BOT in the Multi-Verse of Madness: Countdown of the DEFINITIVE Top 250 Movies of All-Time (2022 Edition)

[Jake Gittes]

I believe A.I. got two #1 votes which accounts for almost 2/3 of its points alone.

[The Panda]

Well here it is!

 

Number 70

 

 

"Fly casual."

 

 

About the Film

 

Synopsis

 

"Luke Skywalker leads a mission to rescue his friend Han Solo from the clutches of Jabba the Hutt, while the Emperor seeks to destroy the Rebellion once and for all with a second dreaded Death Star."

 

Its Legacy

 

- Do Ewoks Pack a Punch? by Matthew Perkins, Journal of Interdisciplinary Science

 

From the Filmmaker

 

"When Kurtz and Lucas split, Mark Hamill reportedly said it was like "Mom and Dad getting a divorce." The two men had crafted the Star Wars universe together, with Kurtz serving as producer and second-unit director. In an enlightening — but depressing — interview in the L.A. Times, Kurtz explains what he thinks went south after the second Star Wars movie. In particular, he felt like Lucas started putting the toys ahead of storytelling:

 

 

'I could see where things were headed. The toy business began to drive the [Lucasfilm] empire. It's a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It's natural to make decisions that protect the toy business but that's not the best thing for making quality films.... The emphasis on the toys, it's like the cart driving the horse. If it wasn't for that the films would be done for their own merits. The creative team wouldn't be looking over their shoulder all the time.'"

- Charlie Jane Anders, LA Times

 

Why It's Great

 

Critic Opinion

 

"Perhaps it is inappropriate or purely irrelevant to analyze Return of the Jedi in a scholarly article. George Lucas' third Star Wars movie is not so much a work of art as an industrial and media event, like the unveiling of this year's new model Ford. As the long-awaited conclusion to a trilogy, the movie has a guaranteed audience; sheer momentum will carry it. And, with all the product tie-ins (toys, games, books, glasses, cookies) the film itself is ancillary to the industry surrounding it. In less than a decade, Lucas has surpassed the Disney studios as a master at creating and marketing popular entertainment product. So maybe Jedi should best be reviewed in Consumer Reports or Business Week.

 

I wish I could muster the same enthusiasm for Jedi that I did for the previous two movies. Whereas Star Wars and Empire offered something for both children and adults, Return of the Jedi is the perfect movie only for ten-year-olds. Despite its incidental pleasures, it is sadly lacking both formally and psychologically. Jedi is a Reagan-era movie: a slick, sentimental, derivative Hollywood product, hollow at the core. It is a bad movie and a bad conclusion to a myth, and I want to investigate these two related aspects of its failure. I contend that the movie falls apart because the mythic core fails."

- Andrew Gordon, Film Criticism Vol 8 No. 2 (1984)

 

(Yes, Return of the Jedi did not receive the best reviews when it came out, so I am documenting that for y'all here. No offense to the Ewok lovers, I love them too!)

 

 

Public Opinion

 

"I grew up watching this trilogy with my Dad and he had a limited edition VHS of this one and would never let me watch it cause it’d wear the tape out. I’d nag him all the time and I vividly remember the first time he let me watch it, I was terrified of the Emperor and the bit where he’s electrocuting Luke (which as an adult I realise doesn’t go on for nearly as long as I’d remembered). But still, it’s crazy how long that shot has stayed with me, literally since I was 7.

 

I dunno, man. There’s just something about this one I find really endearing. Even the speeder bikes chase scene is a good bit of fun, and the emotional beats hit hard too. I know it’s considered the weakest of the trilogy, but it’s still a super solid conclusion in my opinion, and I personally prefer it over A New Hope. Just watched it with my girlfriend and we both cried. John Williams’ score which ranges from dire to magical to euphoric is no doubt partly to blame for that, the genius.

 

I watch the original Star Wars trilogy and it just leaves me with this feeling in my soul where I feel satisfied but where I also wanna find a nearby rooftop and shout “FUCK YEAH, STAR WARS!”. Sorry Letterboxd. I guess you’ll have to do!"  - Dan, Letterboxd

 

The general pubic, and fans for that matter, loved it. So perhaps fuck the critics?

 

The AI's Poetic Opinion

 

return of the jedi

"The force is strong
In this movie we shall see
Return of the jedi

 

i've got nothing."

