c4countdown

I'm certain that on a busy forum-based website like this that has been running for a good number of years, this question has been asked at least once if not twice?

What are your all-time best films - in rank order - if possible...

Top 10s
Top 20s
Top 100s

Anything you like!

I'm a REAL film buff, and I have all the films I've watched logged and ranked (as some of you may have probably predicted).

Top films of the 60s
Top comedies of the 90s

Anything you like, just post your lists on here please...

Actors, actresses, writers and directors could make good 'top' lists too?

I'll start:

My Top 20:

1 Pulp Fiction (1994)
2 Goodfellas (1990)
3 No Country for Old Men (2007)
4 Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
5 The Sixth Sense (1999)
6 Shawshank Redemption (1994)
7 Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
8 Gran Torino (2008)
9 Cool Hand Luke (1967)
10 Dirty Harry (1971)
11 Deliverance (1972)
12 Django Unchained (2012)
13 10 Rillington Place (1971)
14 The Hustler (1961)
15 Reservoir Dogs (1992)
16 Cape Fear (1991)
17 Scum (1979)
18 Dawn of the Dead (1978)
19 As Good As It Gets (1997)
20 The Wizard of Oz (1939)

The worst 20 films I've seen:

The bottom film is the worst, by the way!

Herbie Goes Bananas (1980)
The Death of the Incredible Hulk (1990)
Cool Runnings (1993)
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
The Flintstones (1994)
The Wedding Singer (1998)
Coronation Street: Viva Las Vagas! (1997)
Digby, the Biggest Dog in the World (1973)
Mickey Blue Eyes (1999)
The Astronaut's Wife (1999)
Waterworld (1995)
King Ralph (1991)
Supergirl (1984)
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
Hook (1991)
Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead (1991)
Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 (1983)
Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985)
Kindergarten Cop (1990)
Jade (1995)

Dave Preece wrote:The worst 20 films I've seen:

Cool Runnings (1993)

Leave.

Cool Runnings was IMHO shite!

Or are you suggesting it's right up there with Shawshank and Pulp???

Dave Preece wrote:The worst 20 films I've seen:

Digby, the Biggest Dog in the World (1973)

Fuck right off.

Top 20 is too big a list to name definitively. Like all of these kinds of favorite movie, music or whatever kind of lists, they change all the time the more you think about it. The one movie that crops up perennially though which is the one I say is my favorite movie of all time is Die Hard. Is it the best movie though or just my favorite though? Is there a difference? When it comes to music there's stuff I like that I know is bad but I still like it. Then there's stuff I don't like but I know is good. For me that means that I have a good taste in music insofar as I know the difference between good and bad music. Although maybe that's more good judgement than taste. Either way I know I can't do that with movies. I only know what I like. I leave whether they are good or bad up to the people who know.

Mark James wrote:Is it the best movie though or just my favorite though? Is there a difference? When it comes to music there's stuff I like that I know is bad but I still like it. Then there's stuff I don't like but I know is good. For me that means that I have a good taste in music insofar as I know the difference between good and bad music. Although maybe that's more good judgement than taste. Either way I know I can't do that with movies. I only know what I like. I leave whether they are good or bad up to the people who know.

+1

Jon Corby wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:The worst 20 films I've seen:

Digby, the Biggest Dog in the World (1973)

Fuck right off.

LOL!!!

Mark James wrote:Top 20 is too big a list to name definitively. Like all of these kinds of favorite movie, music or whatever kind of lists, they change all the time the more you think about it. The one movie that crops up perennially though which is the one I say is my favorite movie of all time is Die Hard. Is it the best movie though or just my favorite though? Is there a difference? When it comes to music there's stuff I like that I know is bad but I still like it. Then there's stuff I don't like but I know is good. For me that means that I have a good taste in music insofar as I know the difference between good and bad music. Although maybe that's more good judgement than taste. Either way I know I can't do that with movies. I only know what I like. I leave whether they are good or bad up to the people who know.

The people who know being the self-appointed experts.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Mark James wrote:Top 20 is too big a list to name definitively. Like all of these kinds of favorite movie, music or whatever kind of lists, they change all the time the more you think about it. The one movie that crops up perennially though which is the one I say is my favorite movie of all time is Die Hard. Is it the best movie though or just my favorite though? Is there a difference? When it comes to music there's stuff I like that I know is bad but I still like it. Then there's stuff I don't like but I know is good. For me that means that I have a good taste in music insofar as I know the difference between good and bad music. Although maybe that's more good judgement than taste. Either way I know I can't do that with movies. I only know what I like. I leave whether they are good or bad up to the people who know.

