzi
news:9u1arq$ugc$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net...
I know... and no "Joe's Apartment". No "Hunt for Red October". No "By
Dawn's Early Light". No "The Mummy"(either version). No "The Fifth
Element". <shakes head>
And what's even worse is that "Titanic" made it into the list, whereas
the far better earlier B&W film didn't!
Of the list, I had heard of 84 of the films, actually seen 42 of them,
and only rated 29 of them as being worthy of being in a top 100 :-(
Suzi
Suzi
news:3C048535...@suespammers.org...[Snip]
> > > b) reportable to the body which governs these sorts of things
> >
> > What "body that governs these sorts of things"?
> >
> > Apart from the people making and screening the movies (and paying
> > for and selling the advertising), who cares?
>
> In .au that'd be the ombudsman and the Consumer and Competition
> Commission ( http://www.accc.gov.au/ )
And in the UK there are at least a couple of bodies... the ones that
come immediately to mind are the ITC for one, and OFTEL for another.
Suzi
Jacqui
> Of the list, I had heard of 84 of the films, actually seen 42 of them,
> and only rated 29 of them as being worthy of being in a top 100 :-(
I own about 50 of them on video, and wouldn't rate more than 30 of them
as "worthy" of this kind of list (although I'd make it a top 200 because
I'm very weaselly about the lower end of the list). OTOH most of my
personal top fifteen were in there, bar Leon, Amadeus and Cinema
Paradiso.
As Other Half has only seen about 6 of these 100 we're embarking on a
sustained campaign of video watching, which should occupy us until
spring. Even if he then decides most of them are crap at least he's seen
them. :)
Jac
Sandriana
<swal...@firecloud.org.uk> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Mary Messall wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, two of my other housemates subscribed to Maxim, and one to
>> the Wall Street Journal. I had very weird breakfast reading last year.
>
>
>I get a mix of New Scientist and various LGB journals at home, and
>Maxim/FHM/Loaded at work... bit of a culture difference ;-)
>
>
No not really. Sad geeky scientist type needs magazine to look at real
girls, no culture clash there.
GD&R,
--
David Chapman
> Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> wrote in message
> news:9u1arq$ugc$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net...
> >
> > "Brian Howlett" wrote ...
> >
> > > For those who haven't seen the full list, don't get Channel 4 or
> > > don't know what those crazy Brits are wittering on about, you
> > > can find it at
> > > <http://www.channel4.com/greatest/>
> >
> > Thanks for posting the link. Now I can read the list, and ....
> >
> > ...collapse in shock!
> >
> > No "Leon". No "The Princess Bride". No "Shrek". No "Zulu". No
> > "Restless Natives." And no "Gregory's Girl".
>
> I know... and no "Joe's Apartment". No "Hunt for Red October". No "By
> Dawn's Early Light". No "The Mummy"(either version). No "The Fifth
> Element". <shakes head>
The most monstrous omission IMHO was Ben Hur.
>
> And what's even worse is that "Titanic" made it into the list, whereas
> the far better earlier B&W film didn't!
We all commented on the absence of A Night To
Remember also. A criminal choice.
>
> Of the list, I had heard of 84 of the films, actually seen 42 of them,
> and only rated 29 of them as being worthy of being in a top 100 :-(
I'd heard of all of them, seen about 60. Most of the
choices were reasonable, although only about your
quoted 30 were absolute shoo-ins IMHO. There's
not all that many ultra-mega-super-duper films, but
there's several hundred damn good ones from which
they had to pick 70.
--
While order does exist in the Universe,
it is not at all what we had in mind.
Ingvar Mattsson
> Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> wrote in message
> news:9u1arq$ugc$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net...
> >
> > "Brian Howlett" wrote ...
> >
> > > For those who haven't seen the full list, don't get Channel 4 or
> > > don't know what those crazy Brits are wittering on about, you
> > > can find it at
> > > <http://www.channel4.com/greatest/>
> >
> > Thanks for posting the link. Now I can read the list, and ....
> >
> > ...collapse in shock!
> >
> > No "Leon". No "The Princess Bride". No "Shrek". No "Zulu". No
> > "Restless Natives." And no "Gregory's Girl".
>
> I know... and no "Joe's Apartment". No "Hunt for Red October". No "By
> Dawn's Early Light". No "The Mummy"(either version). No "The Fifth
> Element". <shakes head>
No "Underground", no "Before the rain", no "City of the lost
children", no "Replacement Killers", no "Drunken Master"!
//Ingvar (that is, however, only a subset of genres I like)
--
(defun m (f)
(let ((db (make-hash-table :key #'equal)))
#'(lambda (&rest a)
(or (gethash a db) (setf (gethash a db) (apply f a))))))
Orjan Westin
news:87y9kru...@gruk.tech.ensign.ftech.net...
> "Suzi" <Bra...@mothernature.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > "Restless Natives." And no "Gregory's Girl".
> >
> > I know... and no "Joe's Apartment". No "Hunt for Red October". No "By
> > Dawn's Early Light". No "The Mummy"(either version). No "The Fifth
> > Element". <shakes head>
>
> No "Underground", no "Before the rain", no "City of the lost
> children", no "Replacement Killers", no "Drunken Master"!
