What makes a movie a "classic"?

Well, it's late and my work day tomorrow will be one of the toughest of the year so I can't elaborate on this post until I steal the idea for a post I'll do sometime in the next two weeks (Thanks!).

That said, I had a comment conversation with the great Kimberly Lindbergs last year about the Golden Age of Hollywood. She didn't like the term and I told her I didn't either. I said I preferred to call the thirties through the fifties Hollywood's Classic Age. Why? Because "Golden" indicates good and "Classic" does not. You can have a classic stinker but a golden stinker? That just sounds stupid. And wrong. A classic dud? Sure. A golden dud? Uh, no. So as weightless and unimportant as this EW list may be I have no problem with it. A "Classic" is just something that's stood the test of time. It stays in people's memory and still gets quoted or acknowledged. It can be incompetent (Plan Nine from Outer Space), ingenius (Citizen Kane), influential (Pulp Fiction) or just there like a boring person on the plane next to you that you can't get away from (Pretty Woman).

Think of the negative uses of the term "classic" outside of movies. "Classic blunder" for example. Classic does not denote quality. If you accept that (and I do) then anything that is notable in the memory more so than something else can be a classic.

And thanks for mentioning "Cutter's Way." I put it in "Frames of Reference" and it's one of my favorite films of the eighties. It's too bad it's not well known. For all those who were either thrown or enthralled with "No Country for Old Men's" ambiguous ending I wholeheartedly recommend "Cutter's Way." I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to discuss an ending over and over.

SPOILER He never takes the gun out of Cutter's hand. Amazing. One of the most startling character insights in any movie anywhere and it comes in the last second. END SPOILER

For me the term classic applies to films that either function as almost perfect examples of their genre or variations on that genre (such as Die Hard or Alien or Unforgiven) or films that seem to reveal a little more on each viewing (such as Donnie Darko or Eternal Sunshine or Goodfellas).

Most of the titles on this list are competent and interesting but ultimately flyweights. Pretty Woman? Even Lord of the Rings though technically impressive is more a firefly than a beacon.

My own preference is for the films that seemed to be unlike quite anything before like Dark City, or Run Lola Run. And though I think persistence is worth something I don't think camp counts as classic so Plan Nine would never make my cut.

And yes, I'm also a big fan of Cutter's Way. And why no After Hours on this list?

And though I believe time is the usual test, some films you know at first viewing that everything has changed (Raging Bull, Manhattan, Apocalypse Now, Eraserhead).

The trick to asking a definition of "classic" is that there are many definitions, or at least many criteria that can qualify a film as a classic, not all of which are required.

One relatively "easy" way is simply when I see a film that has done something I've never seen before and what it does is something I really like. I'm not talking about gimmicks here, but something I come out of and think "Jesus, I didn't know film could be like that." That doesn't happen often. The only time in the last few years I've had that reaction is with Pedro Costa's "Colossal Youth," a film I have no hesitation calling an "instant classic." I had the same reaction to Bela Tarr's "Werckmeister Harmonies."

There are also films that seem to capture a zeitgeist (why do people always use the definite article when referring to zeitgeist, as if there was ever only one?) so perfectly, they feel like classics but you can't really tell until years later. "The Big Lebowski" is the film that first comes to mind in this category. That one has "held up" for me. "Pulp Fiction" was another one for me at the time, but one which has not held up for me at all. I'd have called them both classics at the time, only one of them now.

And there are films that just create "moments." I have no better definition than that. I'm thinking "Touching the Void" here - the moment when the one climber is trapped in the crevasse and could plead to God for help but doesn't - he is an atheist and he has no time to waste on futile gestures. That was a classic moment for me. Does it make it a classic film? I don't know. A landmark in "atheism on the big screen." Definitely. And I think that's at least kinda worthy of classic status.

The very idea of something being called "classic" implies that it is of the highest standard within it's field. It has to be what other movies should be judged against. It is inevitable in a list like this one, or AFI's, that the word "classic" will come to mean "popluar", "influential", or "ground breaking". But I truly think that endurance should be the real test.

If a movie wasn't popular at the box office, or if no one bothers to copy it, or if it wasn't doing something new, does that mean it should be disqualified? No. But if a movie can't hold up over multiple viewings, or over the years, then it shouldn't be called a classic. If a movie can be considered classic, it can be in it's time, but it shouldn't be completely of it's time. And I don't mean it should be broad. Endurance is exactly why there is a 25 year hold on canonical placement. "Gladiator" might have shown up on this list, but I'll be surprised if in 30-40 years it's treated as anything other than the "Oliver!" of 2000. By that time dozens of other movies will come out that will make us realize that "Gladiator" really was average at best.

The "classic" label is a little dubious, though, don't you think? It's very hard for me to watch "Citizen Kane" without thinking that this is supposed to be the greatest movie of all time. Kane shouldn't have to stand up under that weight. By canonizing any movie, you make it hard to approach it on it's own terms. You're experience of the movie is colored by it's placement on that list. Or maybe even by what place it hold on that list.

So to answer some specific questons: I think that a movie needs to be out at least ten years for consideration.

My list of movies from the 90's and beyond would include: "Before Sunrise", "Pulp Fiction", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "The Virgin Suicides", "Magnolia", "The Thin Red Line", "Goodfellas", "Bringing Out the Dead", "Adaptation", and "Zodiac" (which needs immediate rediscovery by the entire planet). Others I might consider, but these have held up over multiple viewings, and continue to amaze me.

noone is going to care about casino royale 20 years from now

Films that are designated as classics seem to neccesarily be somewhat iconic aswell. Not iconic in terms of popularity (that'd make Shrek 2 a classic), or even in notoriety, but in a sense that scenes of the film and images are in some way defining. Of what? That varies.

There's a distinction to be made between classics and great films. I could list dozens and dozens of great films from the past twenty five years, but I wouldn't call them all classics.

Two that'd I'd make a case for as classics from recent years are Lost in Translation and Children of Men. This is merely a matter of opinion of course, and many might not agree, but they seem to me films that whose essences (being funny, touching, heartbreaking, heartwarming etc.) will not be diminished by time. I think there's a perfect parallel between those two and two films generally considered classics, The Apartment, and Blade Runner.

There are plenty of others, but those are the first two contemporary classics that came to mind, and that like with the films Jim mentioned, seemed to me immediately after first viewing them that they'd be films I'd be watching for a long time.

alan,

You rock sir. I loved Casino Royale, but you really might be right.

To me a classic is something you can't quite put words to, you just feel it. The moment you can replace that feeling with - "but that part" - it's lost the place of a classic. For instance, the first time I saw "Die Hard" it effected me, and it still effects me. There's not a moment in the film in which I think, "But that part..." "The Naked Gun" and "Ghostbusters" still to this day make me laugh out loud...even just thinking about them. (As does "Airplane", which has the best comedic line ever written and delivred "What a pisser." - hah!)

