While watching LOTR (again!),I thought that there are better movies, but darn few greater ones. That got me to thinking, what mnakes a film great?

Technical excellence of course--great acting and directing, state of the art FX (if any)--but most of all, grandeur--"bigness"--universal themes.

Of the silents, I think Birth of a Nation and Metropolis qualify--not sure about Potempkin, though, or M--even though they are excellent films.

DeMille springs to mind, but I think his films are more grandiose than great--except, maybe for Ben Hur.

Gone With the Wind surely qualifies. How about Casablanca--if any Bogie film qualifies, that one does?

Offhand, I can't think of any other recent films. Opinions?

I don't know if you intended it to say such but Fritz Lang's M is not a silent film. And while the subject of its subjective greatness may be debatable, it is surely Lang's magnum opus.

I cant think on any off hand except maybe Papillion , but I guess its originality and style that make it great.

or just hype.If so many people say somethings good, people will blindly follow the masses

Basket Case

i think that a good film, like any story is built around the plot. decent direction and acting do nothing if the story is a bore.

Of course, there are certain basic guidlines by which a film is considered great, but just because a film is regarded as great by a collective group of people it is not automatically great.

For example, I recently watched Citizen Kane, solely due to the fact that I've heard great things about it. Watched half of it, awoke 2 hours later with my head plopped onto a pillow. The plot was abhorrently boring.

I do consider 2001: A Space Odyssey a great film, as I would To Kill a Mockingbird

I'm going to have to go with
'Lawrence of Arabia'.
..with the original Turkish prison footage.

and not to lean on any one director

'Dr Zhivago'

Pan's Labyrinth and The Devil's Backbone come to mind. I really enjoy del Toro's work.

Cinema Paradiso is really good film as well.

I know there are more, but I don't remember any more right now.

For example, I recently watched Citizen Kane, solely due to the fact that I've heard great things about it. Watched half of it, awoke 2 hours later with my head plopped onto a pillow. The plot was abhorrently boring.

I actually enjoyed this movie.

While watching LOTR (again!),I thought that there are better movies, but darn few greater ones. That got me to thinking, what mnakes a film great?

Technical excellence of course--great acting and directing, state of the art FX (if any)--but most of all, grandeur--"bigness"--universal themes.

Of the silents, I think Birth of a Nation and Metropolis qualify--not sure about Potempkin, though, or M--even though they are excellent films.

DeMille springs to mind, but I think his films are more grandiose than great--except, maybe for Ben Hur.

Gone With the Wind surely qualifies. How about Casablanca--if any Bogie film qualifies, that one does?

Offhand, I can't think of any other recent films. Opinions?


By "great," do you mean "epic?" That's sort of what I'm gathering from your description and examples... epic, sweeping, larger than life stories and pictures. For example, I'd consider a dialogue based film like Annie Hall a great film, but certainly not epic- and it doesn't seem to be what you're describing.

A friend and I were recently discussing the fall of the popularity of the epic film in the past decade, and he put forth the theory that a lot of it had to do with the change in how the academy awards are run:

Epic films like Lord of the Rings, Ben Hur, and 2001 Space Odyssey were made to be seen in the theatre- you lose a lot of the films' impact by viewing them on a small screen in your bedroom. 1998 was the year in which the academy awards changed their policy of having voters go to the movie theatre to screen the films up for nomination- instead submitting video cassettes to the voters' private homes. (Also keep in mind how much crappier TV screens tended to be just ten years ago.) 1998 was also the year Saving Private Ryan, an arguably epic feature, was cheated of the best picture oscar by Shakespeare in Love..a good flick, but one that did not lose any impact by a small screen viewing.

Epic features require a larger budget, and screenplays are often given the greenlight by studios based on their ability to generate oscar buzz and subsequent box office $$. Allowing oscar voters to screen the films at home gave the upper hand to less expensive flicks with that "cutesy indie dialogue" feel, so studios didn't need to shell out money to epic films for academy recognition.

as far as great films go i would have to nominate Pulp Fiction. the plot is fun, the dialog is quick an witty, and some of the visual shots are truly epic. plus you really get a feel for all the characters.


i think what makes a film great is the story. something universal, something that pulls at your basic human emotions an instincts. also you have to be able to identify with the main characters. you need to be afraid when they are put in danger and ecstatic when they find what they are looking for. you need to be able to watch the film an come away knowing you are a better person for it.

fuck special effects, i mean they are nice but a story should be able to stand on its own.

while watching LOTR i thought "man, this movie is fucking boring. orcs and wizards are gay."

while watching LOTR i thought "man, this movie is fucking boring. orcs and wizards are gay."
Plus it was totally missing the Gandalf pimping scene (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=lotr1).

I don't know if you intended it to say such but Fritz Lang's M is not a silent film. And while the subject of its subjective greatness may be debatable, it is surely Lang's magnum opus.

Oops--my bad. I last saw the film about forty years ago. . . . . .

M is arguably Lang's best film, but maybe not his greatest, if that makes any sense.

Plus it was totally missing the Gandalf pimping scene (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=lotr1).

man. that article is dogshit

while watching LOTR i thought "man, this movie is fucking boring. orcs and wizards are gay."

Verily is it written, cast ye not thy pearls before swine.. . . .

I'm not big on Citizen Kane either, but Touch of Evil fits my definition of a great film. Hard to pick a modern day film. Amilie comes as close as any.

I think romper stomper was a great film.. russel crowe as a skin head beating down gooks great soundtrack too.

One of my favorite movies of all time that I don't think gets enough attention is "Road to Perdition". Amazing story, great acting, and undoubtedly some of the best cinematography I've ever seen (RIP Conrad L. Hall),

Verily is it written, cast ye not thy pearls before swine.. . . .

...yeah, i'm pretty sure jesus wasnt talking about crappy hollywood blockbusters.

...yeah, i'm pretty sure jesus wasnt talking about crappy hollywood blockbusters.

Point taken.

It was a widely applicable figure of speech. Props for recognizing the source, however. Obviously, you are less ignorant than you sound.

Meh, don't write off Lord of the Rings because you're just afraid of being made fun of by the big kids at school. Good acting, awesome engaging story, battle scenes galore, blood and guts and it's not as cheesy as any of the Star Wars movies. Pretty impressive, considering it's fantasy.

A lesser known movie I think fits every description of GREAT is Once Upon A Time In America.

How can you have a list of silent films and not mention The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari?