OT - Writers' Guild Names 101 Best Screenplays
 

Interesting and valuable list. For those of you who are unfamiliar with 50% or more of these, treat yourself -- they'll add to your life in an incredible variety of ways.

Link: Writers' Guild Names 101 Best Screenplays

The List:

1. CASABLANCA, Screenplay by Julius J. & Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch. Based on the play "Everybody Comes to Rick's" by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison.

2. THE GODFATHER, Screenplay by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola. Based on the novel by Mario Puzo.

3. CHINATOWN, Written by Robert Towne

4. CITIZEN KANE, Written by Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles

5. ALL ABOUT EVE. Screenplay by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Based on "The Wisdom of Eve," a short story and radio play by Mary Orr

6. ANNIE HALL, Written by Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman

7. SUNSET BLVD., Written by Charles Brackett & Billy Wilder and D.M. Marshman Jr.

8. NETWORK, Written by Paddy Chayefsky

9. SOME LIKE IT HOT, Screenplay by Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond. Based on "Fanfare of Love," a German film written by Robert Thoeren and M. Logan

10. THE GODFATHER II, Screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo. Based on Mario Puzo's novel "The Godfather"

11. BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, Written by William Goldman

12. DR. STRANGELOVE, Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Peter George and Terry Southern. Based on novel "Red Alert" by Peter George

13. THE GRADUATE, Screenplay by Calder Willingham and Buck Henry. Based on the novel by Charles Webb

14. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, Screenplay by Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson. Based on the life and writings of Col. T.E. Lawrence

15, THE APARTMENT, Written by Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond

16. PULP FICTION, Written by Quentin Tarantino. Stories by Quentin Tarantino & Roger Avary

17. TOOTSIE, Screenplay by Larry Gelbart and Murray Schisgal. Story by Don McGuire and Larry Gelbart

18. ON THE WATERFRONT, Screen Story and Screenplay by Budd Schulberg. Based on "Crime on the Waterfront" articles by Malcolm Johnson

19. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, Screenplay by Horton Foote. Based on the novel by Harper Lee.

20. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, Screenplay by Frances Goodrich & Albert Hackett & Frank Capra. Based on short story "The Greatest Gift" by Philip Van Doren Stern. Contributions to screenplay Michael Wilson and Jo Swerling

21. NORTH BY NORTHWEST, Written by Ernest Lehman

22. THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, Screenplay by Frank Darabont. Based on the short story "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King

23. GONE WITH THE WIND, Screenplay by Sidney Howard. Based on the novel by Margaret Mitchell

24. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, Screenplay by Charlie Kaufman. Story by Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry & Pierre Bismuth.

25. THE WIZARD OF OZ, Screenplay by Noel Langley and Florence Ryerson and Edgar Allan Woolf. Adaptation by Noel Langley. Based on the novel by L. Frank Baum

26. DOUBLE INDEMNITY, Screenplay by Billy Wilder and Raymond Chandler. Based on the novel by James M. Cain

27. GROUNDHOG DAY, Screenplay by Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis. Story by Danny Rubin.

28. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, Written by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard

29, SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS, Written by Preston Sturges

30. UNFORGIVEN, Written by David Webb Peoples

31. HIS GIRL FRIDAY, Screenplay by Charles Lederer. Based on the play "The Front Page" by Ben Hecht & Charles MacArthur

32. FARGO, Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen

33. THE THIRD MAN, Screenplay by Graham Greene. Story by Graham Greene. Based on the short story by Graham Greene.

34. THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, Screenplay by Clifford Odets and Ernest Lehman. From a novelette by Ernest Lehman

35. THE USUAL SUSPECTS, Written by Christopher McQuarrie

36. MIDNIGHT COWBOY, Screenplay by Waldo Salt. Based on the novel by James Leo Herlihy

37. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY, Screenplay by Donald Ogden Stewart. Based on the play by Philip Barry

38. AMERICAN BEAUTY, Written by Alan Ball

39. THE STING, Written by David S. Ward

40. WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, Written by Nora Ephron

41. GOODFELLAS, Screenplay by Nicholas Pileggi & Martin Scorsese. Based on book "Wise Guy" by Nicholas Pileggi.

42. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, Screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan. Story by George Lucas and Philip Kaufman

43. TAXI DRIVER, Written by Paul Schrader

44. THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, Screenplay by Robert E. Sherwood. Based on novel "Glory For Me" by MacKinlay Kantor

45. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, Screenplay by Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman. Based on the novel by Ken Kesey

46. THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, Screenplay by John Huston. Based on the novel by B. Traven

47. THE MALTESE FALCON, Screenplay by John Huston. Based on the novel by Dashiell Hammett

48, THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, Screenplay by Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson. Based on the novel by Pierre Boulle

49, SCHINDLER'S LIST, Screenplay by Steven Zaillian. Based on the novel by Thomas Keneally

50. THE SIXTH SENSE, Written by M. Night Shyamalan

51. BROADCAST NEWS, Written by James L. Brooks

52. THE LADY EVE, Screenplay by Preston Sturges. Story by Monckton Hoffe

53. ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, Screenplay by William Goldman. Based on the book by Carl Bernstein & Bob Woodward

54. MANHATTAN, Written by Woody Allen & Marshall Brickman

55. APOCALYPSE NOW, Written by John Milius and Francis Coppola. Narration by Michael Herr

56. BACK TO THE FUTURE, Written by Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale

57. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, Written by Woody Allen

58. ORDINARY PEOPLE, Screenplay by Alvin Sargent. Based on the novel by Judith Guest

59. IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, Screenplay by Robert Riskin. Based on the story "Night Bus" by Samuel Hopkins Adams

60. L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, Screenplay by Brian Helgeland & Curtis Hanson. Based on the novel by James Ellroy

61. THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, Screenplay by Ted Tally. Based on the novel by Thomas Harris
62. MOONSTRUCK, Written by John Patrick Shanley

63. JAWS, Screenplay by Peter Benchley and Carl Gottlieb. Based on the novel by Peter Benchley

64. TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, Screenplay by James L. Brooks. Based on the novel by Larry McMurtry

65. SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, Screen Story and Screenplay by Betty Comden & Adolph Green. Based on the song by Arthur Freed and Nacio Herb Brown

66. JERRY MAGUIRE, Written by Cameron Crowe

67. E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL, Written by Melissa Mathison

68. STAR WARS, Written by George Lucas

69. DOG DAY AFTERNOON, Screenplay by Frank Pierson. Based on a magazine article by P.F. Kluge and Thomas Moore

70. THE AFRICAN QUEEN, Screenplay by James Agee and John Huston. Based on the novel by C.S. Forester

71. THE LION IN WINTER, Screenplay by James Goldman. Based on the play by James Goldman

72. THELMA & LOUISE, Written by Callie Khouri

73. AMADEUS, Screenplay by Peter Shaffer. Based on his play.

74. BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, Written by Charlie Kaufman

75. HIGH NOON, Screenplay by Carl Foreman. Based on short story "The Tin Star" by John W. Cunningham

76. RAGING BULL, Screenplay by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin. Based on the book by Jake La Motta with Joseph Carter and Peter Savage

77. ADAPTATION, Screenplay by Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman. Based on the book "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean

78. ROCKY, Written by Sylvester Stallone

79. THE PRODUCERS, Written by Mel Brooks

80. WITNESS, Screenplay by Earl W. Wallace & William Kelley. Story by William Kelley and Pamela Wallace & Earl W. Wallace

81. BEING THERE, Screenplay by Jerzy Kosinski. Inspired by the novel by Jerzy Kosinski

82. COOL HAND LUKE, Screenplay by Donn Pearce and Frank Pierson. Based on the novel by Donn Pearce.

83. REAR WINDOW, Screenplay by John Michael Hayes. Based on the short story by Cornell Woolrich

84. THE PRINCESS BRIDE, Screenplay by William Goldman. Based on his novel.

85. LA GRANDE ILLUSION, Written by Jean Renoir and Charles Spaak

86. HAROLD & MAUDE, Written by Colin Higgins

87. 8 1/2, Screenplay by Federico Fellini, Tullio Pinelli, Ennio Flaiano, Brunello Rondi. Story by Fellini, Flaiano.

