Citizen Kane (1941)
La règle du jeu (1939)
Bronenosets Potemkin (1925)
8½ (1963)
City Lights (1931)
Vertigo (1958)
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
The Godfather (1972)
La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The Searchers (1956)
Smultronstället (1957)
À bout de souffle (1960)
Ladri di biciclette (1948)
L'avventura (1960)
Tôkyô monogatari (1953)
L'Atalante (1934)
Ugetsu monogatari (1953)
Andrey Rublyov (1966)
You are only speculating this, of course, since it would be impossible to prove or measure such terms.
>no Pulp Fiction
>no Shawshank
>no Matrix
>no Truman Show
>no Fight Club
Shit list.
>>71218899
Pretty great list but it's missing Au Hasard Balthazar. Is it supposed to end in order?
>>71220226
That's some weak b8 my friend.
>>71218899
Congrats on just discovering the sight and sound poll but I think your post is more suited for Reddit
>>71218899
How the fuck is the Searchers more influential than Birth of a Nation? Are you retarded? You know nothing about film
So nothing influential has been released after 1972?
>>71220466
It takes time to have influence.
>>71220487
>>71220466
Star Wars, and I don't even like it.
>>71218899
Influential how?
What makes you say this?
>>71218899
Add Sunrise, King Kong, Night of the Hunter and 7 Samurai, and you have an entirely accurate list.
>>71220304
I would only put Au hasard Balthazar at about 70th place. That's just my opinion. Great film, but not very influential, and I'm personally not a big fan of it.
>>71220722
Whoops, I saw you included 7 Samurai, my mistake
>>71220413
I've discovered Sight & Sound before this board even existed, but it is still nice that you mentioned it.
>>71220722
>7 Samurai
Shut the fuck up. You are not going to shoehorn that piece of shit in.
No, OK, tell us about it's "influence". I'd like to hear this, just for the sake of argument.
>>71220453
Griffith is influential no doubt, but if you know what you're talking about you should know that at least Intolerance had much bigger impact on cinema, and if I were continuing my list just a bit further, I would definitely mention it. And hey, this thread were supposed for other anons to post their suggestions as well, so why wouldn't you expand your list just a little bit and post it, so that we can have more objective discussion.
>>71220924
How about you watch more films than what's on the Reddit essentials list?
>>71220524
Star Wars did not influent anything, it was itself influentied by 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is mentioned in the list.
>>71218899
Is there anyone outside of US who seriously thinks Vertigo is a good movie?
>>71220970
>Reddit essentials list
Would you mind posting it? Because I've never seen it and have no idea what's in it. But I suppose all pre 90s films in it I've seen, and maybe I haven't seen some of the newest ones, if it has any.
>>71220990
>influentied
Good god you're stupid
>>71218899
>Citizen Kane
stopped reading right there
>>71221074
Would you mind explaining Vertigo and The Searchers' influence?
>>71221080
Oh please forgive me my 1st language being not English. That's not stupidity, and definitely would not count as a counterargument to my list.
>>71221126
I was wrong and my list is stupid. Please post some suggestions. Let's fix my list.
>>71221313
Or let's let this thread die, it has no purpose
>>71220823
Well it's already on OP's list, knob.
>No, OK, tell us about it's "influence".
It influenced a shit load of western films and pretty much every director apart of "New Hollywood" most notably Lucas' Star Wars.
>>71221475
really? please tell me how seven samurai influenced Dennis Hopper, John Cassavetes, and Polanski
>no Star Wars
>no Jaws
>no Forrest Gump & Jurassic Park
to reddito yo go kiddo
>>71220823
You know Star Wars? That's literally just seven samurai in space, so yeah. It also inspired countless spaghetti westerns. Which played a big role in developing film.
And that's just off the top of my head.
>>71220924
A Corner in Wheat and The Lonedale operator are probably more influential, independent of quality now, and Broken Blossoms has had an incredible impact on more modern filmmaking (60s and later)
>>71220990
Star Wars was influenced by more than 2001. It was also inspired by Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, etc, which are all older. I suppose if chronological existence makes something more influential (it doesn't, by the way. Simply look at LucArts' countless contributions to recent productions for direct evidence of the effect of Star Wars), then you would be correct.
OP you don't know about movies, stop embarrassing yourself, it is cringe.
>>71221538
Neither Cassavetes nor Polanski are New Hollywood directors
>>71221566
You know those are Reddit films right? You guys are aware that Reddit loves films post 1990 and big summer blockbusters and incredibly enters-level and simple films right?
>>71221098
>Citizen Kane wasn't influential.