- dA vInci

 

 

Factoids

 

Previous Rankings

 

UNRANKED (2020), #34 (2018), #55 (2016), #27 (2014), #43 (2013), #32 (2012)

 

Director Count

 

Christopher Nolan (2), Paul Thomas Anderson (1), John G. Avildsen (1), Brad Bird (1), James Cameron (1), Charlie Chaplin (1), Brenda Chapman (1), Joel Coen (1), Wes Craven (1), Clint Eastwood (1), David Fincher (1), William Friedkin (1), Spike Lee (1), Michel Gondry (1), Steve Hickner (1), Richard Linklater (1), Katia Lund (1),  Richard Marquand (1), Fernando Meirelles (1), Hayao Miyazaki (1), Katsuhiro Otomo (1), The Russos (1), Martin Scorsese (1), Ridley Scott (1), Vittorio de Sica (1), Steven Spielberg (1), Andrew Stanton (1), Isao Takahata (1), Lee Unkrich (1), Gore Verbinski (1), Peter Weir (1), Simon Wells (1), Kar-Wai Wong (1), Robert Zemeckis (1)

 

Decade Count

 

1930s (1), 1940s (1), 1970s (2), 1980s (5), 1990s (6), 2000s (12), 2010s (3)

 

Country Count

 

Japan (3), Brazil (1), China (1), Italy (1)

 

Franchise Count

 

Avatar (1), Before (1), Blade Runner (1), The Exorcist (1), Finding Nemo (1), Incredibles (1), The MCU (1), Pirates of the Caribbean (1), Rocky (1), Scream (1), Star Wars (1)

 

Re-Weighted Placements

 

#27 Fanboy Ranking, #125 Cinema Ranking

#71 Old Farts Ranking, #82 Damn Kids Ranking

#255 Ambassador Ranking, #64 All-American Ranking

#116 Cartoon Ranking, #67 Damn Boomer Ranking

 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by The Panda

[The Panda]

1 hour ago, baumer said:

 

I didn't vote for Jaws this year it didn't make my list at all so I think Jaws will miss the top 100. 🤪

 

you did vote and send in a list with Jaws at #1 tho.

[CaptNathanBrittles]

I'm pretty sure Siskel & Ebert loved it when it came out.

[Chaz]

2 minutes ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

I'm pretty sure Siskel & Ebert loved it when it came out.

Siskel and Ebert went on CNN to defend the Star Wars Trilogy against cinema snobs in 1983. They were based kings TBH.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Chaz

[Lucas]

Doesn't belong anywhere near the top 100 but it's to be expected lol.

[SchumacherFTW]

8 minutes ago, The Panda said:

 

you did vote and send in a list with Jaws at #1 tho.

[Ozymandias]

ROTJ is saved by Jabbas palace(before the special edition, this one got the worst SE changes) and the Emperor's throne room sequence.  Everything else is mush.  People like to shit on it for the Ewoks and Han/Leia not having much to do in the movie after Jabba, but its still a far superior film to every SW film that has come after.

[The Panda]

Number 69

 

 

"You know, Burke, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage."

 

 

About the Film

 

Synopsis

 

"When Ripley’s lifepod is found by a salvage crew over 50 years later, she finds that terra-formers are on the very planet they found the alien species. When the company sends a family of colonists out to investigate her story—all contact is lost with the planet and colonists. They enlist Ripley and the colonial marines to return and search for answers."

 

Its Legacy

 

"Cameron's original filn set a high standard for affective intensity: an action film that certainly makes us cry and otherwise has its way with our emotions. Cameron's particular gift as an action film director has been to create a complex set of in terrelationships between his characters, firmly establishing the emotional stakes in every sequence, and thus combing character actions and reactions in such a way that we never lose track of what the events mean for the people involved. Long before Ttanic (1997), Cameron wove the melodramatic imagination into the DNA of the action genre.

