MartinBlank

I just finished watching Chinatown, and it got me thinking about the AFI's top 100 films of all time.

If one were to do a decade by decade breakdown, relative to the number of films produced per decade making the top 100 it would be as follows:
1910-1919: 1
1920-1929: 2
1930-1939: 15
1940-1949: 12
1950-1959: 20
1960-1969: 18
1970-1979: 18
1980-1989: 6
1990-1999: 8
2000-2005: 0

My question is whether or not we will see any film break into this list by the end of the current decade? I would assume that it's bound to happen at some point in the future, with the likes of Michael Bay and Vin Diesel creating, not so much financial successes but actually enjoyable features that WILL stand the test of time.

I keep reading how the attendace at theater's is down this year, and that the only reasoning behind it is the advent of the DVD. Could an arguement be made that the majority of what is being produced today is nothing but 87 to 94 minutes of crap??? The 80s for chistsakes, the decade of Howard the Duck and Earth Girls are Easy also gave us Platoon, E.T., and Raiders of the Lost Ark!!! But where do we go from here? Where halfway through the current decade, and the only film(s) that come to mind that are worth any creative kudos would be that of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy.

It's the chicken and the egg scenario: Is eye-candy produced because that's what the masses want, or do the masses flock to the eye-candy because that's all that is offered??? I, for one, am extremely picky, anymore, of going to the theater and viewing a film....If I go and see a crap film, it's like i'm condoning it, and saying "please, Mr. Bay, please make more films full of explosions and Aerosmith music!!" Don't get me wrong, I'm a die hard capitalist, but I want to see films made by people who actually like movies, The Tarantino's and Scorsese's and Lynch's, and I realize, that unfortunately, most of these films are not nearly as profitable as some, which sucks, but that doesn't make it right. I don't want to come off sounding like a compete and total movie snob, but.....I like actually having to use my brain while watching a film, not just shutting it off and laughing at whatever Ben Stiller or Will Farrell have to say.....except for remakes....I love remakes, THAT's artistic ability!!!

Cygnet74

having discriminating taste in film doesn't make you a snob.

Fincher Fan

You lost me at Michael Bay and Vin Diesel.

Gerry P.

Well, since the AFI 100 was created to celebrate the first 100 years of American cinema [1896-1996] and is not an evolving list, the answer to your question is obviously no.

Drexl

So, what they could do is, every ten years, add ten films to the list. This would start some time after the end of next year, and the list would be "110 years, 110 films," keeping the average of one film per year.

That said, the only film involving Michael Bay or Vin Diesel with any chance of making such a list (and it is a lock), is Saving Private Ryan.

PopcornTreeCt

So, are you saying that Michael Bay and Vin Diesel create movies that will stand the test of time? I don't know that was a pretty confusing post.

MartinBlank

Sarcasm. Bay and Diesel are the best examples of what I feel is wrong with the film industry today.

PopcornTreeCt

Ok, I think I get what you're saying. But Cinema isn't lost. I was just reading an article dated 1959 by John Cassavetes speaking on about how true cinema is dead and everything in Hollywood is churned out like a factory. The point is, that this has been going on forever. Don't worry there are still auteurs out there.

RyoHazuki

I can't think of any film made between 2000 and 2005 that I would count as one of the top 100 films ever made.

Rammsteinfan

Sin City would be in my top 100 films.

RyoHazuki

A personal list, maybe. But this list has to please all the whiners. These are the greatest American films ever.

jaeufraser

Truth of the matter is, age is important for any of these types of lists. I don't think you'll find many or any films made within the last 5 or even 10 years at any point put on a list like this. It usually takes time for such an honor to come a film's way. In ten years we'll be better able to reflect back on what films from this time are worth remembering.

As for whatever is wrong with cinemas, ie eye popping visual movies...count me as one that's not disturbed. There's tons of movies being made, many good, many bad. Someone like Michael Bay doesn't bother me...he has his audience, and he pleases them. If the entire film industry was Michael Bay, then I might have issue, but it's not, never has been, and never will be.

RyoHazuki

I really think that this past 5 years of movies has been pretty awful compared to other decades. I can't see that many movies made in the past 5 years being considered classics later on.

MartinBlank

I cannot recall when the list was first compiled, but Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction, both from 1994 and Fargo from 1996, were not even a decade old when they were receiving praise for their accomplishments.

wm lopez

AFI put Jodi Foster ahead of John Wayne in their movie heros list, so why do we care what they think?

PopcornTreeCt

I'd rank Punch Drunk Love and Unbreakable as 2 of the greatest films that have come out since 2000. But I agree there aren't many.

DRG

I'm trying to figure out your main complaint here. Is it that mainstream movies aren't as good as they used to be? Or is it that mainstream audiences aren't seeing the "smaller" good movies?

MartinBlank

A little of both, I suppose. When was the last time you went into a theater to see a big budget, star-power driven film, and walked out wholey satisfied? The most recent example I can site, it that of Sin City. Now, the reverse of that would be Land of the Dead, it had a budget of $15 million, I saw it last weekend....there were six (6)!!! people in the entire theater for a Friday nite showing!!!! Now, it the returns on LOTD are not good, Romero and all his fans are screwed, that's it, no more movies for him to make or for the fans to enjoy. Then I think of the blockbusters of years past, Predator, Aliens, Lord of the Rings, Die Hard....yeah, they all made money, but more importantly, they were all great films......The Pacifier? 2 Fast 2 Furious?? Speed 2???? Then, to the flipside, you have the small films who are able to find their niche and be come huge successes....Pulp Fiction and The Crow to name a couple. But, I guess, that's what I don't understand...if over time it's proven that smaller films are still bankable, Clerks, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, why is the majority (or atleast it appears to be that way) of films being produced today, that of mindless eyecandy?? Obviously, It must be viewed from the marketing/capitalistic standpoint, which I completely understandable, look at the trouble Terry Gilliam always seems to find himself in....everyone's tryin to make a buck, which, kinda sucks for someone who's a fan, compare it to the MLB stike of years past, athletes and actors are paid way too much....and to do what? Simply to entertain us!!!

Draven

I'm sure there will be as many movies considered classics as there were in any other 5 year time span.

You all do realize that Hollywood has always produced shitty movies, right? You just don't see them anymore.

jpdude

I have to respectfully disagree. Almost every one of Michael Bay's films has been a huge box office success, it's obviously what the majority of the moviegoers want to see. I have yet to meet anyone (in the real world, as opposed to online forums) that didn't love the Bad Boys movies, etc.

...and while i'm not the biggest Vin Diesel fan in the world, i do enjoy most of his films. I feel he's contribued quite a bit to the motion picture industry.

Perhaps if i understood your comment more, i might see things differently.

DRG

But for every one of those there are several dozen small films that don't make squat. Part of me agrees with your basic point, but another part of me thinks maybe you're just too hard to please.

I mean, just this summer alone I've seen several really good (IMO) popcorn flicks... Batman Begins, War of the Worlds... Whether or not these are good enough to become all-time greats is obviously up for debate, but I think they're heads and tails better than stuff like Van Helsing and The Day After Tomorrow.

j123vt_99

Some maybes:

Finding Nemo
Lord of the Rings
Hotel Rwanda
Million Dollar Baby
Sin City

ReservoirDog45

I can see that, maybe not in a Top 10 but if it was a Top 100 I'd but that

bboisvert

Really??

Because just about everyone I know in the real world (including myself) hated the Bad Boys movies and can't understand how they are so popular. Strange.

(And, to make it clear that I'm not a random Bay basher, I actually enjoyed and own Armageddon.)

Tarantino

Kill Bill should make it.