The problem with these rankings (assuming they are from IMDB) is that they are more friendly to contemporary, Internet-age movies and TV. Anything older than about 30 years is significantly down further in the list.
As an example, I can't imagine a world where 'The Avengers' is better than 'Schindler's List', 'Godfather, Part 2', or 'Pulp Fiction' (just 3 examples).
A few stupid entries:
#1721 'I Love Lucy' - easily considered by critics as the best TV comedy of all time yet barely in the top 20% of all tv and movies?
I can't even find the MASH TV show, only the movie. Pretty weird considering that it's considered the 2nd best TV comedy of all time.
#74 'Seinfeld' - considered the 3rd best TV comedy of all time. The internet is more friendly to this one.
#15 'Game of Thrones (TV)' - fanboys strike again, or they just really like irrelevant nudity[1].
#1636 'The Constant Gardener' - it is an abomination that this is here, it's lower ranked than 'Super Troopers' (#1626), 'Iron Man 2' (#1610), and 'Soul Surfer' (#1599), just to name a few.
There's another bias, where things are overrated because they're unusually good for their time. For instance, "Battleship Potemkin" is often considered one of the greatest films ever made because it was so innovative for its time, despite the fact that when you watch it now, it's easily a shitty propaganda film. It may have been a greater achievement, but as a film, it's somewhat lacking by modern standards. Likewise, MASH and Seinfeld were groundbreaking, but largely because of MASH and Seinfeld, we can and do make better television series today. I think the two biases largely cancel out.
This has some interesting consequences. For instance, in the restricted realm of science fiction TV, it's clear that Star Trek: The Next Generation is strictly better than the original Star Trek, just as the recent Battlestar Galactica is strictly better than TNG, because these series responded to and innovated on each other.
On balance, I still wouldn't say it's necessarily true that newer series are better than older series. It's still rare that a TV series tops The Prisoner, for instance.
You'll be much happier if you consider every top X list to be a list of stuff worth checking out rather than an absolute valuation of what is 'better'.
That's the mass taste. I am not trying to discuss with the mainstream taste, just made the tool.
For those interested in getting a personalized movie ranking I created another tool "Movie Galaxy" http://arek-paterek.com/movie-galaxy/
Am I the only geek in the world who wasn't THAT impressed with Avengers? It was a fine superhero film, great ensemble cast, good script and all, but I didn't find it revolutionary. #3 "best" film ever? Come on!
I see an opportunity here. Is there already a recommendation service around that takes your rating profile into account? Apple has their 'Genius' system, however with respect to movies rentals I think this is lacking a bit: Movies I want to rent are usually movies I only want to see once, not gems like Godfather or Constant Gardener. A personal rating service would have to pose you targeted questions about your movie preferences and drill down into your personal taste.
" I can't even find the MASH TV show, only the movie. Pretty weird considering that it's considered the 2nd best TV comedy of all time. #74 'Seinfeld' - considered the 3rd best TV comedy of all time."
Are you really criticizing the subjectivity of this list based on the subjective rankings of your generation?
Once you control for film age, the ratings makes a lot more sense. Films get worse ratings as they get older, so newer films naturally have better ratings.
At first I thought this was an awful list, but then I filtered it by date up to 1995 and I felt that the list made a lot more sense. Is this an issue that it takes 15 to 20 years to get settle on what is truly worthy? Or is it an issue with the dawning of the Internet Age?
There are plenty of films made after 1995 that I think are highly deserving. But in 20 years from now, will we look and say Return of the King out ranks Star Wars? Or The Avengers is better than 12 Angry Men? (The Avengers was decent popcorn fun, but what was the plot?)
"At first I thought this was an awful list, but then I filtered it by date up to 1995 and I felt that the list made a lot more sense. Is this an issue that it takes 15 to 20 years to get settle on what is truly worthy? Or is it an issue with the dawning of the Internet Age?"
I remember seeing the same thing on IMDB years back, where contemporary movies will appear very high on the list and disappear.
If you read the reviews (and I think IMDB lets you filter by demographics, or used to) you'll see that it's mostly young kids and idiots voting summer blockbusters as "10/10 OMG best movie evar!".
Not sure if there is a solution as it's always been the same way, there's always some hot new art, book, technology, etc. that's "GROUNDBREAKING" "CLASSIC" "AMAZING" that fades away quickly and the items that stick around for posterity aren't necessarily the ones that you'd predict (eg. Moby Dick and The Great Gatsby were initially flops on publication).
If you try to go down this list, your head will explode.
Half of top movies are highly bogus comices (sorry guys, they are), the other half are highly epic dramas.
You just should not mix them on a single page. This is so wrong.
