The Panda

Technically I listed it at 27.

Are you sure this list isn't in reverse order?

So BATB will land right over 90m after all. Nice.

Oh gosh, that's way too much. I thought 3-5 a year was a lot.

You couldn't be more wrong. We have a harsh policy on bad puns. @aabattery

Besides TFA, it's the movie I've seen the most in theaters.

Number 18 El laberinto del fauno (Pan's Labyrinth) (2006) "But captain, to obey - just like that - for obedience's sake... without questioning... That's something only people like you do." Most Valuable Player: Guillermo Del Toro for Directing and the Screenplay Box Office: 37.6m (47.3m Adjusted) Tomatometer: 95% Notable Awards: Won 3 Oscars Synopsis: In the falangist Spain of 1944, the bookish young stepdaughter of a sadistic army officer escapes into an eerie but captivating fantasy world. Critic Opinion: "In "Pan's Labyrinth" writer-director Guillermo del Toro has crafted a masterpiece, a terrifying, visually wondrous fairy tale for adults that blends fantasy and gloomy drama into one of the most magical films to come along in years. The story centers on a bookish girl (Ivana Baquero) existing among the mythic monsters in her fertile fantasies and the more petrifying ones in her real life in 1944 fascist Spain. Living with her ailing mother (Ariadna Gil), evil stepfather (Sergei Lopez) and his compassionate housekeeper (Maribel Verdu), the girl steps into a netherland where the ancient satyr Pan (Doug Jones) gives her three tasks to complete so she can return to her true life as princess of the underworld. The images are visceral, surreal, bewildering, unnerving. The drama is passionate, profound, tragic, startling. It's a film of horrors and marvels, the tone ranging from savage atrocity to divine benevolence, the movie bursting with provocative ambiguity that provides the stuff of endless debate over the story's meaning and even its outcome." - David Germain, Associated Press User Opinion: "One of my favorite films ever. It is one of the most human films I've seen." - Noctis Reasoning: An absolutely mesmerizing movie, and the second greatest fantasy film of all time. Javier Navarrete's score is absolutely spellbinding and glues you into the film. The way it blends the atrocious acts of an officer from the Spanish Civil War, and the fantasy Labyrinth that parallels everything going on is near perfect. While I like most of Del Toro's films, and really like Devil's Backbone (it barely missed the list as well), this is a film that he truly found his stride on and created something special. The imagery is haunting, and it sticks with you. The movie is horrific, yet it also manages to come across as magical, in a sense. This is a movie that knows how to play a variety of tones and images and make everything mesh together in one perfect, human, fantasy film. Decade Count: 1930s: 12, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 19, 1960s: 24, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 32, 2010s: 31 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 4, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 9, 1960s: 12, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 11, 2010s: 14 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 5, 1960s: 3, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 6, 2010s: 4 Top 25 Decade Count: 1950s: 1, 1960s: 1, 2000s: 4, 2010s: 2

Number 19 The Searchers (1956) "That'll be the day." Most Valuable Player: John Ford's Direction Box Office: N/A Tomatometer: 100% Notable Awards: Won 1 Golden Globe Synopsis: An American Civil War veteran embarks on a journey to rescue his niece from the Comanches. Critic Opinion: "Ford's eye for composition was bold and sure. Consider the funeral early in the film, with a wagon at low right, a cluster of mourners in the middle left, then a diagonal up the hill to the grave, as they all sing Ford's favorite hymn, “Shall We Gather at the River” (he used it again in the wedding scene). Consider one of the most famous of all Ford shots, the search party in a valley as Indians ominously ride parallel to them, silhouetted against the sky. And the dramatic first sight of the adult Debbie, running down the side of a sand dune behind Ethan, who doesn't see her. The opening and closing shots, of Ethan arriving and leaving, framed in a doorway. The poignancy with which he stands alone at the door, one hand on the opposite elbow, forgotten for a moment after delivering Debbie home. These shots are among the treasures of the cinema." - Roger Ebert User Opinion: "Its twisted and self-reflective nuance about western genre is always remindful. Not just "great cowboys vs evil Indians" structure. John Wayne character is heroic protagonist yet kinda forerunner of Travis Bickle. When he was trying to kill his niece because she assimilated into Indians community, the movie became significantly interesting. As we know John Ford attempted many genres besides western, but certainly he made western films damn well." - bartonfinke Reasoning: I've seen criticisms of people calling this a racist movie, and I believe anyone who says that completely missed the point. A key theme in the Searchers is Ethan's, John Wayne's character, hatred for the Natives as he goes attempting "rescue" his niece who went too far in assimilating into the Comanche community. The movie creates a tragically flawed anti-hero with Wayne, and in a sense ushered a new era for Westerns, and pushed the genre to further moral complexity than it had ever been before. The Searchers is a rigorously entertaining Western and stands as one of John Ford's best films, but further than that, The Searchers is a movie that reflects back on common tropes of the Western genre, and strives to break them (even if subtly at points). The Searchers is a brilliant Western classic, boasted by one of Steiner's best scores, that was a heavy influence for movies from Taxi Driver, to The Wild Bunch, to Star Wars. Decade Count: 1930s: 12, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 19, 1960s: 24, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 31, 2010s: 31 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 4, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 9, 1960s: 12, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 10, 2010s: 14 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 5, 1960s: 3, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 5, 2010s: 4 Top 25 Decade Count: 1950s: 1, 1960s: 1, 2000s: 3, 2010s: 2

