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

[Ethan Hunt]

3 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

 

 

Obvious fakeout is obvious?

[Cap]

I can confirm Avengers: Endgame was the best cinematic experience of my life.  Doubt it will ever be topped.  What a fucking amazing 72 hours at the movie theaters.  

 

31 minutes ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

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

 

To be fair to the 2000s, they were 20 years ago.  We're all old.  

[Eric Lasagna]

15 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

 

 

Never heard of this before. I think I'll give this a watch

[JustLurking]

After what I thought was an excellent IW, going to watch Endgame was probably one of my biggest cinematic disappointments.

[Jake Gittes]

2 minutes ago, Eric the Tank Engine said:

Never heard of this before.

 

Contemplate this image

 

[The Panda]

i apologize for the monstrocities that dall-e created for this one!

 

Number 66

 

 

"If I don't love it, I don't swallow!"

 

About the Film

 

Synopsis

 

"A rat named Remy dreams of becoming a great French chef despite his family’s wishes and the obvious problem of being a rat in a decidedly rodent-phobic profession. When fate places Remy in the sewers of Paris, he finds himself ideally situated beneath a restaurant made famous by his culinary hero, Auguste Gusteau. Despite the apparent dangers of being an unlikely - and certainly unwanted - visitor in the kitchen of a fine French restaurant, Remy’s passion for cooking soon sets into motion a hilarious and exciting rat race that turns the culinary world of Paris upside down.

 

Its Legacy

 

 

From the Filmmaker

 

"Q: What drew you to a movie about Rats?

 

Brad Bird: Well, I wasn’t really drawn to it. I always liked the idea and it was being Jan Pinkava’s idea and he was working on it the whole time I was making The Incredibles. That was his idea and I always loved the idea but I wasn’t thinking I was going to direct it. They had trouble—everybody loved the idea and they loved the look of it and the cast of character types and all the possibilities of the premise but they were having trouble getting the story to coalesce. It kept wanting to go off in too many different directions and a little over a year and a half ago the Pixar founders John Lassiter, Ed Catmull and Steve Jobs asked me to come on the project, write a new script and kind of get in onto the big screen. So my motivation at first was respect for these amazing, really genius guys through some fluke of nature happened to get together and make a company that is actually an amazing place so I wanted to help them out in any way I could. Then my next motivation was oh my God, what have I done. I agreed to the original schedule—ahhh! It was complete fear and that so I just went through it. I described it to somebody else as driving down the freeway the wrong way and just trying to live and make a movie that made sense and fulfilled all the possibilities of Jan’s brilliant premise and just survive. We just finished it a couple of weeks ago and I’m still just …heart beating from not dying in my freeway maneuver but I’m really happy to hear you guys like it. I like it, but I’m not sure what it is. It’s a very strange thing and I kind of had to write it very intuitively and not look back because the schedule was right there ready to run me over.

 

 

I don’t think it probably would have happened if it hadn’t happened the way it happened. It’s not an idea that I probably would have come up with. But it is an idea that I’ve always thought had a huge number of possibilities so through the process to kind of complete that of making it, I fell in love with this world and fell in love with this group of characters and really am glad I was involved.

 

Why It's Great

 

Critic Opinion

 

"The  culinary  tourism  aims  at  exploring  the  food  as  main  attraction  to  promote  the  tourism.  The  culinary  tourism  is  otherwise  called  as  food  tourism.  Culinary  tourism  is  one of the most important tourism like any another tourism due to the presence of diverse cuisine from different parts of the world. Every country and its region in the country have its  own  unique  food  and  preparation  methods.  Experiencing  food  and  trying  out  various  culinary choices are one of the routine activities of any tourist. When a tourist pays more attention  to  learn  about  the  food,  ingredients  used  and  the  preparation  styles  followed, 