An experience that makes a classic, you shouldn't be able to put into words. Overwhelmed is the closest way to put it. "The Sixth Sense" overwhelmed me. Unfortunately, "All About My Mother" did not. "Groundhog Day" (missing from this list) stayed with me for weeks, as did "Rushmore" - which also reshaped my perspective of tone and what could be accomplished.
"The Fifth Element" overwhelmed me. "Aliens" did.
"Pulp Fiction" for a midwestern boy just in High School who wondered what the hell that movie was at the local 6 screen theatre next to the pharmacy and town bank, blew me away. I couldn't believe what I had just seen. And that feeling alone, from the moment I watched it, has stayed with me. As did the final few moments of "Se7en", which is sadly missing from this list. "Breaking the Waves" had a similar effect - punched in the gut! And yes "Aguirre" affected me like this as well!

You can't walk away from these and not feel. Not see the world differently. I remember driving home after "The Sixth Sense" and everything, all the colors and lights, especially traffic lights were bolder and sharper. The world was literally more vibrant.

Classics you never lose that feeling, you always remember that moment you came walking out of the theatre after the films completion.

A made for TV movie, but Nichols's "Angels in America"...after the first half I curled up on my bathroom floor and wept! (The second half not so much.)

Certainly some films are going to have more of an effect on the culture than they are going to personally - and I suppose they can be considered classics as well, but many times that's more for the scholar than the audience.

It's interesting to see "Husbands and Wives" on here, but not "Crimes and Misdemeanors" which gave me the biggest most unexpected laugh of my life (the horse saying "Bend it, don't break it") and one of the most bittersweet scenes shared between Allen and Landau.

Movies that should be lost from this list: "Blair Witch Project" (which had a better marketing campaign, then it was a movie - annoyed the hell out of me!)

One thing that you start to see is that Bill Murray knows how to pick his movies. There's so many that he's in...probably why Groundhog Day" wasn't included. :P

Though Jim, you didn't mention the time line at the end of the magazine in which they poke fun at their list making. Entertainment Weekly knows when to not take themselves too seriously.

Unfortunately the further you make it down the list the more movies you run into in which you say, "Yeah, but there was that one scene..." Though I guess sometimes a classic performance will make a movie more classic than it deserves to be. I love Anthony Hopkins in "Silence of the Lambs". The scenes between the tow of them are certainly "classic", because they make you feel something you can't quite put your finger on, but the movie had a lot of "Yeah, but..." moments for me.

I have seen all but three of the films above, and those are: 'There will be blood', 'The Lived of Others', 'In the Mood for Love'. I am actually disappointed that I have seen so many of these, and therefore this probably disqualifies the list, for me, since there is now not much for me to learn from this list I didn't already know.

Thats one reason I like the IMDB's Top 250, I can always aspire to see all of them at some point, I think my record (since it changes) it to get to about #50 before there is one I haven't seen yet.

One of the things I like about these kinds of list (or Ebert's Great Movies Page) is that it keeps me searching out movies that I may not have seen yet, and keeps me open to new movies. Of the three films that I mentioned above, two are sitting in my NetFlix queue, waiting for the time to be right to be seen, and I forgot about 'In the Mood for Love', meant to see, never got around to it, again, haven't learned anything I didn't already know.

Oh well, I guess you can't expect to learn much from EW!

Why so down on All about My Mother? That's definitely a movie I hope to enjoy many times in the future, along with Volver and Talk to Her. All three are sure-fire classics.

There are too many definitions of the word "Classic" - your degree of agreement/disagreement with this list will probably be a function of how closely your definition of classic fits the person(s) who made the list.

I've seen 19 of the movies on the list, started watching 4 and failed to finish, and absolutely refuse to watch another 4 (e.g., my reaction to Austin Powers is to strangle him, not to laugh at him).

That being said, I think my definition of classic agrees with Nathan in that a classic must stand the test of time - audiences then and now must (mostly) agree on the film's quality, and the "then" and the "now" must be separated by enough time so that the sensibilities of the times are different in significant ways.

This implies that a "classic" must have a universality that transcends time, and probably space.

Arguing that "influence" can be a criteria for considering a film "classic" is trickier. Is "Star Wars" a classic? It basically invented the big-budget special effects blow-up-athon. It was (and is) immensely popular. Does that make it a classic?

I don't think so - to me, Star Wars is an average movie - exciting, sure; fun, sure; but probably, when all is said and done, in the same class as True Lies, most of later James Bond, etc. Yes, there are many films that could not have been made without Star Wars (the other Star Wars films, Star Trek, the Fifth Element, etc.) but does that make SW a classic?

I think films that I can watch time and again and still love are a classics in my book.It seems like these films go from the late 1980's to present and they are mostly I think showing us a period where film is beginning to get lousy.So here is my short list of films(trust me their are more films) I consider classics coming to you in no particular order

Casablanca
The Searchers
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Empire Strikes Back
Apocalypse Now
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
The Quiet Man
Sunset Boulevard
Blade Runner
Strangers on a Train

Here are films that do belong on EW's classics list:
Ghostbusters
Hoop Dreams
Goodfellas
Ed Wood
Office Space

Here are films that do belong on EW's classics that don't belong:
Rain Man
Glory
Gladiator
Casino Royale
Titanic

Films that should have made EW's classic list:
The Untouchables
Beauty and the Beast
Blood Simple
Reservoir Dogs

I share Jim's sentiment that Pulp Fiction isn't a classic (but it certainly is mind blowing stuff) but when I was surfing on the internet I found a review on Amazon.co.uk site where someone named Jim Emerson seemed to be almost glowing to Pulp Fiction.I don't know if this is the Jim Emerson of scanners or a totally different person whose name happens to be Jim Emerson.I'm just curious if its the same guy.

So, TOY STORY and SHREK are on there, above FARGO and RUSHMORE, but there's no MILLER'S CROSSING, or - in the vein of animated films - THE IRON GIANT or THE INCREDIBLES (both better efforts than the above "landmarks" or whatever they are.)

The problem with this list is mostly that it was done by EW, and I'm sure everyone knows the ways in which this magazine goes about being relevant. This is maybe as bad a list as EMPIRE magazine's list of best TV shows of all time that came out recently. Lame, lame, lame. And no imagination.

Also, why the hell is Scorsese's BRINGING OUT THE DEAD not as highly regarded as it needs to be? Along with the under-appreciation of films like ZODIAC and EASTERN PROMISES from last year, this is one of the biggest screw ups on the part of audience (and now, for the most part, critical) interest/dedication/viewing habits. Although I remember Ebert had some nice things to say about it...

I also admit that the final act in Apocalypse Now is murky(Maybe that's what the movie is trying to say about Vietnam?)but I wouldn't hold that against the other things I saw in the movie that I thought were poetic,vivid and harrowing.Inspite of the fact that the last half is weak in the film I still think that the film is more lyrical and visionary than any of the most of the films out there.I noticed that this was put on Jim's 102 movies list with hesitation but I don't think this film should be reccomended on a must see list if it is going to be on the basis of cultural reasons and not aesthetic reasons.