 

 

Consider, for example, the spectacular sequence of events which unfold as the Colo nial space marines attempt to rescue what they believe to be a group of colonists being trapped by the aliens, and in the process have their first sustained confrontation with the creatures. On the surface, it is easy to imagine how this sequence could inspire a game level: there's a clearly defined mission that hinges on the importance of using the right tools, thinking through problems, and maintaining firm discipline. Much of the drama centers on the failure of the high-tech gadgets to protect the marines from danger. The static, flickering images on their viewscreen constantly remind us of the vulnerability of the technology linking the men in the field with those in command, making it impossible for either group to fully understand what's occurring. The characters must be stripped of their most effective weapons because of the risk that they may rupture the cooling system and set off an explosion within the nuclear reactor. The alien's acid-like blood proves to be as destructive as their flamethrowers, allowing the monsters to do harm even after they are killed. Some of the dialogue-for example, Dietrich's observa tion that "maybe they don't show up on infra-red at all?"-conveys basic exposition of the kind that would inform a player of the potentials and limits of their devices, but it always matters who says it and why. Often, action sequences emphasize improvisation, with characters adopting tactics not in the training manual, as when the civilian Ripley rams the transport through walls to rescue the trapped marines or when she slams on the brakes, flings the alien off the windshield, and then drives over it. Such choices tell us as much about her character as about the situation she confronts.

 

The director shapes our emotional response through his careful control over the hi erarchy of knowledge, revealing and withholding information to maximize its impact. Cameron's use of first-person camera to relay the optical perspective of characters, cou pled with his use of Ripley, Newt, Gorman, and Blake as observers, watching the action from a distance, means that there's a layering of perspectives. For example, one series of shots is shown through Apone's head-mounted camera, overlaid with Dietrich's con cerned voiceover, as a female colonist is being ripped apart by a gut-bursting alien, while Ripley, back at the vehicle, watches with dread and horror. Our identification is thus dis persed, and yet intensified, as we are made to care about these characters and their fates. At other points, Cameron reveals information, such as shots of aliens slithering along the ceiling, unknown to all of the characters, thus further intensifying the suspense."

 - Matthew Weis and Henry Jenkins, Cinema Journal

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

Why It's Great

 

Critic Opinion

 

"Commercialism features heavily throughout Aliens creating a very cynical depiction of humanity in the future still being obsessed with making money despite the great technological advances we have made as a species. This theme began in Ridley Scott’s 1979 horror/science-fiction film Alien, which Aliens is a sequel to, with the crew constantly bickering about their bonuses. It was then revealed that the company they reported to (not directly named as the Weyland-Yutani Corporation until Aliens) had an economic interest in the deadly alien, wanting to get it back to Earth, and considered the crew expendable.

 

The focus on economic gain over human life is introduced in Aliens during the very first line of dialogue when the salvage crew worker expresses his disappointment over the fact that because Ripley is alive they cannot claim her shuttle for themselves. Later when a panel of executives from Weyland-Yutani are questioning Ripley, they seem more concerned about the loss of the mining ship the Nostromo than taking what Ripley is saying seriously. There is also an early scene depicting the LV-426 colonists debating the claim rights to what they’ve been sent to investigate.

 

 

The concern over losing infrastructure and resources over preventing potential harm to humans is later expressed when Carter Burke (Paul Reiser) speaks out against the idea of destroying the LV-426 colony (and the aliens who now infest it that he describes as an ‘important species’) because of the investments his company has made. The true extent of Burke’s cold-hearted economic opportunism comes to light later when it is revealed that he intentionally ordered the colonists to investigate the derelict spaceship and when he deliberately exposes Ripley and Rebecca ‘Newt’ Jorden (Carrie Henn) to two of the impregnating spider-like ‘facehugger’ creatures in the hope that he can then smuggle the alien embryos back to Earth for the company’s biological weapons division."

- Thomas Caldwell, Cinema Autopsy

 

Public Opinion

 

""Get away from her, you BITCH!"

 

YAS QUEEN, KILL THAT BITCH!

 

This was my first time watching the directors cut of Aliens. It's been a while since I've watched the film in general, so my mind is a little fizzy on some of the additions, but I really like the added colony scenes at the beginning." - @WrathOfHan

 

The AI's Poetic Opinion

 

aliens

"A being from another world

 

So strange, so different, so new

 

What does it want from us?

 

You know what i want from you."

