Sight & Sound

How many have you watched?

letterboxd.com/gyhaney/list/sight-sound-top-250/

listchallenges.com/sight-and-sound-critics

Other urls found in this thread:

letterboxd.com/caiman/list/they-shoot-pictures-dont-they-1000-greatest/
mubi.com/lists/transcendent-moments-of-the-ecstatic-truth
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

171/250

meh

You’ve watched
49 of 250

40/250 and most of these I've watched I don't really rate them

I don't get why people overrate so many pre-60s movies, they are objectivelly worse than modern films

>so many pre-60s movies, they are objectivelly worse than modern films
That's objectively a pleb opinion.

9
I'm so proud.

Care to elaborate? The film industry is barely 100 years old, a new genre compared to other arts. Overrating the first half of it just because it's the first 50 years is just retarded

No one will rate those movies in 500 years, that's why I say modern films are -objectively- better

If you have seen over 3 you are a pseud and should fuck off to /lit/

18 lol
why is three colours blue better than paris texas

Everything that has been done has been done 10x better

There are more than 3 Scorsese films there and he's one of the most famous directors

same exact number senpai

This is why all the other boards consider Sup Forums a laughing stock, myself included.

it's time to die plebs. if we were having this conversation in real life I would have physically assaulted you at this point

Even Taxi Driver is starting to get on the try hard side but its a good film because it actually has an ending.

Sup Forums is also the least pretensions board. You don't get people pretending to like this old shit

Great argument there, you sure told me

If you were so right you wouldn't have troubles explaining your point, like I did with mine

Being so insecure when people call you out on liking grandpa films that you have to resort to violence

grow up sugarcup

every single one of you would be better off dead

Because not watching many old films means you are new to cinema because you are clearly just inside the gates, meanwhile others are much further in, they feel superior to you, and rightly so.

You wanna change that? Watch more films, instead of whining about how you totally have taste and totally aren't a plebeian.

89/250. But my taste is way too patrician for S&S plebs.

I'm the guy who called your opinion pleb, I'm not that guy but I 100% stand behind what he said. Apart from the beating part, I'm not fit and probably won't be able to beat you to a pulp.

At least we are sincere and don't pretend to like things to just impress other people.

123/250

>Watch more films, instead of whining about how you totally have taste and totally aren't a plebeian.
This, being into movies is one of the easiest hobbies, you just have to watch movies. You don't have to go out or psychically do anything, just sit there and watch a shitload of movies.

Fucking plebs.

neither do I. the difference is that I actually like movies whereas you don't. I belong on Sup Forums and you don't

>David Lynch

tell tale sign you don't know what you are talking about.

>Literally brags about his own ignorance
>Insulting anybody

Maybe when you've passed sixth grade and have 1/20th of the cinematic skill set I have i'll remotely listen to your plebeian mongoloid rambling. In fact I think i'm going to screencap your comments and show them to my IRL film club members later this week so we can have a good laugh.

Don't step up to the bouncers when you're a skinny manlet kiddo.

The only """"argument""" y'all have to prove old movies are good is calling me a pleb

Nice board you've got here

No you pretend to like them. You sit threw them telling yourself "I have to enjoy this or I am not cool", "I have to watch this to be able to tell others I watched it". Here is a tip, don't use these lists to find movies. Watch shit that you actually think you will enjoy, drop any ideas of impressing others.

121.

>taste so patrician the pleb only recognizes Lynch
FeelsGoodMan

nope, you're completely making that up. That is not reality, it is only in your head. I wonder what it is that would force you to make up such a ridiculous idea...

shut the fuck up and leave then. if you don't like film then don't be on a film board you dumb retarded pleb

whats your kg account?

Muholland Drive is a low brow version of Persona

That's projecting, bruh.

>implying I'm not enjoying the hell out of the movies of Buster Keaton or Ernst Lubitsch or Fred Astaire

hey pal, long time no see
how's it going?

i felt asleep watching vertigo the first time

Full blown babby. One day you'll look back on this comment and cringe, just like I and other patricians are doing right now.

>Best films of time??? The Big Lebowski, Mad Max, Pulp Fiction, the list goes on!

But then again, you can't even watch more than 3 films from something as entry-level as Sight & Sound, you are new to the medium and clearly a retard. People who differentiate "old" films from "good" and think people are just faking their love generally haven't been watching film for that long and have no idea what they're talking about, or are just trying to preemptively cover themselves for being plebs.

"*Objectively* better" because people "will rate [them / modern films] in 500 years"??

>Watch shit that you actually think you will enjoy
I actually think I will enjoy movies by David Lean, Orson Welles, John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Akira Kurosawa because I've seen movies made by them that I liked so I want to see more of their movies. I like lists like this because people who have seen more movies than me and also like these filmmakers have put together a list of films from other filmmakers that are also good.
By the way, I wonder how the fuck you think somebody is supposed to find good films they would like while at the same time completely discarding the canon
>dude just watch movies trailers and turn your brain off, this is exactly how you find good movies
like what the fuck is wrong with you.

What the fuck do you think "film canon" is?

vertigo is one of the most accessible films on that entire list

I know you are a troll because you added Tarkovsky and Bergman

>David Lean, Orson Welles, John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Akira Kurosawa
*yawns uncontrollably

the purpose of name dropping them is not because they're particularly obscure, it's because they are mainstream, popular, and very very good. I watched some of their films and I really liked them so I want to watch more. It is not that complicated

You are even worse than the Sight&Sound plebs because you actively ignore high rated movies just so you can seem like you are too good for them.

82 out of 250. I'm also not as into film as I used to be.