The people who know being the self-appointed experts.

Yeah, I totally understand that it's basically an excuse for me to appoint myself a music expert but why do I feel I'm a music expert and not a movie expert? It's something I can't explain. You'd think it would be just as easy to say I'm a movie expert in the same way I'm saying I'm a music expert yet I don't do that. It's like it's just a feeling I have about music. I'm sure it's nonsense and means nothing and no one has to agree that I am a music expert but if someone comes along and says they have the same kind of feeling but towards movies I'd rather listen to their opinion about movies than anyone else's, whether they are truly an expert or not.

Mark James wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Mark James wrote:Top 20 is too big a list to name definitively. Like all of these kinds of favorite movie, music or whatever kind of lists, they change all the time the more you think about it. The one movie that crops up perennially though which is the one I say is my favorite movie of all time is Die Hard. Is it the best movie though or just my favorite though? Is there a difference? When it comes to music there's stuff I like that I know is bad but I still like it. Then there's stuff I don't like but I know is good. For me that means that I have a good taste in music insofar as I know the difference between good and bad music. Although maybe that's more good judgement than taste. Either way I know I can't do that with movies. I only know what I like. I leave whether they are good or bad up to the people who know.

The people who know being the self-appointed experts.

Yeah, I totally understand that it's basically an excuse for me to appoint myself a music expert but why do I feel I'm a music expert and not a movie expert? It's something I can't explain. You'd think it would be just as easy to say I'm a movie expert in the same way I'm saying I'm a music expert yet I don't do that. It's like it's just a feeling I have about music. I'm sure it's nonsense and means nothing and no one has to agree that I am a music expert but if someone comes along and says they have the same kind of feeling but towards movies I'd rather listen to their opinion about movies than anyone else's, whether they are truly an expert or not.

I suppose the more you experience of something the more "nuanced" your opinions might become, but I'll still stand by my original comment.

So, is a film buff, a film expert?

Dave Preece wrote:So, is a film buff, a film expert?

According to urban dictionary film buffs are basically addicted to going to the movies. I would say it's more a case of liking movies rather than being an expert on them. Where buffs do tend to be experts is knowing movie trivia more than what actually makes a good movie.

Just wondering. Do you have a similar thing to me with movies that I have with music where you can tell that a particular movie is good even though you personally haven't enjoyed it, or you've enjoyed a movie that really you know is bad? And not just in the sense that it was so bad it was good.

Absolutely, I realised The Godfather, for example, is a masterpiece of a film, but I simply thought it was just good!

Our taste in films is worrying similar, Wizard of Oz excepted. Disappointing lack of Flash Gordon.

Ian Volante wrote:Our taste in films is worrying similar, Wizard of Oz excepted. Disappointing lack of Flash Gordon.

Never seen Flash Gordon... any good?

Dave Preece wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Our taste in films is worrying similar, Wizard of Oz excepted. Disappointing lack of Flash Gordon.

Never seen Flash Gordon... any good?

Wonderfully bad.

Ian Volante wrote:Our taste in films is worrying similar, Wizard of Oz excepted. Disappointing lack of Flash Gordon.

Why so worrying?

Dave Preece wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Our taste in films is worrying similar, Wizard of Oz excepted. Disappointing lack of Flash Gordon.

Why so worrying?

Cos I'm a unique flower who doesn't like being proven similar to other members of the herd.

Me too!

Dave Preece wrote:Me too!

I lolled.

Baby's Day Out.

The Human Centipede 2( Full Sequence)

On a serious note maybe Usual Suspects, Requiem for a Dream.and Mary Poppins

Hmm, my favourites change all the time, but I could probably extend to an unordered top 5 that don't tend to change much.

High Fidelity
Shawshank Redemption
American Beauty
The Brave One
The History Boys

Seems like an appropriate place to ask what you all thought of Life of Pi?

Good!

8/10

...but films without a definitive meaning annoy the hell out of me. IMHO, everything should be explainable, so the 'clever' people can't put their own spin on what they demand you want you to think it means!

Should it not be 'favourite' films as the best films are surely the Oscar winners?