I have a simple rule on this: if it's 20 years old and people are still talking about it, it's a classic. Oh, sure. There are a few exceptional "insta-classics", movies that so thoroughly permeate our culture, that their longevity is assured: Pulp Fiction is obviously one, even though I personally like Jackie Brown much better. The Big Lebowski and There Will Be Blodd are a couple of others.

But getting back to the 20+ year rule, let's look at 1987. The biggest hit of the year was Three Men and a Baby. But who talks about it now in any other context other than mentioning the dead kid in the window? Contrast that with The Princess Bride, released that same year. Came and went in the theaters without raising many eyebrows. Now it's endlessly quoted and rewatched and is a favorite among many. Princess Bride is a classic. Three Men and a Baby is not.

Looks like an AFI list... 89% of American films! That's counting Lord of the Rings as foreigner. And among the 7 non-English language films left, there are 2 Germans, 2 Hong Kong, and 1 from Spain, Mexico and Denmark...

I wonder if it tells more about the American definition of a "classic", or about the insularity of the American movie culture.

I concede that most of this list would be a classic in any country in the world, as we are fed by Hollywood, but according to EW (which seems mainly based on BO success!), the rest of the world hasn't produced much "classics" in the last 25 years...

It feels like looking at IMDb's All time USA Box Office.

Strange list. It's fun seeing 'Blue Velvet' and 'Toy Story' side by side, or 'Big' and 'No Country for Old Men'. And the juxtaposition of 'The Breakfast Club'and 'Fight Club' is hilarious.

I have to agree with Jonathan Lapper's comments on the definition of "classic". It's flexible and needs context to carry any kind of significance. Mostly I find what's meant by "classic" is what's now imbedded in pop culture as a slogan, image or attitude that speaks for its time.

Small aside/bone to pick: Was putting 'All About My Mother' among your list of bizzare choices an attempt at being provocative? Put beside the others you mention it looks like a masterpiece simply for it's control of style and wacky yarn spinning (who else but Almodovar?). That said, I did find it's ending more than a little clumsy. Sorry, it was just weird seing 'Dirty Dancing','Gladiator', 'Pretty Woman'...'All About My Mother' mentioned in the same breath. Maybe you should watch it again ;).

Speaking of films we never want to see again, how did 'Juno' not make this list but 'Michael Clayton' did?

In fact I'm suprised a lot of the choices are considered popular enough to make this kind of list ('Crumb', 'Waiting for Guffman', 'The Player', 'Breaking the Waves' [no 'Dancer In The Dark'?], 'All About My Mother', 'In The Mood for Love'). All things considered I'm kind of impressed.

I think there are two contexts in which the word "classic" is used: 1) the public sphere and 2) personal preference. The word is publicly attributed to movies when: 1) they are lionized by audiences (though not necessarily critics) whose adoration of the film endures over time; or 2) they are rediscovered by critics (and later by audiences, though not necessarily in the same numbers as in the previous case) who re-appraise the film as time passes and ask people to give it another look. The word is personally attributed to movies based on arbitrary criteria that varies from person to person.

No one can change the "classic" label when it refers to the public sphere, as it's completely out of any one person's control, but in a personal conversation, I can question the criteria someone uses to assess a film as "classic." So, while "Rocky" and "Star Wars" and "The Sound of Music" are deemed classics in the public eye, I just don't care for them on a personal level.

EW always combines the two contexts when making their lists, which is why they are so confounding. I couldn't imagine mentioning "Moulin Rouge," "Jerry Maguire," or "Pretty Woman" in the same breath as "Pulp Fiction," "This Is Spinal Tap," or "Wings of Desire." Of course, that's because my personal criteria is different - extraordinary craftsmanship, rewatchability, and memorable characterization are all necessary. These things are more easily felt than quantified, but they lead me to believe that "Being John Malkovich," "Eyes Wide Shut," "Mulholland Drive," "City of God," and "Talk to Her" (among other notable omissions) are classics. There is a lot more going on in these films than what's on the surface, which makes them such a pleasure to revisit.

You raise an interesting question about how soon the "classic" status can be determined. There are three movies on this list from 2007, which would normally make me balk, but I knew after the lights came up that "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" would withstand the test of time and be worthy of canonization. ("Michael Clayton," while a very good movie, is just solid genre fare and will never belong in a list of classics.) These are exceptions, though. Time is definitely the best test, which is why I agree with the 25-year hold. How else could we assess that "The Graduate" still speaks to young generations while "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" feels so dated?

This list reminds me of VH1's new series, "I Love the New Mellenium," in which celebs discuss the events of the past 8 years as they did with the 70s, 80s, and 90s. They try to be nostalgic about events from 2007!

How can anyone consider a movie from the past few years a classic already? Sure, I agree that "No Country..." will one day be considered a classic, but not yet. Besides, who knows what might change in the next decade or so or what films might be considered significant twenty years from now. I loved "Office Space", but I can't see people in 2050 looking at that film in the same way we look at something by Hitchcock or Welles.

As a guy who isn't big on "chick flicks", I'm going to assert: Yes, Moulin Rouge is a classic. It's funny, genre-bending, incredibly stylish, filled with wonderful performances, and really a unique experience in film.

My biggest quibble with the list is how high "Titanic" is. Yes, it made a ludicrous amount of money, and yes, many people claimed it as their favorite movie of all time when it came out--but it just wasn't that good. The story was a terrible cliche that (unlike Moulin Rouge) tried its best to ignore it was a cliche and play itself sincerely, and the excitement and visuals just don't hold up on multiple viewings. And, honestly, how often do you hear anyone talk about the movie today?

My guess is the folks from EW used an ambiguous term like "classic" on purpose. "Classic" may not even mean good, but a film that caputres the cultural zeitgeist in some way.

Or perhaps this was a way of them avoiding the rarely seen but high quality films of the past 25 years (no Tarr, Angelopoulos, Denis, Sokurov). After all a film has to be seen by a decent slice of the population to be a "classic."

It's a cheap trick, but one that allows EW to get away with having bad taste. It's saying "Culture picked the list, we just compiled it and reported on it." What it makes is for a very dull list.

"Classic" is so subjective even within my own use of the word, it's hard to define in concrete terms. I think MILLER'S CROSSING is a classic, but in a completely different way than I find THE GODFATHER to be a classic.

I used to think it had something to do with the passage of time, and how a film holds up over the course of years, but then how to explain the immediate response to a film like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN? A similar problem occurs when you attempt to base your decisions on the amount you enjoyed a film: I thought MICHAEL CLAYTON was amazing, but I don't think it's destined for "classic" status. The same goes for CASINO ROYALE, to which I give full credit for re-invigorating a franchise, but a classic?

I think the most amazing thing about the list is the number of films I really suspect no one truly considers a classic. FATAL ATTRACTION was a phenomenon in it's day, but has ANYONE watched it in the last 10 years? I have, and besides an interesting Glenn Close performance it doesn't hold up. I don't particularly like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, but I can see it's impact on audiences and the romantic comedy films that appeared in it's wake. Unfortunately I can't say the same for films like DONNIE BRASCO and GLADIATOR, which besides making Russell Crowe a household name was a "meh" movie.

The fact that The Shawshank Redemption isn't on the list invalidates it completely.

Classics from the 90's and 00's for me would be:
1990's:
Shawshank
Schindler's List
Saving Private Ryan
American Beauty
The Matrix
JFK
Beauty and the Beast
Heat
Dazed and Confused
L.A. Confidential

2000's:
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Almost Famous
Memento
Minority Report
Million Dollar Baby
Munich
The Departed
Zodiac
Traffic
City of God
Batman Begins

Hey Jim,

Just wanted to chime in on your opinion of Apocalypse Now. While the latter third is not as tight as the first two-thirds, I think it is the latter third itself that catapults the film well into Classic status. The legend and lore surrounding it, the music and the poetry, Dennis Hopper, and just the appearance of Brando alone are the very things that, even if they are not "great", are certainly "classic".

Of course, this very much depends on your definition of Classic, which I think, should not always be confused with skillfully Great. As far as this film, it's the lack of guidance, the confusion and sloppiness and anarchy of the last third that makes it work for me. For such a mythologically powerful film, I find it a much more satisfying type of ending than a neat, on-message wrap up would have been (not implying you suggested that).

Of course, I am grading on a serious curve based on out-and-out love for the film, which I find to be absolute poetry on screen.

The most truly disturbing aspect of this silly list is that Scream is listed but A Nightmare on Elm Street is nowhere to be found.

I agree with the others' sentiments about defining "classic", and "classics" only become "classic" with time.

I *was* one of those people who, after seeing and enjoying a film in the theater, anxiously await the arrival of the DVD. Upon the arrival of the DVD anywhere from 3months to 1 year later, sometimes I would just be excited to buy the DVD rather than watch it (still haven't watched the Red, White, Blue trilogy on DVD after years of owning it).

The test of classic for me is after a time a) do I still hold the film in high regard, b) upon rewatching do I still have the same opinion of the film, and c) will after a second viewing, will I want to watch it again?

Akin to what you said about Tarantino imitator lessening the impact of a film, however, what follows in the wake of something great can be to its detriment. I loved "Clerks" for years, until Kevin Smith went back to the well too many times and spoiled his previous works by diluting their impact. I can't even bring myself to think about watching it again. Shyamalan's first two works also suffer under the weight of his later films.

A list of "classics" also has to be defined as to whether it's personal or meant for the masses, as if to say "these are the films I love, with my many biases stated up front" or "these are the films that are damn good and have a lasting value for all". There are some films that aren't very good which I love to pieces. In my personal collection, these are "classics"... would I think the world should share that sentiment? Absolutely not.

About 1/3 to 1/4 of EW's list of "classics" will actually hold up to such classification, and a severe lack of international productions on the list acts as key indicator of it's unimportance. But then, every list, regardless of subject, is going to face scrutiny as we all have our own ideas and opinions unique to ourselves. The list is just a conversation starter.

Pulp Fiction would probably top my list of modern classics. It's the only film I've ever seen six times in the theatre, and one of few films I can revisit with much the same sense of awe, enthusiasm and joy each time.
Others of the kind include The Royal Tenenbaums, The Big Lebowski, Spellbound, and Amelie.

Also don't get the idea that I'm critizing Jim's 102 movies because I think it is certainly better than the tepid,safe and unenlightening AFI list or EW's list of films(most of which has films that aren't old enough to drink or drive yet) I just think something seems odd if a film is essential from a cultural standpoint than an aesthetic standpoint because If I knew that the person who made the list considers the film a masterpiece then I would feel more inspired to see it because I know I'm in for something good.Also EW's list seems "a new kid on the block" list,Personally I think we're better with an "old white guy" list which gives aesthetically better movies. As for Tarentino'S Pop culture dialogue I think it is done to make the audience more relate to the characters and see them as average joes.So I will see everyone later on the next post.

Hey Jim,

I'll sort of repeat something I said about this list on Glenn Kenny's blog: I think a list like this begs the question of what "classic" means - films that were most widely viewed and 'liked' at the time of their release or ones that have been influential over a period of years. Also, is their critical reception and ability to hold up over the years also taken into consideration?

When I think of 'classic' films, I think of "Vertigo," "Taxi Driver," "Citizen Kane," "2001: A Space Odyssey," etc. And many of the films on EW's list - "Blue Velvet," "Pulp Fiction," "Goodfellas" and "Wings of Desire" - are without a doubt, I believe, modern classics.

But I wondered whether people would really consider films like "Napoleon Dynamite," "Austin Powers," "Office Space," "Men in Black" and "Fatal Attraction" as classics one day. Popular films, perhaps. Or, as you said, movies with cult followings- I can buy that. But classics?

And then films like "Being John Malkovich," "The Decalogue" and "Mulholland Dr.," not to mention any films by David Cronenberg or Jim Jarmusch, are not on the list.

I enjoy lists as much as the next person and the best thing about film lists, for me at least, is that they cause you to critically assess WHAT about specific films makes them better than others. For example, I've seen "Blue Velvet" probably 15 times, but I find something new every time.

I guess what makes one list more valuable than the next is its criteria. Maybe somebody should make a list of the best lists.

i have the same definition of classic film as alan..
one that is continue being use as comparison to the same genre or in short the benchmark..i think we mostly associate classic as old...

i consider this films to be soon be classic

no country for old men
raging bull
goodfellas
unforgiven
finding nemo
lord of the rings trilogy

i have a lot more but those are the films that came into mind immediately...

I have always been puzzled by the "classic" tag. Does it mean the best, does it mean the most influential, or does it suggest some kind of critical/popular consensus? Is it a term applied to works of art that have gained a certain cultural cache, is it a term applied to the best of a particular genre, or is it a term applied to works that define a particular genre. "Gone with the Wind" comes to mind as a film that is a sort of "ultra-classic," and while it's got a lot of good stuff in it, it's never gonna be a critical favorite in the way that anything directed by Orson Wells will be.

I'm reminded of the existence of Criterion Collection DVD of "Armageddon." According to some definitions of "classic," it's a perfect fit. It's undeniably undeniably a quintessential example of several different action movie tropes. If you wanna see what big budget special effects films from the past few years are like, it's a textbook case. But it's an incredibly stupid movie. Can a classic be a steaming pile of horse pucky? Depends on what "classic" means.

I think John Hughes films can be called 80's classics but not because of their works of cinematic genius from that decade but because his films were cultural icons of that decade.I think films can be called classics based on quality and classics based on reputation.

So, I re-read it after the initial skimming and realized that THE INCREDIBLES is indeed on the list. As Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman so aptly put it, "Damn your eyes." "Too late."

Still...SHREK? Really?