Clockwork Orange is 46th, 2001 is 211st, and Lolita (Kubrick's version), 1018th. Best movie that poor, not-so-much-talented Kubrick has apparently made is Strangelove, which is 32nd "best movie ever made".
It's very informative to know what IMDB thinks (for one thing, you know what movies to skip), but basing our "best movies" list on what they think is not all right.
Still trying to figure out why Avengers got such a high rating while it was one of the worst Marvel flicks I have seen so far. Even the action scenes are dead boring.
Very cool! I could have really used this a week ago, when the wife and kids were out of town and I had some free time to catch up on movies I've missed from the last 3.5 yrs.
What's the ranking criteria?
Also, being able to exclude based on categories (comedy, no animations, no family for example) would be a great feature.
The ranking criteria - basically, I combined ratings from IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, with additional heuristic tweaks. The ranking method I use for is different than the popular IMDb method aka "True Bayesian estimate", which is not really a Bayesian estimate. I wrote more about how I approach ranking in my e-book http://arek-paterek.com/book/ , for people who are really interested in such technical details.
Giving more importance to the average rating in RT, rather than the tomatometer, would give a very different ranking. Avengers has more than a 10% lower average ranking than any other movie in the top 10.
Sorry this is off-topic but does anyone know why there are no independent Netflix services? I'm thinking back when you could go to your neighborhood movie rental place...well, now imagine that selection is specific (ex. Western) or curated, and also imagine it is online, available for viewing. Is this just too hard to get the rights to? How did local movie rental places get the rights to rent out films?
People sell pirated films on the street here in Brazil and I once heard of a cultured 'pirate' who only sold pirated, high-brow DVDs. It got me thinking
I wanted to raise a point here, on the Internets (and I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but since I am a huge movie watcher [self-assessment based on large amounts of cash spent in theatres + Netflix], I will engage in this conversation anyway).
While some movies are transcendent, they are also highly subjective to their viewers tastes. As tastes change, so does the opinion of each generation and, thus, the ratings of those movies. As each generation disappears, why shouldn't the charts change, as that would be a reflection of the fact that each generation is different from the next one?
For example, I didn't think Star Wars was a great movie, even though I am a huge Sci-Fi fan! Most people would find this contradictory, but I can't argue with my tastes: I watched all of the episodes in 2009 and I said: "meh". Now, I am aware that at the time it had revolutionary graphics and it had a great impact on the film industry (which is why I dedicated the time to watch it in the first place). I can appreciate the impact it had in 1977, but in terms of absolute value it brought to me in 2009 - I can't justify the decision to vote for it as one of the top 10 best movies.
I noticed there is a strong bias coming from people who have watched Star Wars decades ago and only remember how awesome that movie made them feel at the time. I understand, I'm the same about the first 2 Terminator movies (since I'm in my late 20s) - there will always be a special place in my heart for them, but, realistically speaking, if I'd rewatch Terminator 1 or 2 right now, I wouldn't be as impressed with them as I was back then.
Obviously, it is unfair to compare movies from the 70s and 80s with the movies of today, but these charts do exactly this when they place The Godfather on 2nd place. Now the problem is that the placement suggests that Godfather 2 will be more enjoyable _today_ than The Avengers. Well, why should that be the case? My personal experience taught me otherwise.
Another example: the parent post mentions "I Love Lucy" as "the best TV comedy of all time", according to the critics. I'm constantly in search of good comedies and I watched the trailer to assess how much enjoyment I might get out it. I have to say - the IMDB trailer shows a primitive comedy and it didn't resonate with me, even though I'm not opposed to watching old comedies (Noises Off (1992) is one of my favorite "old" comedies). So I probably won't watch it, despite the fact that it was so highly acclaimed. Which then makes me wonder: how accurate are the ratings of the "critics"? If they're all in their 40s,50s and 60s (because it takes time to build a reputation as a critic), why would my generation listen to them and expect an accurate assessment of how enjoyable an old movie would be today ?
In conclusion, I'd like to suggest that maybe some movies naturally die out (in terms of rating) as a fact of life, just as old basketball players have to make room for new players, as they simply can't compete with the young ones. Perhaps there is a similar trend with movies, where modern technology coupled with a great plot simply creates a more immersive experience than old movies can, solely with their plot. If it is so, then we shouldn't disregard these charts just because "epic movie X from 100 years ago" ended up as #XXXXX.
Thanks for reading!
P.S.: Parent post should be Zimahl's "The problem with these rankings ... "
Most of the movies here are crap made for people who don't have any sense of art. If you think the ones with highest scores are best, you don't even know what a good movie is.
