Every Movie I've Ever Seen From Best to Worst

Tools    





https://letterboxd.com/theanalyzer/l...ked-from-best/

Figured it's time for a thread on this baby. This list was transferred from Imdb to Rateyourmusic to Letterboxd over nine years. The original step was to go through as many as I remembered, and then perfect it further by going down lists of movies by distributor. It took a few days to get that down. I even included obscure and bankrupt distributors like Live Enetertainment or Hollywood Video. It's updated almost daily since with my free time I can watch a minimum of three movies a day. Taking a pause from Windtalkers as we speak.

I just reached 1600 movies yesterday. I'd like to thank Joseph Kane's Nevada City for that.

If you've got questions about the placements of certain movies, I'm more than happy to answer them.


NOTE: There's no absolute guarentee that this list lives up to the title, as I may end up remembering another movie to add. However, that has happened less and less over the years.



Questions are open. This thread can also be used for recommendations, depending on what I feel like watching.
Sounds like an interesting thread, I'll be sure to check it out and comment when I can. Bring it on



Since I'm back in the mood for movies, I thought I'd bring this back before it gets lost. There's gonna be a bunch of new additions overtime, and I'm gonna use the opportunity to dig into some really deep cuts by bigger name directors. Today I've found Cronenberg's original Crimes of the Future, and I have to watch Carlito's Way and Blade Trinity today before they're kicked off Tubi.



CringeFest's Avatar
Duplicate Account (locked)
That is pretty impressive...so, in the order they are listed (left to right) is how you've rankes them? Assuming that Godfather is not the worst....



Thanks, guys.

That is pretty impressive...so, in the order they are listed (left to right) is how you've rankes them? Assuming that Godfather is not the worst....
Yep. No way in hell I'd ever choose a Coppola movie for the worst ever made, especially during New Hollywood. Check the back page for the bottom 100.

Ratatoing at #1664? Blasphemy!
I had to force myself through a bunch of those Video Brinquedo movies for the bottom 100. I didn't want it to be taken up exclusively by MST3K movies so I've been watching mockbusters, Jesus Franco movies and B-movie sequels on the side.

But the real blasphemy is that I haven't seen Ratatouille yet.



OK, apparently the list was made private??? I don't know if I accidentally clicked that button, which has happened before, or if Letterboxd glitched (Deviantart's done that with my maturity content filter a couple times as glitchy as it is). So sorry if you came in to see it and it was privatized.


Yesterday's additions:


Popeye - Robert Altman
Guns in the Dark - Sam Newfield
The Long Goodbye - Robert Altman



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
I'm impressed you can tell whether you prefer the 985th or 986th film.

Meanwhile, I'm struggling to create a satisfactory TOP 25.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



I mainline Windex and horse tranquilizer
That is pretty impressive...so, in the order they are listed (left to right) is how you've rankes them? Assuming that Godfather is not the worst....



It insists upon itself.
__________________
A hundred percent death proof.

Tomato Necromancy - now with Vitamin R!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=65140



I'm impressed you can tell whether you prefer the 985th or 986th film.

Meanwhile, I'm struggling to create a satisfactory TOP 25.

Believe me. It took years to get that. The list stemmed from a comment Dwight made on The Office: "I know everything about film. I’ve seen over 240 of them." In my mind, 240 sounded pretty low. Well, that's when I started tallying every movie I'd seen. At first it was in alphabetical order, but that I got to thinking about a best to worst chart since I had just joined this one albums site with a lot of lists. That was back in 2012. And it took a long time to really get the list to where it was. Back at the original draft which had about 400 entries, the top ten started with Chinatown, the first movie I ever gave a 10/10. I remember when the top 3 was Blade Runner, Chinatown, Sunset Boulevard, and Singin' in the Rain and Aliens were somewhere in there. Damn has it changed. At that point I hadn't even seen anything by Coppola or Scorsese.


Too bad I didn't save a copy of the original draft.



I'm impressed you can tell whether you prefer the 985th or 986th film.

Meanwhile, I'm struggling to create a satisfactory TOP 25.