No "Crying Freeman", no "Runaway Train", no "Dead Man", no "Local Hero", no
"First Blood"!
I wonder how long it takes to compile a "100 Greatest films missing from the
list" list.
Orjan
Beth Winter
Not long >_<
No "Ran", no "Ladyhawke", no "Moulin Rouge", no "Sewer" by Wajda, and most of
all no "The Crow"...
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://go.to/thediscworldcompendium>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
Speaker-to-Customers
"Ingvar Mattsson" wrote ...
(Snip part by Suzi and by me (Speaker-to-Customers) referring to films not
on the C4 greatest films list)
> No "Underground", no "Before the rain", no "City of the lost
> children", no "Replacement Killers", no "Drunken Master"!
>
> //Ingvar (that is, however, only a subset of genres I like)
What bugs me is some of the genre films in the list which are mediocre
examples of their genre, which were over-hyped into undeserved success.
The Kung Fu genre is represented by "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" at no.
18, and "Enter the Dragon" at 85. No argument with "CTHD"; but "EtD" is
trash. The worst film Bruce Lee ever made while remaining alive for the
whole production; and Lee was never in the class of Chow Yun Fat or Jet Li,
or even Jackie Chan. You mentioned "The Replacement Killers" and "Drunken
Master"; I could add "Once Upon a Time in China" and others.
It's not really a "100 Greatest Films of all time" list. It's a list of 100
films chosen as ones the general public would be likely to vote for. Some
are on because they are genuinely great films; some because they are popular
with critics; and some because they sold a lot of tickets.
The compilers obviously had allocations for numbers of films from each
genre. "Ben Hur" and "El Cid", both magnificent films, are not in because
"Gladiator" & "Spartacus" had used up the pre-gunpowder historical epic
slots.
There was only one Samurai slot, so "The Seven Samurai" is in and "Yojimbo"
is not. And so on.
There are cheats in it like combining Star Wars & Empire Strikes Back,
presumably to avoid splitting the vote, but not mentioning "Return of the
Jedi". It's not my favourite film by a long way, but in my entire adult
life I've only twice experienced an audience rising at the end of the film
and applauding all the way through the credits. Once was for "RotJ"*. So
why isn't it in the list?
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
(* the other was for a fairly obscure Kung Fu film called "King Boxer",
starring Lo Lieh)
Quantum Moth
> Quantum Moth wrote:
> > Mary Messall <m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk> said...
> > > Quantum Moth wrote:
> > > > soon no longer posting from work, so not bothered about his opinions
> > > > not being representative of unipart, quite honestly.
> > > Eh? Getting a connection again, or what?
> > read the headers and weep.
>
> news.cis.dfn.de? Very nice. But not an actual internet connection,
> technically...
I meant more the custom headers. How can I put my afprelationships
into the headers using Google? Eh? Nope, that's Gravity, is that.
Okay, so I'm still posting this from Google, but I have to work, too.
Or, more accurately, slack off.
> However, by reading the .sig, I find a website, and by reading the
> website, I find: "Having said that, Corinne made a firm decision on our
> life, which means now that we'll have a land line in by Tusday. Are you
> excited? Well, are you? Because it means I'll be back on-line in my
> full, frank and explicit capacity from 27/11/2001"
>
And here I am. You may also note from that website that I quite liked
the Harry Potter movie, I am syphillis and I still can't be bothered
to update my site. Well, anyway.
> Which is very good news and the cause for much rejoicing. Although a
> few days too late to allow for vicarious participation in the Oxford
> meet via IRC...
>
Well, no. But if only you'd made the *effort*, Mary, you could have
been there! Imagine! Pizza! 100 greatest movies on a big telly!
Norwegian "confectionery"! Things that look like Polos and taste like
toilets! The thrills! The excitement! The early finish! Um!
thom willis
CCA
> (CCA) wrote in message
>I've always resigned myself to the fact that stuff I like
>> doesn't usually have a snowball's chance of getting into any sort of poll
>you
>> care to mention.
>In which case you are probably a discriminating individual with
>excellent taste -- or at the very least, individual taste. Who wants
>their favourite film to be everyone else's favourite too?
Absolutely! Like I said elsewhere in this thread, who wants to be typical,
anyway?
CCA:)
Suzi
news:1d7c98c.01112...@posting.google.com...
[Snip]
> Norwegian "confectionery"! Things that look like Polos and taste like
> toilets!
One is almost too worried to ask how you can be definite about that
comparison ;-)
Suzi
Peter Ellis
>
>No "Underground", no "Before the rain", no "City of the lost
>children", no "Replacement Killers", no "Drunken Master"!
No "Debbie Does Dallas"...
Um. Did I say that out loud?
Peter
David Chapman
> Ingvar Mattsson <ing...@cathouse.bofh.se> wrote in message
> news:87y9kru...@gruk.tech.ensign.ftech.net...
> > No "Underground", no "Before the rain", no "City of the lost
> > children", no "Replacement Killers", no "Drunken Master"!
