Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

AFI's Top 100 Movies of All Time


fitty76

Recommended Posts

In 2005, I made my own list after this list came out then. The list made me finally watch Citizen Kane. After watching it I decided the list was garbage and would make my own. Citizen Kane didn't even win the Oscar the year it came out. Anyways, I had like 10 criteria (acting, directing, writing, score, etc) and one of them was money made. I figured there should be some consideration about how popular a movie was and 10% of the score seemed about right. I converted all the money each movie made into then 2005 dollars. I put like 200 movies into the spreadsheet, scored them up the best I could (had to rewatch a bunch of them) and then sorted it to see how they shook out. There were some basic rules (with notable exceptions) that comedies and horror weren't on the list. When it comes to score or cinematography, etc those genres aren't really competing. Of course there were a few but basically Caddyshack doesn't get a solid score ins everal categories if you see where I'm going with this.

Now keep in mind, I was just getting divorced, so I had a ton of free time. It took me several months to make this list and I have since lost the final version but I do have an inprogress version somewhere. Also, it's been 13 years and MANY great movies have come out since then. But I was surprised at which movie ended up as the overall number one...Jaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moorgan said:

In 2005, I made my own list after this list came out then. The list made me finally watch Citizen Kane. After watching it I decided the list was garbage and would make my own. Citizen Kane didn't even win the Oscar the year it came out. Anyways, I had like 10 criteria (acting, directing, writing, score, etc) and one of them was money made. I figured there should be some consideration about how popular a movie was and 10% of the score seemed about right. I converted all the money each movie made into then 2005 dollars. I put like 200 movies into the spreadsheet, scored them up the best I could (had to rewatch a bunch of them) and then sorted it to see how they shook out. There were some basic rules (with notable exceptions) that comedies and horror weren't on the list. When it comes to score or cinematography, etc those genres aren't really competing. Of course there were a few but basically Caddyshack doesn't get a solid score ins everal categories if you see where I'm going with this.

Now keep in mind, I was just getting divorced, so I had a ton of free time. It took me several months to make this list and I have since lost the final version but I do have an inprogress version somewhere. Also, it's been 13 years and MANY great movies have come out since then. But I was surprised at which movie ended up as the overall number one...Jaws.

That is not a great measure.  Best Picture winners include Crash, Moonlight, Shakespeare in Love, and Driving Miss Daisy.  Oscar voters often have no clue what they are doing.

I am curious, was your list a reorder of the AFI list or did you add in other films as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Goondal said:

That is not a great measure.  Best Picture winners include Crash, Moonlight, Shakespeare in Love, and Driving Miss Daisy.  Oscar voters often have no clue what they are doing.

I am curious, was your list a reorder of the AFI list or did you add in other films as well?

Agreed but making it the greatest film of allt ime pissed me off enough to make my list. I included about 200 or so movies that somewhat incorporated their list and was mostly my list (and the suggestions of friends). I'd say I probably had to watch or rewatch about 50 movies. Also the ratings were out of 100 for each category and it became difficult to tell the difference between an 85 or 86. The rankings effectively became 1-20 since I ranked by 5s (75, 80, 85, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This list is garbage and trying way too hard to pay homage to older films.

I've only seen 31 of the ones on this list, but I guarantee I can come up with at least 40 more movies that should be included in the top 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2018 at 1:10 PM, Goondal said:

That is not a great measure.  Best Picture winners include Crash, Moonlight, Shakespeare in Love, and Driving Miss Daisy.  Oscar voters often have no clue what they are doing.

I am curious, was your list a reorder of the AFI list or did you add in other films as well?

This is true, I mean Wizard of Oz didn't even win best picture, or It's a Wonderful Life, and I mean Shawshank lost to Forest Gump, not that Gump was bad (obviously) but sometimes it happens like that.      And talking about Shakespeare in Love, lol, it beat out Saving Private Ryan, come on.     Also the year Lawrence of Arabia won and beat out To Kill a Mockingbird, which would have won any other year probably easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zaximus said:

This is true, I mean Wizard of Oz didn't even win best picture, or It's a Wonderful Life, and I mean Shawshank lost to Forest Gump, not that Gump was bad (obviously) but sometimes it happens like that.      And talking about Shakespeare in Love, lol, it beat out Saving Private Ryan, come on.     Also the year Lawrence of Arabia won and beat out To Kill a Mockingbird, which would have won any other year probably easily.