Shut the fuck up, just becaue it hasn't aged well doesn't mean it didn't have a massive impact on how movies are filmed and made from the ground up.
>>71221921
Yet they are all very influential to cinema as it is today, if you deny that you're an absolutely moron.
This a bane thread now.
>>71221978
There all pretty influential I agree with you there, (I'm not OP btw) but I don't think there as influential as the ones OP posted at least not yet.
I was just saying that calling OP's list "Reddit" wasn't very accurate.
>>71221925
Deflecting the answers you get doesn't refute them.
Anyways I know Polanski has said that Seven Samurai influenced him a lot, and that he was definitely looking at Kurosawa's version of Macbeth when he was directing his own.
>>71222347
there's no rewording it. if you think polanski wasn't new hollywood you're a retard who doesn't know the first thing about films. i recommend you start with wikipedia and then work your way up to books and maybe watch some films too
>>71221948
>Citizen Kane
> it hasn't aged well
>>71221098
Citizen Kane was extremely influential. It is overrated as fuck, but very influential.
>>71222226
forrest gump and jp literally started the CGI fade that we are living in for more than 20 years now
>>71218899
Pulp Fiction should legitimately be on this list. If you were alive when it came out you'd know how influential and important that movie is.
Also, no Rashomon?
>>71223687
Is Jennifer Jason Lee left handed or right handed?
>>71223817
oh wait Jason Lee is that skateboard guy. *Jennifer Jason Leigh
>>71222800
>CGI fade
This isn't really a good thing and it really only affected major Hollywood blockbusters, which isn't a large portion of movies. Plus t influenced it in a bad way, so if we're including their two things we might as well add Transformers and Indpendece day to the list of most influential movies.
>>71223817
Right handed
>>71223687
Pulp fiction is just a rip off of Japense and French New Wave films. So it's not like he film itself brought anything new to the table and I think that disqualifies it for being influential.
Plus it only influenced the film world in a negative way and has had no real lasting impact.
>>71218899
L'avventura fucking sucks
>>71223939
>it really only affected major Hollywood blockbusters
how naive are you
>>71224551
Okay and some cheap asylum movies that tried to leech of the bog blockbusters, I left those out because they don't really count.
Other than that CGI isn't really that important.
I should clarify when I say "big blockbusters" I'm including films by people like Fincher and company.
>>71220823
It completely rejuvenated the samurai genre after it died in WW2 and the US Occupation.
The narrative structure is hugely influential in ensemble action movies
The action was gritty, violent, and felt real, all while having completely fluent direction. There is no confusing coreography, it banks largely on the viewer understanding the layout of the battlefield and anticipating what will happen in each sides next movie. Compare that with showy samurai films and bloodless westerns made before it
Every character is fleshed out and compelling, the film never feels like it's over 3 hours long. The cinematography and direction are flawless. Tell me what you hate about it
>>71220722
Sunrise is so amazing
>>71221902
Yes they are, unless you only mean people who got their start in that 67-80 period. Both flourished in mainstream Hollywood at the time, and were given the kind of artistic freedom and financing they never would have before or after
>>71224625
dude, you really are clueless about film. CGI is EVERYWHERE now, including guys like weerasethakul and jia.
>>71220466
badlands
el sur
celine and julie
hotel monterey
the double life of veronique
berlin alexanderplatz
cafe lumiere
goodbye dragon inn
>>71220990
and also by klushantev and lipsett
>>71221978
stupid films, have no place in the evolution of cinema
>>71224793
But it's not really essential I am well aware that's EVERYWHERE so you can stop condescending. I was saying that it's only been really essential in blockbuster films, the rest could hve gotten along just fine without it.
Plus those Jurrasic Park didn't "invent" CGI. It was just the first film to feature so majorly.
Plus with the release of Mad Max Fury Road I think we're going to see CGI slowly fade more into the background, so films like Jurrasic Park only had a passing effect.
Not to mention the fact that CGI is only a tool.
>>71225007
Mad Max was a hit but it's in no way a gamechanger. CGI reliant superhero films still make the most money, and are generally less work to do than spending months on physical props out in the real world
>>71225007
dude, stop.
Just stop. You're like a woman talking jesus.
>>71225074
nice argument babydick
>>71225059
Maybe this is just me, but I think that super-hero movies are on there way out, they peaked in popularity with the first avengers movie, and are slowly going downhill. I mean like what happens with DC.
I think that they'll be gone within the next 10-15 years or at least be much less popular. And I think more blockbuster will try to adopt Mad Max's style in hopes of becoming critical darlings like Mad Max.