>
> No "Crying Freeman", no "Runaway Train", no "Dead Man", no "Local Hero", no
> "First Blood"!
>
> I wonder how long it takes to compile a "100 Greatest films missing from the
> list" list.
Given that everyone's listing five, I'd say twenty posts.
"No Crying Freeman"?
Byatt
<snip>
> "Tomorrow Never Dies" is pretty much my fave of the Brosnan films. Bond
> films are never going to be high art - but this one is pretty good and
> representative of the genre. You've got sexy and dashing leads, a
> maniacal evil genius (love the digs at Murdoch and Gates), dead ex-
> girlfriends, motorcycle chases and a big sunbmarine - what more could you
> want from a Bond film?
>
> Stewart
</snip>
/me delurks
...TND? Best of the Brosnan bond films? I wasn't particularly impressed with
either the evil genius or his henchmen("Stamper" wasn't it?) - for all round
bondness I think I'd have to go for Goldeneye...Sean Bean was a much better
villain, and the evil genius that was Boris ("I am inveeencible")
Grischenkel was a work of genius...
/me realises this is neither time nor place for a bond discussion and
relurks
Byatt
---
James Byatt Will Return
MP
It turned up in the Dilbert desk calender last week... Don't ask.
Trust me.
MP
Mark
Quantum Moth <willi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > If they'd made the poll six months from now,
> > probably Harry Potter and FotR would have been in it.
> Ford of the Rings?
That'll be a mystical warrior who is never far from his towel then :-)
--
__ __ _
| \/ |__ _ _ _| | __ "He's clearly a bad influence on himself."
| |\/| / _` | '_| |/ / www.russellb.ukgateway.net/mark/dmz/Index.htm
|_| |_\__,_|_| |_|\_\ E-Mail to petv...@icqmail.com
Mark
Adrian Ogden <ssso...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Marvin: It's right in front of you. You're going to kick yourself,
> really, you are.
> Gandalf: Can it Marvin, this is serious.
Now I am /never/ going to be able to imagine Gandalf without him sounding
like Zaphod.
Mark
<evil...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> "Mark" <Marko...@libertysurf.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4adf9f97be...@buckner.org.uk...
> > In article <3c0295e0$0$8513$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Gurpreet Singh
> > <Gurpree...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Which Star Wars was first - surely they can't have a whole trilogy (and
> > > one taped on the end for good luck) as one movie?
> >
> > IIRC EpIV was first, with ESB second, whilst the other two didn't even
> > appear. For once a decision I agree with (that is the last two /not/
> > being included. I don't believe that the other two should have been at
> > the top).
> >
> > How many more of this type of show (the top <x> of...) can be made!?!
> Well, they haven't made "The Top 100 Best Of Shows" yet...
'though it can't be long, what with that BP night that was actually two
programmes about it stuck together IIRC...
Ahh. hear that scraping sound...
Quantum Moth
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>
> > Ingvar Mattsson <ing...@cathouse.bofh.se> wrote in message
> > news:87y9kru...@gruk.tech.ensign.ftech.net...
> > > "Suzi" <Bra...@mothernature.co.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > > Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > No "Leon". No "The Princess Bride". No "Shrek". No "Zulu". No
> > > > > "Restless Natives." And no "Gregory's Girl".
> > > >
> > > > I know... and no "Joe's Apartment". No "Hunt for Red October". No "By
> > > > Dawn's Early Light". No "The Mummy"(either version). No "The Fifth
> > > > Element". <shakes head>
> > >
> > > No "Underground", no "Before the rain", no "City of the lost
> > > children", no "Replacement Killers", no "Drunken Master"!
> >
> > No "Crying Freeman", no "Runaway Train", no "Dead Man", no "Local Hero", no
> > "First Blood"!
> >
> > I wonder how long it takes to compile a "100 Greatest films missing from the
> > list" list.
>
> Not long >_<
>
> No "Ran", no "Ladyhawke", no "Moulin Rouge", no "Sewer" by Wajda, and most of
> all no "The Crow"...
No "Shallow Grave", no "The Hudsucker Proxy", no "Amelie"[1], no "Evil
Dead 2" and no "The Haunting". Bah. Bah, I say.
Bah.
[1]Okay, bit new[2].. but still the most wonderful 2 hours i've ever
spent in a cinema.
[2]As is Moulin Rouge, Beth. Come on, let's give them a chance.
--
\\\\\ .o0(thom willis - Corinne's Worse Half)
\\\\\\\__o(http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz | http://www.maskerade.org.uk)
_\\\\\\\'/_(Bah)
Andy Davison
<9u2rnc$5qkon$1...@ID-90122.news.dfncis.de>, "Orjan Westin"
<NospamRepla...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I wonder how long it takes to compile a "100 Greatest films missing from the
>list" list.
No "100 Greatest Films" list can be considered complete that doesn't
contain that towering epic of the motion picture industry "Carry On at
Your Convenience". It's got everything - toilets, a works beano, beer,
Brighton Pier, a budgerigar who knows about horse racing, a Morris
Marina[1], strip poker AND jokes so old they're still worshipped by
the lost tribesmen of the Naga Hills. Not to mention the bidet.