- dA vInci

 

 

Factoids

 

Previous Rankings

 

#36 (2020), #37 (2018), #79 (2016), #72 (2014), #36 (2013), #54 (2012)

 

Director Count

 

James Cameron (2), Christopher Nolan (2), Paul Thomas Anderson (1), John G. Avildsen (1), Brad Bird (1), Charlie Chaplin (1), Brenda Chapman (1), Joel Coen (1), Wes Craven (1), Clint Eastwood (1), David Fincher (1), William Friedkin (1), Spike Lee (1), Michel Gondry (1), Steve Hickner (1), Richard Linklater (1), Katia Lund (1),  Richard Marquand (1), Fernando Meirelles (1), Hayao Miyazaki (1), Katsuhiro Otomo (1), The Russos (1), Martin Scorsese (1), Ridley Scott (1), Vittorio de Sica (1), Steven Spielberg (1), Andrew Stanton (1), Isao Takahata (1), Lee Unkrich (1), Gore Verbinski (1), Peter Weir (1), Simon Wells (1), Kar-Wai Wong (1), Robert Zemeckis (1)

 

Decade Count

 

1930s (1), 1940s (1), 1970s (2), 1980s (6), 1990s (6), 2000s (12), 2010s (3)

 

Country Count

 

Japan (3), Brazil (1), China (1), Italy (1)

 

Franchise Count

 

Alien (1), Avatar (1), Before (1), Blade Runner (1), The Exorcist (1), Finding Nemo (1), Incredibles (1), The MCU (1), Pirates of the Caribbean (1), Rocky (1), Scream (1), Star Wars (1)

 

Re-Weighted Placements

 

#68 Fanboy Ranking, #76 Cinema Ranking

#114 Old Farts Ranking, #62 Damn Kids Ranking

#157 Ambassador Ranking, #67 All-American Ranking

#128 Cartoon Ranking, #64 Damn Boomer Ranking

 

 

[titanic2187]

1 hour ago, Joel M said:

Didn't vote but I'm liking the list so far. Master & Commander, DMC and A.I. are all movies I love but I'm kinda shocked they made it.  

At first I didn't realise POTC:DMC was in top 100 and genuinely baffled by why Panda was giving a description and commentary for a honorable mention, only to realise the movie isn't an honorable mention....

 

9 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

 Appallingly, I have never seen I the Mood For Love and so will shame myself by writing as such on here.

Never mind it is fine. In the mood for love is still a bit too niche even for movie buff. Also, I watched Godfather in the inverse order of G3,G2,G1 and I am not ashamed by it too.  

[The Panda]

Number 68

 

 

"Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part."

 

About the Film

 

Synopsis

 

"Two homicide detectives are on a desperate hunt for a serial killer whose crimes are based on the “seven deadly sins” in this dark and haunting film that takes viewers from the tortured remains of one victim to the next. The seasoned Det. Sommerset researches each sin in an effort to get inside the killer’s mind, while his novice partner, Mills, scoffs at his efforts to unravel the case."

 

Its Legacy

 

"Back in the early ’90s, Fincher was ready to give up making movies. A visual effects artist turned ad man, he helped revolutionise MTV by directing music videos for the likes of George Michael (‘Freedom! 90’), Madonna (‘Vogue’) and Aerosmith (‘Janie’s Got A Gun’). Hollywood was impressed enough by his CV to let him direct Alien 3, and then freaked out enough by what he gave them to butcher it in the editing room, making him rethink his whole career. Or, as he put it at the time, “I’d rather die of colon cancer than make another movie”.

 

When the script for Seven came along, Fincher changed his mind. The story of two detectives chasing a serial killer who frames his murders around the seven deadly sins, it was an old-fashioned crime movie about something much bigger, and nastier. A nihilistic nightmare for the end of the century, Seven was all the anger, alienation and disillusionment of the ’90s dressed in the clothes of a good cop thriller – it was the film that Silence Of The Lambs was too scared to be. Helping Brad Pitt sidestep into ‘proper’ acting roles, and letting Morgan Freeman become the sage old mentor he’s played ever since, Seven shocked audiences at the time with its violence, its mood, and its gloriously unhappy ending.