No, I can't say I agree with the choice of only six foreign language movies from the past 25 years. I suppose "Fanny and Alexander" didn't quite make the cutoff date, although I believe it was released in the United States 25 years ago this month. I suppose "Time Regained," "Through the Olive Trees" and "Russian Ark" would be too esoteric for EW, though I would think they could get "Spirited Away" on the list. Come to think of it, either "Delicatassen" or "A Very Long Engagement" could have made it, as well as "The Vanishing."

Indeed, this is list which calls out for alternate choices: "Splash" instead of "Big," "Paris, Texas," over "Wings of Desire," "Europa/Zentropa" over "Breaking the Waves." I'd add "Magnolia" to "There will be Blood," "Mulholland Drive" with "Blue Velvet." I'd also exchange "JFK" for "Natural Born Killers," "Se7en" for "Fight Club," "Matilda" over "The Lion King," "Twelve Monkeys" over both Terminator movies and "Brazil" over "Edward Scissorhands." I can't say I found "This is Spinal Tap" a terribly funny movie, while by contrast "Stop Making Sense" really is a great concert movie. Quite frankly, there's a whole host of movies I'd remove to put in "Richard III," "Angel Heart" and "Henry V," starting with "Titanic," "Moulin Rouge" and "Shrek." (As one critic in the Village Voice Year end Poll said, it's a movie that says you shouldn't judge people by appearances, unless they're short.)

A bunch of quick, random thoughts:

Most of the movies on the list are good, or even very good but dn't strike me as ever again being called "classic" (for which there may be many definitions, but if EW is going by quality and influence, I guess we can all judge the titles on the list by that criteria). Die Hard, for example is just a common action movie, complete with hero spouting one liners. Edward Scissorhands looks great but has hardly any human story. Casino Royale and practically anything after say, 2000, is too new to even be considered yet. Gladiator and Return of the King (isn't it cheating to put an entire trilogy in one spot?) are two of the least deserving Best Pictures I can think of. I think it's odd that Forrest Gump, which beat out Pulp Fiction for Best Picture in 1994, is not on the list. Memento is just another retarded offspring of Pulp Fiction. Fight Club is one of David Fincher's lesser movies. I liked The Talented Mr. Ripley, but was it really that good or influential? What about Michael Clayton? I liked but didn't love it; it feels like a show on FX. Donnie Brasco got good reviews, but what distinguishes from, say, Casino or Carlito's Way?

All: Good stuff to chew on here. I guess I'm a little wary of the term "classic" applied to almost anything that's been released in my adult life! That "102 Movies You Must See Before You Die" list I did (compiled in 1999, as I recall) was (maybe) something different. I was trying to come up with a list of movies that were important cultural touchstones -- not just movies I thought were significant because I considered them worthy artistic achievements. There are plenty of movies I don't think are particularly good but, c'mon, you've gotta see them in order to understand their artistic and/or pop-cultural influence. Having never seen a Harry Potter film (I know, I know), I do sometimes feel unable to participate in certain conversations about contemporary popular phenomena.

Michael Clayton, Far From Heaven, In the Mood for Love, Napoleon Dynamite, Moulin Rouge, The Lives of Others, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Glory, Swingers, Casino Royale, Toy Story, The Truman Show, Naked Gun, Hoop Dreams...there is so much WRONG in this list that I don't even know where to begin. Most of those I wouldn't even consider to be "cult" classics, let alone a classic.

In the first place, I'm sick of EW and all their snarky, self-aware pop culture, compulsive list making. Second, I take issue with the fact that the "cut-off" is 1983. These lists (and the million others they've done), are never done because they're really classics. It's just another excuse for them to kiss The Simpsons' ass and to let the rest of us know that they're the official voice of the people. And you know they just couldn't wait to put "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country For Old Men" on a new list! And last, I'm sick of people not giving horror and sci-fi it's due. First the AFI leaves horror off their Top 10 genre lists (don't even get me started on the stupidity that is the AFI), and now this BS, though I can't say I'm surprised. I will admit that the 90s was one the weakest decades for horror films, thanks to "The Silence of the Lambs" (unloved by me), which ditched any original concepts like we saw in the 70s, giving us the dreaded police procedural crime-suspense thriller, now a dime-a-dozen (Fallen, Seven, blah blah blah). But "Donnie Braso"? Excuse me? Try "Donnie DARKO". "Evil Dead 2"? Try "Amry of Darkness". Even "The Ring", full of cheap, clunky dialogue, at least waited till the end before we saw the herky-jerky dead girl with wet hair, which made the sense of dread even more palpable.

And that's not all:

28 Days Later
Signs
The Fly
Jacob's Ladder
Near Dark
Pan's Labyrinth
Ginger Snaps
A Nightmare on Elm Street

Plus other non-horror entries,:

Silkwood
Basic Instinct
Pirates of the Caribbean Peggy Sue Got Married
The Color Purple
A Christmas Story
The Right Stuff
Fried Green Tomatoes
The Shawshank Redemption
Working Girl
Forrest Gump
Driving Miss Daisy
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
300
Romancing the Stone
The Outsiders
True Lies
William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet
Juno

Hey everybody, let's talk about Harry Potter.

Other than making me think, "Really? Only 2 foreign films make the cut?" I can't think of any reason to be upset or happy about any list like this. A classic must "stand the test of time" and all that, but it's truly an individual thing and to know how movies were chosen you have to know the people doing the choosing. Those who choose the National Registry and the critics who make the end of the year lists look for something different than the mass public, and so the public would create a different list of "classics" with just a little crossover. This is a list made by a pop culture checkout magazine, so it has the sensibility of one.

No Princess Bride? Failure.

If you think about it "Independence Day"(which I thought was very entertaining even though the characters were goofy) is a cultural touchstone because it brought back the disaster film genre back to film and It was the most(or at least one of) moneymaking and popular sci-fi film of the 90's.

So, EW picks the Top 100 classic movies of the past 25 years, and both "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Forest Gump" are left off? Disgraceful.

Something about BACK TO THE FUTURE landing all the way down at 91 doesn't sit right with me. I would probably put it in the top ten.

"It feels like looking at IMDb's All time USA Box Office."

Exactly, Harry. I agree with those who have noted that film's classic status does NOT depend AT ALL upon its artistic merit or its effect upon any specific individual but upon its ability to endure as a cultural icon through time. So this list of "contemporary classics" is silly silly silly, because its just a stupid guessing game based upon the film's popularity upon release.

I think the reason that many of the titles are on here is that they did capture the popular imagination at the time they were released. Like it or not, Titanic, Pretty Woman, Fatal Attraction, etc while not being very good films, provided enough imagery that entered common usage for their places on the list to be justified. The other thing about this list is that EW's general audience have to know a fair amount of the titles otherwise the article will be deemed a failure by it's target audience. Classic is a pretty meaningless term in this sense. So you're left with a frustrating list that combines the films that caught on with the mainstream (or with a more cult audience) and films that seem to be there because of their quality as films. Regardless of how well the films themselves hold up, you can give a reason for the inclusion of pretty much every single film on that list if you think about the criteria EW would have set themselves.