Well, I don't know if I agree with some statements here... Art does not necessarily "reflect the life as it is". I think art is an artist's expression of his/her view of the world (or life). Some may see the same scene in bright colours, some in gray, if you see what I mean.
EDIT: However I do agree that majority of the "good" movies these days are just targeting the entertainment nerve of a potential consumer...
Honestly, this is the first time I've ever heard the words "godawful" and "Shawshank Redemption" in one sentence. We got ourselves a movie hipster, here.
I think you and I are in a pretty small minority. Maybe it's because I'd already read the novel - but I walked out of Shawshank Redemption thinking "meh" - and discovered I was very, very alone in that perspective.
I find the "Writer" column strange. Sometimes it's the author of the screenplay, sometimes it's the author of a book from which the film was adapted, or out of which the film was inspired. It's strange to see Tolkien as the "Writer" of the LOTR movies.
Can you add a column that shows if it's available on Netflix/Amazon/etc?
I'm always looking for a new way to find movies/series to watch and this list seems like a good one (I seem to agree with most of the ones I've seen near the top).
[+] [-] Zimahl|13 years ago|reply
As an example, I can't imagine a world where 'The Avengers' is better than 'Schindler's List', 'Godfather, Part 2', or 'Pulp Fiction' (just 3 examples).
A few stupid entries: #1721 'I Love Lucy' - easily considered by critics as the best TV comedy of all time yet barely in the top 20% of all tv and movies? I can't even find the MASH TV show, only the movie. Pretty weird considering that it's considered the 2nd best TV comedy of all time. #74 'Seinfeld' - considered the 3rd best TV comedy of all time. The internet is more friendly to this one. #15 'Game of Thrones (TV)' - fanboys strike again, or they just really like irrelevant nudity[1].
#1636 'The Constant Gardener' - it is an abomination that this is here, it's lower ranked than 'Super Troopers' (#1626), 'Iron Man 2' (#1610), and 'Soul Surfer' (#1599), just to name a few.
[1] http://gawker.com/5902076/snl-explains-the-nudity-in-game-of...
[+] [-] philwelch|13 years ago|reply
This has some interesting consequences. For instance, in the restricted realm of science fiction TV, it's clear that Star Trek: The Next Generation is strictly better than the original Star Trek, just as the recent Battlestar Galactica is strictly better than TNG, because these series responded to and innovated on each other.
On balance, I still wouldn't say it's necessarily true that newer series are better than older series. It's still rare that a TV series tops The Prisoner, for instance.
[+] [-] angrycoder|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arekp|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diggum|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DeepDuh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cutie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ramblerman|13 years ago|reply
Are you really criticizing the subjectivity of this list based on the subjective rankings of your generation?
Also game of thrones is brilliant, imo.
[+] [-] darasen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinburke|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Almaviva|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] leejoramo|13 years ago|reply
There are plenty of films made after 1995 that I think are highly deserving. But in 20 years from now, will we look and say Return of the King out ranks Star Wars? Or The Avengers is better than 12 Angry Men? (The Avengers was decent popcorn fun, but what was the plot?)
[+] [-] garethsprice|13 years ago|reply
I remember seeing the same thing on IMDB years back, where contemporary movies will appear very high on the list and disappear.
If you read the reviews (and I think IMDB lets you filter by demographics, or used to) you'll see that it's mostly young kids and idiots voting summer blockbusters as "10/10 OMG best movie evar!".
Not sure if there is a solution as it's always been the same way, there's always some hot new art, book, technology, etc. that's "GROUNDBREAKING" "CLASSIC" "AMAZING" that fades away quickly and the items that stick around for posterity aren't necessarily the ones that you'd predict (eg. Moby Dick and The Great Gatsby were initially flops on publication).
[+] [-] cutie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dj2stein9|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dundun|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|13 years ago|reply
As the whole idea of an universal list is.
[+] [-] steve8918|13 years ago|reply
If so, is there a legal issue with reusing this data? I actually don't know what the answer is, I'm curious if there is or not.
[+] [-] getriver|13 years ago|reply
Also, I got this error: http://cl.ly/image/2D2S1E020e0W. I think I clicked on Stanley Kubrick and then came back to the home page.
[+] [-] arekp|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pooriaazimi|13 years ago|reply
But please change the title to "500 best movies according to IMDB & RottenTomatoes".
I mean, look here: http://5000best.com/movies/Stanley_Kubrick
Clockwork Orange is 46th, 2001 is 211st, and Lolita (Kubrick's version), 1018th. Best movie that poor, not-so-much-talented Kubrick has apparently made is Strangelove, which is 32nd "best movie ever made".