Actually, this might help get a clear idea of how I judge it. Since I'm planning on going pro critic someday, I look at movies without any sense of personal favoritis (i.e. I prefer sci-fi movies to dramas on a big scale). I try to look at how well a movie is made without those kinds of basic favoritist thought processes. I.e. Aliens is my favorite to WATCH, but if I had to pick Cameron's best movie, then Terminator 2 does a better job of transitioning themes with improvements than Aliens does for its predecessor. But if you asked me to pick what my 985th "desert island" movie would be, I couldn't answer that. My desert island movies would be Aliens, Anastasia, Casino Royale, Forrest Gump and Willy Wonka.



This way madness lies.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Your aspirations to become a professional film critic should not constrain favoritism. Otherwise, we're all condemned to browsing through unoriginal lists of 'best films ever made' devoid of personal favorites but full of 'objective masterpieces' that are ostentatiously deemed best by everyone but truly loved by few. In other words, if you prefer watching Aliens to Terminator 2, place Aliens higher. Films are meant to be watched. Not worshipped or deconstructed to their bare bones in a desperate attempt to objectively judge their quality.



Your aspirations to become a professional film critic should not constrain favoritism. Otherwise, we're all condemned to browsing through unoriginal lists of 'best films ever made' devoid of personal favorites but full of 'objective masterpieces' that are ostentatiously deemed best by everyone but truly loved by few. In other words, if you prefer watching Aliens to Terminator 2, place Aliens higher. Films are meant to be watched. Not worshipped or deconstructed to their bare bones in a desperate attempt to objectively judge their quality.

Then other films get treated unfairly because of the "wrong" genres. To make a best of chart relying in favoritism can be even more objective in the sense that there is a belief that certain types of movies are pointless to make. I might as well ignore how well-made 2001 id because I wouldn't take it with me to a desert island at all. And I might as well ignore all theblatanly obvious flaws of Good Burger and Kung Pow, even though I find them hilarious. Ignoring obvious stuff like that ANNOYS ME TO DEATH. You have no idea how hard it is to get my stepdad to try out anything besides hard rock, and he speaks not as if he just doesn't like the genres, but as if they are scientifically inferior to hard rock.


But the biggest flaw in your reasoning is assuming that paying attention to the artform is immediately objective. It's not. Having an idea of what "true art" or "professional" art is still ENTIRELY subjective. Haven't you ever seen critics at an art gallery? Everyone has their own idea of how well something is made, even though they may not like it. Example: my real dad would easily admit that Titanic was technically a good aand well-made movie, but he really didn't enjoy sappy romance movies (unless they were classic westerns). There is an obvious difference between the two mindsetsthat gets way overlooked.


If I didn't focus on the art, I'd pay less attention to foreshadowing and writing techniques. Focusing on that helped me with my story writing, which is the only career choice more important to me than being a critic. I never would have gotten into Coppola because I'm not a drama man. It's true that Coppola IMO is both the best and my favorite director, but both share something in common: I don't "expect" anyone to agree with me. And through that, my opinion of art is still subjective either way. The best example would be how I consider Saw to either be perfect or almost perfect, despite the fact that I don't really enjoy sadistic horror, too much gore or Danny Glover.


I'm thankful for the choice I made. Through favoritism, I might exclusively stick with sci-fi and animation. Focusing on the artform drives my desire to watch practically anything, and I won't let that go for people who just want to see my favorites and don't value thedifference.



Your aspirations to become a professional film critic should not constrain favoritism. Otherwise, we're all condemned to browsing through unoriginal lists of 'best films ever made' devoid of personal favorites but full of 'objective masterpieces' that are ostentatiously deemed best by everyone but truly loved by few. In other words, if you prefer watching Aliens to Terminator 2, place Aliens higher. Films are meant to be watched. Not worshipped or deconstructed to their bare bones in a desperate attempt to objectively judge their quality.

Hate to do this, but there's one more point I have to make: we'll never be constrained to it, for several reasons:


A: Even if I wanted to, I couldn't make everyone do it the way I do. And it doesn't bother me if you have a different criteria. In fact, I'd prefer it if you do, because if there's something I could add to my own criteria, I'd welcome it. I'm always looking for improvements.

B: I also plan on making a list of my top 100 favorites. I just don't have 100 favorites yet, and the order of those favorites is changing CONSTANTLY.