But I have no idea what the future holds and that's just what I personally think will happen.
>>71225074
Woah, did you just try to debunk my statement by calling me a woman? That's so pathetic it's funny.
>>71218899
>Bronenosets Potemkin (1925)
isn't this just a meme movie to make fun of kino fedoras?
>>71218899
Nice digits OP
Why always The Godfather on these lists? Good movie, fine adaptation but how was it in any way a game changer? I could easily make the case that Die Hard was a more influential movie.
>>71225007
CGI was pretty much in its infancy back in the 90s and each major film that utilized CG build on the success of previous films before them, and in time were also the foundation for future films. To really appreciate the effect a film like Jurassic Park had you have to look at the history and evolution of CGI effects and the research that went into them. This was at a time where the technologies and software were being created on a project by project basis, each film bringing new research and development which without future films would not have been possible.To say a film like Jurassic Park had only a "passing effect" is not only incredibly insulting to the work these people put into it, but also very ignorant. They were pretty much inventing the wheel at every step.
>>71220823
It's the token auteur jap film, from token auteur jap director, every nation has one.
>>71225007
What the fuck are you even saying? It's not essential? Nothing is essential in film.
So what about Rashomon?
>>71225457
Technology doesn't mean shit in Art.
>>71222450
Continuing to deflect.
>>71225457
I never said that CGI wasn't hard to develop or that it didn't take years to develop, (in fact I actually did say that it took a while to develop.) I was just saying that CGI is not some game changer for film. Most of the greyaeys films of the past two decades either had. I CGI or a very small amount of CGI, so pretending that CGI forever altered the landscape of film is a little bit of an overstatement for reasons I've already made clear.
>>71225359
your argument is
"lol these are BAD films so they don't influence films"
You're not being objective, just like a woman
Now go back to jerking off to Tarkovsky
>>71225577
continuing to be a retard who doesn't know shit about cinema. Polanski is the definition of new hollywood, kid
>>71225522
Yes it's not essential also it didn't completely change the landscape of film just added another tool for films to use, and the only films that resolved around ur were major Hollywood bluckbusters.
And what >>71225550 said. Although I do think technology is important to art. It just shouldn't be the most important.
>>71225657
>it influenced ALL the most popular movies from the past 20 years
>it didn't change the landscape of cinema
>>71225594
No that was not my only argument but I do think it's important if we're including bad blockbuster movies that influenced the cinematic world, Trnasformers and Independence Day are just as influential.
And I think the point of the thread was to discuss movies that have Influneced the cinematic world in a positive or lasting way.
And could you stop being so immature and sexist?
>>71225657
>BRO COLOR ISNT ESSENTIAL. ITS JUST ANOTHER TOOL TO USE.
your retarded internal logic isn't even consistent. CGI isn't essential to Hollywood, they made blockbusters without it you naive 12 year old
>>71225749
Holy shit you really are a woman.
>>71225359
I think it's obvious the superhero trend will end in time. No genre of anything stays popular in one form forever
>>71225713
It didn't "influence" blockbusters the sane way something like Seven Samurai did, all it did was help playa role in developing a tool that these few mostly bad films revolved around.
That's really not that influential.
can someone recommend me a comfy classic film please
thanks
>>71225894
Rififi
>>71225772
But color isn't essential tons of Fantastic black and white films have been made since the invention of color in film and black and white films are continued to be made today.
I don't think color is an essential part of cinema it's just another tool, and color has been used much more than CGI so why aren't you arguing for the addition of the wizard of Oz which is the first film to feature color, and Jurrasic Park wasn't even the first film to feature CGI.
>>71225802
So what if I am? That doesn't make me wrong. Oh wait this is b8 isn't it... Well you fooled me.
>>71225938
>But color isn't essential tons of Fantastic black and white films have been made since the invention of color in film and black and white films are continued to be made today.
holy shit my sides
woman can't understant art is a meme they said
>>71225894
Sullivan's Travels
>>71225938
>and color has been used much more than CGI so why aren't you arguing for the addition of the wizard of Oz which is the first film to feature color
Is this a joke
>>71225938
...wizard of oz wasn't the first film to feature color
Cringe thread
I'm suprised this dipshit board didn't say the original ghostbusters with how hard everyone's been sucking it off lately.
>Le règle du jeu
No. Honestly how does this get on film lists all the time it's not remarkable for the period at all
>>71225976
>>71226062
great rebuttals, seriously am I talking to a bunch of edgy high schoolers? Oh wait this is 4chan so probably.