88. FIELD OF DREAMS, Screenplay by Phil Alden Robinson. Based on the book by W.P. Kinsella

89. FORREST GUMP, Screenplay by Eric Roth. Based on the novel by Winston Groom

90. SIDEWAYS, Screenplay by Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor. Based on the novel by Rex Pickett

91. THE VERDICT, Screenplay by David Mamet. Based on the novel by Barry Reed

92. PSYCHO, Screenplay by Joseph Stefano. Based on the novel by Robert Bloch

93. DO THE RIGHT THING, Written by Spike Lee

94. PATTON, Screen Story and Screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North. Based on "A Soldier's Story" by Omar H. Bradley and "Patton: Ordeal and Triumph" by Ladislas Farago

95. HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, Written by Woody Allen

96. THE HUSTLER, Screenplay by Sidney Carroll & Robert Rossen. Based on the novel by Walter Tevis

97. THE SEARCHERS, Screenplay by Frank S. Nugent. Based on the novel by Alan Le May

98. THE GRAPES OF WRATH, Screenplay by Nunnally Johnson. Based on the novel by John Steinbeck

99. THE WILD BUNCH, Screenplay by Walon Green and Sam Peckinpah. Story by Walon Green and Roy Sickner

100. MEMENTO, Screenplay by Christopher Nolan. Based on the short story "Memento Mori" by Jonathan Nolan

101. NOTORIOUS, Written by Ben Hecht

dr. strangelove should be higher

Solid list. The only ones I could argue against are Thelma & Louise and Hannah and Her Sisters.

The Godfather should be higher;)

11. BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, Written by William Goldman

You read his books on the film industry and screenwriting? Very good reads - I highly recommend them if you haven't ('Adventures in the Screen Trade' and 'Which Lie Did I Tell?')

I'm surprised Groundhog day is on this list. As great a movie as it is comedies usually don't make these kinds of lists.

I'll echo this -- these are must-reads for anyone interested in the film industry.

Surprised to see Adaptation as the lowest of Kaufman's three best known movies.

No 2001?

It's nice to see Quentin Tarrantino on the list. I'd rate Resevoir Dogs or True Romance higher than Pulp Fiction.

Even though it won an Oscar, why Rocky??? "Yo, Adrienne!!!"

Yes, they're related.

To Theo, I mean.

Back to the Future is in the 50's, yet stuff like Patton, Psycho, and The Princess Bride are at the bottom???????

This list sucks.

Surprised (plesantly) by GroundHog Day and Annie Hall being so high.

And at least Eternal Sunshine gets some love here, even if the Acadamy didn't. Speaking of the Acadamy, I thought Shakespeare in Love should have been a little higher.

Meh... some of those movies just plain sucked.

How is Shawshank only 22?

The more I watch and think about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the more I think it is one of the top 5 or 10 movies of the last decade (at least).

I am guessing that most people here, like me, have never read a single screenplay, let alone any on this list. And further guessing that judging a screenplay solely by having seen the film is akin to judging the quality of the flour used just by tasting the cake.

"" - Great choice.

I've read quite a few on this list, though they are limited to the films that I've seen and enjoyed.

Reading a screenplay is definitely much different than watching a movie, but it's not so different that you can't get the gist of it simply by watching.

Love to know which ones you are referring to, unless of course you're making a typical condascending general statement for no apparent.

I've seen just over half of these films, and would say that exactly zero of them 'just plain sucked'. Not all of them would make my A-list, but they were all at least good - rather than make a typically amibguous 'meh' comment, would you care to elaborate?

Yes. Would easily make a list of the best movies I've ever seen, period.

Dola,

To be fair, bad example's point is a good one - however my question remains valid as the comment was the films sucked, not the screenplays

I agree.

You can get the gist, sure. But can you fairly rate a screenplay just by having seen the film?

Yeah, I'd say you could fairly do it. You wouldn't have the world's most accurate portrayal of the screenplay, but coming within 10 slots on a list like this (arbitrary number) of where a screenplay should be isn't out of the question.

Depends on your familiarity of things like the director, screenwriter, and source material.


I've seen a lot of Hitchcock films. I know when he had good material to work with and when he didn't.

I've read The Lord of the Rings. I can tell by watching the films that the screenplay must've been money, because I know what it should have looked like.

I've seen enough David Mamet films to know what he does as a screenwriter. If he writes a script for a new movie with some other director, I can get a feel for how much the director changed Mamet's script.


-Anxiety

There are some on the list that I think suck, but that's most because I don't like them: "Being John Malkovich" (an awful, overrated film), "Chinatown" (Well-done, but mind-numbingly boring), "Citizen Kane" (Overblown and self-indulgent), "Tootsie" (Run-of-the-mill romantic comedy), "Moonstruck" (Decent, but just average, plus Cher sucks), etc.

