Lists are fun… because they make us argue. :) Here are the top 20 on the list:
1. Pulp Fiction (1994)
2. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
3. The Usual Suspects (1995) **This Should be #1
4. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
5. Psycho (1960)
6. Memento (2000) **This should be #2
7. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
8. Apocalypse Now (1979)
9. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
10. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
11. Hotel Rwanda (2004)
12. Léon (1994)
13. Se7en (1995)
14. Voyna i mir (1968)
15. American History X (1998) **This should be #3
16. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
17. Requiem for a Dream (2000)
18. Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964)
19. Reservoir Dogs (1992)
20. Amadeus (1984)
Here are some notable others:
22. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
23. Crash (2004/I)
24. Donnie Darko (2001)
25. Fargo (1996)
31. Platoon (1986)
38. Magnolia (1999)
40. Trainspotting (1996)
41. Sling Blade (1996)
42. The Big Lebowski (1998)
43. The Terminator (1984)
44. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)
48. Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005)
There are some magnificent films on that list.. but once again it raises for me the question “What the hell is an Indempendent Film!?!” Just about every single one of those films has big name stars with studios financing them… just not the BIG studios. Is that all it is? Is an “Independent Film” just another movie that isn’t financially back by one of the Big studios, but by a smaller one?
You can see the full list here.
I believe that you will be seeing the film “love sick diaries” on this list very soon…..
i was wach “evil dead III” this is beutyfull DVD really.
check also http://www.easymovies.de for independent movies
Evil Dead should be on that list damnit.
Greg,
If you are so interested in clerical mistakes, kindly send your resume and apply to be my secretary. I deeply apologize for not proof-reading my previous post. I promise it wont happen again. However, is one “ignorant” for making a spelling mistake? Hardly. Dictionaries will point you to the correct definition/usage of your all-caps-knock-out-punch.
Nonetheless, this is not the forum to be correcting anyone on grammatical errors. Though, I DO believe it IS a forum for expressing *opinions* on movies. I expressed mine on the movies and John’s choices. You provided a simple assault from a simple man. I stand by my post, spelling errors aside.
All the best, Ben
I thought indy films had to have a budget under $2 million to be classified indy? (Heard that somewhere).
Unfortunately, as with other things in the US, the true definition of something really has nothing to do with what they’re talking about! (Anyone gonna watch the “World” series? LOL)
Yes, where is Jarmusch? Eh? My supply is low and I have looked in every supermarket, library, home store, and coal mine… all to no avail. I better hurry, i only have half a can left.
Whatever the definition of ‘independent’, I have to say that’s a fucking great list of films. With the exception of Revenge Of The Sith, every single one of them is worthy of a film fan’s time. Cuckoo’s Nest, Memento and The Big Lebowski are all in my top five.
Now, if we could just fudge it so Die Hard was classed as independent, it would be perfect!
Nobody has answered the question yet….and I want an answer…what the hell IS an indempendant film???
no Slacker?
Hey Ben…
Don’t use the word “ignorance” (or as you spelled it, “ignornace”) in the same post where you mis-spell a movie title. It’s “Memento”, you IGNORANT jackass…
I think its just the IMDB top films with the studio ones taken out Paul so its not exactly a list of quality, its more just a list of voting popularity and so its going to be the films with the most mass appeal. Mass appeal is not really the way I would measure the quality of film, but it works for a lot of people.
a. where is woody allen?
b. where is mike leigh?
d. where is ken loach?
d. where is jarmusch?
e. Where is Dog eat Dog?
f. Where are the early Peter Jackson films?
g. Means Streets?
h: El Mariachi?
I: Michael Moore?
I dont think you can say someone is ignorant of has a lack of taste just because they have an opinion that differs from yours. Film taste is subjective. Just because you happen to rank films in a certain order doesnt mean everyone else has to agree.
That is EXTREMELY condescending. No question about it.
Yeah I agree with WolfMarauder, perhaps in the early days of the Independent Film movement films made by aspiring filmakers maxig out their credit cards was the definition. But now the industry has changed and even big movies like Star Wars can be considered Independent films. Half the movies made these days are Independent films that get picked up by larger companies.