>>71226076
Well there was Snow White and The Seven Dwarves but that was animated film so I didn't count it. But if you want to that's fine. Unless you were talking about another film which I and the majority of the world hasn't heard about.
>>71226090
Couldn't agree more.
>>71226307
your refusal to actually watch films explains your idiotic posts. try watching the Great Train Robbery some time
>>71218899
citizen kane did not age well
>>71225438
It's a real movie and believe it or not, it's not bad. If you are used to at least some black-an-white films of 50s-60s you can find this film entertaining. It has some tightly packed action, some gore, and it is also short, just over 1 hour. Give it a try.
>>71226414
Probably bait, but what makes you say that.
>>71226411
I've seen the great train robbery and that film is not in color my friend so I have no idea what you're talking about.
>>71226414
Your mom did not age well.
>>71226307
>Unless you were talking about another film which I and the majority of the world hasn't heard about.
Obscurity has no impact on what was first.
http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-history-and-science-of-color-film-from-isaac-newton-to-the-coen-brothers/
Why not try to educate yourself instead of posting inane shit like you are
>>71225438
It's pretty divisive around here but I loved it. It has the reputation of a propaganda film, and it technically is, but more anti-government corruption than pro-communist.
>>71226533
Five seconds on Wikipedia would help you
>>71226560
Hey I have a question could you stop using ad hominems? That would be really helpful, and could you also stop getting so angry? Anyway you competed misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that the Wizard of Oz was the first color film and therefore it is really influential I was using it as an example to show why Jurrasic Park shouldn't be considered extremely influential, but thanks for the reading piece. And I would still say The Wizard of Oz is important because it popularized technicolor which is what would be used for the next several decades.
>>71226703
What does that even mean? You the equivalent of feminist telling someone to "educate themselves."
>>71226874
>could you stop getting so angry
I'm not mad at all
I disagree on the comparison. Color in The Wizard of Oz is just a technology. Sure it takes skill to photograph and design a film in color, but it's not used in a hugely artistic way in the film, outside the obvious contrast with the sepia toned reality scenes. Visually there's little to separate it from The Adventures of Robin Hood made the previous year, and probably any number of other Technicolor films of the time
A movie like T2 or Jurassic Park (not a fan of the latter at all, just picking up the original argument), took the fledgling technology and used great craftsmanship and creativity to make it seem realistic and enhance the film in a way traditional effects couldn't. CGI prior to that was considered ugly, awkward, immersion breaking, and paradoxically, cheap. Their contributions totally opened up the way digital technology could be used to make films and tell stories, they didn't just pick up a tool and put it in a movie.
>>71227172
That was supposed to be "you are the equivalent of a feminist"
Sorry my bad.
>>71227172
...I mean five seconds on Wikipedia would tell you that color was used in The Great Train Robbery (along with other films at the time)
>>71227173
I'd say The Wizard of Oz used color about as well as Jurrasic Park and T2 used CGI, they both used it to create an entirely new world and immerse the audience in that world. And while both of these feats are impressive here not as important or as influential as the films in the original post, but they'd all be in my top 100 most influential films of all time.
>>71227333
Sepia toned films are not the same as "color" films.
>>71227726
Just spend five seconds googling this shit and you can stop embarrassing yourself
>>71227726
See hand colored films here linked
>>71226560
>>71227644
I would say T2 and JP did more things to innovate than Wizard of Oz, but this is all semantics now
>>71226119
Ghostbusters exists as a reaction to 70s horror films. I wouldn't call it influential but I'd certainly say it was original.
>>71225649
No Spielberg is since he changed the dynamics of the summer season which is still affecting the industry to this day.
>>71228112
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hollywood
>>71228012
God you are so annoying.
Sepia tones films are not what people mean when they say "color" films. Also you very clearly haven't been paying attention to what has been happening in this thread.
Jurrasic park didn't entirely invent CGI either but it did use it build its world in a new creative way and it also popularized it. Just like what the Wozard of Oz did with color.
>>71228371
Dude, google what "sepia" means
>>71218899
The Dark Knight?
>>71228602
I'm done with this argument over semantics, you haven't tried to disprove any of my points but instead tried to dance around definitions of words.
>>71228637
Not gonna lie this post Madame laugh.