Chinatown, Citizen Kane & Being John Malkovich IMHO are all high quality films - CK maybe now doesn;t look so good, but bear in mind how old the film is and the much of what you see in that film was the first time these things had ever been seen in cinema (e.g. floor level cameras, overhead tracking shots). I think that most would credit these three as being 4 or 5 star films.

I have never seen Tootsie or Moonstruck as they don't appeal to me (I tend to agree with the 'Cher sucks' comment ;) )

The comment was 'most of these films suck' - I'm not saying I'm the authority, but I disagree with three of the five you mentioned that I've seen.

Well, as I said, these are only my opinions and preferences, not a denouncement of anyone who disagrees with me. :)

Thought you were gunning for me after my Coldplay comment in the 'Greatest Rock Bands' thread ;)

I haven't read a single screenplay, and share your basic sentiment. However, most of the movies that I consider the all time best I have ever seen are on this list... so there's something right about this, in my book.

And the "sucked" crowd will always find their way into a discussion like this... I don't really get it, either, but I presume it's the adult equivalent of calling other kids names (not that this site is necessarily above that behavior, either) to feel better about oneself.

Seen them all except SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS, anyone see it?

From this list one could say Woody Allen is the greatest screen writer in the 20th century, not sure that's true...

I think Psycho is Hitch's worst movie and one of the most over rated movies of all time

Can't believe 12 Angry Men is not on the list, I would put it in the top 5

Think THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS is one of the most under rated of all time, same with IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT

To have an honest opinion that runs against the vast majority of opinions is childish and self-indulgent????

That's not only judemental, it's not very logical.

Annie Hall seems to be way to high on the list, until you watch it again and realize that it's one of the best movies of its genre out there.

Indeed... an utter classic!

I'm going to go with Schmidty on the "Being John Malkovich" front- it's just flat out not a good movie. That said, I do think this list is a lot more solid than most critic lists I've seen.

SI

You people are strange. I enjoyed the Hell out of "Being John Malkovich". Just a great story.

I liked Being John Malkovich as well, but I wouldn't consider it an all-time great.

But do you think the story (if you hadn't read the screenplay) was deserving of all time greatness?

Both Annie Hall and (especially) Shakespeare in Love have no business on this list.

Godfather should be higher, and Citizen Kane should be #1.

I'd go with "no".

Yeah, that makes sense... :p

And you continue on your path of wrongness :cool:

We're not gonna agree on this -- you continue to support films that are of low quality (Shakespeare in Love, the worst "Best Picture" in the history of the Academy Awards), and redundant (Annie Hall, directed by the worst director in Hollywood this side of Uwe Boll -- at least Boll doesn't cast himself in the lead of each of his films), whereas I support films that have lasting appeal with a wide audience.

On a side note, no one will EVER be able to convince me Annie Hall was a better film that Star Wars. Having seen both films, it's no contest -- Star Wars was a better film, and this fact has been proven by their longevity.

What doesn't make sense?

Godfather is #2 and you say it should be higher.
Then you say Citizen Kane should be #1

Oh, yeah --- oops.
I misread and thought Godfather was lower than #2, my bad. Should be Citizen Kane #1, Godfather #2.

Change that "high quality". Not like they just made it onto the list. Both in the Top 30 (Annie Hall as 6th). Yeah, I'd consider your opinion of them as 'low quality' to be wrongheaded. Very much so.

"Worst director in hollywood this side of Uwe Boll"

Now that is fucking funny, and incredibly wrong.

different strokes. Aside from his pedophile status, which is conveniently forgotten for some reason, Woody Allen is really a piss poor director. He may not be as bad a Uwe Boll, but pretty damn close. It's no wonder his films are no longer financially successful -- a majority of people agree.

I know, I know, the movie snobs will retort with "the average moviegoer is stupid", which is an inane comment, since I firmly believe the popularity of a film is a mark of it's quality. But we're had that discussion before.

Bottom line, Woody Allen is a hack, and a self-important one as well.

Man, you keep digging and digging the hole of wrongness.

Last I checked (which was right now), Match Point, the last film he wrote and directed, made a nice profit ($15 mil budget, made $23 mil in the US alone)

The highest it was ever ranked in the Box Office was #15. The movie couldn't even eclipse the Top 10. The most theatres it was ever released in was 509, according to Box Office Mojo. This tells me his films are not quality enough for wide release.

