Ipickthiswhiterose

Franchise movies, ironically, looking much sillier in the 101-200 list than they do in the 1-100. I mean, sure, go ahead, think Sith is a better film than Rashomon and Ran, but lol. Those alternating paths for Seven Samurai and Pulp Fiction over the years are very interesting. Really indicates a slowly increasing internationalism and move away from US-Centrism: especially when it comes to some of the more stretched claims of originality that exists within some American media circles when discussing the likes of Tarantino. And for all it's disappointing for Panda - I'd say that Psycho and Seven Samurai - and even Rear Window - into the 30s in a pop culture-ish forum is pretty positive stuff. As for the not insignificant bunch of us that had The Apartment high, are we going to be disappointed or surprisingly delighted?

Keep coming back to this one. I'm not sure there's any chance of a run of 5 films on our final list that's a better rounded combo than this. Meanwhile, while they at least placed in the right order, my mind is absolutely blown by the fact that Wall-E had three more votes for Top 100 placings than the Goddamn Lion King.

Not only is our 101-200 far better than our 1-100, it's turning into a pretty great list of top 100 in and of itself.

Someone chuck him some bamboo, he's lost it.

Tried Silence of the Lambs for the umpteenth time recently. I love horror. I'm a horror guy. I like everyone involved. With the best will in the world I still don't get it. I don't know why it blew up like it did. I don't get why it gets to be a prestige film when the status of prestige film is a desert when it comes to horror. I don't know why Hopkins' performance is supposed to be great. I don't know what is supposed to make the film any different from any other competent dark thriller like, say, the Bone Collector or Kiss the Girls. It's like, I don't know, being told all your life that, um, let's go with...The Wedding Crashers is the be all and end all of modern comedy. Like, sure, it's fine. I get why some might really like it but, I mean, I don't even see how it's even AIMING for that never mind hitting it. (This may get me hate I don't know, if you love it I genuinely would like to hear why you think it's great - especially why you think it's comparatively better than Hannibal and Manhunter)

I was describing the common consensus rather than my own preference but as a personal experiment of Top 25 films in order with values against my Top 100 where included: 2000s 1. Master and Commander #6 2. Zodiac #15 3. O Brother Where Art Thou? #19 4. Ravenous #22 5. Hero #29 6. Amelie #44 7. Children of Men #45 8. Mean Girls #51 9. Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India #59 10. Martyrs #61 11. LOTR: Fellowship #72 12. Pan's Labyrinth #73 13. The Prestige #79 14. Fantastic Mr Fox #83 15. Spirited Away #95 16. Mulholland Drive 17. In the Loop 18. Man on Wire 19. No Country for Old Men 20. Session 9 21. Ratatouille 22. Oldboy 23. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 24. The Evil Dead 25. There Will Be Blood 2010s 1. Exit Through the Gift Shop #3 2. Inside Out #9 3. Four Lions #25 4. The VVitch #40 5. The Death of Stalin #53 6. Paddington 2 #64 7. Midsommar #65 8. Suspiria #66 9. Leave No Trace #74 10. Blade Runner 2049 #89 11. Moneyball #97 12. Hereditary 13. Portrait of a Woman on Fire 14. Little Women 15. The Lighthouse 16. Inside Llewyn Davies 17. First Reformed 18. The Queen of Versailles 19. The Master 20. Parasite 21. You Were Never Really Here 22. The Revenant 23. Sorry to Bother You 24. The Personal History of David Copperfield 25. Bridge of Spies The 00s have more in my Top 100 to be fair, but given anti-recency bias and probably having watched more films from the 00s I'd probably say it's a wash on personal preference, with the 10s maaaaybe having a bit more strength in depth. It's close either way I'd say.

You know, what's weird is this is coinciding with a series of decade discussions I am having on another forum elsewhere. The biggest consensus among everyone on that board? The 00s was the worst decade for films in the modern era/ since at least the 50s.

