Movies that defined cinema as both an art form and a craft.

But honestly, he’s such a rigid formalist.
Throw him in a correctional facility! Maybe then he can finally learn how to actually make a decent movie.

Hey blueranger12, you guys should probably join him there. 😬

With performance like that, who cares about the content? Buohah!!

🙂

I really hope what I wrote actually relates to what Richard Hernandez13 said 😬

I’m really hoping there’s some kind of connection between what I just laid out above and the points you made down here. 😬

walter said:It’s mostly just fear—plain and simple. After watching that flick, you might think twice about hopping in the shower.

And after "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," mashed potatoes become a bit of a gamble.

Back in 1940... New York City. And honestly? I think "Gone with the Wind" deserves a spot on that list too. 😁

Sunset Boulevard deserves all the credit because the movie itself is just brilliant—the atmosphere is totally unmatched. Honestly, it should probably take the title for being the most powerful 😕 😕 😕 maker in cinematic history🙏 🙏

newcomer said:After spending like two whole days overthinking this—and honestly, I tend to write posts pretty compulsively—there are two main things bugging me about this topic... plus a couple of issues regarding the author 😉

First off, there are really two ways people look at movies globally—well, three if you count the outliers—but basically, some see film as pure art, complete with all those built-in aesthetic standards. Since those metrics are pretty subjective, trying to objectively judge a movie usually just turns into a big debate about culture rather than the actual work itself. On the flip side, others just see movies as entertainment, where the value boils down to how much fun you had—which really just depends on how willing you are to embrace that "suspension of disbelief" thing. Then there's that third category—those trashy flicks that try to blend mindless fun with high-art pretension... but we can get to that later.

Second, there are a few different ways you could actually frame this idea... and it looks like some people have already started picking them apart. You could categorize by directors who were so innovative they became industry benchmarks... or maybe by decades, looking at how the medium evolved step-by-step over time... or even by major historical milestones tied to specific films that changed everything, even if the movies themselves feel dated now.

And finally... this is all super subjective, right? I mean, an objective approach would require some kind of intense academic rigor—something I’m trying my best to avoid when I'm just thinking about movies.

So, after all that... I'm still chewing on how to tackle this... 🙄

That's basically the same response I get from women when I ask if they want to hook up...

🙄

shipka said:Man with CinemaScope by Dziga Vertov 🙏 Alright, let’s see if anyone out there can actually top my level of pedantry. I dare you. 🙏

Alright, I'll give this a shot...

Fritz Lang - Orson Welles
Orson Welles’ *Citizen Kane* remains one of those rare cinematic achievements that actually lives up to its monumental reputation. It isn't just a collection of clever shots or technical innovations; it's a profound, almost surgical dissection of power and the crushing loneliness that comes with it. When you watch it, you aren't just observing a biography—you're watching the slow, inevitable disintegration of a man who conquered the world only to find he had nothing left to hold onto. The brilliance lies in how Welles refuses to give us easy answers. He treats the mystery of "Rosebud" not as a simple puzzle to be solved, but as a window into the fundamental tragedy of the human condition: our desperate, futile attempt to recapture a sense of innocence that was lost long before we even realized it was gone. The non-linear structure isn't just a stylistic flourish either; it’s essential. By fragmenting the narrative through different perspectives, he forces the viewer to realize that "truth" is often just a collection of subjective, incomplete memories. No two people ever truly see the same person, and Kane is the ultimate victim of that reality. It’s a heavy, deeply cynical piece of work, but it’s executed with such precision that you can't look away. Even decades later, the way the deep focus and lighting interact to create that sense of overwhelming scale and isolation still feels more vital than most modern blockbusters. It’s a masterclass in how to turn a character study into an epic.
Jean Renoir’s *The Rules of the Game* is one of those rare cinematic achievements that feels less like a movie and more like a profound, unsettling autopsy of a dying social order. It’s a masterclass in how to capture the friction between rigid societal expectations and the messy, unpredictable nature of human desire. When you watch it, you aren't just observing characters; you're watching a delicate ecosystem struggle to maintain its composure while the foundations are rotting beneath its feet. Renoir manages to weave this intricate web of high-society etiquette and primal instinct, showing us that no matter how many rules people invent to keep order, chaos is always just one impulsive decision away from tearing the whole thing down. It’s a devastatingly beautiful, deeply cynical look at the performance we all put on to fit in, and the inevitable tragedy that occurs when the mask finally slips.
Making a Hitchcock film like *Vertigo* isn't just about directing a scene; it’s about orchestrating a psychological descent. When you look at how he handles tension, it's less about jump scares and more about that slow, creeping realization that everything you thought was solid is actually shifting beneath your feet. It’s a masterclass in visual storytelling that makes most modern thrillers look like amateur hour.
Resnais — Last Year at Marienbad - Godard
Godard – End of the Trail
Hawks - Rio Brava
Fellini - 8 1/2 Kubrick
Kubrick - 2001: A Space Odyssey

