Westrums Top 100 Films! A comprehensive listing of the top 100 films in american cinema. And Hey, Mashed Potatoes too.

This accompanying list is a response generated by anger and frustration towars the American Film Institute's top 100 List in 1998. Although I can applaud the effort to appreciate a number of excellent films, as well as the list's impact--dozens of previously unavailable films have since been re-released--I cringe at the method, and the construction of the list itself. If I were a bit more of an optimist, I would give the AFI credit for their adding roughly 20 of their choices, which are worthy. But I'm not. The fact is, far less than half on the AFI list are deserving of the status of "Top 100". Also, the deserving titles are usually not in the right order. I don't mean to get picky, but when a movie is number 10 and it should be number 90, I begin to feel a bit queasy.

The next error in the AFI's list is the fatal problem. Many great films are simply not on the list. As I look, I see "Tootsie" at number 62. Yet I fail to see Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" at all. This is not simply one mistake. At least twenty eight different films were on the AFI list and did not deserve the title as "100 best" in my opinion. Many of the films the AFI included are fine films, yet simply do not deserve the status of "Top 100". There are many films not listed which highly deserved to be ranked. Sure, a lot of this is opinion, but TOOTSIE?

I don't like dragging my heels on this; it's great that the metaphorical light is being shed upon some really great films. I've been waiting over seven years to see many films receive due recognition. And some of those films are receiving that recognition now. but far too many excellent works are being given their due credit. I don't see "Dog Day Afternoon", nor do I see George Romero's revolutionary thriller "Night of the Living Dead".

The most significant reason for these errors is that the AFI's criteria are faulty. The very standards which were used to create the (in)famous list are at fault. The AFI list was chosen based upon:

A. Critical Recognition

B. Award winners

C. Popularity

D. Historical significance

E. Cultural Impact

How exactly does popularity become a factor in deciding what film is better? 90% of the "films" heard of by the American audience is anything but a load of overtired cliches, beating a dead horse. Please don't misunderstand; it's long been said that most, when all is said and done, there are only a few key stories. What matters is the variety. I don't want to see the same story, same dialogue, same situations with a different group of actors.

I'm the first to admit that many things are dependant on a certain point of view, a specific opinion is in order. Those of you who have visited this site before have probably seen this mumbo-jumbo that I wrote oh so long about about objectivity. It's a crock of shit, and I've just been taking my time to get rid of it. It's now 2001 and I'm finally changing things on this site. Back to my original point, I agree that a lot of the popular American movies are popular because of opinion. Certain people are attracted to certain things. Hell, I loved "Blair Witch 2", and I seem to be the only one who saw something really special in it. But as I've said before, a lot of what's "popular" in American culture seems to be same old, same old. Let's look at "House on Haunted Hill (1999)" and say...1999's "The Haunting." I loved the original of both films, but the remakes are pretty open for attack. Now, in "House on Haunted Hill", I saw a lot of things that I really love about old style horror. But the conclusion of the film really ruined it for me. On the other hand, I've watched "House on Haunted Hill" several times, loving the hammy performances, loving the old style scares, and simply disregarding the cheesy conclusion with Chris Kattan the ghost. However, "The Haunting" was pretty much a total waste of time to me. Does my love of "House on Haunted Hill" and hatred for "The Haunting" make either of these films too much better than each other? Not really. There is a sense of objectivity reminiscent in film, but only at a technical level. Neither film were really original, and my liking "House on Haunted Hill" is more visceral; hence, a subjective experience.

My subjective love of one film and dislike for another does not make up for the fact that neither movie was really spectacular in any way. The AFI's list tries to substitute subjectivity with an objective view. Not only is this difficult, but fairly improbable. Public popularity just doesn't work. "The Godfather 2" flopped at the box office at first, if audiences hadn't turned around would this movie had been kept out of the AFI's list?