Funny you just now mentioned that... Number 20 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) "Open the pod bay doors, HAL." Most Valuable Player: Stanley Kubrick for Directing and Writing Box Office: 56.7m (374.5m Adjusted) Tomatometer: 94% Notable Awards: Won 1 Oscar Critic Opinion: "It’s not that 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn’t look dated—it does, a touch—but rather, it feels as intelligent and provocative as ever, bearing years of conceptual dreaming. Until today’s equivalent of novelist Arthur C. Clarke commits a hefty chunk of time to envisioning the beginning of human civilization, as well as the far ends of the future, there will be no new film that supplants it. Though it was showered with technical praise, 2001 lingers on the mind like a tall, black riddle: Where are the new bones, the new tools, that will take us higher? Do we even deserve them?" - Rothkopf, Time Out User Opinion: "Incredible film. Last 30 minutes of it is a total mindfuck. The visuals are decades ahead of their time." - redfirebird2008 Reasoning: One of the more polarizing classics on my list, people really either seem to love or hate this movie, and I'm obviously one of those that loves it. The original novel by Clarke is brilliant, and the movie is translated brilliantly by Kubrick. This is a movie that probably takes time for everyone to appreciate, I could understand the pretentious arguments, but I disagree, the movie plays out like a bold revelation for your to figure out. From the murderous and darkly hilarious HAL, to mindfuck of an ending, to the visual effects beyond its time, 2001: A Space Odyssey is the greatest space sci-fi of all time (I have three sci-fi's above this one, only one of which I'd say is true and strict sci-fi. The other two have sci-fi elements or are more fantasy). This is the best of the many Kubrick masterpieces. Decade Count: 1930s: 12, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 18, 1960s: 24, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 31, 2010s: 31 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 4, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 8, 1960s: 12, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 10, 2010s: 14 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 4, 1960s: 3, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 5, 2010s: 4 Top 25 Decade Count: 1960s: 1, 2000s: 3, 2010s: 2

Numbers 23, 22 and 21 The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001, 2002 and 2003) "My precious!" Most Valuable Player: Peter Jackson's Direction and J.R.R. Tolkien's Novels and Worldbuilding Box Office: 313.3m (471.2m Adjusted), 339.8m (495.6m Adjusted), 377m (532.3m Adjusted) Tomatometer: 91%, 96% and 95% Notable Awards: Won 17 Oscars between all three movies, including one Best Picture Synopsis: Follow the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, his nephew Frodo, and their valiant friends in Peter Jackson's award-winning adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic fantasy novels, which revolve around a magical, seductive ring with dark powers. Critic Opinion: "Released one per year for the last three years, Jackson's films have taken on more weight and created greater anticipation with each installment. The Fellowship Of The Ring proved that Jackson and his co-screenwriters, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, were more than capable of bringing Tolkien to the screen with an eye toward large-scale spectacle as well as a respect for the original story, characters, and themes. The Two Towers did it one better. Ratcheting up the intensity on every level, it took the series to the same place as Tolkien's books: the realm of shared cultural myth. Jackson doesn't buckle under the burden of winding it down with The Return Of The King, either; in fact, he lets the weightiness define the film." - Phipps, AV Club User Opinion: "I honestly can't split the movies. It's like asking for a favourite chapter in a book. The whole trilogy is a masterpiece." - Phil in the Blank Reasoning: Maybe it's cheating a little bit to list all of these in one post, instead of doing a post per movie, but I find the entire trilogy works as one long epic. I really can't split the films apart, because Fellowship is a great beginning but incomplete without the other two, imo. While, Two Towers is some fantastic meat and action sequences, but it'd be like starting on episode 5 of a TV show, it'd feel weird not to watch Fellowship first. And while Return of the King often gets knocked for its overly long endings, I find them fitting as they scale upwards, given its a conclusion meant to be watched after Two Towers. I don't have an actual favorite out of any of the movies, they all are fantastic and do justice to Tolkien's books. I don't think I need to talk too much on how great these movies are, I'd reckon everyone on these forums has already formed their opinions on them. Anyways, this is an epic trilogy that touches me personally and has been a favorite growing up, of course I had to include these. Also on a side note, the extended editions greatly enhance already excellent films. Decade Count: 1930s: 12, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 18, 1960s: 23, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 31, 2010s: 31 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 4, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 8, 1960s: 11, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 10, 2010s: 14 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 4, 1960s: 2, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 5, 2010s: 4 Top 25 Decade Count: 2000s: 3, 2010s: 2