To be fair I wouldn't consider Apocalypse Now a war film per se, just as I wouldn't Full Metal Jacket. That said, they can certainly and often are in that camp. Saving Private Ryan yes, I'm expecting. It's a crime given what else is out there, but it won't be a surprise.

I knew Candyman wouldn't make it but I deluded myself into thinking Come and See might. Little did I know of the power of anime films. All I can say is that if Come and See is at 167, there better not be any war films still to come on the list. Haven't seen Silence and will correct this forthwith. Wizard of Oz is a hard one to calibrate. On the one hand its public status and the place it has in the cultural mindset is totally unique and indelible. On the other hand its ending (yes, I'm on endings again) is not only a narrative catastrophe that no other film in history would be able to get away with, but is a very cynical and regressive change from the source material.

With The Social Network, Prince of Egypt, AI, The Incredibles and Memento we are now firmly entrenched in the "Movies that if you asked me straight about them I'd say they were good to very good but it would never have occurred to me to describe them as one of the 100 best of all time" phase of the list, which is a pretty common experience. Gosh, that last list of missing out movies is brutal. I thought Das Boot might have a chance with the number of lists I saw it on - but I suppose it was never all that high. Appallingly, I have never seen I the Mood For Love and so will shame myself by writing as such on here.

Paddington 2's going on the list next time, Kiddos. We can do this.

I mean, baumer went into detail to explain this. The ending of Nightmare on Elm Street is literally kerching franchise stuff - that's not an opinion, the Producers literally insisted on adding it against the strong wishes of the director to set up sequels.

To me you've described exactly why it does. The ending is what you send the audience out with, and with Nightmare it sends the audience out with cheap, easy franchise kerching rubbish. Undermining a running time worth of solid work. The producers could have done that nonsense at the start of the second movie and kept the first golden, but they didn't. I'd suggest that your description of Nightmare as a truly *important* film in horror history is back to your framing of horror as US-and-slasher-centric stuff that has Halloween/Black Christmas as its origin. To those like me who simply don't think of horror cinema that way it is, while good, a far less notable film that the framing slashers of Peeping Tom (precursor), Black Christmas (starter), Halloween (perfection) and Scream (subversion) which - to those who don't centre slashers in the horror genre - are all we need and the only ones that would be considered for a Top 100 list.

Nightmare on Elm Street has one of the goofiest last 2 minutes of any otherwise-good film in history. It pulls it down significantly. The producers wanted in on the "one last scare" train without justification and it payeth the price. Meanwhile, this is't the worst list except for PIRATES???? WTF? And At least Gump is being dragged down from where it used to be.

Great stuff from Crawdads. Cracking performance and my movie theatre was pretty full here in the UK for a second weekend too. It's a curious beast. I enjoyed it very much, but I get why - especially against its marketing - it rubs some up the wrong way. But it's a lovely drive and I certainly bet many older folks (not old folks, just anyone over 35 or so like me) will enjoy it.

140m WW on a 26m is a film making x5 its budget. I'd call a x5 'doing really well'. I'd call Bad Guys and Sing family movies rather than kid exclusive in the way that Paw Patrol is. All the same Bad Guys made a little over x3 budget, Sing made between x4 and x5. League of SP would need to get $270 for a x3 and $450 for a x5. Obviously net gross is more important than multiplier at some point but even so, I'd call all the films we've discussed successes, but PP as much as any of the others apart from perhaps Sing 2 where sheer volume of cash overwhelms (and I say this as someone who likes Sing least of these movies, and Bad Guys most). Of course this whole Kid-Movie exclusive v Family spectrum is a bit of a moving feast anyway. For my part I'd really only consider Paw Patrol a *pure* kids movie here. My cinema buddy badgered me to watch SuperPets with him and he's 35. We also watched Bad Guys together and only didn't watch Sing and Minions at the cinema due to not enjoying the franchise rather than *because we just wouldn't because its a kids movie*. We wouldn't have dreamed of watching Paw Patrol unless we had kids with us.