How good/accurate is this list? Should I scope out the ones I haven't seen?

patrish

>szurkulet 13
>not 1

pleb detected

Imagine being this much of a hipster pleb

>Tree of Life
>Shoah
Entire list invalidated.

>The only """"argument""" y'all have to prove old songs are good is calling me a pleb
>Nice board you've got here

>not liking Tree of Life

4

>250 movies
You can literally watch those in just one year if you watch 5 a week. That's nothing.

Anyways, here's the actual "I'm no longer an entry level cinephile" list
letterboxd.com/caiman/list/they-shoot-pictures-dont-they-1000-greatest/

Zulawski is the only good director on your list and he's entry level

Poorfag here so no computer , i torrent films on my phone and watch them on my ps4 but the media player can't use subs so i can't watch films that aren't in english which makes me unable to explore most of those patrician lists , wtf do i do?

>You sit threw them
Brainlet pls

kill yourself, third world savage
I doubt you have the iq required to comprehend these films anyway

But those are the same films

172/250

I was surprised by how many of the films I hadn't even heard of, guess I've got more movies to watch

Meh. Those done with S&S shenanigans, this list is godlike and not white man/jew centric: mubi.com/lists/transcendent-moments-of-the-ecstatic-truth

You’ve watched
142 of 1000

Im european lmao

>wtf do i do?
Buy an old laptop. You can't be that poor if you have a tv and some video shit player.

Ignore all the trolling in this thread, this is a good list if you're trying to get into cinema. Definitely watch the ones you haven't seen

>Not liking Tree of Life
Please fix the title of the pic into "That’s where God lives!"

no one from europe calls themselves european
disgusting refugee confirmed

>The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
what

50/250 haven't even heard of most of these. Also I don't understand the argument that movies pre 1960 weren't as good. The stories and character development are consistently better in older movies, at least in older popular movies. This doesn't mean that some classics haven't become dated or aren't actually overrated, but is there ANY comparison between the catalogue of movies of the 2010s and the 1950s? The movies this decade have SUCKED. I barely watch new movies anymore. The last movie I saw in theatres was dunkirk, and before that it was star whores ep 7 which my family dragged me to since I was home from uni.

There's no arthouse cinema near where you live? I live in Canada and I have an arthouse cinema close by that plays classic movies for 10 bucks a ticket. I'd expect there to be a lot of those in Europe unless by Europe you meant some shithole like Bosnia

2010s>1950s you pleb

Try watching something other than holywood blockbusters

It's supposed to be the original

Portugal and we have those but i have to take the train there and they don't even have sessions that often

'I just got a profile on mubi and I'm watching what everybody else is watching' the list

Name 5 2010s movies better than the best 1950s movies

>no one from europe calls themselves european
Lots of people do. I do also. You're probably just an edgy teenager who spends too much time on Sup Forums

Tabu, uncle boonmee, Norte, cosmos and the act of killing

wrong.

Not better than Wild Strawberries or Seven Samurai. Nice try.

merkel drone

>Cosmos
maybe if it didn't have that shitty music

All of them couple years ago when I was *getting into film*. Now I somewhat regret it. Included lots of garbage I don't like, included lots of crap rated highly just because they're rated highly.

And most importantly, it took time away from literature and Western canon

>lots of crap rated highly just because they're rated highly
which ones do you think are like that? My pick is Battleship Potemkin. I really don't think that the fast cut editing is that impressive or effective. Napoleon had far better action editing.

101/250

The problem isn't that they rate highly pre-1960's films, the problem is that they skirt the line of first-wave "arthouse" that ruined the medium. Bergman, Fellini, Antonioni, Tarkovsky, these names with explicit goals to ask and answer philosophical questions in the traditional prototypical "self-reflective journey" "film". Pseudo-profound emotionally manipulative wank centered around placid experience. The names listed in pic-related and whatever works they made belong at the absolute top of any list they're mentioned in.

You cannot change genes. You are born to have nonexistent taste.

>explicit goals to ask and answer philosophical questions in the traditional prototypical "self-reflective journey" "film"
name one Tark or Bergman film that fits this definition

Because it's french

Looks like the pedophile autist from letterboxd general found the thread.

sage

>Abel Gance
*sneers

They're entire filmographies. They lack the basic concept of disguised intent that these men mastered

>an old movie is still watchable
>100% CERTIFIED FRESH GREATEST OF ALL TIME
>movie from 1902 still works on technical level
>100% CERTIFIED FRESH SO DEEP AND THOUGHT INSPIRING MASTERPIECE

>disguised intent
what benefit does that have over sincere intent?

*their
I don't know why I made such a dumb typo

It requires you to do something you never do. using your brain

It really makes you think how although In search of lost time and Ulysses had been published in the same period Griffith films still managed to lack any of the depth especially for their length. At least Tark and Berg ATTEMPTED it albeit failing on almost every aspect, Griffith films are the complete opposite of modern, they're outdated and you shouldn't watch them if not for some historical film context.

Ranking movies has to be the most cancerous hobby of film. We recognize that taste is subjective and then critics will go ahead and compile lists as if films that have wildly different goals can be compared to one another.

Mind you I have no problem with a critic saying what their favorite movies of the year are, or their own favorite films if they can struggle to compile such a list. But Sight and Sound is a farce.

at least for Tark films, they're designed to be heart/spiritual focused instead of brain focused. And when it comes to Bergman he's a mixed bad of intent. Autumn Sonata and Wild Strawberries are heart focused whereas I'd say Fanny and Alexander and The Seventh Seal are brain/spiritual focused.
>Griffith films still managed to lack any of the depth
>Tark and Berg ATTEMPTED it albeit failing on almost every aspect
>you shouldn't watch them if not for some historical film context
WEW LAD
E
W

L
A
D