B.2: The reason for this giant chart's creation was so I always have a reference point for making smaller lists based on director, genre, year, decade, etc., and I want all of those lists to be perfectly consistent. IfI ordered by favorites, then all of those lists would change too constantly and it would be too much of a chore to make them consistent. Suddenly, the list isn't fun for me to make.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Then other films get treated unfairly because of the "wrong" genres.
So be it. You have your opinions. Own them.
To make a best of chart relying in favoritism can be even more objective in the sense that there is a belief that certain types of movies are pointless to make.
They're not pointless to make. They just represent a genre you're less interested in at the moment. You never know what tomorrow will bring, and watching more films from the genre may make you enjoy the genre much more as a whole in several years.
I might as well ignore how well-made 2001 id because I wouldn't take it with me to a desert island at all.
Well, then simply lower its place on your list. Any "best film" list of an individual should equal a "favorite film" list. Otherwise, we're talking about weird weighting of influence and/or popularity. "Best film" lists only make sense with accumulated lists, built of many individual lists. It makes sense if you create a chart. Well, you think Saw is perfect, fair enough. That's what I'm talking about.
But the biggest flaw in your reasoning is assuming that paying attention to the artform is immediately objective.
That's not true and beside the point.
Through favoritism, I might exclusively stick with sci-fi and animation.
If all your favorites come from these genres, then go for it! Your list is basically: "Here are all films I've ever watched in ranked order". Can just as well have the TOP 100 filled with only sci-fi films if that's what really gets you going.
Focusing on the artform drives my desire to watch practically
Preference of one genre should not stop you from watching films from other genres. But yeah, the reason we're having this discussion is that I was trying to make you understand it's OK to dislike a film that's "objectively" well made. It's OK to prefer an "objectively" problematic/shoddy/poorly-made film to an objective masterpiece that "does nothing to you". The job of a film critic (and any cinephile, really) should not be sticking to the canon but creating a canon of their own. Naturally, there will be heaps of films that overlap because the canon is usually pretty decent. But in all the seriousness of his job, a film critic should not forget that they're a film watcher, too. So yeah, while Vertigo and Psycho are usually seen as Hitchcock's best, it's perfectly alright to prefer, say, Lifeboat to them. Then, when you're making a list of best/favorite movies, it's clear Lifeboat should be higher than Vertigo even if you do recognize Vertigo to be a more accomplished film with better acting, cinematography, etc.

Noted & fair enough on the three points. But I'm surprised you say you don't have favorites yet. The first 100 films from the list you posted in the first post should be these exact favorites you're looking for. If they're not, I think you've got lots of reordering to do...



You're missing the point again. If it's a personal criteria, it's still subjective. Everything you suggested is literally what I don't want to do. Don't you get that I now have more favorite movies as a result of branching out the way the chart calls for? No more usage of the word "objective." If I have a different idea of what art is than another person's idea, lo and behold, it's still subjective. Those who claim the chart is an attempt to be objective obviously didn't read what the chart is about, and that means the point, and the description, flew right above your head. Why do people who don't get the chart have this psychological defense mechanism instantly connecting the awareness of skillful filmmaking to objectivity? Why can't some people grasp that deciding on whether or not certain filmmaking techniques help or hinder is still entirely opinionated?


At least for every person who doesn't get the chart, there are ten people who do. Happens every time I describe it, but there's always that one skeptic.

If you're not interested in that criteria, I'll make a top 100 "favorites" soon. But there's one more thing to keep in mind: Along with being a critic, I hope to make movies out of my stories. And I'm not gonna learn to be a great film writer from Kung Pow or Good Burger. That is the best possible reason to study movies. Many movies are meant to be studied, like I land Empire or The Mirror. Some are just dumb-fun movies like Transformers, but there are reasons why people don't like those movies, and one of the biggest reasons is simple: there's not much to study, and there's little to make up for that fact. And now I'm confident that I can write stories for practically any genre and combine them in unique ways. I've never been more proudof my skills, AND I AM NOT REARRANGING 1700 MOVIES TO FIT A NEW CRITERIA WHEN THOSE MOVIES WILL ALWAYS BE CHANGING.

The final point to make is simple: I learned a lot about art from studying these kinds of movies I know for a fact I would have avoided otherwise (describe Satantango). This constantly gives me a new love for new things, and if this is the way that taught me how to do it, no amount of "just stick to your favorites" is gonna change that. You want me to do what I love? This is it.



I'm not gonna learn to be a great film writer from Kung Pow or Good Burger.
Very subjective