Anyway, my top 20 is:

1. Contact
2. The Matrix
3. Nineteen eighty four (1984)
4. The Killing Fields
5. The Shawshank Redemption
6. The Pianist
7. Wall Street
8. Gladiator
9. The Omen (1976)
10. Planet of the Apes (1968)
11. The Time Machine (1960)
12. Mission to Mars
13. Glory
14. Excalibur
15. Chariots of Fire
16. Cromwell
17. Nosferatu (1979)
18. Last of the Mohicans
19. The Day after Tomorrow
20. Dead Poets Society

You give the people that pick the Oscar winners way too much credit.

Ian Volante wrote:You give the people that pick the Oscar winners way too much credit.

This.

Ian Volante wrote:You give the people that pick the Oscar winners way too much credit.

So who is best qualified to decide what the best films are?

Martin Thompson wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:You give the people that pick the Oscar winners way too much credit.

So who is best qualified to decide what the best films are?

You are, of course!

Even if you think that the people who decide who wins the Oscars are the perfect judges of what a film is, the top 20 films will almost definitely not be 20 Oscar-winning films. It'd be a huge coincidence if their top 20 films were all from different years.

Indeed. In 1994, for example, Forrest Gump won best picture while the Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction were runners-up.

So maybe the top 20 would be found amongst the nominees?

Well actually, if winning Oscars is the objective of making films, you might argue that releasing your film in a year where there aren't any other good films is part of what makes it good. So in that case I'd say Shawshank and Pulp Fiction are actually shit.

(I'm only kidding. About Pulp Fiction. Shawshank is poopoo.)

I recently saw Avatar and it's terrible. Same goes for Inception. These are widely regarded as great films, but apparently not on c4c, so well done us.

I'll do a quick scan of my DVDs/what's been mentioned in here/IMDB Top 250 to make 20:

1. Pulp Fiction
2. Fight Club
- Napoleon Dynamite
- Kill Bill
- Django Unchained
- Reservoir Dogs
- Inglorious Basterds
- Amelie
- Battle Royale
- Edward Scissorhands
- One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
- The Shining
- Full Metal Jacket
- American Beauty
- The Matrix
- Rear Window
- The Talented Mr. Ripley
- Burn After Reading
- Black Swan
- The Cable Guy

Jon O'Neill wrote:I recently saw Avatar and it's terrible. Same goes for Inception. These are widely regarded as great films, but apparently not on c4c, so well done us.

I realise I'm being ignorant but I don't even wanna watch Inception nor Avatar!

Jon O'Neill wrote:I recently saw Avatar and it's terrible. Same goes for Inception. These are widely regarded as great films, but apparently not on c4c, so well done us.

Inception was utter shit! Yes!

Jon O'Neill wrote:Well actually, if winning Oscars is the objective of making films, you might argue that releasing your film in a year where there aren't any other good films is part of what makes it good. So in that case I'd say Shawshank and Pulp Fiction are actually shit.

(I'm only kidding. About Pulp Fiction. Shawshank is poopoo.)

Why was Shawshank shit???

Jon O'Neill wrote:Well actually, if winning Oscars is the objective of making films, you might argue that releasing your film in a year where there aren't any other good films is part of what makes it good. So in that case I'd say Shawshank and Pulp Fiction are actually shit.

(I'm only kidding. About Pulp Fiction. Shawshank is poopoo.)

That post makes no sense.

I'm going to have to start watching more films.

Dave Preece wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Well actually, if winning Oscars is the objective of making films, you might argue that releasing your film in a year where there aren't any other good films is part of what makes it good. So in that case I'd say Shawshank and Pulp Fiction are actually shit.

(I'm only kidding. About Pulp Fiction. Shawshank is poopoo.)

Why was Shawshank shit???

It was all a bit la-de-da wasn't it.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Well actually, if winning Oscars is the objective of making films, you might argue that releasing your film in a year where there aren't any other good films is part of what makes it good. So in that case I'd say Shawshank and Pulp Fiction are actually shit.

(I'm only kidding. About Pulp Fiction. Shawshank is poopoo.)

That post makes no sense.

Yes it does.

