Movie Rankings Thread - Movies & TV - Forums : Best Ever Albums

hereforashortime

Gender: Male

AwaitingAndrew wrote:

Gonna be honest, I don't fully get the color system. I like all of the movies but wanted to be sure they were tiered. The first three are in my top 100 films (yeah, yeah) and the next three would probably make the next 100.

Obviously I can't speak for how everyone else does it, but the way I do it is:

In My Top 100
Anything I think is a great, or even good movie
Things I have a mixed opinion on, ranging fromm movies I thought were just ok, to movies I that I liked overall but had a large amount of problems with
A Bad Movie
An Awful Movie
_________________
Nothing really matters, anyone can see, nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me.

Mercury
Turn your back on the pay-you-back last call

Gender: Male
Location: St. Louis

hereforashortime wrote:

AwaitingAndrew wrote:

Gonna be honest, I don't fully get the color system. I like all of the movies but wanted to be sure they were tiered. The first three are in my top 100 films (yeah, yeah) and the next three would probably make the next 100.

Obviously I can't speak for how everyone else does it, but the way I do it is:

In My Top 100
Anything I think is a great, or even good movie
Things I have a mixed opinion on, ranging fromm movies I thought were just ok, to movies I that I liked overall but had a large amount of problems with
A Bad Movie
An Awful Movie

That's a pretty good system. I also had no real clue on what the colors meant. I'll use your criteria there for my HP ranks (but bold green will be top 250. As I love HP movies but all of them fall outside of my top 100 except maybe the last one - the last HP movie not the one with Hawkins)

Deathly Hallows Part II
Sorcerer's Stone
Order of the Phoenix
Goblet of Fire
Prisoner of Azkaban
Half Blood Prince
Deathly Hallows Part I
Chamber of Secrets

Yes, I know, I am way waaaaay too into the movies and I honestly love them all. I recently rewatched them all expecting to still feel they were not amazing (that was my attitude from the ages of 15-25) but when I watched them Last year I was consistently - the whole time - just fascinated, happy, amazed, geeking out over them. It was weird. When it comes to Harry Potter I am easily pleased and just 100% willing to dive right into it with next to no critical analysis at all.
_________________
-Ryan

ONLY 4% of people can understand this chart! Come try!

My Fave Metal - you won't believe #5!!!

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

I like this color coding system:

A 9 or 10 out of 10
A 7 or 8 out of 10
A 5 or 6 out of 10
A 3 or 4 out of 10
A 1 or 2 out of 10

Speaking of Christopher Nolan, I just saw Dunkirk:

1. The Dark Knight
2. The Prestige
3. Batman Begins
4. Memento
5. Insomnia
6. Inception
7. Interstellar
8. Dunkirk
9. The Dark Knight Rises
10. Following

cestuneblague
Edgy to the Choir

Location: MA/FL

Hayden wrote:

hereforashortime wrote:

Spielberg

The Terminal

Strange, I'm actually quite fond of The Terminal. Light, witty fun. Not sure why people don't seem to dig it. I think by default Schindler's List is my favourite of Spielberg... it really is an extraordinary film.

I'll join you with the Harry Potter rankings:

Deathly Hallows Part 1
Prisoner of Azkaban

Order of the Pheonix
Sorcerer's Stone
Goblet of Fire
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Deathly Hallows Part 2

Half-Blood Prince
Chamber of Secrets

The Half-Blood Prince has always felt wasted to me because it's such an awful adaptation, I try not to judge a film because of its source material, but Christ that was unfortunate. Best cinematography and acting of the series wasted by a pathetic script. I actually have a difficult time watching the second half.

And The Chamber of Secrets has... um... not aged well.

Is there really that much difference between Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets? I mean Chris Colombus is among the least imaginative visual director's out there so I think both suffered especially in terms of atmosphere & pacing though the follow-up improved the original's expensive but mostly ridiculous special effects, but for the most part looking back at them they both seem pretty much the same verse, though the latter more intense. I only prefer Philospher's because there was more Alan Rickman.