[1] Not just any old Morris Marina but the 1.8 TC Coupé (drooooool!)
--
Andy Davison
andy.d...@btinternet.com
Quantum Moth
>
> The Kung Fu genre is represented by "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" at no.
> 18, and "Enter the Dragon" at 85. No argument with "CTHD"; but "EtD" is
> trash. The worst film Bruce Lee ever made while remaining alive for the
> whole production; and Lee was never in the class of Chow Yun Fat or Jet Li,
> or even Jackie Chan. You mentioned "The Replacement Killers" and "Drunken
> Master"; I could add "Once Upon a Time in China" and others.
>
what I want to know. Hardly The Killer, God of Gamblers or Hard Boiled,
is it? And Enter the Dragon was there because Bruce Lee is cool and it's
his most famous movie. Just because it's not his best doesn't stop it
being a classic. Perhaps for the wrong reasons, but there you are. Life
isn't fair.
> There was only one Samurai slot, so "The Seven Samurai" is in and "Yojimbo"
> is not. And so on.
>
Well, it's not 100 best Kurosawa movies. Admittedly, Coppola was in
there twice (three times if you count The Godfather part 2), but in
different genres. And Spielberg.. what, three times? Yeah, good point,
why not Yojimbo?
> There are cheats in it like combining Star Wars & Empire Strikes Back,
> presumably to avoid splitting the vote, but not mentioning "Return of the
> Jedi". It's not my favourite film by a long way, but in my entire adult
> life I've only twice experienced an audience rising at the end of the film
> and applauding all the way through the credits. Once was for "RotJ"*. So
> why isn't it in the list?
Because, in all fairness, it sucks ass.
--
\\\\\ .o0(thom willis - Corinne's Worse Half)
\\\\\\\__o(http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz | http://www.maskerade.org.uk)
_\\\\\\\'/_(ewoks! eeeeewwwoks! not until jar-jar binks did we know such
pain again)
Quantum Moth
type one smells after a public toilet is cleaned. Lifesavers. Their
nostalgic glow (adverts in the back of American comics) has been
tarnished forever.
--
\\\\\ .o0(thom willis - Corinne's Worse Half)
\\\\\\\__o(http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz | http://www.maskerade.org.uk)
_\\\\\\\'/_(let me out of here!)
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:22:19 -0000, "Suzi"
<Bra...@mothernature.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > b) reportable to the body which governs these sorts of things
>> > What "body that governs these sorts of things"?
>
>And in the UK there are at least a couple of bodies... the ones that
>come immediately to mind are the ITC for one, and OFTEL for another.
Premium rate (or, I think, other "special service") phone lines are
governed by ICSTIS. I believe they have a website which gives details
about the rules governing such things.
Cheers,
Graham.
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:30:49 -0000, "Speaker-to-Customers"
<oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>There are cheats in it like combining Star Wars & Empire Strikes Back,
>presumably to avoid splitting the vote, but not mentioning "Return of the
>Jedi" <snip> So why isn't it in the list?
ROtJ? AKA Star Wars: The Remake?!
Jedi was basically the film that George Lucas had wanted to make as
Star Wars but couldn't (in the original planned film, the "friendly
furry creatures" were Wookies, not Ewoks, not that the species names
are in *any* way similar...!!)
Cheers,
Graham.
Orjan Westin
news:9u34ce$5t1hg$1...@ID-93395.news.dfncis.de...
> "Orjan Westin" <NospamRepla...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:9u2rnc$5qkon$1...@ID-90122.news.dfncis.de...
> > No "Crying Freeman", no "Runaway Train", no "Dead Man"
>
> "No Crying Freeman"?
Yes? There was no "Crying Freeman" on the list, was there? Maybe I've got
the name wrong - just a sec, I'll check imdb [...] Yup, it's right.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0112750
It was originally an animated Manga, which got remade as live action with
definite Manga feel. Heartily recommended.
Orjan
Ingvar Mattsson
> Ingvar Mattsson <ing...@cathouse.bofh.se> wrote in message
> news:87y9kru...@gruk.tech.ensign.ftech.net...
> > "Suzi" <Bra...@mothernature.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > > Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > No "Leon". No "The Princess Bride". No "Shrek". No "Zulu". No
> > > > "Restless Natives." And no "Gregory's Girl".
> > >
> > > I know... and no "Joe's Apartment". No "Hunt for Red October". No "By
> > > Dawn's Early Light". No "The Mummy"(either version). No "The Fifth
> > > Element". <shakes head>
> >
> > No "Underground", no "Before the rain", no "City of the lost
> > children", no "Replacement Killers", no "Drunken Master"!
>
> No "Crying Freeman", no "Runaway Train", no "Dead Man", no "Local Hero", no
> "First Blood"!
Incidentally, I do happen to have "Monopol"[1] on video. Interested?
//Ingvar (clone of my clone)
[1] By "Galenskaparna & After Shave"
--
When the SysAdmin answers the phone politely, say "sorry", hang up and
run awaaaaay!