Number 24 Gravity (2013) "You've got to learn to let go." Most Valuable Player: Alfonso Cuaron's Direction Box Office: 274.1m (284.9m Adjusted) Tomatometer: 96% Notable Awards: Won 7 Oscars, nominated for Best Picture Synopsis: Two astronauts work together to survive after an accident which leaves them alone in space. Critic Opinion: "Believe the hype: “Gravity” is as jaw-droppingly spectacular as you’ve heard — magnificent from a technical perspective but also a marvel of controlled acting and precise tone. This is not hyperbole: This is the best film I’ve seen so far this year. I seriously have no idea how Alfonso Cuaron made this movie. I mean, I have some idea, and it involves many, many talented people in front of many, many computers. But the fact that we genuinely feel like we’re watching George Clooney and Sandra Bullock in space — floating, tumbling, hurtling, clinging to each other for life — is just a mind-bogglingly impressive thing. We forget that these are A-list stars and become totally immersed in their characters’ struggle to survive." - Christy Lemire User Opinion: "It's easily the movie experience of the year. Absolutely insane; you will be gripping the seat of your IMAX chair for 90 minutes." - Telemachos Reasoning: I'm ranking Gravity as the best film of the decade, and it's because of the sheer experience you get from watching this movie, no matter what screen it's on. Sure, it's always a downgrade to watch this movie on a home screen instead of an IMAX screen, but the power in the film is never lost. The shots are absolutely breathtaking, it's one of the few times in my life where special and effects and excellent cinematography floored me to this kind of degree. While the story may be simple, it's an engaging one, and it leaves you gasping for air in how suspense this disaster sci-fi movie is. Gravity remains grounded, and it never feels like its too ambitious for its own good. It's a moving experience that really demonstrates how powerful pure visual filmmaking can be. There's plenty of thematic depth you can take out of the imagery, and it's a true cinematic experience. Decade Count: 1930s: 12, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 18, 1960s: 23, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 28, 2010s: 31 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 4, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 8, 1960s: 11, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 7, 2010s: 14 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 4, 1960s: 2, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 2, 2010s: 4 Top 25 Decade Count: 2010s: 2

Oh... yikes!

40.5m would put it over the edge to a 90m weekend. 38 would likely put it just under.

Godfather Raiders

Aw dang it, looks like I need to go buy some more months.

