Which Sight & Sound all-time top 10 list is the best?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (119 of them)

Most of the reaction against Kurosawa stems from years of overexposure, while Ozu, Mizoguchi, and Naruse's barely got a release in the West. Kurosawa could certainly essay genres that the others couldn't. He failed more massively than the others because he was far more ambitious. He's the Tolstoy of Japanese cinema, I suppose.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 8 August 2008 22:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

kurosawa's liberal-huamanist sensibility and hotcha action also just goes down easier with western audiences i think. not that ozu or mizoguchi lack a liberal humanist sensibility, but it feels a little more specifically japanese where kurosawa felt like he was always going for broad appeal (hence all the western literary adaptations). i love kurosawa and wouldn't denigrate him at all. but i can definitely see a case for the greater rigor and depth of some of his contemporaries.

tipsy mothra, Friday, 8 August 2008 23:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

Kurosawa's films are so manly in comparison

But to be honest, I just love Ugetsu. I didn't care much for either Life of Oharu or The Geisha; still need to see Sansho the Bailiff

"-- something about it just reeks of automatic contrarianism to me. "

I wonder if that might've played a part in why some French New Wavers were so rah-rah-Mizoguchi in such a stentorian manner

Vichitravirya_XI, Saturday, 9 August 2008 13:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

Kurosawa and Mizoguchi are both among my favourite directors, I see no reason why you can't love them both. I was only noting the sad fact that Mizoguchi seems to be rather forgotten in the West these days, whereas Kurosawa is still a household name.

Tuomas, Saturday, 9 August 2008 15:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

ILX System, Thursday, 28 August 2008 23:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

wow so who suddenly decided KANE was great and why wasn't it considered *as* great in the 50s?

piscesx, Thursday, 28 August 2008 23:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

No one had seen it yet.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 28 August 2008 23:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

Manny Farber convincingly traces the influence of fifties on "serious" Hollywood film of the mid to late fifties.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 28 August 2008 23:20 (5 years ago) Permalink

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

ILX System, Friday, 29 August 2008 23:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think the right year won.

Alex in SF, Friday, 29 August 2008 23:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

off track but the s and sound get smart review was pretty funny

I know, right?, Friday, 29 August 2008 23:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

I saw it, In the cinema. like, paid money

I know, right?, Friday, 29 August 2008 23:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

booooooooooooo

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 30 August 2008 17:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

jeez, sorry to offend your sensibilities morbs

I know, right?, Saturday, 30 August 2008 17:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

3 years pass...

i can't remember whether i voted in this thread but it's weird to look at the 1952 list and see how many of those selections basically disappeared from consideration by the next list -- no more chaplin, griffith, carne, flaherty, clair, even von stroheim. like a glimpse into a lost world.

it's also fascinating how FAST l'avventura jumped onto the 1962 list. i can't imagine any movie making it onto the list at all, let alone at no. 2, within two years of its release nowadays.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 21 March 2012 00:21 (2 years ago) Permalink

surely the answer is 1992

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 March 2012 10:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

i can't imagine any movie making it onto the list at all, let alone at no. 2, within two years

make it four and prepare to be knocked for a loop by The Dark Knight

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 21 March 2012 14:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

When I look at the six lists together (especially the last five), it's like looking at one of those 3D pictures where things come into focus gradually, if at all--they all blur together for me.

The '72 list had a huge effect on me: saw it in the Book of Lists in the late '70s, and it was so mysterious to me, all these films like Persona and L'Avventura that I'd never heard of--pre-internet, pre-video, pre-everything if you lived in a small town--I know it played a part in my decision to enroll in film at university, rather than math. One of the dumbest decisions of my life. Thanks Sight & Sound!

clemenza, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 14:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

cinephilia is like catholicism; right now I'm lapsed, but I'm never not going to be a cinephile.

Haha. Um.

Eric H., Wednesday, 21 March 2012 15:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

The durability of Potemkin amazes me. Even allowing for the fact that it's not my kind of film, it just doesn't strike me as something that would be on every list across six decades (and never lower than seventh).

clemenza, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 15:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Roger Ebert has picked just one new film to replace one old one on his 2002 Top 10 list http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/04/the_greatest_films_of_all_time.html

piscesx, Monday, 30 April 2012 12:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

A movie that was only his 3rd best movie of his year-end list for 2011.

jungleous butterflies strange birds (Eric H.), Monday, 30 April 2012 12:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

I like that he almost went for Synecdoche, New York.

And I have been called "The Appetite" (DL), Monday, 30 April 2012 12:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

On another blog, he floated the horrifying possibility that JUNO was on the shortlist for that slot.

jungleous butterflies strange birds (Eric H.), Monday, 30 April 2012 12:56 (2 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.