Would anyone consider John Cassavettes to be on this list? I certainly would.
As for Usual Suspects being number one, Really? I mean…it a good movie but…number one?
The one and ONLY definiton of independent film is it isn’t paid for by a corporation, usually a studio. This is tressed over and over in all film and business classes. Technically, those are all, in fact, independant films. Anyone who thinks an independant film has to be low scale is incorrect.
Memento at #2!? Are you sure? Over Cuckoo’s Nest, Dr. Strangelove AND Pulp Fiction? Insanity John, pure insanity. I don’t even think it should be listed over the current #7, 8 and 9 on the list as is.
=)
~Drewbacca
MoviePatron.com
#1 – The Silence of the Lambs
You want Momento, Usual SUspects and American History X ALL above Strangelove and To Kill a Mockingbird???? Perhaps you should come to understand movies did exist prior to 1995. I am shocked at your seeming ignornace and lack of taste. Cheers
Myself and Sean from filmjunk were actually on the audio edition a while back having this exact debate. John claimed that 94% of independent films were garbage, and i brought up a list very similar to the one in question here.
I still maintain that John was thinking of amateur films. Independent films are just that…independent. What are they independent from? The major studios. If a film is shot and financed by someone, and then a studio picks it up for distribution…it is still independent. The film was most likely picked up at a festival AFTER the film was completed.
You may be able to find some old Toxic Avenger VHS cassette’s with the Warner Brothers logo on the spine. This is because Warner distributed the Toxic Avenger for a short while. But I think we can all agree that Troma is a PRIME example of independent filmmaking.
I agree with everything on that list in terms of placing them into the ‘independent’ catagory. One thing i don’t agree with…Memento over One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest? Really???
Jay C.
http://www.filmjunk.com
http://www.thedocumentaryblog.com
Jay – good, with the right (or should I say wrong) tone, your post could be read as very condescending.
John – does this help you out at all with your definition of indie films? Or are you still debating it in your head?
P.S – Jonathan – I was agreeing with your feeling that our personal definitions are better… not being a smart-ass
what about sex. lies and videotape?
Yeah…
What does when they were released have to do with thier placement on the list?
“I like my own definition better”
Me too, dude… me too
This discussion (or argument, though I dont think this is much of an argument because nost seem to agree that there are technical and personal definitions to the phrase Independent Film) is about as likely to reach a consensus as “What are the 10 BEST films?”
Now THERE is an argument!
Yes, there seems to be a “textbook definition” vs a “personal definition.” While I can agree with the textbook definition to a point, I like my own definition better.
Now we should start arguing what is true indie music, now there’s an argument!
I would put “The Harder They Come” at number one, for me it’s not only a great film but represents as Jay put it my PERSONAL idea of independent film making best.
Hey Colin,
Why does it matter when they were released??? Does older = better? Those are just my favs.
I agree that its a hard nut to shell. Wuikipedia says that as long less than 50% of a movies finances come from a studion it can be considered an independent film.
Now, I personally have a problem with considering a film that got 49% of it’s finances from a big studio an Independent Film, but…
technically it is.
I think that because “Independent Film” has a literal finacial meaning and an accepted personal psychological meaning to most film-goers it is subject matter that will most likely never be agreed on.
I have a PERSONAL problem with movies like Revenge of the Sith and SE7EN being on this list because of my perceived psychological meaning of the phrase Independent Film. My problems with these films are subject matter (Star Wars) and star power (Brad Pitt) but on a sheer financial level, which is the definition of what makes a film independent, if they got less than 50% of thier money from any studio they apply. Star Wars and star power guaranteed these films would be distributed, but distribution is not the defining point of independent film. George Lucas and Brad Pitt guaranteed financing on the films but as long as the majority came from a source outside the studio system it is still an independent film.
Tough nut to shell…
So the top 3 on the list should all be movies released in the last 11 years?