Oh I'm sorry. I could have sworn you said that his movies weren't financially successful and that's why I checked the financial success of his last movie. I saw it was financially successful and posted my reply.

But, with this response from you, which is not talking about the financial successfulness of the movie, but rather the popularity of the movie, you must have said something else.....

This is like arguing with WrongWay. Totally pointless.

LOL. That was just brilliantly done, sabotai.

Btw, speaking of popularity = quality. WVUFan must think Titanic is the best film of all time! ;)

As for financial success, I don't consider $23 mil box office draw to be "financially successful". Yeah, a profit was made due to the low cost of the film, but it was by no means "successful" in comparison with other films.

Example: The Blair Witch Project cost a FRACTION what Match Point made, and made 4 times that in the box office.

So, lemme ask you this -- if the film was so profitable, why wasn't it released to a wider audience? Reason: because Woody Allen is no longer a director that the average moviegoer respects. It simply wouldn't NOT have been profitable to release it wide, because the film wasn't worthy of wide release.

Much like the rest of his films. He's a hack. Uwe Boll's films make more than he does.

One of the best, yes. It's hard to argue that when the thing makes over a BILLION DOLLARS in profit. Oh, and it won Best Picture, too.

Than again, all those people must be wrong, eh? A billion dollars in sales, and you're right, everyone else is wrong.

So you. You personally. Consider Titantic to be one of the all time greats? It's a movie you watch often? Own the DVD?

Do I? No, it's not in my top 10, but I recognize by it's impact and it's sales that my opinion is probably wrong.

However, it is a great film. I saw it in the movie theatre, and I think it's in my DVD collection -- not sure. I have something like 4500 DVD's.

WVU you bring up an interesting point:
What's your rationale behind buying more movies then you can watch?

It's not in your Top 10? But it is "one of the best"? How does that work?

The man owns 4500 DVDs. It could be in the top 2% and still not crack the top 50 of what he owns.

LOL!

But I thought he meant Top 10 films, not percentile :D.

I have this thing about collecting things. I buy, for whatever reason, a ton of things I ultimately never use -- books, DVD's, comics -- just to "complete" something or just to say I have it. Hard to explain. I'll betcha I haven't seen a quarter of my movies in my collection.

Because there's a difference in my personal favorite films and ones I know are commonly considered the "best films". I like zombie films, for example, but they're obviously not gonna be considered the "best films".

And I note the argument has now moved from discussing the film to making fun of me, which is fine if that's how you guys get your jollies. I also note no one has said anything about my Blair Witch comparison.

Not surprising, coming from pseudo-intellectual movie snobs.

Titanic is "commonly considered" one of the best films? It was on the AFI list? People actually think Titanic is the best films of all time? We must hang out in vastly different circles.


It was always about making fun of you. You say the silliest things.


A compliment from someone who believes Bad Boys II was a better movie than The Shawshank Redemption because the former earned FAR more money at the box office.

Though I'm not sure how many 'movie snobs' enjoyed the Harold & Kumar and Dumb & Dumber (though would never consider them great filmmaking). Keep trying though.

The film before that, Melinda and Melinda, only grosses 3.8 million, and cost 17 million to make.

The film before that, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, cost 33 million to make, and made 7.5 million, a pretty staggering domestic loss.

Before that, Small Town Crooks cost 25 million to make, and made 17 million, a loss of 8 million.

So, domestically, since 2000, Woody Allen films in total has LOST a little over 21 million dollars.

I'm not talking about critics, who usually don't know anything, but by the people who bought a billion dollars worth of tickets.


Ask 100 people on the street which film is better -- Annie Hall or Star Wars, and not only will you get "Star Wars" with 95 out of a 100, a great majority will not know what Annie Hall is. That's telling. And let's not even compare box office sales, the true test of a film.


Quality is subjective. What counts is box office. If Bad Boys II did make more money -- you or I may like Shawshank better, but we are obviously in the minority. True quality is determine by how well the movie does in the theatre. Everything else is OPINION.

You think all of them consider Titanic to be an "all time best". I guarentee you they don't.


You are a very, very, very sad man if you believe this.. and unfortunately it seems you do.

I wonder if you consider Britney Spears is a better artist under the "true test" of an artist than The Pixies.