The question was simply "what was the last movie made solely for kids that did really well"? Paw Patrol was a/the correct answer, regardless of how relatively well Super Pets is going to do. Also, we are well, well past the era surely where outside of a few niche cases Dom revenue is somehow seen as the more relevant value. Paw Patrol was successful in Europe where the show is extremely popular and, hypothetically, Super Pets might struggle a bit more. I'd also proffer that Minions is, on the surface, exclusively for kids originally. That a bunch of teens and adults have taken it upon themselves to have a culture moment with it is a very nice bonus for the filmmakers - but the content itself is pure kid content.

I'm always surprised how little this is talked about. I mean, I don't like TDK in the first place, but this plays out either way whether you love it or dislike it: WB were desperate to revive the successes of the Nolan Trilogy and couldn't conceive of a DCEU plan that didn't riff on it. I don't particularly like Snyder either, but even so from the start he was charged with creating not "Zack Snyder's DCEU" but "Warner Brothers Presents Christopher Nolan's hypothetical DCEU as interpreted by Zack Snyder because Nolan doesn't want to do this stuff any more but we can't get over that." It was a hospital pass. As for Aquaman, I feel sorry for it. The first film was really good popcorn fun and I'd suggest this one is likely to be too if they could put out just what they wanted to put out. Unfortunately I have never witnessed a more archetypal open creation of cult dynamics than the mass-madness of Depp fans. They are absolutely gone at this stage and in such a witch-burning fervour that there's an impasse. You either include Heard and get review bombed and boycotted and online-tantrummed into oblivion or set a precedent in caving to the most toxic behaviour yet and immediately beg the question of how The Flash - starring a far more egregious culprit of actually harmful behaviour in Miller - gets released if Heard is removed.

Obviously a lot of lists have crossovers but if you'd told me another person would have had this exact trifecta in their list of 100, I wouldn't have believed them. A person of culture indeed.

Posting what I wrote at the beginning of June during the 2nd weekend of Dr Strange when people were looking at calling it a disappointment. Stand by it now : I called par for Thor 4 at 850-950WW. Any expectations above that were either silly or, though they might not have thought it, projecting it as an unprecedented success.

2000s was the worst era for blockbusters and of all the reclamation/nostalgia projects we DONT need it's people pretending any of the Transformers films or any of the Pirates films after the first 2 were good. It's not that they were bad really, so much as they were incoherent noise made by committee with tonal whiplash. I've even seen people trying to reclaim the 00s bin juice anus dribble of parody movies: White Chicks, Little Man, Meet the Spartans, Epic Movie bilge on the basis that they 'weren't woke' or something, as if that in and of itself makes them ok. No. The relative homogeneity of competently-made but predicable and safe movies now is not a reason to suddenly flutter eyes at movies that were the reason we needed the relative homogeneity of competent-made but predictable movies. Spiderman 3 is an interesting precedent for what people are experiencing wit the MCU now. It has all the good things people liked about the first two and the same flaws, but by the third movie the good things were less effective and the flaws more obvious. Thor Love and Thunder and Ragnarok are perfect examples. All the problems people have with L&T were, arguably, worse in Ragnarok and all the positives are still there. It's just that we've seen this before now. Meanwhile, delighted to see Black Phone do so well. Even if I found it more of a B to B+ than anything unavailable, its great a piece like that has done as well as it has.

I really enjoyed the movie for the most part and the enjoyment overrode some significant issues. Bale and the use of casting and characters were likeable and really enjoyable. I was far more invested in the late stages of the films than the usual generic fights fight stuff, and the acts of the film progressed in a sensible order. The enjoyment factor was really there throughout and pulled it through. The black and white sequence especially as well as Crowe were really engaging and enjoyable to me, as was the final action sequence. That said: - The shredding of the film was obvious and Phase 4s timing issues are there to show again. This is clearly three and half to four hours worth of material: Jane needed more at the start, Sif needed more, and it was clear that a solid half an hour has gone from arrival in the God world to Crowe's entrance. Simon Russell Beale, one of the most prestigious actors in the world, had a cameo as an extra (fully credited!) to indicate just how mad the cutting was and I believe another major actor was cut completely. - The GOTG became normalised so quickly. This really hit home how they do need to wrap up or completely restructure. What was fresh just isn't any more. - The most egrigious shredding of the film though is Gorr's lack of God Butchering. This is just madness. This was otherwise a brilliant character but anyone with a sense of internal logic knows he needed to kill someone on screen who was presented to us with some stakes or interest. He needed to kill a God we liked, even if it was just someone briefly introduced in this film - the retrospective discussion of the dead beast near Sif is not an acceptable equivalent. Totally undermined the stakes. BUT....the enjoyability factor does manage to pull a lot of the nonsense. I just wish there was a four or five hour version (and not the four or five hour version with extra bullshit improv, but filled with more Gorr, Jane and God lore/analysis as the story needed)