These are the exact movies featured in Peterlić's study of 9 films, where he breaks down exactly why they matter so much.

The resident nerd of this thread. 😎 You can run, but you can't hide. 😁

That’s usually how women react when I ask if they’re down to hook up...

Basically, through that polite little dance, they're trying to tell you they haven't given it a second thought—they're just too well-bred to shut you down instantly... 😁 😛

Then again... that’s pretty much how I feel about this topic too 😉

Gerald Barrett25 said:Basically, when they talk about "technique," they’re just being too polite to tell you they aren't even thinking about it—they're just too well-mannered to shut you down instantly... 😁 😛

Honestly though... I feel the exact same way about this topic 😉

Oh, they're definitely thinking about it. But if you've spent any real time with women (you know, during those breaks between movie marathons 😛), you realize they're constantly thinking about it too—they just play coy to be nice.

Besides, didn't you say you've been obsessing over this for two days straight already?

So, quit stalling and just give it to us straight. 😁 😁 😁

Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari...

I mean, without that movie, we probably wouldn't have film noir, or Tim Burton, or even half the stuff like this 😁 😁 😁

slyrider16, here's a starting point for you (though you can find lists like this all over the web or in books... I checked out that '1001 Movies' thing, it’s got decent reviews, but man, it's pricey... :-)... some directors are just too legendary to be pinned down to a single masterpiece, but if you're looking for a director-based deep dive, I'll help you out.

1895 Lumière brothers' arrival of a train
1902 Georges Méliès' A Trip to the Moon
1925 D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation
1919 Robert Wiene's The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
1921 Chaplin's The Kid
1922 Murnau's Nosferatu—still the best Dracula there is😁
1925 Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin
1926 Lang's Metropolis
1928 Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou
1929 Vertov's Man with a Movie Camera😍 ...

So, what you're telling me is that cinema basically kicked the bucket back in 1930?

You totally missed my point, Jose Miller17. You can throw in more—or even everything—from a director if they hit our criteria. Like, Lang’s M and Metropolis definitely both belong on here. The whole idea is to be academic about it... strip away your personal bias and just stick to the heavy hitters you'd actually see in a film school syllabus. (my bad, Gerald Barrett25 😢 )

As for that 1001 Movies book, I've got it right here, and honestly, it's alright. (even if it doesn't always explain WHY a movie made the cut) But 1001 films is way too much for a "crash course" list like this thread is trying to be. At a decent pace, it would take you 3 to 5 years just to get through them all. This list needs to be a condensed version... maybe just the top 50 to 100 essentials. 😛

So, here's what we've got so far (though we really need to add a quick sentence explaining why each one is on there 😁)

1895 Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat by the Lumière brothers
1902 A Trip to the Moon by Georges Méliès
1915 Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith
1920 The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari by Robert Wiene
1921 The Kid by Chaplin
1922 Nosferatu by Murnau
1925 Battleship Potemkin by Eisenstein
1926 Metropolis by Lang
1927 Sunrise by Murnau
1929 Un Chien Andalou by Buñuel
2029 Man with a Movie Camera by Vertov
1931 M by Lang
1935 Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl

I'm suggesting we debate adding some of these (but which ones??)
The Gold Rush - Chaplin 1925
The Big Parade - Widor 1925
All Quiet on the Western Front - Lewis Milestone 1930
City Lights - Chaplin 1931
Frankenstein - Whale 1931
King Kong - Cooper 1933
Duck Soup - McCarey 1933
The 39 Steps - Hitchcock 1935
Modern Times - Chaplin 1936
Grand Illusion - Renoir 1937
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Disney 1937
Stagecoach - Ford 1939
And if we have to pick something from Fleming (especially since it's the same year), wouldn't The Wizard of Oz make more sense than Gone with the Wind? Anyone disagree? 😛

slyrider16 said:1895—the Lumière brothers' train footage

What's the connection here? 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬

I just threw those titles out there because they were the first ones that popped into my head—films that essentially pioneered cinematic syntax through the work of Georges Méliès and then kept pushing those boundaries further with D.W. Griffith and Leni Riefenstahl.
As for how much innovation in visual storytelling Citizen Kane actually brought to the table, I think it goes without saying.
Then you have Jean-Luc Godard and the French New Wave crowd, who basically took the entire language of film and completely redefined it from the ground up.

I see we’ve started making lists 😁 so here’s a flick that most people have probably seen... or at least caught a few scenes from... I still remember watching the whole thing on TV back during the Sundance Film Festival days.

It took me much longer to realize why this movie actually matters... basically, it was one of the first films to actually utilize a narrative structure... what we’d call having a coherent plot today 😉

The Great Train Robbery 1903.



Other little technical milestones by the decade

The Lumière brothers and their "Arrival of a Train"; it stands as a foundational moment because they were the first to truly grasp how framing can be used to evoke a specific emotional response from the viewer.
Méliès and "A Trip to the Moon," simply because he was the pioneer of complex narrative structures.
D.W. Griffith—I am not necessarily referring to "The Birth of a Nation" specifically, but rather his early work where he began to manipulate the spatial arrangement of a scene, effectively discovering the power of cutting and splicing footage together.
Then we have Eisenstein, perhaps with "Battleship Potemkin," because he truly understood the psychological essence of what editing actually represents.

"Caligari" is essential because it mastered the use of lighting to launch the expressionist movement—much like the style seen in "Prague student"—using highly stylized set designs to externalize a character's internal psyche.

Flaherty’s "Nanook..." which serves as the very first instance of what we would call a "narrative" documentary.

"Stagecoach" by John Ford... the montage is nothing short of incredible, utilizing subtle shifts in perspective that represent the pinnacle of cinematic realism; it is undoubtedly a cornerstone of the medium and a major influence on Orson Welles, a fact that Orson himself once confirmed.

Finally, Orson Welles with "Citizen Kane," because he synthesized all these preceding innovations and was the first to introduce meta-commentary regarding the medium itself—though one could argue Buster Keaton touched upon this in an earlier film, it lacked the profound significance found here.

If I were an instructor teaching film studies, for instance, I would certainly put my students through their paces by assigning the entire filmography of PT Anderson. I’d start with "Boogie Nights," simply because the direction there is nothing short of extraordinary. He managed to craft a true masterpiece while staying firmly within the mainstream studio system.
Furthermore, the way he weaves multiple narrative threads together using parallel editing is absolutely masterful. There is also his unique method of introducing characters; I can say with certainty that I have rarely encountered such effective character introductions in American cinema—certainly not within the last thirty years. It is a subtle skill that many directors, not just here in the States but even in Hollywood itself, could stand to study more closely.

One cannot overlook how he utilizes sound design to define and redefine his characters; it serves as a vital pillar of his cinematic language. There is so much more to unpack regarding his brilliance, but he is truly a master of the craft.

Perhaps we should save the deeper analysis of his work for later, once we have moved into the 1940s era. 🙂))

Ethan Howard45 said:If I were ever a directing professor, I’d probably torture my students by making them study PT Anderson—starting with "Boogie Nights," because the direction there is just incredible. He managed to pull off an absolute masterpiece while staying firmly within the mainstream...
then there's how he handles the narrative flow and those parallel storylines; it's brilliant. The way he introduces characters is unlike anything else—honestly, I haven't seen a character introduction done that well in American cinema in at least 30 years. It’s a lesson many directors need to learn, not just here in the States, but in Hollywood too.

The sound design used to define—or redefine—characters is another huge part of what makes PT a master... blah blah blah, you get the idea, the guy's a genius...

but maybe we should save him for later once we hit the 1940s. 🙂))

I'm with you, though I'd swap out Boogie Nights for Magnolia.🙏 🙏 🙏