Informal advice to users at Karolinska Institutet, 1993-1994
Ingvar Mattsson
Er? I thought it was a non-animated manga even before that.
//Ingvar
--
Self-referencing
Five, seven, five syllables
This haiku contains
Beth Winter
Animated manga = anime. It was a manga first, anime (OVA to be precise) second,
and a beautiful movie third. Starring Mark Dacascos and featuring some
sublimely oneiric imagery (I loved the first meeting between the lead
characters, although the Freeman's initiation was also very powerful).
Kincaid
Quantum Moth <sc...@mostly.com> wrote:
> Well, I was being snappy. They actually taste like disinfectant, they
> type one smells after a public toilet is cleaned. Lifesavers. Their
> nostalgic glow (adverts in the back of American comics) has been
> tarnished forever.
If you don't want them, I'll have 'em :-)
--
Kincaid Labs
Tampering in God's domain since 1975
James the Cat
> >
> > > b) reportable to the body which governs these sorts of things
> >
>
> Nope. It was a deliberate Suzi quote.
>
> Suzi
> (doesn't recall having seen that in "It's obvious you won't survive by
> your wits alone" which is the only Dilbert book I've ever 'read')
Well, IIRC, it came up when Dogbert was running one of his usual
"conning money out of gullible individuals" consulting agencies, and
he asked one of his customers what he would do of he discovered that
all of his money had been embezzled by an unscrupulous dog. The
customer replied, somewhat irately, that he'd "report it to whoever
governs these kinds of things". The next panel saw the customer in
line at the "Bureau of Dogs", with Dogbert sitting behind the desk
telling him that it's $50 per complaint.
I suppose you had to be there.
james the catbert
David Chapman
> Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> said...
> >
> > The Kung Fu genre is represented by "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" at no.
> > 18, and "Enter the Dragon" at 85. No argument with "CTHD"; but "EtD" is
> > trash. The worst film Bruce Lee ever made while remaining alive for the
> > whole production; and Lee was never in the class of Chow Yun Fat or Jet Li,
> > or even Jackie Chan. You mentioned "The Replacement Killers" and "Drunken
> > Master"; I could add "Once Upon a Time in China" and others.
> >
> Why would anyone mention The Replacement Killers in this thread, that's
> what I want to know. Hardly The Killer, God of Gamblers or Hard Boiled,
> is it? And Enter the Dragon was there because Bruce Lee is cool and it's
> his most famous movie. Just because it's not his best doesn't stop it
> being a classic. Perhaps for the wrong reasons, but there you are. Life
> isn't fair.
What *is* the best Bruce Lee movie, then? You're all
talking about Enter the Dragon not being his best, but
no-one's yet provided an alternate candidate.
>
> > There was only one Samurai slot, so "The Seven Samurai" is in and "Yojimbo"
> > is not. And so on.
> >
> Well, it's not 100 best Kurosawa movies. Admittedly, Coppola was in
> there twice (three times if you count The Godfather part 2), but in
> different genres. And Spielberg.. what, three times? Yeah, good point,
> why not Yojimbo?
Better question - why not Rashomon?
>
> > There are cheats in it like combining Star Wars & Empire Strikes Back,
> > presumably to avoid splitting the vote, but not mentioning "Return of the
> > Jedi". It's not my favourite film by a long way, but in my entire adult
> > life I've only twice experienced an audience rising at the end of the film
> > and applauding all the way through the credits. Once was for "RotJ"*. So
> > why isn't it in the list?
>
> Because, in all fairness, it sucks ass.
No it doesn't. It has many good things in it to counterbalance
the evil that is Ewoks.
David Chapman
news:5McN7.4651$F77.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
> news:9u34ce$5t1hg$1...@ID-93395.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Orjan Westin" <NospamRepla...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:9u2rnc$5qkon$1...@ID-90122.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > No "Crying Freeman", no "Runaway Train", no "Dead Man"
> >
> > "No Crying Freeman"?
>
> Yes? There was no "Crying Freeman" on the list, was there?
I wasn't questioning it being on the list, Orjan, I was
questioning your questioning it *not* being on the list.
> It was originally an animated Manga, which got remade as live action with
> definite Manga feel. Heartily recommended.
Well, if you liked Brotherhood of the Wolf, you'll
possibly like it; it's got the same star and director.
robert craine
some of the surprising inclusions and esclusions were because of the
slightly unusual wording in the selection criteria:
"The list aimed to include films that are generally considered as
classics of cinema, broke new ground in technique, subject matter or
ideas, had phenomenal popular appeal and a lasting impact on popular
culture and represent the greatest work of cinema's most respected
directors and performers."
http://channel4.com/greatest/
Hence Enter The Dragon was included as the *groundbreaking* first
american martial arts type film, but other (better?) ones weren't.
Also I think there was a limit on the number of films by a given
director, as only his 'greatest work's were included (I'd have
expected a few more Hitchcock (N by NW), Kubrik (A clocwork orange)
and Speilburg (I'd have probably put in Close Encounters and possibly
Jurrasic Park)).