Leroy, Lucas owns Lucasfilm, Lucasarts, THX, and many more companies. I don’t think he’d have any trouble financing dozens of films, as long as they made a profit.
Hmmm, according to wikipedia, an indie film is “a film initially produced without financing or distribution from a major movie studio.” They have a list of indie studios in North America (including Lions Gate, United Artists, and Miramax Films) and admit that some people don’t consider many of the studios on the list as true indie studios because they are just subsidiaries of larger studios.
I think I slightly overreacted in my previous post, I’m not sure whether most of those films are really indie films or not. Pulp Fiction, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Donnie Darko are definitely indie films. The financer of those movies went out on a limb and took a chance on the director with those films (though that is not a solid definition of an indie film).
I just know that Revenge of the Sith is NOT an indie film. I think it mainly comes down to money. Clerks was an indie film made for less than $30,000. Indie films do not have a major studio financing them, cost less than $30 million to make and don’t need fancy and costly special effects. Though they may get a huge marketing campaign from the studio, usually they aren’t hyped up very much. Indie films generally rely on film festivals and good word of mouth to generate buzz.
This is by no means a comprehensive all-encompassing definition of an indie film (I’d have to do more research to write one), but it’s the guidelines that I believe in.
Yes, Jonathan, what is your definition of a “true indie film”?
You agree that Revenge of the Sith was “independently fincanced”, then you basically say that fact doesn’t matter because Lucas is rich. What does one have to do with the other?
Besides, Lucas is not richer than most studios. He would go bankrupt if he attempted to finance and distribute dozens of films a year like most film studios do.
Oh yeah I agree with you Jay that is what it means, I was just talking about the way people think of truly indie films. It is indeed just a film financed independently of a studio usually by venture capitalists of some kind.
Hey there Jay,
I think you’re pretty much bang on. The problem is that all of those films got money from studios… just not nessesarily the huge major ones. I’ve wrestled with this one for almost a year now… and no one really seems to have any agreement. Hmmmm.
An independent film (or indie film) is a film initially produced without financing or distribution from a major movie studio.
The phrase Independent Film only applies to the way the film was financed, not how “big” the film is or it’s subject matter.
Lucas produced Revenge of the Sith “independent” of any studios finances, so technically it is an independent film.
Independent Film has a perceived meaning that only includes films like Garden State, American History X or Little Miss Sunshine, But this is incorrect. No matter how much money is raised and eventually put into a film as long as all or the majority of it doesnt come from a studio, it is considered an independent film.
Clerks
Evil Dead
Night of the Living Dead
I think of an independent film as being completely produced outside the studio system and then maybe getting a distribution deal. I think of it as a film made by a bunch of people maxing out their credit cards and hitting up their friends parents for money.
Reservoir Dogs was going to be funded by Tarantino and star his buddies until Harvey Keitel stepped up and gave him $1.5M. Still, no studio was involved, so it somewhat fits my criterion. But Pulp Fiction had the backing of Miramax, which was backed by Disney. How independent is that? Sure, it was a cheap film to produce, but how does cheap = independent? The studio may have left Quentin alone, but that doesn’t count as independent to me either. He had a distribution deal in place and publicity muscle and John Travolta and Bruce Willis. It doesn’t qualify.
It just means a film produced outside the studio system so Garden State and Napoleon Dynamite, are no more true independent films than any on that list. I’m pretty sure Zach Braff has a ton of industry friends so Garden state is hardly on the edge independent film making.
How ever when people talk about Indie filmmaking they tend not to be talking about the type of films listed above, i.e. with stars and thier friends in the industry and made by professionals who often have worked in the studio system, but by people who have never had anything to do with professional or studio film making i.e. films like Red Cockroaches and Primer.
Hey Jonathan,
So what is an Independent film? That’s the real issue here I think.
Cheers!
This list is bogus, or at least their definition of an independent film is. C’mon, Revenge of the Sith? Sure, Lucas “independently” financed it, but he’s richer than most studios! Most of those films don’t count as true independent films, especially because true indie films like Garden State and Napoleon Dynamite didn’t even make it onto the list.