Top 100 - the sequel

[Shrykespeare]

Okay. I've completed my Top 100 from 2000 through 2016.

Wow. I'm sure I'll get a few WTF reactions.

Things that will feature heavily:

Animated films - 25
Superhero films - 11

Tom Cruise - 4
Matt Damon - 4
Denzel Washington - 4

Also, in order to increase the variety, I am doing many multi-movie series (LOTR, HG, HP, KB) as one entry instead of breaking them up.

[Chienfantome]

I'm working on my Top as we speak. I have now selected 85 films. I still have to pick 15 out of a list of 40 or 50 that have the potential to feature in my top. But I'm certain that come January, I will make a few changes and take out some films to put others instead at the last minute.

There won't be many superhero films in my Top, one or two at most. But half of my list will certainly consist of Korean and French films. And some extra foreign films also, Chinese, German, Japanese, Norwegian...

[JohnErle]

Shryke, I have no idea what KB might stand for. Kinky Boots? Kibbles & Bits?

There'll be a lot of Middle Earth and Harry Potter on my list as well, but I can't lump them together like that, since there are definitely certain chapters I prefer over others, and lumping an incredibly long series like Harry Potter into one doesn't seem right to me.

I'm starting at the top with my list, and it took me all of 10 seconds to decide what my #1 movie of the millenium is, which kind of surprised me. There's still a lot of time until the lists have to be finalized, so there's a chance I'll reconsider, but right now I kinda doubt it.

[Shrykespeare]

Oops. Sorry. It's Kill Bill.

And maybe I'll reconsider regarding Harry Potter. You're right in that that many movies shouldn't be lumped together.

[numbersix]

Yeah, Harry Potter is slightly different as it featured multiple directors. I am going to lump Kill Bill and LOTR into one, though, as they're more like one movie split into 2/3 parts.

[Chienfantome]

Yeah, I had already considered LOTR as one film for my all-time Top 100, as the films were shot as one by the same director and cut in three, while the Harry Potter films are very distinct, with several directors. There won't be any Potter film on my list though

[Ron Burgundy]

ill lump lotr in one film aswell, as i was a bit jealous chien got to squeeze 2 extra movies on his last 100 list by claiming it as one film.

i had a brief look on my imdb and my taste has changed so much, its going to be a bit of work.

glad you are joining us surfer!

[JohnErle]

Oops. Sorry. It's Kill Bill.

And maybe I'll reconsider regarding Harry Potter. You're right in that that many movies shouldn't be lumped together.

Ah, yes. If I was a fan I probably would have figured out that acronym.

I couldn't lump the LOTR films into one either. If we ever do a list of top trilogies or top franchises that'd be different, but this is a list of movies and they're three separate movies. They were released in three different years and I had to pay three times to see them, so I can't just lump them together now. Plus I don't care enough about whetever films will end up in the 99 & 100 spots to worry about their exclusion.

[Chienfantome]

There are too many films from the early 00's I really loved back then but haven't seen ever since. Some of them I don't remember enough I feel to put in such a Top. Others, on the other hand, from this year, still feel way too fresh. The easiest films to choose are those which were released between 2008/9 and 2015.

[undeadmonkey]

Going through the early 2000s is bizarre.


edit: While i have a soft spot for all things Pirates of the Caribbean, i must admit 2006 was an absolute wasteland of shitty movies. Particularly the first 6 months, I can see why Pirates opened so well.

[Ron Burgundy]

i think im going to flip on my previous comment-

johnerle is right about the lotr films- i paid to see them individually. Just because the book was one piece doesnt mean its one film. It was simply the most efficient and effective way to shoot those films in one fell swoop, that dont mean they are the same film. I dont like to reference other sites, but imdb does recognize each film as a standalone.

I think we ought to get this straight before compiling lists.

im sure they are other example of 'one story' split into more than 1 movie. The Hunger Games...Harry Potter....

[numbersix]

Paid tickets doesn't quite work as an argument. The 20s classic Napoleon is currently being split into 2 screenings, so has it become two films?

The difference is that LOTR was always intended to be a single film. It's a single story chopped up, written and directed by the same people. Kill Bill even more so because it was intended to be released as one film for the shoot until Harvey Weinstein suggested/insisted it was split in two. But for these examples the ultimate point is that they do not work as standalone films, their intention is to be part of a large, single film.

Arguably you can't say the same about the original Star Wars trilogy, for example, because the first one could stand as a single film.

Harry Potter's a bit of a curious one - because there are so many of the damn films they don't feel like a single story - they're more like Marvel films which are neither individual nor part of a single story, and have different directors.

[Ron Burgundy]

well valid points.

however, they WERE chopped up into single films. Whether the writers, directors liked it or not. I use box office mojo and imdb as reason for them to be standalone films. Not to mention the fact that my when i went in and watched the fellowship- i had to wait 2 years to complete the saga- thats not a single film. And its also unfair to include 3-9 hours running time of one epic trilogy, combine it into one, then compare it to a 90 minute flick that is just as good. Ofc the longer film(s) would have more good stuff.
If theres a film in the top 100 that runs past 4 hours, i take it all back. But thats not the case.

You can blame that on the studio i supppose. If we are going by a set release date (Jan 1 2000), then we should honor the release date of each film aswell.

[Chienfantome]

If theres a film in the top 100 that runs past 4 hours, i take it all back. But thats not the case

Well actually there's gonna be at least one film in my Top 100 that runs past 4 hours, and that's a single standalone film.
On the LOTR matter, I stand on my ground and intend to put them as one. I could Never consider one without the others or judge one without the others. If I were to separate them I would have to put them as ties under the same spot.

[numbersix]

Well Harry Potter, if counted as a single film, has far more awful stuff than good, so it's still fair

Plus, there are some single films that go well past the 4 hour mark, such as Best of Youth (which some countries split in two) and Gangs of Wasseypur (also occasionally split in two).

I guess the issue is that no one rule can be used, so if you want to split LOTR into 3 go for it. I'm just glad I can squeeze in more films my way!