Bull! I think you'd be hardpressed to find even one person who'd say Bad Boys II was better than Shawshank.


I find it sad that there is actually someone out there who thinks the "true test" of a film is box office numbers. Not just that I disagree with you, but I find it sad. Money works in business... not in art. According to Jim is not better than Scrubs because it gets more ratings. Danelle Steel novels are are not better than Dante's Inferno because Steel gets more sales. Bad Boys isn't better than Shawshank because it made more.

There's no other way to determine quality. "quality" when it comes to art is completely subjective -- you will find those who think a Danelle Steele novel is better than Dante's Inferno. I know some myself -- they simply enjoy those types of books better. Same with According to Jim over Scrubs (I'm one of them, but that's because I'm not a Scrubs fan). And although I LOVED Shawshank Redemption, some will think Bad Boys II was better. There's no way to judge a film or a book that way. When it comes to film specifically sales of the film is the ONLY way to judge it. All else is completely subjective.

I'll give you an example. I had some time to think, and he's my top of my head Top Ten Films that Eric (that's me) enjoyed:

1. Highlander
2. Braveheart
3. Night of the Living Dead (original version)
4. Saving Private Ryan
5. Crash
6. Spider-Man
7. Garden State
8. Serenity
9. Halloween
10. Shawshank Redemption

Each person is gonna have their own list, and none of the lists are wrong. How do you determine if a film is truly "better" than the other? By sales.

Care to share yours? I've love to compare.

Actually, how can you even consider box office? I could understand justifying the number of people who like a film, but that is NOT related to the box office. A lot of people go to see a movie with high expectations and come out disappointed. The remake of Godzilla may have had more box office money, but that was due to advertising and a clever trailer. The people who left were disappointed.

Also, what about a movie with a high number of repeat views?

Think about it this way:

Scenario A:

10 million people go to see movie A and it makes 70 million. Only 25% of movie goers actually like the movie - most are bummed out and disappointed. Satisfied movie goers - 2.5 million

5 Million people go to see movie B and it makes 35 million. 80% of movie goers actually like the movie.
Satisfied movie goers - 4 million

By your estimation, box office = a good movie, but in this case, the movie with the good box office receipts had a lower number of real people who liked it and a much lower percentage of viewers.


Scenario B:

Movie 1 made 50 million dollars but a small rabid fanbase. Fans saw the movie over and over again. Only 4 million people saw the movie. The movie has a very high percentage of people liking it, around 90%
Satisfied movie goers - 3.6 million

Movie 2 made 40 million dollars with normal amount of viewers for that price, say 6 million. The movie is also highly valued with a 95% percentage of people liking it.
Satisfied movie goers - 5.4 million

So Movie 1 has better box office, so by your estimation it is a better movie. Yet, Movie 2 had more real people and a higher percentage of viewers liking the movie.


In both cases, the movie with more real satisifed viewers and a higher percentage of viewers who like a movie, yet lowered box office returns would make those movies, in your estimation, not as objectively good as their counterpart. How do you account for that?

I think you should just ditch the attachment to the box office completely.


-Anxiety

So, how does one determine quality? It's obvious it depends on taste (ISiddiqui loves Shakespeare in Love and I hate it), so how does one determine quality if not by how many people actually go and see it (or go to it multiple times, which is the same thing)

So the Academy in 1997 were made up of 14 year old girls, because it won Best Picture.

Plus, that film appealed at the time to nearly everyone, and not just one demographic. It's popularity was wide spread. It made what it did for a reason -- it was a good film. Saying it's audience was only 14 year old females is like saying the audience for the original Star Wars was 13 year old boys. Simply not true.

That's a very sad paragraph and too many people have come to a conclusion that only money matters. Most people believed, and still do, that there ARE standards. That money isn't everyone and the 'best' of an artform comes from the craft. It isn't just about what makes you laugh the most, or what you can turn off your brain and enjoy; It's about focusing on technical aspects. It's about focusing on things like plot and dialogue, pacing, filmography. You know, filmmaking.


Movies I enjoyed the most? Or ones that I think are the best examples of filmmaking and the crafting of a truly great film?

Shit! I just remembered I paid money to see "Eye of the Beholder" (an utter piece of crap if I ever saw one)... I'd hope that doesn't count in the 'quality' ratings of that piece of crap (everyone I went with hated it too)!!