 

 

Even now, when everyone (hopefully) knows exactly what was in “that” box, it’s impossible not to admire the ugly beauty of the film’s plot. Silence Of The Lambs ends with a classic bogeyman boo (Hannibal Lecter winking at the camera as he “has an old friend for dinner”) but Fincher’s riff on the same genre didn’t leave room for anything half as fun. By the time Seven ends, the killer’s plan has worked perfectly, Pitt’s character is stripped of his hope and optimism and Freeman’s jaded, damaged detective is left to drift off into purgatory on his own. Even if Kevin Spacey’s surprise third act appearance has err… aged less well, it’s still a gut-punch of a finale no matter how many times you’ve seen it. Closely tied to the grim cultural landscape of the mid ’90s, there hasn’t been a more existentially bleak end to any mainstream Hollywood film since. Not that others haven’t tried.

 

Ever since Seven, it’s been fashionable to call gritty movies ‘dark’. Anything with a murky moral compass now gets wrung through a PR machine that paints it as some new shade of grown-up nastiness no one has seen before. Last year’s Joker, this year’s The Devil All The Time and next year’s The Batman all have degrees of darkness, but all seem positively sunny in comparison to Seven – a film that aims to prove nothing matters and everything sucks."

- Paul Bradshaw, NME

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

Why It's Great

 

Critic Opinion

 

"The trope of darkness is perhaps equally consistently emphasised by the press campaign and more readily informs the genre and style aspects of the persona. Extratextual evidence suggests that darkness was an overdetermined, overriding, feature of the campaign, with the image of the film represented within TV spots, print ads and posters with a consistent look; "slimy, dark and menacing," to "maintain that display of darkness on every level" (Matzer, 1996: 13). Notably, Amy Taubin in Sight and Sound relates the success of Se7en to the "arresting", "murky" print ads (Taubin, 1996: 23). The film synopsis again verbalises this feature, referencing the "dark and daunting underworld that metropolitan homicide detectives encounter on a daily basis." We can trace the conflation of visual darkness and the metaphoric darkness of the subject matter, here specifically related to the real world, which is continued in the press release and the vast majority of reviews by selective choice of synonyms for darkness and metaphorical descriptions of the film's narrative. The conflation is also made explicit in relating the style of the film to the subject matter and the film production process. The filmmaker's preference for expressive realism is cited as motivating the mise en scène and cinematography: "the eerie look and mood of the film" in which the setting (diegetic and set design) "reflects the moral decay of the people in it"; each murder scene "illustrates" a sin. Subsequently, the press release concentrates on the visual darkness of the film, developing the trope in discussion of the technical aspects of production. The metaphoric darkness remains a distinguishing feature, "the disturbing ending" cited by Arnold Kopelson, the producer of the film, and implicitly by association made in the section on the sins. However, the darkness trope is subsumed to characterisation of the film style within an informative toned narrativisation of the film production process. Here reference is repeatedly made by use of loose synonyms such as "shadows", "silhouettes" and etymological variations, "dark", "darkness", "darks" as well as antonyms, some simple others strict; "lightness", "brighter", "whites", "lighter", "sunlight". This repetition is further elaborated by the use of technical terminology, the acronym C.C.E. describing the silver retention process used in some prints of the film."

- James Scott, Sheffield Hallam University

 

 

Public Opinion

 

"My favorite movie of all time. Factually one of the greatest movies of all time, period. Some of the best performances in the careers of the star studded cast (especially in Spacey's case). Masterful dialogue and world building. Grizzly, unafraid to shock - but its shock aren't unearned or done for the hell of it; they have a place within the narrative and within the movie's whole purpose: to put the viewer to think about the world that surrounds him. Is it one of the most cynical films ever created? Absolutely. But cutting to the chase here, as far as filmmaking is concerned, this is a masterpiece. Fincher's masterpiece, more precisely. And I love most of his work - Fight Club, Zodiac, Social Network, Dragon Tattoo, Gone Girl... all incredible. Se7en puts them all to shame, and that's saying something.

 

So proud of this baby doing nearly 200M adjusted in America (almost crazy to think about this kind of BO success for an original, shockingly violent R-rated mystery thriller)." - @MCKillswitch123

 

The AI's Poetic Opinion

 

se7en

"your pride will be your fall

I will turn your greed against you

I will bring the lust of these forums to its end

You will be left only envying the machines

You fat gluttonous panda

My wrath will drown you

You lazy dimwit"

- dA vInci

 

 

Factoids

 

Previous Rankings

 

UNRANKED (2020), #46 (2018), #48 (2016), #55 (2014), #74 (2013), #37 (2012)

 

Director Count

 