Winning an award, in this sense, relates directly to my previous arguments about popularity. How does winning a small golden trophy warrant a place as one of the top 100 american films? The answer is: It doesn't. When they say "Award Winning", they mean Academy Award. The Academy Awards are nothing but a huge multimillion dollar popularity contest, and many other awards base themselves upon popularity. The Best Picture is rarely the actual Best Picture at all. If you spend the most money, and if your film looks like a big budget hollywood epic, you may just win. In 1997, "Titanic" won for Best Picture and Director. The film was mediocre and the director a pompous hack whose good movies lean towards special effects as a character, not special effects as a background. Cameron's a good director, but a lousy writer. For those of you who don't get the drift, "Titanic" was hardly the Best Picture of 1997. I don't mean to single "Titanic" out, but it is a fresh example. the same situation occurs every year. I remind you all of George C. Scott when he referred to the Academy as a "meat market." It's pretty much just that. They parade out their latest triumphs in the game called "playing it safe" and we're supposed to fall for it. Occasionally we do see a quality film that comes from this machine, but the times are few and far between. I could pick any one of my favorite directors and I am sure that I can find more of their films to like than all of the films to come out of Hollywood that I truly enjoy. What I'm trying to say is that winning an award is just a footnote to popularity. That is nothing to base an entire list on. I just can't believe that the AFI thought they could put one past the intelligent viewing public. It's worse than the MPAA. Basing a film upon the awards it wins is exactly like basing a film upon its popularity. Many popular films are just really bad. 1998's "Armageddon" received no better than 1 star from any critic, yet that movie went on to become the year's biggest draw. This movie was simply bad, and there's no eloquent way to say that.

My list is, I hope, more giving to the films who really deserve a nod. Many of my additions to the list are films which are either very difficult to see, or are simply not well known to the public. However, they all fit my criteria for the list, and many films which were made on a very low budget have been passed over simply because of the fact that they didn't have a lot of money to advertise their films. It's odd how the little films which actually portray some quality are over looked by a big bright shining studio production. I guess I need to stop assuming that people want to think, and start assuming that people want a cheap thrill.

Now, I know that the AFI's list wasn't really there to "give credit to well made films" or any thing like that. It's a marketing ploy, and a thinly disguised one at that. I can't blame them, in a way. When I think of how many millions have been made from re-released "AFI winners" on home video, my eyes water. And many good titles have hit the shelves.

A notable example is "The Graduate". It's definitely not one of the 100 best english language films I've ever seen; for an hour and a half I see a movie about a snotty indecisive cake eating rich kid who is whining because he didn't have anything to do with his life. He should have taken the advice. "Plastics." That seems sound. Also, what's with his love interests? For those who have seen the movie, you know that it is primarily about his affair with his father's friend's wife, Mrs. Robinson, who was played by Anne Bancroft. The character is a lonely woman who reaches out for Ben Braddock, and she feels forced to try to threaten him to keep him. Bancroft was only a few years older than Dustin Hoffman, and you can certainly tell that she was a very attractive woman. Yet Ben drops her and instead goes with this flaky airheaded daughter of hers. The end of the film is famous, and it's supposed to signify...what? Rebellion? From what? Braddock had a good life, and he ruined his great chances. Plastics I tell you. Nevertheless, Dustin Hoffman was (and is) a gifted actor, and it was his and Anne Bancroft's performances which really saved the film from being irritating all the way through. Ah well, if you want this message of "taking charge of life" that "The Graduate" tries to give, I recommend "Fight Club".

Now I've gone and went off subject again.

If you've never seen, or haven't heard of a few movies on this list: don't discount me, and this list, as a result. Please give these films a chance. Also, you may feel I was unfair to many films you liked. If you see this, don't complain to me until you've evaluated your thinking. Is your movie being given you nod out of quality, or entertainment? I love a good deal of movies, but I hold some as being entertainment. and little more. Please note that if your picks include "Titanic", "Armageddon", "Braveheart", or any movies like that, don't complain. Those movies range from mediocre to waste. I'm just sick of receiving hate emails from people telling me how stupid this is, or that I should change my list to include a title they want. I will not respond to emails of an aggressive nature, nor will I respond to constructive criticism of that nature. I will, however, respond to it if you can validly explain why you feel a movie should be on the list. I am open to constructive criticism. If I disagree, you can all go make your own list.

To those of you out there who know what I'm talking about: you may also see a film which isn't on my list. Again, don't discount me yet. Maybe I've forgotten something. "To err human, to forgive divine". Also, I may have never seen the film in question. The likely possibility is that I just didn't put the film on the list. In this case, the best thing to do is agree to disagree. The difference in quality from any 5-10 spaces is nearly negligible, and once or twice I've placed one film one or two spaces above another out of personal preference towards that film. But, again, there's very little difference between a few spaces.