But everyone has their different like and dislikes (there are plenty
of films I love that I *know* wouldn't be in most peoples top 100).
And for all I know many of the films I haven't seen really are
brilliant. I could be deprived for having only seen about 30 of them
and uncultured having not even heard of a sizeable amount.
Robert
--
"That statement is either so deep it would take a lifetime to fully
comprehend every particle of its meaning, or it is a load of absolute
tosh.
Which is it, I wonder?"
(Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
Eric Jarvis
I didn't notice ANY Peter Weir...damn all from Europe all things
considered...I also don't recall seeing any Marx Brothers come to
think of it, or Harold Lloyd
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
"all characters portrayed in this post are entirely
fictitious and should not be confused"
Paul E. Jamison
>
> No "100 Greatest Films" list can be considered complete that doesn't
> contain that towering epic of the motion picture industry "Carry On at
> Your Convenience". It's got everything - toilets, a works beano, beer,
> Brighton Pier, a budgerigar who knows about horse racing, a Morris
> Marina[1], strip poker AND jokes so old they're still worshipped by
> the lost tribesmen of the Naga Hills. Not to mention the bidet.
>
> [1] Not just any old Morris Marina but the 1.8 TC Coupé (drooooool!)
Hmph. I'll just bet that they didn't mention another cinematic masterpiece:
"Glen or Glenda", Ed Wood's incredible semiautobiographical gem. It's
got transvestism, surreal dialogue, Bela Lugosi hamming it up, lots and lots
of stock footage, and Angora sweaters. One of the all-time greats!
Paul E. Jamison
--
"There's more pressure on a vet to get it right.
People say 'It was God's will' when Granny dies,
but they get *angry* when they lose a cow."
- Terry Pratchett
Speaker-to-Customers
"robert craine" wrote ...
> Emm... not replying to anyone in particular here, but I think that
> some of the surprising inclusions and esclusions were because of the
> slightly unusual wording in the selection criteria:
>
> "The list aimed to include films that are generally considered as
> classics of cinema, broke new ground in technique, subject matter or
> ideas, had phenomenal popular appeal and a lasting impact on popular
> culture and represent the greatest work of cinema's most respected
> directors and performers."
> http://channel4.com/greatest/
>
> Hence Enter The Dragon was included as the *groundbreaking* first
> american martial arts type film, but other (better?) ones weren't.
Hence it appearing instead of the greatly superior Lee films "The Big Boss"
& "Fist of Fury" which were purely Hong Kong productions, and the even more
superior "Way of the Dragon" which was a Hong Kong/Italy co-production? It
being American is supposed to make up for the ludicrous script and cardboard
characters? Why is it "groundbreaking"? They'd never have made it at all
if the other 3 hadn't broken the ground for it.
> Also I think there was a limit on the number of films by a given
> director, as only his 'greatest work's were included (I'd have
> expected a few more Hitchcock (N by NW), Kubrik (A clocwork orange)
> and Speilburg (I'd have probably put in Close Encounters and possibly
> Jurrasic Park)).
Recent developments in paleontology have rather discredited Jurassic Park.
Velociraptors had their eyes much more forward facing than their renditions
in JP had - and, more importantly, they were completely covered in feathers.
And large dinosaurs took 10-20 years to attain full size. But film critics
aren't going to know that, and the techniques in JP were certainly
groundbreaking - so why isn't it there?
> But everyone has their different like and dislikes (there are plenty
> of films I love that I *know* wouldn't be in most peoples top 100).
> And for all I know many of the films I haven't seen really are
> brilliant. I could be deprived for having only seen about 30 of them
> and uncultured having not even heard of a sizeable amount.
>
> Robert
I have heard of every single film on the list, and have seen 79 of them.
That is, counting ones where half-way through I've thought "this is crap"
and switched off the TV, e.g. "Annie Hall" and "Do The Right Thing".
Interesting to see what the actual criteria were. They make some of the
omissions even more puzzling. By those criteria, "Sholay" _had_ to be in
the list. The only possible explanation for it not being on is that the
compilers hadn't seen it - but Channel 4 have shown it at least three times
to my certain knowledge. I taped it the second time, and taped it again the
third to get a full stereo copy from my updated VCR. Okay, it might have
come right down in 100th place, as most of the voters won't have seen it -
but there is no excuse for it not being included in the list at all.
And "Shrek" is an even more puzzling omission. Only the inclusion of
"Antz", in which the techniques brought to their full flower in "Shrek" were
pioneered, could explain it - except that "Antz" isn't there either.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Mary Messall
> Well, no. But if only you'd made the *effort*, Mary, you could have
> been there! Imagine! Pizza! 100 greatest movies on a big telly!
> Norwegian "confectionery"! Things that look like Polos and taste like
Well look, I will inevitably end up in Oxford. Literature is
practically a religion for me, and if you read enough old poets and
between-the-wars novelists and histories of eccentric Victorian dons,
Oxford starts to take on the aura of some kind of holy city.
So I feel sorry that I missed this meet, but because I know I *will*
get there, destiny and all, I'm not crushed. Probably during Easter
vac, I'll carve a slice of time. Depending on finances; not sure how
large a slice.