The trouble with a term like classic is that it's going to be an incredibly individual thing, a point that's been made several times already. But take a look at Matthew's post for a perfect illustration of that point. He condemns the EW list and then offers replacements that include some of the most banal films I've ever seen. No disrespect intended to Matthew, I've no doubt he deeply loves all the films he mentioned, but if Jacob's Ladder, 300, Romancing The Stone, True Lies or Working Girl ever turned up on any classic list other than a personal one then I'd think whoever created the list had lost their minds. No doubt many people would feel the same if I was to create a list of my personal modern classics.

Regarding Jamie's point about the Armageddon dvd, don't Criterion release films like that so they can turn enough of a profit to enable them to release the more obscure titles?

If a classic is meant to stand the test of time, then I don't think Pulp Fiction deserves the top spot. It is certainly fun on first viewing, but seeing it a second or third time is like hearing a joke you already know the punchline to. I found the second viewing points out how empty the story is. I felt that this film really has nothing more to say beyond its own structure and pop culture references. Question: Who do you care about in this film?
A classic should go beyond catchphrases and nostalgia. It should have something timeless to say, which on repeating viewing still resonates.
Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Casablanca, even The Matrix and the overlooked Shawshank Redemption are better contenders than Pulp Fiction in my opinion. Where's On the Waterfront? Or To Kill a Mockingbird?
And Shrek as a classic? Give it another 5 years and it will disappear from that status just like that other pop-culture-filled cartoon, Aladdin. Remember those Arsenio Hall jokes?

I don't generally pay attention to lists like this except for the top 10, and I think EW mostly nailed the top 10 here. The only film that seems totally out of place is Moulin Rouge - I love the film, and it got a tonne of press at the time for reviving the "movie musical", but how many musicals have we seen since then? Chicago? The Producers? That's all I can think of outside of kids movies.

The list is definitely US-centric, too, but you can't really fault a mainstream american publication for that.

Since "quotability" was mentioned as a criterion, may I say that this list "completes me" and that the most important criterion should be opening weekend gross. ("Show me the money.")

More seriously, Jim, I agree with your statement about applying the word "classic" to things that happened in your adult life, however extraordinarily long that life might have been, but I would substitute the word "wary" with "weary". ESPN and VH-1, among many other outlets, have made such an industry out of this, and the culture,as a whole, is more fascinated with forecasting and handicapping than with discussing merit or ideas. So anyway, I'll just throw out the idea that while being a "cultural phenomenon" might have been one reasonable measure of classic status from Charlie Chaplin through "Star Wars" or so, I think we can scratch that idea from the list now that creating phenomena is such an incestuous cottage industry.

p.s. Just read the Harry Potter books. The movies are like Reader's Digest versions and don't add anything to the conversation.

For me, the real absurdity of this list isn't its bizarre placement - although one could argue anyone who prefers "Men in Black" to "Ghostbusters" needs a swift kick to the sternum.

No, the real absurdity is EW's stubborn refusal to engage its readers, instead electing to reward them with familiar hits that they won't have to struggle to find. I respect "Pulp Fiction" as number one, but entries like "Lord of the Rings," "Titanic," "Saving Private Ryan," and "Die Hard" scream a lack of imagination to me. There are so many other terrific pictures rarely given the spotlight. In a way, lists like this (that have a real opportunity to speak for the little guy) are borderline offensive in their stubborn adherence to the status quo.

Compromise is obviously necessary for EW, since they must maintain their ardent pop-art lovers without sacrificing casual readers (probably why Harry Potter's on the cover instead of, say, Henry Hill). But this list is peculiarly inert, lacking the interest of viewers brimming with passion, looking more like the result of a committee determined to offend (and challenge) no one.

I agree with Sam Erickson above: "Jackie Brown" is a far more mature and entertaining film, if you're talking Quentin Tarantino.
A classic, in my opinion, is that film that will be remembered and represents a certain time or a certain genre. A classic is a movie that I will go back to and enjoy with the same joy I had the first time I saw it.
The problem with this list is that many of the films were pop-culture phenoms that are already forgotten. Is anyone going to remember "Napoleon Dynomite"? I don't plan to. I will however be revisiting "Pan's Labyrinth", "Once", and "Batman Begins" which each represent their respective genres better than "The Matrix", "Moulin Rouge", or "Spiderman 2".

except for maggie simpson, does anyone find that cover an incredibly depressing assesment of pop culture?

Also Groundhog day is a glaring omission

some foreign competition for the bottom 70 of that list:

Amelie, Ringu, La Haine, Time of Gypsies, Le Grand Bleu, Devdas, Amores Perros,
Nikita, Cyrano de Bergerac,
The name of the rose, some Miyazaki, Jean de Florette / Manon des Sources, The killer, La vita e bella, Farewell my concubine, Raise the Red Lantern, The Barber of Siberia, La Reine Margot
L'Amant, La cérémonie, Akira

Matt D said - 'The only film that seems totally out of place is Moulin Rouge - I love the film, and it got a tonne of press at the time for reviving the "movie musical", but how many musicals have we seen since then? Chicago? The Producers? That's all I can think of outside of kids movies.'

Sweeney Todd, Rent, Dreamgirls, Hairspray, The Phantom Of The Opera... Walk The Line and Ray in a sense as well. Not a great list but it's not bad considering a musical is a very risky proposition and it's only been a few years since Moulin Rouge.

Anyone else really, really sick of lists?

I believe this list is one of the reasons why Roger reuses to rank his end of year top 10 list.
Having seen many of the movies on this list I would like to tell a few anecdotes about a few of them. But before I do I'd like to mention two glaring omissions. No Shawshank and no Heat. Enough said.

When I was a child my father my father and I would regularly goto the movies. Looking back on them some of them were rather interesting choices for a kid. But they are very pleasant memories of my childhood.

I remember seeing Aliens and being on the edge of my seat.
I remember watching Pretty Women on While on a Field Trip in High School.
I remember seeing T2 on its opening Friday. Which if I recall was the same day as a solar eclipse. I could go on and on.

With all of that said, I think for most of us; who enjoy movies enjoy them for there ability to take us away for a period of time. As for me, I enjoy them for the memories they make

The lists are innocuous (and does anyone expect anything more than that from EW?). But I wish they hadn't used the word "Best" in the subhead on the cover. That doesn't even seem to accurately describe their intention.

What makes a movie a classic? Francis Ford Coppola gave the best meter: How a film becomes an unquestionable classic doesn't depend upon whether or not it blows away box-office records or earns critical acclaim or sweeps the awards season. Simply, the test of a classic is whether or not ten, thirty, fifty years after it is released, the film is still being watched, quoted, dissected, and discussed by the public at large. EW's list strikes me as pretty shallow and poorly weighted (Jerry McGuire before Goodfellas? Absurd), but it might ultimately point to those films that have the potential to stand the test of time and ascend to that level of durability. But few films only twenty-five years old or younger have yet had the opportunity to pass that test. So EW's attempt mostly strikes me as a waste of time.