Here's the first movie in my top 25, and the highest ranking animated movie on my list. Number 25 Inside Out (2015) "Take her to the moon for me. Okay?" Most Valuable Player: Pete Docter's Writing and Direction Box Office: 356.5m (373.6m Adjusted) Tomatometer: 98% Notable Awards: Won 1 Oscar Synopsis: After young Riley is uprooted from her Midwest life and moved to San Francisco, her emotions - Joy, Fear, Anger, Disgust and Sadness - conflict on how best to navigate a new city, house, and school. Critic Opinion: "Inside Out is only 94 minutes long, but stuffed with enough loving detail for five movies. What about the intricate designs of those "personality islands" formed from Riley's core memories? Or Bing-Bong, the imaginary friend from childhood? The "Abstract Thought" chamber, a treat for animation geeks? Above all, there is the film's stealthy, insightful approach to child psychology and its wonderful distillation of concepts that most filmmakers would never attempt to express in this medium. The movie is unabashed about its sentimentality, because it's teaching us about the raw power of sentiment: This is how memories are formed. Inside Out isn't just a sign of renewed youth from Pixar. It's the reason Pixar exists." - Lapin, NPR User Opinion: "Pixar's best films take broad, ridiculous, what-if components (rat chefs, romantic bots, talking toys, houses that fly) and use them to tell just as universal but generally more painfully emotional stories about adulation, success, loss, maturity, and just about any other raw nerve you can think of. INSIDE OUT is perhaps the best example of why Pixar's formula works so splendidly--Docter and company turn the mechanics of the mind into complete metaphor to tell a thrilling, funny, fast-paced adventure that's literally all about a 12-year-old girl developing complex emotions and memories. This is the endless spacial imagination of MONSTERS INC. weaved with the coming of age complexity of UP. This movie is the real freaking deal, folks. Not to even mention it has possibly the best Pixar voice performance in Amy Poehler and the best Pixar score in Michael Giacchino." - Gopher Reasoning: Absolutely brilliant. Honestly, I'm at that point of my list where I'm wondering if I made a mistake not including the movie I'm writing up in my top 10, because they're all that good (imo). Every single scene in this movie is crampacked with ideas and fine-tuned into creative perfect. It's the most innovative movie of the decade, and possibly the most innovative of the entire 21st century when it comes to pure storytelling and worldbuilding. The psychological aspects of the film are brilliant, and manage to convey complex ideas into simple terms. It's an animated movie that treats its audience with the utmost respect, being entirely mature in its themes, yet staying completely accessible to all that want to see it. It's a movie that never fails to make me tear up at certain points, as it fully manages to capitalize on human emotions, memory and moving onto new stages of life. Inside Out is that mountain-top point for Pixar's work, and it's one that I don't know if they'll ever be able to top simply because of how perfect the movie is. The movie is number two of the decade for me, and I suspect it'll only creep up even higher on this list given time. I just felt it was a little to premature to include it above a few of the movies coming up ahead (with the exception of number 24, which I kept flip-flopping it with). Inside Out is the animation in its top form and the prime jewel of the medium. Decade Count: 1930s: 12, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 18, 1960s: 23, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 28, 2010s: 30 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 4, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 8, 1960s: 11, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 7, 2010s: 13 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 4, 1960s: 2, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 2, 2010s: 3 Top 25 Decade Count: 2010s: 1

Number 26 Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (The Good, The Bad and the Ugly) (1966) "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig." Most Valuable Player: Sergio Leone's Direction Box Office: 25.1m (180.9m Adjusted) Tomatometer: 97% Notable Awards: Rated #9 on IMDb Top 250 Synopsis: A bounty hunting scam joins two men in an uneasy alliance against a third in a race to find a fortune in gold buried in a remote cemetery. Critic Opinion: "The Dollars have no good guys to dilute the action. They also gain immensely by being shot on location in Italy. The back lots of Hollywood studios have been worn smooth over the years by countless posses, but the landscape of the Dollars looks barren and deserted. These are new Old Hills. And they are populated by cheap Italian extras, apparently chosen because of their appearance rather than their acting ability, if any. All three movies are filled with close-ups of memorable faces, and these are not Hollywood extras with stuck-on whiskers but Italian peasants who have worked in the sun all their lives and will go back to work tomorrow. Most of them -- like the legless beggar or the witnesses at the hangings -- populate scenes only a few minutes in length. Yet they supply atmosphere, like those strange people who hover in the shadows of Dickens novels, and when the beggar crawls into the bar and says, "Hand me down a whisky," that is the kind of macabre detail unthinkable in Hollywood." - Roger Ebert User Opinion: "This is a true epic in every sense of the word. The world is vibrant, the characters are larger than life, and the score is of course brilliant. As a viewer you are privy to a scorching journey through the desert, a digression featuring a Civil War battle, and of course all this ultimately culminates in a three-way showdown. It's the stuff of legends, as is every offering tied to the Man with No Name trilogy. For the most part this film features everything found in the first two films, amplified up a few notches. The stakes have never been higher, the terrain is more precarious, the characters are more ruthless, and the violence is more visceral. As is typically the case in a Sergio Leone offering, the music is in many ways the driving force of the entire film. So many damn scenes attain power merely from a great shot of scenery coupled with some killer tunes. A man's man's film, plain and simple." - mattmav45 Reasoning: After putting many Westerns on here, as well as the other two Dollars films, it was fairly obvious this movie was going to pop up at some point, and that's because of how great of a movie it is. Each of the dollars films grows off of the next one, as Leone learns more and more about how to be a master of the Western genre. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly takes what makes the last two movies preceding it succeed and it ups the stakes, scale and intensity ten-fold. Ennio Morricone's score just gets even better from the last two, to the point where it becomes the most iconic and legendary Western, as well as all films in general period, score of all time. An absolutely brilliant and alive spaghetti Western that manages to get just about everything right in its simple yet grand violent epic. Decade Count: 1930s: 12, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 18, 1960s: 23, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 28, 2010s: 29 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 4, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 8, 1960s: 11, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 7, 2010s: 12 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 4, 1960s: 2, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 2, 2010s: 2