And it's no good trying to disillusion me, because I have very
resilient illusions. Plus they already tried, on #afp, so I've been
innoculated a bit.
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz --> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Mary Messall
> Well, I was being snappy. They actually taste like disinfectant, they
> type one smells after a public toilet is cleaned. Lifesavers. Their
> nostalgic glow (adverts in the back of American comics) has been
> tarnished forever.
Er? What flavour? Classic Lifesavers (the type that would have been
advertised) come in five fruity colours that taste more or less like
every other kind of hard candy ("boiled sweet").
Nowadays they have odd "Tropical" and "Wintergreen" (supposed to spark
when you bite into them, which leads to lots of kids standing in the
dark with a roll of Lifesavers in front of the mirror) and probably
other nominally minty varieties, but the classic version are what
people actually mean when they say "Lifesavers".
Speaker-to-Customers
"David Chapman" wrote ...
> What *is* the best Bruce Lee movie, then? You're all
> talking about Enter the Dragon not being his best, but
> no-one's yet provided an alternate candidate.
I would go for "The Way of the Dragon", simply because the climactic battle
against Chuck Norris is magnificent. As a one-on-one martial arts fight, I
don't think it's ever been bettered. In many ways "Fist of Fury" is a
better film, but that one fight lifts TWOD above it.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
David Jensen
>Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> said...
>>
>> The Kung Fu genre is represented by "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" at no.
>> 18, and "Enter the Dragon" at 85. No argument with "CTHD"; but "EtD" is
>> trash. The worst film Bruce Lee ever made while remaining alive for the
>> whole production; and Lee was never in the class of Chow Yun Fat or Jet Li,
>> or even Jackie Chan. You mentioned "The Replacement Killers" and "Drunken
>> Master"; I could add "Once Upon a Time in China" and others.
>>
>Why would anyone mention The Replacement Killers in this thread, that's
>what I want to know. Hardly The Killer, God of Gamblers or Hard Boiled,
>is it? And Enter the Dragon was there because Bruce Lee is cool and it's
>his most famous movie. Just because it's not his best doesn't stop it
>being a classic. Perhaps for the wrong reasons, but there you are. Life
>isn't fair.
>
>> There was only one Samurai slot, so "The Seven Samurai" is in and "Yojimbo"
>> is not. And so on.
>>
>Well, it's not 100 best Kurosawa movies. Admittedly, Coppola was in
>there twice (three times if you count The Godfather part 2), but in
>different genres. And Spielberg.. what, three times? Yeah, good point,
>why not Yojimbo?
If we had a "100 best plays of all time" would they limit Shakespeare to
three slots: his best comedy ('Midsummer Night's Dream' that's the only
one I understand), his best tragedy ('Romeo and Juliet', the other ones
are too hard to follow, too depressing, too weird...) and his best
history (Whatever Branaugh's working on now)?
David Jensen
>"Quantum Moth" <sc...@mostly.com> wrote in message news:MPG.166f3fcbf...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> said...
>> >
>> > The Kung Fu genre is represented by "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" at no.
>> > 18, and "Enter the Dragon" at 85. No argument with "CTHD"; but "EtD" is
>> > trash. The worst film Bruce Lee ever made while remaining alive for the
>> > whole production; and Lee was never in the class of Chow Yun Fat or Jet Li,
>> > or even Jackie Chan. You mentioned "The Replacement Killers" and "Drunken
>> > Master"; I could add "Once Upon a Time in China" and others.
>> >
>> Why would anyone mention The Replacement Killers in this thread, that's
>> what I want to know. Hardly The Killer, God of Gamblers or Hard Boiled,
>> is it? And Enter the Dragon was there because Bruce Lee is cool and it's
>> his most famous movie. Just because it's not his best doesn't stop it
>> being a classic. Perhaps for the wrong reasons, but there you are. Life
>> isn't fair.
>
>What *is* the best Bruce Lee movie, then? You're all
>talking about Enter the Dragon not being his best, but
>no-one's yet provided an alternate candidate.
>
>>
>> > There was only one Samurai slot, so "The Seven Samurai" is in and "Yojimbo"
>> > is not. And so on.
>> >
>> Well, it's not 100 best Kurosawa movies. Admittedly, Coppola was in
>> there twice (three times if you count The Godfather part 2), but in
>> different genres. And Spielberg.. what, three times? Yeah, good point,
>> why not Yojimbo?
>
>Better question - why not Rashomon?
"Ran" is definitely in the running, too.
tenticle
evil...@madasafish.com says...
> What *is* the best Bruce Lee movie, then? You're all
> talking about Enter the Dragon not being his best, but
> no-one's yet provided an alternate candidate.
>
Way of the dragon is better.
And no Jackie Chan! City Hunter is a masterpiece... as is The Young
Master. And any of the Police Storys, and Rumble In The Bronx.
Tent(sorry)
--
Warning: Not for internal use.
Ted Carmichael
No "Shawshank Redemption!" No, um, "Miller's Crossing!" No...