That's nonsense. Either a film is enjoyable to watch or it isn't. It could be well directed, well written, blah blah blah, but if it isn't entertaining, it fails as a film. Hollywood is a business, and success of a film is completely determed by finances. You're looking at it as an "artform", which I suppose it is, but it's a business first and foremost.

One of the reasons I hate "art films" and that terminology. It's just a way of trying to defend stupidity and poor quality -- under the guise of "art". It's total crap.


Jesus. :rolleyes: They should be the same list. The films you enjoyed the best.

I was pretty sure he was trolling when he compared Woody Allen to Uwe Boll, but now I am thinking he is just silly.

Fair enough. I honestly figured I wouldn't be the only one to find some (what I perceive as) obvious duds on this list, and didn't bother to elaborate. Here's a few that I just plain couldn't stand:

24. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
32. FARGO
38. AMERICAN BEAUTY
60. L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
74. BEING JOHN MALKOVICH


In addition, here's a few that I thought were OK, but wouldn't heap on a top 100 list:

16. PULP FICTION
28. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
66. JERRY MAGUIRE
72. THELMA & LOUISE

I'm sure I've now further cemented my reputation as an uncultured swine. I'm just sayin'... I'd rather sit with my kids and watch Episode One for the umpteenth billionth time than the movies I've listed above.

I stopped reading the post after #40 or so but while I understand the distinction between screenplay and actual cinema product, it is hard to separate the two. I, too, am pleasantly surprised to see Groundhog's Day on the list - one of my top 10 favorites based on its cleverness. As far as Woodie Allen, I have never liked nor understood anything he has done - way too much introspective, self-aware, mealymouth shit. It must be a NYC thing that I can't relate to. However...that is not to say his stuff isn't quality nor shouldn't be awarded high praise. He probably is one of the best but for some, I guess, it's not relatable nor one's cup of tea.

Nah, I just really hate Woody Allen and his films. I've TRIED to like them, but they're drivel. Boring, overly-talky and I cannot stand a director that's so self-important that he casts himself in all his films, and he plays THE SAME DAMN CHARACTER in each one. He's really piss poor, and he, nor any of his films deserve to be on any "best screenplay" list. Or any "Best of" lists at all, with the possible exception of "Best Criminal Who Got Away with It"

Wrong. I didn't particular enjoy the Shawshank Redemption. It doesn't fail as a film however. It's actually very well done as a piece of filmmaking.


That's the whole POINT. They aren't the same thing! You can enjoy idiotic movies that you acknowledge are NOT good filmmaking (I enjoy "Dumb & Dumber", for instance).

Top 10 I enjoy (off the top of my head):

1. Empire Strikes Back
2. Dr. Strangelove
3. O'Brother Where Are Thou
4. Braveheart
5. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
6. The Big Lebowski
7. Bull Durham
8. The Big Lebowski
9. Annie Hall
10. Spiderman 2
(11. Field of Dreams - had to)

I think I'd say O'Brother, Annie Hall, Doc Strangelove & Braveheart (and perhaps Bull Durham) as good filmmaking. Though in a Top 10 of filmmaking... maybe Annie Hall and O'Brother.

Btw, for reference sake, Shakespeare in Love is in my Top 15 enjoyable.

You've got to be kidding me.

How did you like Seinfeld? ;)

Seriously though, this is a proper attitude. You may not have liked it, but obviously a lot of people, who actually study filmmaking, who know the craft, think Allen is good, so there must be something there.

FTR, I love Woody Allen. I love the introspective, self-aware wittyness (which is my term for it, my friend ;)). And the fact Allen is almost the only one that does it, makes me enjoy it even more. Manhatten, Annie Hall, Purple Rose of Cairo... just love 'em.

Just for the sake of discussion... I would have added all of Woody Allen's films to my "Can't Stand" list, but I honestly don't know the names of any of them, and I've never been able to sit through more than 10 minutes of one. I have a general rule of thumb - if Allen writes, directs, or has a major role in any film, I won't watch it on principle.

Did not like Seinfeld for perhaps the exact same reasons.

Imran, my friend, you are a true damn yankee, even more than my blueblood. It's just where I come from, we didn't trust anything coming out of NYC. :)

Why? I wouldn't watch "Eternal Sunshine..." again if you paid me to.