Number 27 Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) "Chewie... we're home." Most Valuable Player: The Nostalgia Box Office: 936.7m (935.2m Adjusted) Tomatometer: 92% Notable Awards: Nominated for 5 Oscars Synopsis: Three decades after the defeat of the Galactic Empire, a new threat arises. The First Order attempts to rule the galaxy and only a ragtag group of heroes can stop them, along with the help of the Resistance. Critic Opinion: "The “Star Wars” phenomenon has become bigger than movies, capturing the imagination of the world. Fans have somehow kept the faith and grown in number, despite weak and worse sequels, and now, finally, their investment has been rewarded. Directed by J.J. Abrams, this new episode, opening Friday, is both grand and human scale. It features many action sequences — skirmishes, attacks, laser gun battles and hand-to-hand (and light saber to light saber) combat. But none of it is overdone, and none of it feels overstuffed or at the expense of the characters. It is what the first “Star Wars” was, and what the series always was when it was at its best, a story about people caught up in troubles they didn’t look for, who rise to the moment." - LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle User Opinion: "I'm overwhelmed. One of the best films of the year and perhaps of my movie going days." Reasoning: Decade Count: 1930s: 12, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 18, 1960s: 22, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 28, 2010s: 29 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 4, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 8, 1960s: 10, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 7, 2010s: 12 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 4, 1960s: 1, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 2, 2010s: 2

Number 28 Gone With The Wind (1939) "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Most Valuable Player: Haller and Renningham for the Cinematography Box Office: 189.5m (1.73b Adjusted) Tomatometer: 94% Notable Awards: Won 8 Oscars, including Best Picture Critic Opinion: "It’s a good job they’re putting this ravishing new print of ‘Gone with the Wind’ in cinemas now – before Steve McQueen’s ‘12 Years a Slave’ arrives in January to show us what American slavery really looked like. Its stereotype of happy slaves and kindly masters has never been more wince-inducing (the writers thankfully deleted the novel’s pro-Ku Klux Klan references). But no one watches ‘Gone with the Wind’ for historical accuracy. What keeps us coming back is four-hours of epic romance in gorgeous Technicolor. Slavery, the Civil War, the burning of Atlanta, a street knee-deep in dead soldiers – all just a backdrop to the main event, Scarlett ’n’ Rhett. The feminist jury is still out on Southern belle Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh). Nothing but a serial husband-thief? Or a resilient modern woman doing what she can to survive? You decide. Rhett (Clark Gable) is the hard-drinking playboy who, when he looks at a woman, sees right through her petticoats. Scarlett: ‘You black-hearted varmint’ (store that one away for future use). Rhett: ‘You’ll never mean anything but misery to a man.’ Frankly, you’d have be as black-hearted as Rhett not to give a damn." - Clarke, Time Out User Opinion: "I love this movie, I've seen it over a dozen times. I was able to see it in a beautiful old movie theatre about 10 years ago as it would have originally been seen in 1939 - it was amazing. This movie defines epic." - Ariadne Reasoning: I'll admit, this is probably the most flawed film in my top 50, there's some pacing problems near the end of the film and the historical inaccuracies are cringe-inducing. However, the good in the movie completely goes above and beyond at making up for those errors and problems. The movie is absolutely grand and epic in its scaling, perhaps one of the most "epic" of the epic movies in its sheer scale, length and spectacle. The movie takes you on a journey of the fall of the fall of the South, and a classic love affair. The movie is technically brilliant and modern in its filmmaking, the cinematography being absolutely breathtaking. The performances in the film are phenomenal, with Vivien Leigh giving a top 5 all-time performance for her portrayal of Scarlett O'Hara. Gone with the Wind deserves its tall place in cinematic history. Decade Count: 1930s: 12, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 18, 1960s: 22, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 28, 2010s: 28 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 4, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 8, 1960s: 10, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 7, 2010s: 11 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 4, 1960s: 1, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 2, 2010s: 1 Absolutely breathtaking sequence here