Yeah, The Wizard of Oz wins almost any other year, it just went up against Gone With the Wind.  Then there are others years where nothing is really worthy.

Pulp Fiction also lost to Forest Gump.  To be honest I feel like there is unfair backlash to this day against Gump because, while good, it defeated two of the most beloved films of all-time.  I know a decent number of people that hate that movie and invariably at least one of the other two is in their top ten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Goondal said:

Yeah, The Wizard of Oz wins almost any other year, it just went up against Gone With the Wind.  Then there are others years where nothing is really worthy.

Pulp Fiction also lost to Forest Gump.  To be honest I feel like there is unfair backlash to this day against Gump because, while good, it defeated two of the most beloved films of all-time.  I know a decent number of people that hate that movie and invariably at least one of the other two is in their top ten.

Gump was not a great movie. Well written- yes. Good cinema- yes.

I've watched it a couple times just to see some of the weird stuff in the background I might have missed previously. But I don't dislike it because of another film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

Gump was not a great movie. Well written- yes. Good cinema- yes.

I've watched it a couple times just to see some of the weird stuff in the background I might have missed previously. But I don't dislike it because of another film.

I fall right there with you.  It is good and enjoyable but not great.  I know people that loathe it though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2018 at 5:53 AM, Moorgan said:

In 2005, I made my own list after this list came out then. The list made me finally watch Citizen Kane. After watching it I decided the list was garbage and would make my own. Citizen Kane didn't even win the Oscar the year it came out. Anyways, I had like 10 criteria (acting, directing, writing, score, etc) and one of them was money made. I figured there should be some consideration about how popular a movie was and 10% of the score seemed about right. I converted all the money each movie made into then 2005 dollars. I put like 200 movies into the spreadsheet, scored them up the best I could (had to rewatch a bunch of them) and then sorted it to see how they shook out. There were some basic rules (with notable exceptions) that comedies and horror weren't on the list. When it comes to score or cinematography, etc those genres aren't really competing. Of course there were a few but basically Caddyshack doesn't get a solid score ins everal categories if you see where I'm going with this.

Now keep in mind, I was just getting divorced, so I had a ton of free time. It took me several months to make this list and I have since lost the final version but I do have an inprogress version somewhere. Also, it's been 13 years and MANY great movies have come out since then. But I was surprised at which movie ended up as the overall number one...Jaws.

Would love to see the new list bro, if you complete it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Bleacher Report trade and mock has us trading to 9 and picking SG Brayden Burries Charlotte Hornets recieve: Kyrie Irving and No. 9 pick Dallas Mavericks receive: LaMelo Ball, No. 14 pick and No. 18 pick The Hornets just finished their sixth season with Ball. It was only their second with a winning record, their sixth without a playoff trip and the sixth in which someone else paced them in win shares (Kon Knueppel this time around). While they'd surely like to keep building on their second-half momentum, maybe they're just unconvinced that Ball can lead a winning team. Maybe they credit that stretch run less to him and more to the addition of Knueppel, the ascension of Brandon Miller and some out-of-nowhere gains on the defensive end.   Charlotte should be dreaming big right now, and perhaps it believes a steadier hand at point guard is needed to realize that. Or maybe it feels it needs a little more time to bring everything together and thinks that task would be simpler without Ball's money on the books and with a top-10 pick in a loaded draft instead of two selections in the mid-teens.   Either way, this shakeup works. Short-term, a healthy Irving should be far easier to follow than Ball. You may not always know if Irving is playing, but you know what you'll get if he does: elite shotmaking, all-time handles, offensive ingenuity and the ability to work both on and off the ball. He could show this young roster what's required to win for a year or two (he has a $42.4 million player option for 2027-28) or even stick around longer if the partnership proves especially fruitful.   The Hornets also add a building block in Burries, who offers both plug-and-play polish and flashes of shot-creation that hint at star potential. In short, they could better their chances of winning both now and in the future while collecting both the best player in the trade and the highest draft pic
    • I'd hire him in a heartbeat. Hell if he wanted the job, I'd have Canales packing his poo right now and I don't dislike Canales. It's just that firing a 106-58 coach is crazy work. That's a 65% winning percentage. That's the equivalent of averaging 11 wins a season. That's incomprehensible for a fanbase That's never experienced back to back winning seaons.
×
×
  • Create New...