>>71228799
*Made me
>>71218899
The films of Harmony Korine. More specifically, Trash Humpers
actually the objectively correct list is
Orson Welles: Citizen Kane (1941)
Alfred Hitchcock: North By Northwest (1959)
Bela Tarr: Werckmeister Harmoniak/ Werckmeister Harmonies (2000)
Fritz Lang: Metropolis (1926)
Majid Majidi: Color Of Paradise (1999)
Charles Chaplin: Limelight (1952)
Lars von Trier: Riget/ Kingdom (1995)
Theo Angelopoulos: O Thiasos/ Travelling Players (1975)
Robert Aldrich: Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte (1965)
Emir Kusturica: Underground (1995)
Roman Polanski: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Ingmar Bergman: Persona (1966)
Elia Kazan: Splendor In The Grass (1961)
Robert Altman: Nashville (1975)
Andrei Tarkovsky: Zerkalo/ Mirror (1974)
Francis Ford Coppola: The Godfather Part I (1972)
Sam Peckinpah: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Billy Wilder: Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Luis Bunuel: Belle de Jour (1967)
Michelangelo Antonioni: Blow-Up (1966)
Terrence Malick: Days of Heaven (1978)
Sergio Leone: C'era Una Volta il West/ Once Upon a Time (1968)
Martin Scorsese: Mean Streets (1973)
Federico Fellini: La Dolce Vita (1960)
Akira Kurosawa: Rashomon (1950)
Woody Allen: Manhattan (1979)
Vittorio DeSica: Miracolo a Milano/ Miracle in Milan (1951)
Wim Wenders: Der himmel uber Berlin/ Wings of Desire (1988)
Jan Svankmajer: Conspirators of Pleasure (1996)
Sion Sono: Love Exposure (2008)
Terry Gilliam: Brazil (1985)
Christopher Nolan: Memento (2000)
Ermanno Olmi: L'Albero degli Zoccoli (1978)
Zhang Yimou: Ying Xiong/ Hero (2002)
Manoel de Oliveira: Francisca (1981)
Krzysztof Kieslowski: Rouge (1994)
Kim Ki-duk: Shigan/ Time (2005)
David Lynch: Lost Highway (1997)
Chan-wook Park: Sympathy for Mr Vengeance (2002)
Michael Haneke: Cache`/ Hidden (2005)
>>71218899
12 Angry Men? Or is that a "reddit" film? Whatever that is supposed to entail.
>>71229038
Hey that's just Scaruffi's list.
>>71229101
That movie is fucking amazing, but I don't know if "influential" is the right word to describe it.
>>71228250
Ah Wikipedia, the trustworthy source that literally can edit on.
Star Wars is the most influential movie ever.
Think of how many people are just familiar with a term, motiff, character or imagery from that movie. Just think of how far into the poor nether reaches of the world to find someone who doesn't know "Darth Vader' or "The Force."
Yeah then you can go into the Godfather, Searchers, Lawrence, Raging Bull etc.
>>71229820
The story is just a rip-off of Seven Samurai
>>71229870
No, that's The Magnificent Seven.
>>71229954
Okay Star Wars is not a complete rip-off of seven samurai but the general plot structure is very similar and it editing and style is the exact same as Seven Samurai.
Not baiting, but would you consider Pulp Fiction influential? I remember after the release tons of movies madetheir own copycat versions of PF with nearly identical music and try hard witty dialogue and stuff among those lines.
>>71220990
>Star Wars not influential
Woah buddy pretty edgy you don't like a film most others like how wacky and different
>>71218899
>Citizen Kane
The Room is the new Citizen Kane.
Debate me.
>>71229579
are you retarded?
>>71221330
Thanks for the bumps pal :^)
I would say it is definitively one of the greatest insofar as it insists up on itself
>>71232218
Newfriend, look up what "Sage" does
>>71218899
Tarkovsky, Solyaris
Triumph of the Will?
>>71218899
Cannibal Holocaust
>>71232122
I have seen both films in the same theater.
While watching Kane again (only my second lifetime sit-through), it did occur to me thatthe actor/director/lead character humorously trashing a room out of frustration were very similar among the two kino. I've only seen The Room once though... do I have that right, Tommy trashes (a) room?
>>71232333
Yes and The Room showed great rare emotion and struggle but through it showed the humor in a dramatic and rough situation.
9000000001. The Holy Mountain
>>71218899
Remove 8 1/2 and replace Vertigo with another Hitchcock.
>>71233583
It's most influential. Not what influences some random irrelevant anon faggot
>>71233629
Vertigo wasn't influential. Vertigo was considered a second-tier Hitchcock. Not even Truffaut cared about it. Stop talking about filmz
>>71229038
Pier Paolo Pasolini: Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1976)
>>71218899
>no Pokémon first movie
>no digimon movies
Shit taste son
>>71232201
>person who linked Wikipedia calling someone else retarded