then the approach can be called as culinary tourism. Sudhagar (2017) study revealed that strong  importance  was  found  towards  food  taste,  healthy  food,  nutritional  value  of  the  food,  hygienic  food  service,  reasonable  pricing,  food  safety,  and  other  food  services  by  the  fast  food  customers.  The  motivation  of  the  culinary  tourism  results  from  watching  movies,  reading  a  short  story,  magazine,  listening  to  the  stories,  and  recommendation  from the peer groups and from one’s self-interest. Among, the motivation factors, movie plays  an  important  role  in  influencing  the  decision-making  behaviour  of  the  culinary  tourist  to  visit  a  particular  destination.  Movies  have  the  potential  to  stimulate  the  audience  to  travel  at  different  destinations  based  on  the  physical  features  of  a  country.  This  includes  scenery  and  landscape  and  the  theme  associated  in  the  movie.  The  others  factors  of  the  movie  which  influences  the  viewer’s  include  storylines,  events,  actors,  shaping  audiences  feeling,  emotions  and  attitude  towards  the  place.  One  of  the  popular  research  findings  of  Iwashita  (2006)  and  Riley  and  Van  Doren  (1992)  indicates  that  location  and  film  experiences  increase  the  memories  by  relating  them  to  the  actors,  events, and setting. There is a research evidence  which  states  that  tourist  prefers  to  visit  specific  destinations  by  holding  a  particular  type  of  images,  memories,  associations,  emotional  attachment  to  places  and  meanings  (Schama,  1996).  Based  on  these  research  justifications, it can be interpreted that movies also could influence the culinary tourism.

 

 

The food and beverage pictured or discussion shown in the movie will result in memory of  the  audience.  The  movies  not  only  form  the  memory  but  also  create  a  desire  to  try  a  particular food and beverage when the opportunity arises or take efforts to experience the food and beverage in various destinations. Sudhagar and Rajendran (2017) indicated that restaurant  quality  was  emerged  as  top  dimension  while  selecting  the  Chinese  restaurant  for  dining.  Leung  et  al.  (2013)  indicated  that  focusing  and  analysing  reviews  of  online  communities  such  as  TripAdvisor  helped  the  hotels  to  comprehensively  understand  the  likes and dislikes of their guest. Hence, the present study is aimed at analysing the review of  the  movie  Ratatouille  and  its  impact  on  the  culinary  tourism.  The  movie  was  named  after  a  famous  French  dish  called  as  ‘Ratatouille’.  The  Ratatouille  is  prepared  by  selection of sliced colourful vegetables displayed over a garlic-infused tomato sauce and baked. The Ratatouille was served at the end of the film. The voice in the film was from Patton Oswalt as Remy. Remy was an anthropomorphic rat that was inspired by cooking. The   other   character   includes   Lou   Romano   as   Linguini,   a   young   garbage   boy.   Accidentally, the young boy befriends with Remy. The film was all about Remy, the rat whose dream was becoming a chef and how it achieved the goal by partnering an alliance with a Parisian restaurant’s garbage boy. "

- D. P. Sudhager, International Journal of Qualitative Research in Services

 

Public Opinion

 

"I remember seeing Ratatouille for the first time when I was 7. I was a huge Pixar fan, had all the DVDs but A Bugs Life and Toy Story 2. I saw it with my mom and cousin, and despite being a two hour movie and in a summer with childhood “classics” like Shrek The Third, Fantastic Four 2, Transformers, Spider-Man 3 and The Simpsons Movie (though to be fair Shrek 3 and FF2 are garbage and the other three are great films), 7 year old me walked out of Ratatouille being my favorite film, and went to see it three times again in theaters.

 

Despite one scene that doesn’t age well, Ratatouille is thought provoking, beautifully animated, down right hysterically quirky and well written animated film, with a strong message that has inspired me today. I think a lot of why kid me liked Ratatouille was because it felt somewhat adult for me, and a lot of what Ratatouille was got me interested in the film world. Ratatouille will always be my favorite Pixar film and maybe my favorite film of all time. Please watch this masterpiece." - @YM!

 

The AI's Poetic Opinion

 

"A ratatouille of colors
The rainbow in my bowl
So much life on my plate"

- dA vInci

 

 

Factoids

 

Previous Rankings

 

#61 (2020), UNRANKED (2018), #52 (2016), #31 (2014), #62 (2013), #51 (2012)

 

Director Count

 

Brad Bird (2), James Cameron (2), David Fincher (2), Christopher Nolan (2), The Russos (2),  Paul Thomas Anderson (1), John G. Avildsen (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), Jan Pinkava (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 (13), 2010s (4)

 

Country Count

 

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

 

Franchise Count

 

Pixar (3), 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

 

#61 Fanboy Ranking, #74 Cinema Ranking

#123 Old Farts Ranking, #56 Damn Kids Ranking

#71 Ambassador Ranking, #62 All-American Ranking

#38 Cartoon Ranking, #73 Damn Boomer Ranking

 

 

[baumer]

Love ROTJ. 

