CinemaBlend.com: Scorsese, Tarantino And More Directors Share Their Top 10 Films Of All Time

Compare your lists to the masters.

Scorsese, Tarantino And More Directors Share Their Top 10 Films Of All Time

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Scorsese-Tarantino-More-Directors-Share-Their-Top-10-Films-All-Time-32297.html

Just for fun, I picked at least one from each list to make my "top ten" of their choices (not in order of preference).

From Woody':

The Seventh Seal ('57--Bergman)

From Coppola:

Singin’ In The Rain (1952, dir. Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly)

From Del Toro:

8 ½ (1963, dir. Federico Fellini)

From Hazavanicius:

The Shining (1980, dir. Stanley Kubrick)

From July:

A Room With A View (1985, dir. James Ivory)

From Mann:

Dr. Strangelove (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)

From Russel:

Pulp Fiction (1994, dir. Quentin Tarantino)

Young Frankenstein (1974, dir. Mel Brooks)

From Scorsese

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, dir. Stanley Kubrick)

From Tarantino:

Taxi Driver (1976, dir. Martin Scorsese)

Noticing how many of the films I haven't even heard of. (Like, 2/3, I'd estimate.)

Also noticing that some films were on multiple lists. (I think Raging Bull was on 3 or 4.)

Felt rather smug when I saw that Somewhere In Time, which I think of as a really, really, good film, was on one list. (Even if it was by somebody I'd never heard of.)

Surprised that 2001 wasn't mentioned more. (Although I observe that Kubrick was mentioned 4-5 times. Just for 4-5 different films.)

Somewhat surprised that Once Upon a Time In the West, my personal candidate for best ever (although it's close, with 2001), wasn't on any lists.

Jumbo, I see you have 3 Kubrick films in your top 10, but no A Clockwork Orange?

Noticing how many of the films I haven't even heard of. (Like, 2/3, I'd estimate.)

There were 3 I hadn't heard of, and six I haven't seen. But I have been into movies very actively for a long time--since I was 7 and was a bit ahead of my age in such stuff, so they say.

Since I entered the official academic world later in life, the only classes I've taken or sat in on (including post-degrees) that I consider unrelated to my profession were on film, geology, and history. And I really don't consider the last one all that removed, considering how I approach my current field.

I am not in that stereotypical "high-brow" discussion circle of sophisticated sounding detailed analysis of all aspects of film making, but do appreciate the basics in most areas and "get it."

I recognized some time back the Kubrick, in "middle era", is in the lead with me simply in terms of him having directed the most movies on my all time favorites list. I love OUATITW too, and it was cool to see someone picked A Room With A View, which I thought was impressive but I don't think of it often, and which had such an exceptional cast.

I always find it interesting to see what/who top talents in a given field admire in others' work in that same field.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 01:34 PM ----------

Jumbo, I see you have 3 Kubrick films in your top 10, but no A Clockwork Orange?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leaybuOtBO1qe0eclo1_r5_500.gif

I was sticking to their lists, China, but yeah, I was disappointed no one picked that, as you know it is one of my formative films personally , as well as being one I regard as a great film in every way.

Nobody picked The Princess Bride?

Inconceivable!

Nobody picked The Princess Bride?

Inconceivable!

I don't know if this was posted anywhere on ES, but this was amazing and hilarious!!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/an-espn-nfl-show-cant-stop-talking-about-the-pri

Vertigo is amazing.

Felt Hitch**** was actually underrepresented. Nobody made more perfect movies than him.

Bergman, Kurasowa, Fellini are what you'd expect to populate lists like this. Good choices. Surprised only one mentioned the Godfather.

I thought Battleship Potemkin was an interesting mention. That's not exactly a pleasant movie to watch. An important work of art nonetheless, and Eisenstein needed to be represented on any "greatest" list. Alexander Nevsky was his greatest work that I've seen though.

Vertigo is amazing.

Felt Hitch**** was actually underrepresented. Nobody made more perfect movies than him.

<edit>

I thought Battleship Potemkin was an interesting mention. That's not exactly a pleasant movie to watch. An important work of art nonetheless, and Eisenstein needed to be represented on any "greatest" list. Alexander Nevsky was his greatest work that I've seen though.

It was really hard for me to leave Hitch**** off of my pickings from their lists, but I tried to give movies I just really liked the most more priority than movies I respected, even when I felt both towards the flick. Agree with everything else---obviously you're another movie lover.

It was really hard for me to leave Hitch**** off of my pickings from their lists, but I tried to give movies I just really liked the most more priority than movies I respected, even when I felt both towards the flick. Agree with everything else---obviously you're another movie lover.

I definitely hear what you're saying. It's like I appreciate and marvel at a film like Potemkin, but I'm not go out and watch it for movie night. I'd pretty much only watch a movie like that in an academic setting.