A classic is usually thought of as a film that is so great that nobody will forget it such as Casablanca, The Godfather, or Pulp Fiction. The problem, however, is that a lot of terrible films have not been forgotten. People still remember Police Academy, Porky's, Showgirls, Basic Instinct, Dirty Dancing, Friday the 13th, or Independence Day. But why? Is it because they made some cultural impact despite their badness?

Is a "classic" a movie that makes a cultural impact whether it is great or terrible?

I don't believe a film is a classic just because it made a cultural impact or lots of money at the box office. A movie could have made lots of money at the box office and had a cultural impact, but be painful to watch today like Police Academy and its sequels.

To me, a classic is an old film that is enjoyable and wonderful to watch today. Films like North By Northwest, Jaws, MASH, The French Connection, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, or Beverly Hills Cop are still highly enjoyable and great to watch despite their age.

No better cast and no better acting was ever assembled for the screen than Glengarry Glenn Ross

24 Oscar nominations and 6 wins among the lead cast for their careers. Tough to find another film that brought that much gravitas.

not a spare moment or lean exchange, and one of the most quotable films in history.

as for Apocalypse Now . . . considering the film is about Willard's descent into the madness Kurtz had already achieved, I relish that the 3rd act was non-linear and non-sensical and all done to The Doors, man . . .

Sam! I was thinking about "Independence Day" myself the other day, and how, even though it's a dreadful film, should also be considered a classic on this list. "The Towering Inferno" and "Poseidon Adventure" are classics, that should be too.

zetes, "Talk to Her" is a brilliant piece of filmmaking. "All About My Mother" is a mess of an attempt at storytelling. All of the characters were just so, boring, and it was so unnecessarily melodramatic, egads! I almost turned it off! And when the kid kids hit by the car, I had to rewind and watch it again because the sequence was so poorly directed and edited - I was confused as to what had just happened! Blech!

I just used the link that Jim offers above the list of 100 movies. Over at EW's website you can really see just how absurd this whole thing is. Like Time did not too long ago, they've got a list for every art / media form that you can think of. They also have things like "Samuel L. Jackson's top ten asian action movies from the past 25 years", etc.

We, as a culture, are addicted to lists. I think we like to know who's who and what's what without having to do any of the legwork of actually watching all these movies. Maybe it helps someone who really doesn't have much of an opinion to read this article and adopt an opinion. How he / she can talk about it with their friends. "Oh, man I think 'Hannah and her Sisters' is one of the best movies of the 80's." Is that too cynical?

I know this isn't totally related, but I have to mention it. In their list of 100 albums they've included (at #11) Nirvana's "Unplugged in NY". Including that album would be fine if they'd included "Nevermind" or "In Utero". I am in total disbelief. "Nevermind", like it or not, drastically changed the landscape of American music. I think there are loads of albums from the last 20 years that are as good or better than "Nevermind", but "Nevermind" is sort of like the "Pulp Fiction" of music (only maybe a bit more meaningful). On a personal level, I think the album holds up as well now as it did when I had to listen to it on a cassette copy my sister made me, on my walkman, after I was supposed to be in bed in sixth grade. Did they think "Nevermind" was too obvious?

So suffice it to say that EW's inability to make a meaningful list is not relegated to movies.

Jeffrey Simons: Amen, brotha.

I would caution people who actually want to think critically about the canon of "classics" from giving too much weight to what they themselves find aesthetically (or in any other sense) excellent. We can know that "Farewell, My Concubine" and "The Sweet Hereafter" are better movies than "Pretty Woman," but anyone who actually thinks that they can hold a candle to that movie in the hearts of literally millions of people who have consumed movies over the last twenty-five years has not been talking to many people. (That's actually what occurred to me when you said, Jim, that you thought it was gender bias that drew you away from these movies: I don't think it was your gender, but you obivously haven't talked casually about movies with many people under 35. Even men that age know perfectly well that "Pretty Woman", as well as "Dirty Dancing", are destined to live on for decades to come.) I love "Wings of Desire" more than almost any other movie, but even I have doubts that it belongs on this list, because it is not as well known (although it's broad-enough base of appreciation, combined with it's incredible quality, just barely qualifies it for this list for me).
I'm sure if I thought about it, I could come up with more solid options (hopefully not too many), but the two titles that were the most glaring omissions for me were "The Shawshank Redemption," which many people here have noted (evidently, EW also has not been talking to many people under 35), and "Field of Dreams," only slightly less surprising an omission. I think both of these titles exemplify to me what it is about a classic that makes it so: it is essentially it's staying power, which is not set off AGAINST it's other virtues or historical characteristics, like aesthetic quality, instant popularity, life on video, historic resonance, or influence on the medium, but instead is the combination of ALL of these things, and probably a few more, too. I do believe that we can, at least occasionally, get a good grasp upon the first viewing of a movie of it's potential for being a classic - but because it's staying power is the most crucial determinant, our initial impression is entirely subordinate to the winds of history and, like it or not, public esteem.

P.S. Let the debate rage on about "Forrest Gump." I, for one, fully support it's omission, because I haven't heard a peep of enthusiasm (e.g., as a topic of conversation, a cultural reference, or an exemplar of it's kind) about it for at least the last ten years or so. Other more recent movies that are probably also destined for the dustbin of history are "Gladiator" and "Men in Black" - although I have to grudgingly admit, even though I hate it, "Moulin Rouge" definitely belongs on this list, just not as high as # 10.

I think most people would disagree with me but I think that although Pulp Fiction is QT's most fun movie I do think that Reservoir Dogs is better and more slicker movie(inspite of the fact that it's done on a small budget).

Part of what really tends to grate me about such indexical tendencies as EW displays in this issue is semantic. Actually, my major qualm with list-making in general is semantic. The list-makers always tend to choose a word--"classic" in this case or "great" or "best" or "influential" in others--that lends to that list a certain objectivity, creates an aura of the absolute. I think that the use of the term classic is a particularly egregious example of this. I mean, that word connotes some serious ossification of status. Those names, those classics, have been carved into stone.

But, as you point out, Jim, that's not the case at all. "Today's landmark is tomorrow's relic," as you say. Unlike you, though, I don't know that I've ever seen a movie--or listened to an album or read a book--that I thought of as "classic." I guess my brain doesn't quite work on those terms. It works more on terms of subjective favoritism and a desire to spread that subjective gospel. I'm perfectly aware that what blows me away is not going to have the same effect on everyone. I will encourage people to watch the works of Van Sant or Kusturica or Altman or Wai or Stillman or whoever I might adore, but I never will say: "That's a classic." I will also rarely say "That's one of the best movies of _____! You need to see it." It becomes more: "I thought it was great." Or I'll focus on its status as a favorite.

For me, I don't know that there's anything useful in the concept of the classic (or, if I'm feeling adventurous, that there's anything classic at all). It doesn't strike me as the way in which one should view cultural productions. Critics, I think, should be in the business of pointing us in certain directions but not in the business of canon formations.

And that's precisely what lists attempt to do. Have I made lists? Naturally. But I don't know that they were for anyone's edification but my own, a pleasant way to organize a few hundred of my favorite things.