A top 20 or so (in no order), which is fairly fluid:

Trainspotting
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Inglourious Basterds
The Usual Suspects
Serendipity
Airplane
Die Hard
Equilibrium
American Psycho
American Beauty
Se7en
The Shawshank Redemption
The Big Lebowski
Withnail & I
Léon
Fight Club
Super Mario Bros.
Fortress
Moonrise Kingdom
Heathers
Fargo
High Fidelity
Clerks
Battle Royale
Bean
Dead Poets Society
Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Die Hard is the one I've probably watched the most, from compulsion, but Withnail & I the one I watch most often as it regularly befits my mood. Some of the above aren't regarded as good films; I can appreciate this valuation, yet all of them are personally justifiable for their place in my list based on how I was feeling at the time and the significance the film has taken on. Never given any notice to any film awards. And Avatar is dogshit.

Like!

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Well actually, if winning Oscars is the objective of making films, you might argue that releasing your film in a year where there aren't any other good films is part of what makes it good. So in that case I'd say Shawshank and Pulp Fiction are actually shit.

(I'm only kidding. About Pulp Fiction. Shawshank is poopoo.)

Why was Shawshank shit???

It was all a bit la-de-da wasn't it.

Haha, la-de-da?

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Well actually, if winning Oscars is the objective of making films, you might argue that releasing your film in a year where there aren't any other good films is part of what makes it good. So in that case I'd say Shawshank and Pulp Fiction are actually shit.

(I'm only kidding. About Pulp Fiction. Shawshank is poopoo.)

That post makes no sense.

Yes it does.

Well no. If the objective of training on Apterous is to win a series of Countdown it doesn't make you better at Apterous/Countdown by picking a series with no good players (if you could do such a thing).

You're confusing how good the film is with their business model or whatever you want to call it.

If you'd read the thread and weren't such a cunt you'd realise that I stated the above is true if your goal is to win Oscars. If your goal is to win a series of Countdown, then you are indeed better at winning a series of Countdown if you pick a series of Countdown with no good players.

Jon O'Neill wrote:If you'd read the thread and weren't such a cunt you'd realise that I stated the above is true if your goal is to win Oscars. If your goal is to win a series of Countdown, then you are indeed better at winning a series of Countdown if you pick a series of Countdown with no good players.

Your goal isn't the film. The film is the same regardless of what you do with it. The release date isn't part of the film.

And what if you just happen to pick a year with no good films by luck? Is it a better film then?

Fuck you. You piece of shit.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:If you'd read the thread and weren't such a cunt you'd realise that I stated the above is true if your goal is to win Oscars. If your goal is to win a series of Countdown, then you are indeed better at winning a series of Countdown if you pick a series of Countdown with no good players.

Your goal isn't the film. The film is the same regardless of what you do with it. The release date isn't part of the film.

And what if you just happen to pick a year with no good films by luck? Is it a better film then?

Fuck you. You piece of shit.

Yes, I agree with you you moron. I was just pointing out that picking a top 20 films based on Oscar winners would be a very bad idea. Because of this. I then light-heartedly created a small conceit in which winning Oscars was the only goal of a film (I now regret this). You missed that part because you lack comprehension skills. Unfortunately, you compensate for your shortcomings in comprehension skills with a passion for an argument.

That's why I frequently embarrass you on here. I won't lie, I enjoy it.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:If you'd read the thread and weren't such a cunt you'd realise that I stated the above is true if your goal is to win Oscars. If your goal is to win a series of Countdown, then you are indeed better at winning a series of Countdown if you pick a series of Countdown with no good players.

Your goal isn't the film. The film is the same regardless of what you do with it. The release date isn't part of the film.

And what if you just happen to pick a year with no good films by luck? Is it a better film then?

Fuck you. You piece of shit.

Yes, I agree with you you moron. I was just pointing out that picking a top 20 films based on Oscar winners would be a very bad idea. Because of this. I then light-heartedly created a small conceit in which winning Oscars was the only goal of a film (I now regret this). You missed that part because you lack comprehension skills. Unfortunately, you compensate for your shortcomings in comprehension skills with a passion for an argument.

That's why I frequently embarrass you on here. I won't lie, I enjoy it.

I understood it all. But you made you point like a cunt and it needed to be said.

1-0 to Gavin?

Dave Preece wrote:1-0 to Gavin?

I think we need a panel of appointed experts to give awards to the winners of these arguments.

OK 0-0 then?

Can I be on the panel???

Dave Preece wrote:Can I be on the panel???

I'm going to wait for a year when you're the only other one arguing.

Come again?

Dave Preece wrote:Come again?

Never mind. Are you coming to COLIN by the way?