I'm sure I'll turn a few heads with this one Number 29 Harvey (1950) "Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." Most Valuable Player: Mary Chase for the Screenplay and the Pulitzer Prize Play Box Office: N/A Tomatometer: 84% Notable Awards: Won 1 Oscar Synopsis: Due to his insistence that he has an invisible six foot-tall rabbit for a best friend, a whimsical middle-aged man is thought by his family to be insane - but he may be wiser than anyone knows. Critic Opinion: "Jimmy Stewart, in one of his best-loved roles, is wonderful as the gentle, sweet soul who befriends the invisible rabbit. His performance earned him an Oscar nomination, and the priceless Josephine Hull, as Stewart's harried sister, was honored as Best Supporting Actress. The supporting cast features wonderful work from Dow (who retired far too soon), Drake, Kellaway, Horne, and White. Henry Koster's direction is sharp and moves along at a rapid clip. This is a happy movie and leaves a long, lingering warm glow." - TV Guide User Opinion: "There are some emotionally moving scenes towards the end and James Stewart charismatic character makes the whole experience worth. It's a shame that the real world is not that simplistic." - Goffe Reasoning: A truly and genuinely good-nature film with a strong moral center to it all, it's ingenious writing about tolerance, how to view the world and how to treat others. James Stewart is a renowned actor who played many roles, but he saw his role in Harvey, as Elwood, as his favorite role of his career. It's a bit peculiar when he had such a variety of options to go with, but it makes sense when you sit down and watch the film. It's not the greatest film ever made in its technique, although I'd argue it is very well made, but it's in the screenplay and the interaction between the actors that much of the magic in Harvey happens. It offers commentary on how people spend so much of their lives trying to further themselves in careers, status and intelligence (they're being smart). Yet none of those people were as content as the drunk Elwood with his contagious imaginary friend, who simply lived his life being pleasant and bringing a sense of content to himself and others. As others begin to see Harvey, it's this "naive" philosophy of life that spreads, and that "naive" philosophy ended up making the community the better for it. Harvey isn't a movie trying to tell you how the world is, but it's a movie that tells you how the world ought to be. Decade Count: 1930s: 11, 1940s: 14, 1950s: 18, 1960s: 22, 1970s: 27, 1980s: 36, 1990s: 34, 2000s: 28, 2010s: 28 Top 100 Decade Count: 1930s: 3, 1940s: 2, 1950s: 8, 1960s: 10, 1970s: 13, 1980s: 5, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 7, 2010s: 11 Top 50 Decade Count: 1930s: 2, 1940s: 1, 1950s: 4, 1960s: 1, 1970s: 8 1980s: 1, 1990s: 3, 2000s: 2, 2010s: 1

I think as long as spoiler tags are enforced for responses, and you keep it in its main thread, it should be okay. It's not a huge deal, it's just the ever-changing spoiler policies make it hard to remember what's okay to say and where you can say it. I've been able to stay unspoiled for films I cared about staying unspoiled for me here, even when I saw them later into their runs. This rule isn't a huge deal btw, not worth starting a riot about or anything. I'm just not entirely sure how it'll help anything. The people who (in general) complain about getting spoiled are the ones that click the tags and wander into the spoiler threads anyways. I thought we had a pretty strict spoiler policy as is.

I will say, if somebody says SPOILERS for x Movie and tags the spoiler, then it's nobody but your own fault for getting spoiled and you shouldn't get mad at them. It feels like those dresscode policies I'd have at Summer Church Camps when I was a kid/teenager where they said, "You HAVE To wear jeans and shirts that cover the shoulders, that way the boys won't even be tempted to be lustful!" But even then, it's the new rule and I'll follow it and won't complain about it past this, even if it does feel a little silly and redundant.

Weird they're ranking them solely by net profit. Cash Return is just as important as it shows that the film was the better investment per dollar spent. High profit amounts are nice, but profits when you spend next to nothing (Hidden Figures or Conjuring) are even better. For example, you could invest in The Conjuring 2 and Don't Breathe (spending less) and make more profit than you would from BvS.

But if we feed the trolls lots and lots sugary soda treats they'll die from heart disease!

I'm not entirely convinced that The Lion King is going to be so much bigger than BATB. Still huge, but performing on par with BATB would be good for it.