"Zero Effect!" No, I didn't read the list! I'm just guessing!
But I wanted to play! Know![1]
Ted
[1] Maybe...?
--
No tag line!
Chris Share
(m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk) said...
>Quantum Moth wrote:
>> Well, no. But if only you'd made the *effort*, Mary, you could have
>> been there! Imagine! Pizza! 100 greatest movies on a big telly!
>> Norwegian "confectionery"! Things that look like Polos and taste like
>> toilets! The thrills! The excitement! The early finish! Um!
>
>Well look, I will inevitably end up in Oxford. Literature is
>practically a religion for me, and if you read enough old poets and
>between-the-wars novelists and histories of eccentric Victorian dons,
>Oxford starts to take on the aura of some kind of holy city.
>
>So I feel sorry that I missed this meet, but because I know I *will*
>get there, destiny and all, I'm not crushed. Probably during Easter
>vac, I'll carve a slice of time. Depending on finances; not sure how
>large a slice.
>
>And it's no good trying to disillusion me, because I have very
>resilient illusions. Plus they already tried, on #afp, so I've been
>innoculated a bit.
>
>-Mary
How about Camland?
Does anyone know when the next meet will be here? I missed the last one
cos I was down in Birmingham, and the last one in term AFAIK was jsut
after the signing last november...
chris
Andrea
"James Green" <james...@st-hughs.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.166dc3f5d...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> In article <9u0192$55f6j$1...@ID-6544.news.dfncis.de>,
Mel...@Wibble.org
> says...
> [Marvin vs. Balrog]
> > Hmmm ..Marvin the Martian ?
>
> But wouldn't that produce an Earth shattering KABOOM?
> There's suppoosed to be one, I'm told.
awww James
now I want to play that game and I can't cos its on the Acorn which
isn't working
hmm, I wonder if I rig up one of the TV's and connect that gadget to
the wotchamecallit and add a thingie in there....
Andrea plotting and scheming and running round like a...
Quantum Moth
> Quantum Moth wrote:
> > Well, I was being snappy. They actually taste like disinfectant, they
> > type one smells after a public toilet is cleaned. Lifesavers. Their
> > nostalgic glow (adverts in the back of American comics) has been
> > tarnished forever.
>
> Er? What flavour?
Wintergreen. Bleurgh.
> Classic Lifesavers (the type that would have been
> advertised) come in five fruity colours that taste more or less like
> every other kind of hard candy ("boiled sweet").
>
Hmm. Fruit Polos, then? And don't tell me you haven't seen them in
your time here.
> Nowadays they have odd "Tropical" and "Wintergreen" (supposed to spark
> when you bite into them, which leads to lots of kids standing in the
> dark with a roll of Lifesavers in front of the mirror)
Well, if I'd known that.. no, still wouldn't have eaten any more.
Sweets of Satan[1], that's what they are. I mean.. surely they're a
punishment? No-one can eat them voluntarily..
> and probably
> other nominally minty varieties, but the classic version are what
> people actually mean when they say "Lifesavers".
Okay, I'll go with that. That'll do. Nostalgic glow semi-restored. But
still.. the horror.. the horror...
[1]Not affiliated with the Church of Satan
thom willlllllis
Suzi
news:ZKiN7.12093$8n4.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
[Snip]
> No "Shawshank Redemption!" No, um, "Miller's Crossing!" No...
> "Zero Effect!" No, I didn't read the list! I'm just guessing!
> But I wanted to play! Know![1]
That you didn't read the list is now very very obvious <G>.
Shawshank Redemption came 3rd.
Suzi
David Chapman
> Interesting to see what the actual criteria were. They make some of the
> omissions even more puzzling. By those criteria, "Sholay" _had_ to be in
> the list. The only possible explanation for it not being on is that the
> compilers hadn't seen it - but Channel 4 have shown it at least three times
> to my certain knowledge. I taped it the second time, and taped it again the
> third to get a full stereo copy from my updated VCR. Okay, it might have
> come right down in 100th place, as most of the voters won't have seen it -
> but there is no excuse for it not being included in the list at all.
Never heard of it, nor do I recall it being shown on C4. Not
that I recall *everything* they show, but it's not ringing any
bells.
>
> And "Shrek" is an even more puzzling omission.
No, it isn't. Not only was Shrek not pioneering, IMHO it
wasn't very good either. Five years from now, it'll be
forgotten.
Only the inclusion of
> "Antz", in which the techniques brought to their full flower in "Shrek" were
> pioneered, could explain it - except that "Antz" isn't there either.
How about, it also only came out this summer, and no
film released this year was included, possibly because
the list was compiled early this year? That works as
an explanation.
Isabel Kunkle
Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.011128...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> No "Debbie Does Dallas"...
>
> Um. Did I say that out loud?
>
> Peter
>
*Boggle*. Do you mean someone actually thinks that's *good*? Having
just watched it with a bunch of friends, I can safely say that it is, IMO,
one of the worst movies ever--even for the "adult movie" genre. This,
granted, may be because we're all college-age children of the nineties.
But--how did this get to be a "classic" of the genre, anyhow?