And don't get me started on "American Beauty." There's not a single redeeming character in that film. The best part of that movie was seeing Spacey get his brains blown out at the end. Otherwise, it was, generally speaking, a movie about a bunch of scumbags.

And what I'm saying is that if you enjoyed it, the filmmakers did what they accomplished. A film doesn't HAVE to have the best screenplay (Dumb and Dumber or practically any comedy) to be good, and to be considered well made. It's "well made" if the point of the film is made, and if the film is enjoyed by the crowd. So while you break them into two groups, there shouldn't be a need to. If you have to say "Well, I didn't really like the movie, but it was well made", then it WASN'T well made.


Cool list, and I like a majority of films on it (Annie Hall obviously is an exception).

After reading this thread, I think you may be on to something

I noticed you never responded when I listed the other recent films Allen made, and the fact all LOST money domestically. You resort to basically namecalling instead.

I'm sorry but enjoyable does NOT equal well made. I can't take seriously anyone who stands there and says Ace Ventura was well made because it made people laugh and that was what it was expected to do. That is called meeting your expectations, not making a well made film. Not crafting a fine piece of work.

Sometimes the filmmakers want to make a movie that means more than money. An obvious example is Speilberg's "Schindler's List". Even if it made $1, Speilberg wouldn't have called it a failure.. neither would those who saw it and noticed the quality of the filmmaking.

And yes, there are obviously two groups. I, personally, don't need to, because they are already there.


If you went to 15, you would have found Shakespeare in Love and Manhatten :p.

Agreed on the Groundhog Day thing, and agreed mostly on Woody Allen. I....like some of his films. I can sit through some of them. Most of them, I might watch for 5 minutes when they come on AMC or something, and then change the channel. I just don't like them.

I'm more of a Mel Brooks "comedy genius" guy. :)

I embrace my Yankee-ness :D. I also consider Seinfeld the best TV show of all time. That's comedy, drama, anything.

Mel Brooks is definately a comedy genius :D. I especially love his constant ignoring of the 4th wall. Just brilliant :).

Again, I call nonsense. By your logic, anything with a silly plot (Dumb and Dumber) PURPOSELY written to have a silly plot because that's the type of film it is, isn't a "quality piece of work". This would remove most "common" comedies from people like the Farrely Brothers from your list, because they write dumbed down comedies. Same with Science Fiction. If it's not taken seriously, if it's doesn't have a Oscar-quality screenplay, or a master of cinematographer, it's not a "quality piece of work". That's nonsense.

Actually I did, I just decided it wasn't worth it and didn't post it, but since you insist....


So? This kind of stupid argument will only succeed in me never taking you seriously again. You apply a qualifier, and then use that to support your general statement.

Your statement was that Woody Allen's films are not financially successful. Regardless of whatever fantasy definition which relies on comparison you want to come up with to avoid saying you are wrong, financially successful means that the business (in this case, Woody Allen's films, overall) makes enough profit to make the work worthwhile. (Example: You make a product that costs $27 to make. You sell it for $30. However, it takes you 3 months of full time work to produce 100 of them. Even if you sell all 100, you are making $300 every 3 months. A profit? Yes. Worth the effort? No. A financially sucessful business? Not so much.)

Anyway, you apply the qualifier "domestically", ignoring all foreign box office take. And, of course, since it's not part of the box office take, all video sales of the movie rights to show the movie on a TV station. And somehow, by ignoring a lot of a movie's income sources, this shows that Woody Allen's films are "not financially successful"?

There is one reason I mentioned domesitc box office take in my original post. To show that the movie Match Point made a profit off the domestic gross alone, meaning that the film actually made a good deal more than that overall and that, I though anyway, would clearly point out how financially successful that movie was. But, as anyone who knows anything about the movie business will tell you, a movie has a lot of income sources, one of which, and for only some movies is it the most important, is the domestic gross. A lot of movies only clear the profit line after the video release, and then clear it by a good margin.

I guess those films are not financially successful just because they didn't clear the production cost on the domestic gross alone.

Another piss poor argument in a long line of them. Since you brought it up again, I responed, but like I said, this just wasn't worth my time.

You think "Dumb and Dumber" is a quality work of filmmaking?! WTF?! I love the movie, but there is no freaking way I'd even come close to making such a dumb ass statement.

It's nonsense to say that films that don't have a good screenplay or don't have good acting nor good dialogue are examples of "well made films". Utterly nonsense.