But really to be frank as much as I love the Harry Potter story I didn't really care for the movies all that much, while it's a clique to say at this point the third was still by far and large the best, mainly cause it got the playfullness of the books right and even added some depth to the story especially in regards to Harry's backstory & parents which was always a bit thin in the books. Otherwise, I donno I wasn't really too excited about the others, Goblet of Fire was solid and probably the heaviest on grandiose spectacle (which was appropiate), Order of the Phoenix sounded great on paper but it made no sense to make even OoP's slightly turgid story into the shortest movie as it pretty much just focused on one aspect (the political rebellion) but downgraded much of the character moments and all the little anecdotes & weird Rowling ideas that make the Harry Potter books so much fun and felt too bald and self-serious as an adaptation... but that was better than the lumpy Half-Blood Prince adaptation, which seemed to try and answer the criticisms by making some of the most heavy-handed and gawd-awful attempts at physical comedy i think I have ever seen, and basically had a first two hours that felt like an eternity and then tried to rush it's conclusion and pretty much the big emotional kicker that came at the end felt pretty sparkless and limp (no pun intended). While I think it had a fine if not exactly breath-taking close with Deathly Hallows, I think it didn't need to be two films, the first basically felt like it could've easily been cut down to an hour, considering a bulk of the middle section basically didn't translate the more psychological tension of their wandering around the forest and basically came across as a tourism advertisement for the Scottish Highlands, they could've easily made a film of three hours and change and still made a satisfying wrap-up, they should've just trusted the audience's attention spans some more (or, more likely, not chasing the dollar signs when they basically get two different release schedules).

So yeah overall, pretty much a decent but un-enthused reaction to much of the films, perhaps they would've been fine on their own but always paled in comparison to the books which always had a lot more free-range of ideas and attention to character devolpment that the movie struggled to adapt (both because of film-making constraints and also different creative team's fetishizing different aspects of the story). Alan Rickman was always the standout, one of the most criminally underrated performances (or series of performances) in the 21st century, and Emma pretty much owned the young cast from the get go (it took a long time for Radcliffe to realize his potential, and Ron pretty much got demoted to a glorified extra in the Yates adaptations). All in all, they were enjoyable enough but undeniably some missed potential. It's still a series worth watching.

Rankings? um...

Prisoner of Azkaban >>> Goblet of Fire > Deathly Hallows pt 2 >>> Order of Phoenix > Deathly Hallows pt 1> Philospher's Stone = Chamber of Secrets > Half-Blood Prince

Hayden

CryingGameDahlin wrote:

Hayden wrote:

And The Chamber of Secrets has... um... not aged well.

Is there really that much difference between Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets? I mean Chris Colombus is among the least imaginative visual director's out there so I think both suffered especially in terms of atmosphere & pacing though the follow-up improved the original's expensive but mostly ridiculous special effects, but for the most part looking back at them they both seem pretty much the same verse, though the latter more intense. I only prefer Philospher's because there was more Alan Rickman.

Prisoner of Azkaban >>> Goblet of Fire > Deathly Hallows pt 2 >>> Order of Phoenix > Deathly Hallows pt 1> Philospher's Stone = Chamber of Secrets > Half-Blood Prince

I kept the first bit of your post because I think that's why you quoted me. Is there a difference in direction between Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets? Perhaps not, but I still far prefer the former. The Philosopher's Stone (while far from perfect) was a huge undertaking. Columbus really set the vibe for the entire series (well, Cuaron whipped it up a notch, but still), and created an extremely strong children's film. If he messed up, there wouldn't of been another 7 films, no question. There's an insane amount of charm packed into Philosopher's Stone, unrivalled in the series. The whimsy, the lightheartedness, just the general innocence of it all. It's also extremely nostalgic, but of course, that's possibly just a personal thing.

I'd rather watch Philosopher's Stone over Chamber of Secrets any day. Chamber of Secrets lulls for over half it's 160 minute runtime, which is just silly considering how small of a book it is. It feels like a chore. And, like you said, less Rickman. I should also add that Chamber of Secrets is easily my least favourite book... you can almost tell Rowling wasn't entirely sure where the series was headed when she wrote it. It's fun and all, but just... not as good as the rest. It's more-or-less a standard mystery-story formula with magic.

