ROTTEN TOMATOES: Time Magazine Names the Top 100 Movies Ever Made

Time Magazine Names the Top 100 Movies Ever Made

by Scott Weinberg | May 23, 2005

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

Time Magazine film critics Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel have put together a list of the All-Time Top 100 Movies. Lists like these are usually the domain of the American Film Institute (AFI), but the Timekeepers do a fairly interesting job with their list...

You'll agree with several and disagree with even more, but lists like these are always good for brewing up some great movie discussion. I could tell you that "Star Wars," "Blade Runner," and "Unforgiven" are on the list ... but you could have guessed those three anyway. But how about David Cronenberg's "The Fly"? How's that for a shocker?

Related Items

Movie:	Blade Runner
	The Fly
	Unforgiven
Critic:	Richard Schickel
	Richard Corliss
Celeb:	David Cronenberg

(1-20 of 34 posts) | Reply

Stankton writes:
on May 23 2005 12:11 PM

No Fargo? Oh well, I guess that they have to distinguish themselves from AFI in some way.

(Reply to this)

inessalenin writes:
on May 23 2005 04:04 PM

Farewell My Concubine should be on the list! They made a good choice! It's a special Chinese film!

(Reply to this)

vic40186 writes:
on May 23 2005 04:10 PM

[b]where the hell is Ben Hur!!![/b]
The Best Film ever didn't make it. The list is shit. Where's The Bridge on the River Kwai?, where's Spartacus?, where's Patton?, where's North by Northwest?

(Reply to this)

Scott Weinberg writes:
on May 23 2005 04:56 PM

Where's The Garbage Pail Kids Movie?

(Reply to this)

Senh Duong writes:
on May 23 2005 05:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#822371)
Hey, I saw that. Used to collect them. Hehe...

(Reply to this)

Senh Duong writes:
on May 23 2005 05:21 PM

Glad to see Drunken Master II there.

(Reply to this)

speelbergo writes:
on May 23 2005 06:01 PM

[b]Is anyone else sick of lists????[/b]
It's just a big publicity stunt people. Paying great attention to this kind of inane stuff will just propagate more of the sort.

(Reply to this)

Stankton writes:
on May 23 2005 06:11 PM

In reply to this comment (#822374)
Can you write a list of the most inane lists?! That would be great!

(Reply to this)

Local_Hero writes:
on May 23 2005 07:26 PM

[b]Thanks for Playing![/b]
I think the difference between a good movie and a great movie is lost on the good people at Time Magazine, because some of these picks just don't add up.

I think the biggest surprise for me came with the listing of Finding Nemo, which - while a good film - lacked that certain je ne sais quois that many of these spectacular films possess. It's a bizarre choice, especially with "Pinocchio" already on the list. There is more of a case for the Toy Story series - or any of Disney's fine coming-of-age tales like Aladdin or The Lion King - that would easily make them as much, if not more, of a candidate for this list than Finding Nemo.

Several other films on this list prove questionable - namely, Unforgiven, Psycho, E.T., A Hard Day's Night, and - here's where I earn the wrath of movie fans everywhere - the Lord of the Rings saga. All of these films have niche value, certain scenes or gimmicks that they're remembered for, but nothing that defines them as a -great movie-.

For great movies, try this:

Local Hero - A solid 100% score on the Tomatometer, the off-beat, smart laughs in this comedy are arguably the set-up for the work of directors like Wes Anderson.

The Apartment - A great film featuring Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacClaine, it's innovative for it's attempts to combine multiple film genres into one sweeping script that's oddly believable. The acting is solid.

The Big Lebowski - Something contemporary, this Jeff Bridges vehicle is a hit-or-miss work: but if it hits, it hits hard. The dialogue is spectacular, and the story is a unique one.

Lost In Translation - A kind-of-love-story that's believable, and that's what makes it so appealing. There are no plot twists or contrived developments in this movie - it's a natural flow, just like real life.

Shoot the Piano Player - The sequel (I think) to The 400 Blows (Listed), it's the in-depth perspective of a man with a broken spirit.

Requiem for a Dream - EASILY the most depressing movie of all time. This is an excellent film to watch if you wish to kill yourself, it's that well-done. A dry and gritty look at drug use in society, you won't forget it any time soon. You'll want to, but you won't.

Only a few, others should recommend their top picks that were so callously omitted. See, Time Magazine? It's not so hard to come up with ideas that make sense. The Fly. What the hell.

(Reply to this)

Flim Springfield writes:
on May 23 2005 10:33 PM

[b]The Sad Fate Of Magazines...[/b]
The internet has pretty much made magazines obsolete when it comes to delivering information, so now every magazine relies on "lists" to stir debate and sell themselves as conversation pieces. Apparently now even Time.