I'm just going to post my 100 here as I also am not sure it has gone through to Panda. And let's be honest many of my choices are very unlikely to make the final lineup anyway. Candyman Once Upon a time in the West Vertigo Exit through the Gift Shop Come and See Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World Suspiria (original) Once Were Warriors Jaws Inside Out The Never-ending Story The Devils Alien Psycho Zodiac The Apartment Amadeus Ran O Brother Where Art Thou Seven Samurai The Thing Ravenous Big Night Radio Days Four Lions Barry Lyndon One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest Casablanca Hero The Mission Aguirre: Wrath of God The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Tremors The Big Lebowski Labyrinth The Life of Brian Singin’ in the Rain The Shining After Hours The VVitch Toy Story 3 The Lion King Rashomon Amelie Children of Men The Truman Show Dead Poets Society The Mosquito Coast Gattaca Twelve Monkeys Mean Girls The Maltese Falcon The Death of Stalin The Name of the Rose Das Boot Potop The Usual Suspects Full Metal Jacket Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India Scream Martyrs Jurassic Park Lawrence of Arabia Paddington 2 Midsommar Suspiria (remake) The Pink Panther Carry On Screaming Mary Poppins West Side Story Speed Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Pan’s Labyrinth Leave No Trace The Gospel According to St Matthew Robin Hood (Disney) Evil Dead 2 Luci del Varietà The Prestige 12 Angry Men The Thin Blue Line Chinatown Fantastic Mr Fox La Grande Bouffe The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover The Last Detail The Passenger (Antonioni) Blade Runner Blade Runner 2049 Strangers on a Train Little Shop Of Horrors (Musical) Ghostbusters Throne of Blood The Devil Rides Out Spirited Away The Princess Bride Moneyball Rear Window La Strada Raiders of the Lost Ark

It's a shame because at least 2 of the horror films from this year that opened wide: Northman (yes, I consider it horror) and Men are absolutely fantastic films IMO. But certainly didn't do anything at the box office. And to be expected given their starting points in terms of premise and style are indeed rather niche. I think Halloween Ends is part of the problem so I feel torn about it. Nope, Beast, Barbarian and the Menu (I'm probably being optimistic with that last one) would be great options to break out. I haven't seen any trailers or info about Smile or Barbarian yet but I'd be very optimistic on what I've seen from Nope and Beast. And while I haven't seen any Salem's Lot stuff either and have little interest myself, the name King alongside a known property of his usually does okay and we're a bit starved of vampires recently.

B+ cinemascore for Black Phone is great for horror. Doesn't surprise me: saw it last night. Weirdly, it's quite definitively not *amazing*, but it also has a veneer of competence, enjoyment and good acting/plot that it's got a real floor in its reception. Like, anyone can go and enjoy it. Picked some holes in it afterwards, mostly in that the two tangential plots barely interact with the main story - which is maybe only 45 minute worth of content, but even those tangential plots are enjoyable in their way and the film feels like a nice little drive in the hills of the supernatural. What's interesting about that dynamic is it comes from the film's deliberate attempt to barely ever really go for *scares*. There are a few jumps in there, but it eschews fear and instead goes for something more akin to a supernatural thriller, and I think that's going to do it well. Hope it does well. Horror needs it.