I could definitely understand people feeling that way about Hitch****. Personally, his movies really speak to me and thrill me. I'm kind of dry and deliberate and they're plenty exciting for me.

The movies that I tend to favor are the really economical ones. That's what I meant by "perfect" before. Really tight, every shot and scene has a purpose and nothing is out of place. So many of Hitch****'s films are right on point like that.

I think lists like these are really impossible and you can go a ton of different ways and make a great list. I'm sure each of these directors would love to expand the list to include dozens, if not hundreds more movies they thought were wonderful. Of the movies on this list that I had heard of, all of them seemed like they belonged.

Yeah, I'm definitely a movie lover like you, but I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a buff like you. I did take a few film classes in college, including a Russian Cinema class that introduced me to Eisenstein. But that was more out of just an organic interest in the subject material than a conscious effort to learn and broaden my horizons. I'm definitely open to lots of different movies, but I just haven't seen enough to really qualify as a buff. I just know what I have seen and I'm just kind of vaguely aware of what's considered good.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 08:16 PM ----------

I like the inclusion of "The Best Years of Their Lives."

First saw that film in a college class and I loved it. Frederic March is the only big name from it I believe, but everyone is perfectly cast.

I saw it in 2007 just as the economy seemed to be going to hell and it's always been poignant for me because of that.

The movies that I tend to favor are the really economical ones. That's what I meant by "perfect" before. Really tight, every shot and scene has a purpose and nothing is out of place. So many of Hitch****'s films are right on point like that.

Have I mentioned Once Upon A Time In the West?

Even the dialog is minimalist.

Frank?

Frank sent us.

Did you bring a horse for me?

Looks like we're shy one horse.

You brought two too many.

Larry that's a great movie. But minimalist in that respect isn't exactly what I meant by economical. I meant films that utilize and economy of run time, I wouldn't consider the slow pace of a Sergio Leone Western economical in that regard. The constant long shots expand the movie and slow it down a ton.

But I was talking more about a tight movie, kind of like a Cohen brothers film or a Hitch**** film--probably my three favorite directors. Long shots of pure cinema are fairly infrequent and pointed--when they show up they provide special narrative quality because they are atypical. Those movies tend to be more logically structured and less impressionistic like Leone's films. You can see how the plot is advanced from point A to B to C with each scene.

They also have smooth, meaningful dialogue where the words matter. And the scenes are deliberately shot with a focus on workmanship, tasks, and details are very important.

That's the kind of stuff that captivates me. I'll often get board with a movie that's overly meditative. Though I do love Sergio Leone.

steve, I think you read more like an actual "buff" than I am these days. I can remember talking like that and knowing what I was saying at the time, but now I have to think harder while reading you to grok it all correctly.

I do get you, and agree, thinking a lot of "pacing" in a film (as in music) and think the Cohens are another excellent example and among my favorite directors.

And if I can trust my memory on this stuff (material not accessed often) The Big Night (another favorite movie) directed by Campbell Scott and Stanley Tucci is another excellent example.

Anyone who likes well-done films and hasn't seen it, probably should.

Tarantino with the Bad News Bears pick. That's my kinda guy.

I think I like Russels list the best.

Loved Coppola mentioning King of Comedy. One of my absolute favorites. More than Taxi Driver and that's big.

So difficult to come up with a concrete top 10, or even a #1. I liked some of the lists, even though the older ones I haven't even heard of personally, though I'm sure they are good.

I like that Dr. Strangelove was on one list, as that would definitely be in my top 10, same with Tarantino's Pulp Fiction.

I don't know if this was posted anywhere on ES, but this was amazing and hilarious!!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/an-espn-nfl-show-cant-stop-talking-about-the-pri

I was watching that when it happened, and I thought I was going crazy.

Larry that's a great movie. But minimalist in that respect isn't exactly what I meant by economical. I meant films that utilize and economy of run time, I wouldn't consider the slow pace of a Sergio Leone Western economical in that regard. The constant long shots expand the movie and slow it down a ton.

But I was talking more about a tight movie, kind of like a Cohen brothers film or a Hitch**** film--probably my three favorite directors. Long shots of pure cinema are fairly infrequent and pointed--when they show up they provide special narrative quality because they are atypical. Those movies tend to be more logically structured and less impressionistic like Leone's films. You can see how the plot is advanced from point A to B to C with each scene.

They also have smooth, meaningful dialogue where the words matter. And the scenes are deliberately shot with a focus on workmanship, tasks, and details are very important.

That's the kind of stuff that captivates me. I'll often get board with a movie that's overly meditative. Though I do love Sergio Leone.

Oh, I certainly understand. Once Upon a Time certainly isn't brief. Heck, the opening credits must be 10 minutes, and all it shows is three guys killing time while they wait for a train. I like that use of time. Makes time part of the movie. (I'm now thinking of 2001, showing the astronauts going about their daily routines, accompanied by what I think is the most lonely music I've ever heard.)