(Reply to this)

Scott Weinberg writes:
on May 23 2005 11:58 PM

I think part of the fun is just seeing which flicks were picked and why. I don't think that any publication or group is claiming that THEIR "Top 100" is definitive. It's just fun stuff for the folks who put the lists together, and something for the movie geeks to talk about. That's all these lists are to me, anyway.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on May 24 2005 01:07 AM

[b]Having a top 100 is stupid...[/b]
the list needs to be more specific. I'd be far more interested in seeing a top 100 most 'influential films'.... as in, what films really changed the way things headed or films that pioneered a new style or genre.

THE LIST DIDN'T EVEN HAVE INDIANA JONES!!!! OR DEBBIE DOES DALLAS!!!

(Reply to this)

skletonkee writes:
on May 24 2005 10:19 AM

[b]stop the list hatin' yo!!![/b]
so mags create top lists to get attention..big deal, we all do things for attention....

and i actually enjoy the discussions that are created by these lists...anytime you're actually discussing quality films versus blockbuster crap is a-okay with me...

even if i disagree with them for the most part..

no westsidestory?

[slowely walks away and weeps]

(Reply to this)

sox1919 writes:
on May 24 2005 10:37 AM

[b]no credibility[/b]
any list of top movies that leaves out The Usual Suspects has no credibility.

Putting Drunkien Master 2 and Finding Nemo above that film is ludicrous.

Wasn't "Toy Story 2" better than "Finding Nemo" anyway?

Time did inject qualifiers itself by saying top MOVIES, not FILMS.

(Reply to this)

jeanfc writes:
on May 24 2005 11:42 AM

No Das Boot?

(Reply to this)

shmianco writes:
on May 24 2005 02:39 PM

no 2001: A Space Odyssey???

(Reply to this)

Gene Siskle's Ghost writes:
on May 24 2005 02:45 PM

[b]That is a sad list...[/b]
Too many old movies, skipped most of the great films of the 70's, and went towards the obscure in an effort to come off as 'cerebral.' A film had to be seen by a few people to be considered great and influential, correct? So what are about 25% of those flicks doing on a 'greatest films' list? And, no, that does not mean that a box-office hit is equals a great movie, 'Sith' being a good case in point, but at least marginal or a cult-classic to have had some impact on people and the film industry. I take my top fifteen over their 100 anyday...

(Reply to this)

RDawg5555 writes:
on May 24 2005 03:49 PM

In reply to this comment (#822376)
ET, Psycho, and Lord of the Rings will be all time classics and will be remebered for at least 50 years after its debute. But Lost in Translation sucked terribly (be honest, how many people will remember that in lets say 15 years) and the Big Lebowski, while good, isnt material for top 100 films ever. When designing top 100 lists u need to ask yourself just one question, will this film be remebered in 50 years (or even a 100 in the greatse of the great cases). If so then yes, it is one of the top 100 films ever made, and Lord of the Rings will be remembered in 50 years. So will star wars (all but maybe episods I and II), indiana jones, the godfather, ET, and Jurrassic Park (just the original).

(Reply to this)

MrJillis writes:
on May 24 2005 03:59 PM

two words shawshank redemption

(Reply to this)

Local_Hero writes:
on May 24 2005 08:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#822385)
Well, gee, RDawg, if we're going on public appeal, I have some additions to your list!

Titanic - I'll give you a hint. The boat doesn't make it.

Batman and Robin - Hey, since we're doing sagas like LOTR and Star Wars, why forget one of the greatest superhero sagas EVER?! This movie alone should have been sufficient to make sure Arnold could never run for office ever. Ever.

Striptease - Look at the title. Enough said.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie - Nobody will ever forget this. It's that good.

A.I. - While we're giving Steven Spielberg verbal fellatio, why not add this to the fire sale? A mediocre movie, lost in its own complexity. BUT HE MADE IT SO IT MUST BE GOOD LOLZ.

Son of the Mask - I swear to God, this movie received more promos than any movie I've ever seen. I developed a morbid fascination with it, and at this point, I think Time should give it a look.

The list is the Top 100 Movies ever made, not the Most Memorable Moments or Franchises. Good movies aren't made by people blindly nodding away, they're made by solid, clever screenwriting, original cinematics, a firm ambience and - here's one we're rapidly forgetting - good acting. Star Wars was originally ridiculed for having jilted dialogue and corny character development - we haven't seen that anywhere recently, right? - but the rabid fanboyism and sense of nostalgia have affected peoples' memories.

I'll give you a movie that failed to make the list - The Princess Bride. Many people haven't seen this movie yet. It isn't filled with big name celebrities: Cary Elwes and Andre the Giant fill two principal roles. And it's not likely going to be well known in even 10 years. But does that make this a bad movie? Not at all.

People will remember Grease. And Scream. And Arachnophobia. Hell, maybe even Space Jam. Just because films are remembered doesn't make them good. The fact that they're good is independant.

By the way, go see Sideways. It's awesome.

(P.S.: RDawg, I can tell from your choices - Star Wars, Indiana Jones, ET, and Jurassic Park, that you like action flicks. So I can understand why someone like you would dislike Lost in Translation; a film notably devoid of explosions. May I suggest another fine Spielberg effort that you happened to omit, Jaws? It's a giant shark. What's not to like?)

(Reply to this)