It's very informative to know what IMDB thinks (for one thing, you know what movies to skip), but basing our "best movies" list on what they think is not all right.
[+] [-] Simucal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] releasedatez|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b_emery|13 years ago|reply
What's the ranking criteria?
Also, being able to exclude based on categories (comedy, no animations, no family for example) would be a great feature.
[+] [-] arekp|13 years ago|reply
The ranking criteria - basically, I combined ratings from IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, with additional heuristic tweaks. The ranking method I use for is different than the popular IMDb method aka "True Bayesian estimate", which is not really a Bayesian estimate. I wrote more about how I approach ranking in my e-book http://arek-paterek.com/book/ , for people who are really interested in such technical details.
[+] [-] Avitas|13 years ago|reply
The HN title and site title are both mildly misleading.
I understand that your sources (RT & IMDB) may have these mixed and it will take some time figure out what makes sense.
[+] [-] akkartik|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmix|13 years ago|reply
Almost all of Kubrick's films are in the top 5000 except for one or two.
[+] [-] incision|13 years ago|reply
Also, I think I'm going to re-watch #1772 - Sunshine [1].
1: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/
[+] [-] unpsynd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] personlurking|13 years ago|reply
People sell pirated films on the street here in Brazil and I once heard of a cultured 'pirate' who only sold pirated, high-brow DVDs. It got me thinking
[+] [-] moviewatcher|13 years ago|reply
While some movies are transcendent, they are also highly subjective to their viewers tastes. As tastes change, so does the opinion of each generation and, thus, the ratings of those movies. As each generation disappears, why shouldn't the charts change, as that would be a reflection of the fact that each generation is different from the next one?
For example, I didn't think Star Wars was a great movie, even though I am a huge Sci-Fi fan! Most people would find this contradictory, but I can't argue with my tastes: I watched all of the episodes in 2009 and I said: "meh". Now, I am aware that at the time it had revolutionary graphics and it had a great impact on the film industry (which is why I dedicated the time to watch it in the first place). I can appreciate the impact it had in 1977, but in terms of absolute value it brought to me in 2009 - I can't justify the decision to vote for it as one of the top 10 best movies.
I noticed there is a strong bias coming from people who have watched Star Wars decades ago and only remember how awesome that movie made them feel at the time. I understand, I'm the same about the first 2 Terminator movies (since I'm in my late 20s) - there will always be a special place in my heart for them, but, realistically speaking, if I'd rewatch Terminator 1 or 2 right now, I wouldn't be as impressed with them as I was back then.
Obviously, it is unfair to compare movies from the 70s and 80s with the movies of today, but these charts do exactly this when they place The Godfather on 2nd place. Now the problem is that the placement suggests that Godfather 2 will be more enjoyable _today_ than The Avengers. Well, why should that be the case? My personal experience taught me otherwise.
Another example: the parent post mentions "I Love Lucy" as "the best TV comedy of all time", according to the critics. I'm constantly in search of good comedies and I watched the trailer to assess how much enjoyment I might get out it. I have to say - the IMDB trailer shows a primitive comedy and it didn't resonate with me, even though I'm not opposed to watching old comedies (Noises Off (1992) is one of my favorite "old" comedies). So I probably won't watch it, despite the fact that it was so highly acclaimed. Which then makes me wonder: how accurate are the ratings of the "critics"? If they're all in their 40s,50s and 60s (because it takes time to build a reputation as a critic), why would my generation listen to them and expect an accurate assessment of how enjoyable an old movie would be today ?
In conclusion, I'd like to suggest that maybe some movies naturally die out (in terms of rating) as a fact of life, just as old basketball players have to make room for new players, as they simply can't compete with the young ones. Perhaps there is a similar trend with movies, where modern technology coupled with a great plot simply creates a more immersive experience than old movies can, solely with their plot. If it is so, then we shouldn't disregard these charts just because "epic movie X from 100 years ago" ended up as #XXXXX.
Thanks for reading!
P.S.: Parent post should be Zimahl's "The problem with these rankings ... "
[+] [-] combataircraft|13 years ago|reply
Check out this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFfTot3qYMc
This is what a good movie is. It reflects the life as it is. It's not for entertainment. It's for art and people looking for good movie.
[+] [-] rytis|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: However I do agree that majority of the "good" movies these days are just targeting the entertainment nerve of a potential consumer...
[+] [-] arkitaip|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marknutter|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arekp|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amalakar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3_nm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sehrope|13 years ago|reply
I'm always looking for a new way to find movies/series to watch and this list seems like a good one (I seem to agree with most of the ones I've seen near the top).
[+] [-] allforJesse|13 years ago|reply