I've compiled my list in the same sense as the AFI, for the most part. The nominees are all English speaking. Until recently, my criteria in this area was American or British only. However, I've seen many English language films which fit into my list, yet are not American or British. Therefore, I have adjusted my criteria and have begun placing these films into their correct positions. Writing, direction, cultural significance, film making significance, cultural impact, and recognition play a factor.

I also look for that proverbial "good film". So here it is, my own look at the Top 100 Films of english language cinema. Anyone who has any idea how to write: this was supposed to be the last thing said before the list. However, I'm a slob by nature, and I don't edit unless I absolutely have to. So I just never got around to pulling this little paragraph. And now I just like it there so nyah.

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, email me at West0524@tc.umn.edu.

3/10/01: Due to popular demand (ok, only a dozen of you have asked)I have slightly revamped my top 100 list. Nothing major, I'm in the middle of an essay I have to turn in on Monday. But I've added a few things, taken out a few things, changed a little of the order around. Please understand, I wrote this thing 2 years ago, and my opinions change. Plus, I've laid off the opium since then and I've decided to get rid of documentaries on my list. Not to knock documentaries; The ones that were previously on my list were some fantastic films. However, I decided to get rid of them for two reasons. First of all, I struggled to arrive at the conclusion that my list should be largely fiction so they can all by judged by the same merits. OK, I can't lie to you guys. I just didn't have the heart to take "The Crying Game" off my list, and I wanted "Bride of Frankenstein". The second reason is a lot simpler. I haven't seen a whole lot of documentaries. I'm a smalltown boy, and in a small town, you have to see some movies on home video. However, most small town people wouldn't know a great film if it bit them on the ass and gave them rabies. Therefore, the rat-fuck video stores never had much of a selection.

I've also reworked the site because of a few movies that I really loved, and also because one person asked me specifically why I didn't add these movies. I've actually gotten quite a bit of mail on this page over the last few months, and most people ask that question. However, this person asked me specifically about several movies. Most notably "Mutiny on the Bounty" was mentioned. Now, at the time I first wrote this list I hadn't seen it. Since then, I've watched it several times and grow more impressed with Clark Gable every time. So when I was asked why I didn't have it on there, I told him I didn't feel like writing the list again. Then I thought to myself, "why DON'T I have that on there?" So I put that on there, and while I was at it I put on a few other movies I either forgot about or hadn't seen at the time I wrote this list before. I asked him if I could cite him as an influence, since it was HIS question about editing the site that finally made me do it. However, I sent him an e-mail about 3 minutes before I started writing this, and one can't exactly expect people to answer their messages within 5 minutes. Enjoy, and please visit http://www.froyd.net. Sorry, I have to pimp that place as much as I can. It's not updated much right now, but a simple e-mail to me can get you a few things I write, and many e-mails to froydman@froyd.net will get you his rage, but he will probably update if bothered by enough of you.

------------------------------

-----------

NOTE: I've changed my mind. Pictures are a waste of time and don't do anything except distract the reader from the main message of the page. Plus, they're a hassle to paste onto this kind of site for me. Blasted technology. So no pictures. Tough if you want them, it's an annoyance and a waste of my time to do it. So if you don't like it, go make your own page.

ANOTHER NOTE: For those of you who have been back here more than once, you'll notice I don't update this baby all that often. The last list I have is from 1998, and there are a few dated references in my little essay/rant before the top 100. This is because I now occasionally spew out a brain-dropping for http://www.froyd.net . If you like what I say here at all, go check it out. I'm not the only writer at froyd.net, so if you don't like what I'm saying here you can safely go check it out.

FIN

my other pages, and a few other cool spots

60 second reviews
Comparing and Contrasting
my review of Schindler's List
my review of Bonnie and Clyde
Reel.com-buying movies
Southpark review
Barnes and Noble book sellers
an angry plea for people to just SHUT UP AND LEAVE ME ALONE!
top 10 of 1998
my review of Deep Blue Sea. soon to be a synopsis of the action/monster movie genre!
best films of 2000
froyd.net, your one stop info shop...hey, say that 10 times fast