Aliens should have been in the top 25 but I'm just glad to see it on the list.

Se7en is an all-time classic.

 

Can't believe the amount of detail and work that you put into this, panda. Really really well done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cannastop]

36 minutes ago, Cap said:

What a fucking amazing 72 hours at the movie theaters.  

[Dementeleus]

This is bleak as all hell. 

[Ronin46]

Well not sure what I can comment on. I have seen maybe half the superhero movies. Not got any in my top 500 other than the Dark Knight and seen 1 animated movies (Up) and have no desire to watch anymore than that.

[The Panda]

Some more of the 'misses' (although they did make the top 250!)

 

Number 180

RoboCop (1987, Paul Verhoeven)

 

Number 179

Call Me By Your Name (2017, Luca Guadagnino)

 

Number 178

Cabaret (1972, Bob Fosse)

 

Number 177

Life of Pi (2012, Ang Lee)

 

Number 176

Chinatown (1974, Roman Polanski)

 

Number 175

There Will Be Blood (2007, Paul Thomas Anderson)

 

Number 174

The Searchers (1956, John Ford)

 

Number 173

Margaret (2011, Kenneth Lonergan)

 

Number 172

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957, David Lean)

 

Number 171

A Silent Voice (2017, Naoka Yamada)

[cannastop]

4 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Number 171

A Silent Voice (2017, Naoka Yamada)

wow lotsa anime

[Ronin46]

Chinatown (top 10 all time) and There Will be Blood (best movie made this century). What a bummer.

[Potiki]

1 hour ago, The Panda said:

Life of Pi (2012, Ang Lee)

This on hurts  what a great film. 

 

1 hour ago, The Panda said:

 

Number 171

A Silent Voice (2017, Naoka Yamada)

A knew this one would make the 100 but still used 40 points on it 

 

10. A Silent Voice (40 points, 400 total)

 

One of my other top 10 films has already appeared and I'm sure 7 of the 8 remaining films in my top 10 will make the 100, Your Name (another anime film) I have a feeling may also miss the top 100 though  at least Spirited Away will show up so not a complete waste of anime in my top 10. 

 

Because I know people will be curious here is the top 10 (order didn't matter as they all got the same points)

 

 

1. Empire Strikes Back (40 points, 40 total)
2. Finding Nemo (40 points, 80 total)
3. Jurassic Park (40 points, 120 total)
4. Spirited Away (40 points, 160 total)
5. Parasite (40 points, 200 total)
6. Your Name (40 points, 240 total)
7. Pirates: Dead Man’s Chest (40 points, 280 total)
8. The Lion King (40 points, 320 total)
9. LotR: Return of the King (40 points, 360 total)
10. A Silent Voice (40 points, 400 total)

[Cap]

1 hour ago, The Panda said:

Some more of the 'misses' (although they did make the top 250!)

 

 

Number 178

Cabaret (1972, Bob Fosse)

 

 

 

1 hour ago, The Panda said:

Number 174

The Searchers (1956, John Ford)

 

 

 

[Dementeleus]

Our 101-200 might be better. 

[Tower]

On 8/2/2022 at 1:27 AM, The Panda said:

I honestly hate a beautiful mind.

 

1. It erases John Nash’s bisexuality

2. The movie does not understand Nash equilibrium or explain the fundamental concept that won Nash the Nobel prize. It also gets the circumstances of how he developed the theory wrong. (The situation it uses to show a Nash equilibrium is not a Nash equilibrium at all!)

3. The biography was written without Nash’s consent.

4. The movie grossly misrepresents the issues related to schizophrenia that Nash actually experienced. He didn’t have delusions of conspiracy, etc.

 

It’s a biographical film that does not understand its subject. I also take it pretty personally now given how influential/foundational Nash’s work is in my field of study.

I can't argue with this. I don't know anything about John Nash outside of the film so not being true to the real story didn't bother me. If I did know about him and especially if I were as invested in him and his theory as you are I'm sure my opinion of the film would be lower.

[Ethan Hunt]

38 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

Our 101-200 might be better. 

You say this every year 

[Dementeleus]

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

You say this every year 

Well at least I’m right once a year. 

[Ethan Hunt]

34 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

Well at least I’m right once a year. 

broken clock something something