Or maybe I have an aversion to the classic status because I don't know what could possibly constitute a definition of that term. Is it as simple as the confluence of influence and quality and "freshness"? I don't think so. If anything, classics are middle of the road--something enough people can agree on in order to establish that canonical status. This isn't to say they don't deserve that status, of course; sometimes classics can be favorite too. But really, who wants to like a classic? The un-respected gems and the underdogs are just way more fun.

I think classic in film can be used in I think three different ways. First, a classic of quality("Casablanca","The Searchers") meaning films that we can enjoy and appreciate again and again and treasure in years to come.Second,which is a classic of its type("Batman Begins","Se7en") that means films that are the best or better films of its type or genre.Finally,classic of reputation("Independence Day","The Texas Chainsaw Massacre") which means films that are influential or started a trend for movies.Now,I wonder if Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" could be consider a classic?.

While I don't think Pulp Fiction is QT's masterpiece or that it a matter of time before it will be not as memorable as it is but I still think it is one of the most fun I've seen because it a film where you live in the moment.

A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.
-"Mark Twain"

Can the same definition be applied to "classic" movies? If we accept EW's list, then no, because these are almost all popular films and pop culture touchstones. In addition, there's the simple fact that it is much easier to consume a movie (2 hours or so) than a book.

If we take the Sight & Sound poll as a different "classic" canon, then I'm not sure Twain's definition applies either because I doubt that the majority of people even _want_ to have seen films like "Rules of the Game" since films don't carry the same cultural or intellectual cachet as books do.

Then again, most people probably don't want to have read the classic books either. So maybe Twain was wrong in the first place.

I was excited to read the story as I expected to see insight/trivial notes about absolute classics (and my personal faves) like JFK and Heat. These are two movies that people are still talking about, more than 10 years after their initial releases. Isn't one of preconditions to be a classic is that people still remember it long after it's no longer in theaters?

Alas, no JFK, no Heat. Therefore, halfway through I stopped taking the article seriously.

Because I'm bored and it's too damned hot out to do anything else...

A lot of people have been nay-saying "Michael Clayton". Which seems to me to be a pretty silly thing to do. I think of "Marathon Man", "3 Days of the Condor", "All the President's Men"...all pretty much "genre fare" as one person above put it, but genre fare that was so exceptionally well done it blows other movies out of the water. Genre fare is something tooled together by Tony Scott! Not deftly crafted like "Michael Clayton". It's a phenomenal movie, and could very well be a classic unto its own right.

I think the problem here is that people assume this was one guy sitting at his desk in a back room deciding what movie was better than another. I imagine it's not the case at all, but a group of people voting. Something like Jim's list is however one man's opinion as to how technically flawless and culturally and filmically important a movie can be. (which is good!) These are great films that teach us a lot about our inner selves and film history. But classic goes well beyond the "critical eye" of a well schooled film buff. I think "The Insider" is one of the best films I've seen come out of the studio system in the last 15 years, does that make it a classic? I make a reference to a friend about the golfing scene and chuckle to myself, while people's heads tilt to the side in confusion. It's not a classic, but that doesn't mean it's not an amazing movie. "The Insider" hasn't hedged it's way into our pop cultural lives and never will, and I'm completely okay with that. In fact, I don't want it to be...it leaves a piece of film history just for me.

And whether you like it or not, Entertainment Weekly is about pop culture (which would put Pulp Fiction at the top of the list - it's all about pop culture! And it was a huge cultural shift at the time and it's influences are still seen. Plus, whether you want to admit it or not, it's a really well made and entertaining film. It's not meant to be "deep" - ugh. And if one more person says "Naked Gun" isn't great...well I'll give you something great "Mr. Poopy-pants.") EW doesn't try to hide this pop culture adoration. They also don't try to hide the fact that they'll get hundreds of thousands of hate mail concerning their list. Why????!!! It's such a ridiculous thing to get upset over. Yet they do it any way. Why? Because they know it's enjoyable for someone to sit down and argue about it, or should be.

I think a magazine for people here at Scanners to look at for a list would be Film Comment, but then you would all sputter about how the fun ones were left off of their intellectually buffed up film historian take on what cinema should be. There is a middle ground.

I think I've learned something today, that while many films can be fun and many films can be shining examples of a perfectly made critically lauded historically important film that effects us when we as individuals see it, a classic hits somewhere in between. It's a film that brings many people together, a film that's not only great, but goes beyond it's own greatness and enters into our pop culture vocabulary. "Animal Farm" (the book) is great, so great that it broke free from the covers of it's binding, just as "Godfather" or "Jurassic Park" or "King Kong" or "Pulp Fiction" or "The Sixth Sense" have become more than just a list of movies people have to see - these films are a part of our language as human beings and how we relate to one another. They're more than just something to be put into a book and studied, but things that we enjoy or that changed the way we talk about movies and how we talk and interact with each other even if it is for a short time (which is why some of these movies may not be on the list in ten years, culture will shift, and that's also fine and necessary for more works of art and entertainment to be made)...and not for just the critics, but for the general public; they are the ones that matter the most. Because they are pop culture. (...sorry, been watching a lot of South Park recently.)

Go Entertainment Weekly!

no Shawshank? if anything, that is the EPITOME of a modern classic, one that is beloved the world over. in my opinion, it's the greatest film ever made, and hell it's been #2 on the IMDB top 250 list for what, 14 years? it not being on this list invalidates it completely, and makes it a joke.

Well, if it makes anyone feel any better, the Top 100 Films list is outright crackerjack compared to their Top 100 Books list. The criteria for that one are even harder to pinpoint (a lot more books are published yearly than films directed), but their selection seems twice as lazy and baffling for it. If "The Road" stands as the most "classic" book of the last 25 years, I'll eat my hat.

But the television list ain't bad. I wonder if it's because there seems to be a stronger critical consensus over "classic" television shows than over films or books. That in turn might have something to do with type of reception and expectation, but I'm hardly a media expert.

Strange, "Hannah and Her Sisters" made the top 10, and yet I never hear anyone talk about the movie. It's a great work by a great American filmmaker, even if it's a mash-up of Annie Hall and Interiors, and I was very happy to see it on the list. Still, it fell out of place in the top ten of this list, which mostly went for pop-culture significance over techinical merit. I do think the film will be seen as a timecapsule of upper-crust New York of the mid-1980s, but I don't know if it really classifies as a "popular classic" (rather than a "critical classic"), the kind EW I assume EW listing here (and hence Pretty Woman and Shrek).

And why no "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" It's better than half of the crap on that list!

In total agreement with Micheal and Sean regarding Jackie Brown, which I think is a masterpiece, and one of the best films of the nineties. It also has the best soundtrack of any Tarantino film.

To Phillip Kelly:Hey I completely share your sentiment about "The Insider" which I thought was a first class movie and I think it was a shame when I heard that it did poorly at the box office(However,it did end up on some ten best lists)

"A classic is anything that made money before today's teenagers were born."