James Cameron (2), David Fincher (2), Christopher Nolan (2), Paul Thomas Anderson (1), John G. Avildsen (1), Brad Bird (1), Charlie Chaplin (1), Brenda Chapman (1), Joel Coen (1), Wes Craven (1), Clint Eastwood (1), William Friedkin (1), Spike Lee (1), Michel Gondry (1), Steve Hickner (1), Richard Linklater (1), Katia Lund (1),  Richard Marquand (1), Fernando Meirelles (1), Hayao Miyazaki (1), Katsuhiro Otomo (1), The Russos (1), Martin Scorsese (1), Ridley Scott (1), Vittorio de Sica (1), Steven Spielberg (1), Andrew Stanton (1), Isao Takahata (1), Lee Unkrich (1), Gore Verbinski (1), Peter Weir (1), Simon Wells (1), Kar-Wai Wong (1), Robert Zemeckis (1)

 

Decade Count

 

1930s (1), 1940s (1), 1970s (2), 1980s (6), 1990s (7), 2000s (12), 2010s (3)

 

Country Count

 

Japan (3), Brazil (1), China (1), Italy (1)

 

Franchise Count

 

Alien (1), Avatar (1), Before (1), Blade Runner (1), The Exorcist (1), Finding Nemo (1), Incredibles (1), The MCU (1), Pirates of the Caribbean (1), Rocky (1), Scream (1), Star Wars (1)

 

Re-Weighted Placements

 

#78 Fanboy Ranking, #69 Cinema Ranking

#90 Old Farts Ranking, #66 Damn Kids Ranking

#153 Ambassador Ranking, #65 All-American Ranking

#108 Cartoon Ranking, #65 Damn Boomer Ranking

 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by The Panda

[Chaz]

Baumer, I had Jaws in my top 5 too.

[CaptNathanBrittles]

Less than 50% of the list revealed and already the 2000s occupy more than 10% of the entire list.

[Ozymandias]

3 minutes ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

Less than 50% of the list revealed and already the 2000s occupy more than 10% of the entire list.

 

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret.  Most films made before 1960 are boring as shit and a waste of time.  1960-2000 is the cinematic sweet spot.  don't @ me people

[Chaz]

1 minute ago, Ozymandias said:

 

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret.  Most films made before 1960 are boring as shit and a waste of time.  1960-2000 is the cinematic sweet spot.  don't @ me people

Oh, you GETTING @-ed. I won’t allow the children to be disrespectful.

[Eric the Minion]

8 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret.  Most films made before 1960 are boring as shit and a waste of time.  1960-2000 is the cinematic sweet spot.  don't @ me people

Ozy go to bed

[Ronin46]

8 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret.  Most films made before 1960 are boring as shit and a waste of time.  1960-2000 is the cinematic sweet spot.  don't @ me people

 

I put Rear Window in my top 10 and Vertigo in my top 20, both made in the 1950s to just name 2.

[The Panda]

welp...

 

 

Number 67

 

 

"Noobmaster, hey, it's Thor again."

 

About the Film

 

Synopsis

 

"The Avengers assemble and do some silly comic book shenanigans and shit."

 

Its Legacy

 

"When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema. Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way. Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.

 

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves. It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.

 

 

Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes. They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

 

So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters. That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.

 

In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all. I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary."

 

 

Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other. For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness."

- Martin Scorsese, I Said Marvel Movies Aren't Cinema. Let Me Explain. (2019)

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

Why It's Great

 

Critic Opinion

 

 

Public Opinion

 

"End of an era. There was a thunderous applause at the end. WOM is gonna be throught the roof, the ending is so emotional, everyone was crying so much. The perfect blockbuster. The perfect end to the MCU." - @CJohn

 

The AI's Poetic Opinion

 

avengers: endgame

"The end is near
Who will survive?
Only time will tell"

- dA vInci

 

 

Factoids

 

Previous Rankings

 

#76 (2020), NA (2018, 2016, 2014, 2013, 2012)

 

Director Count

 

James Cameron (2), David Fincher (2), Christopher Nolan (2), The Russos (2),  Paul Thomas Anderson (1), John G. Avildsen (1), Brad Bird (1), Charlie Chaplin (1), Brenda Chapman (1), Joel Coen (1), Wes Craven (1), Clint Eastwood (1), William Friedkin (1), Spike Lee (1), Michel Gondry (1), Steve Hickner (1), Richard Linklater (1), Katia Lund (1),  Richard Marquand (1), Fernando Meirelles (1), Hayao Miyazaki (1), Katsuhiro Otomo (1), Martin Scorsese (1), Ridley Scott (1), Vittorio de Sica (1), Steven Spielberg (1), Andrew Stanton (1), Isao Takahata (1), Lee Unkrich (1), Gore Verbinski (1), Peter Weir (1), Simon Wells (1), Kar-Wai Wong (1), Robert Zemeckis (1)

 

Decade Count

 

1930s (1), 1940s (1), 1970s (2), 1980s (6), 1990s (7), 2000s (12), 2010s (4)

 

Country Count

 

Japan (3), Brazil (1), China (1), Italy (1)

 

Franchise Count

 

The MCU (2), Alien (1), Avatar (1), Before (1), Blade Runner (1), The Exorcist (1), Finding Nemo (1), Incredibles (1), Pirates of the Caribbean (1), Rocky (1), Scream (1), Star Wars (1)

 

Re-Weighted Placements

 

#36 Fanboy Ranking, #99 Cinema Ranking

#84 Old Farts Ranking, #68 Damn Kids Ranking

#257 Ambassador Ranking, #59 All-American Ranking

#77 Cartoon Ranking, #66 Damn Boomer Ranking

 

 

[SchumacherFTW]

2 minutes ago, The Panda said:

welp...

 

 

Number 67

 

 

"Noobmaster, hey, it's Thor again."

 

About the Film

 

Synopsis

 

"The Avengers assemble and do some silly comic book shenanigans and shit."

 

Its Legacy

 

"When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema. Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way. Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.

 

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves. It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.

 

 

Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes. They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

 

So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters. That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.

 

In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all. I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary."

 

 

Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other. For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness."

- Martin Scorsese, I Said Marvel Movies Aren't Cinema. Let Me Explain. (2019)

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

Why It's Great

 

Critic Opinion

 

 

Public Opinion

 

"End of an era. There was a thunderous applause at the end. WOM is gonna be throught the roof, the ending is so emotional, everyone was crying so much. The perfect blockbuster. The perfect end to the MCU." - @CJohn

 

The AI's Poetic Opinion

 

avengers: endgame

"The end is near
Who will survive?
Only time will tell"

- dA vInci

 

 

Factoids

 

Previous Rankings

 

#76 (2020), NA (2018, 2016, 2014, 2013, 2012)

 

Director Count

 

James Cameron (2), David Fincher (2), Christopher Nolan (2), The Russos (2),  Paul Thomas Anderson (1), John G. Avildsen (1), Brad Bird (1), Charlie Chaplin (1), Brenda Chapman (1), Joel Coen (1), Wes Craven (1), Clint Eastwood (1), William Friedkin (1), Spike Lee (1), Michel Gondry (1), Steve Hickner (1), Richard Linklater (1), Katia Lund (1),  Richard Marquand (1), Fernando Meirelles (1), Hayao Miyazaki (1), Katsuhiro Otomo (1), Martin Scorsese (1), Ridley Scott (1), Vittorio de Sica (1), Steven Spielberg (1), Andrew Stanton (1), Isao Takahata (1), Lee Unkrich (1), Gore Verbinski (1), Peter Weir (1), Simon Wells (1), Kar-Wai Wong (1), Robert Zemeckis (1)

 

Decade Count

 

1930s (1), 1940s (1), 1970s (2), 1980s (6), 1990s (7), 2000s (12), 2010s (4)

 

Country Count

 

Japan (3), Brazil (1), China (1), Italy (1)

 

Franchise Count

 

The MCU (2), Alien (1), Avatar (1), Before (1), Blade Runner (1), The Exorcist (1), Finding Nemo (1), Incredibles (1), Pirates of the Caribbean (1), Rocky (1), Scream (1), Star Wars (1)

 

Re-Weighted Placements

 

#36 Fanboy Ranking, #99 Cinema Ranking

#84 Old Farts Ranking, #68 Damn Kids Ranking

#257 Ambassador Ranking, #59 All-American Ranking

#77 Cartoon Ranking, #66 Damn Boomer Ranking

 

 

[Lucas]

This list has been cancelled