Looks like we agree with Half-Blood Prince. Everything you said, I second. Quite lumpy, awful (and unnecessary) physical comedy, and lopsided pacing. Honestly, the film after the 20-25 minute mark is rather cringy. I dig that cafe scene at the beginning though, thought that was a nice touch. Cinematography was top-notch, but sadly wasted.

Looking at all the films, they're all flawed, but I still feel like they did their best apart from HP6. And yeah, the books are better, everyone who's read the books agree, etc... Personally, I would've loved it as an TV series rather than 8 films, but the timing just wasn't right.

I always felt like acting in the HP series was severely overlooked by the Oscars. Rickman was great for sure (consistently), but Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Oldman, Julie Walters, Imelda Staunton, David Thewlis and Helena Bonham Carter all put on ridiculously strong performances.
_________________
Submit Your List for BEA's 2023 Film Poll!

AwaitingAndrew

Gender: Male

Hayden wrote:

I always felt like acting in the HP series was severely overlooked by the Oscars. Rickman was great for sure (consistently), but Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Oldman, Julie Walters, Imelda Staunton, David Thewlis and Helena Bonham Carter all put on ridiculously strong performances.

Gary Oldman is my favorite actor thanks in large part to HP. It's where I first saw him as he brought my favorite book character to life on the big screen, and upon exploring other films as I grew up, like award caliber performances in Leon: The Professional and True Romance, discovered how fantastic he is all around and what a range he has.

HP has such a good cast that goes well beyond (the also very much deserving of attention) Alan Rickman.

Hayden

AwaitingAndrew wrote:

Gary Oldman is my favorite actor thanks in large part to HP. It's where I first saw him as he brought my favorite book character to life on the big screen, and upon exploring other films as I grew up, like award caliber performances in Leon: The Professional and True Romance, discovered how fantastic he is all around and what a range he has.

Feeling a Daniel Day-Lewis VS. Gary Oldman race for the Oscars next year. Unless Joaquin Phoenix suddenly makes the Academy love him. Either way, rooting for Oldman to get his due (unless Darkest Hour is a flop of course... it's definitely been a Churchill-overload as of late).

The thing with Rickman's performance (award-wise) is that it was more of an accumulated performance rather than a specific film. Like, I couldn't pick which film he put the best performance in... possibly the first? Possibly the third?
If they hadn't cut 80% of his role in Half-Blood Prince, I'd say that, but oh well Embarassed

(no classes was uber unfortunate). Either way, stellar acting. So glad none of the adult cast took the series as a joke.
_________________
Submit Your List for BEA's 2023 Film Poll!

AwaitingAndrew

Gender: Male

Alfred Hitchcock:
Vertigo
North By Northwest
Rope
Rear Window
I Confess
Dial M For Murder
The 39 Steps
The Lodger: A Story Of London In The Fog
Notorious
Psycho
Saboteur
The Lady Vanishes
Rebecca
Stage Fright
The Birds
Sabotage
Young & Innocent
To Catch A Thief
Foreign Correspondent
Suspicion
Shadow Of A Doubt
Blackmail
The Wrong Man
Spellbound
Family Plot
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Strangers On A Train
Topaz
Marnie
Frenzy
The Trouble With Harry
Mr. And Mrs. Smith
Torn Curtain
The Paradine Case
Jamaica Inn
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Murder!
Lifeboat

I need to see more of his silent films, but there are only two films since 1934's The Man Who Knew Too Much that I've yet to see. The Master of Suspense made a ton of movies. And I should probably give Lifeboat another viewing.

hereforashortime

Gender: Male

Spider-Man Movies

Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man Homecoming
Spider-Man
The Amazing Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
_________________
Nothing really matters, anyone can see, nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me.

hereforashortime

Gender: Male

Tarantino

Inglourious Basterds
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Kill Bill Vol 2
Hateful Eight
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill Vol 1
Django Unchained
Death Proof
_________________
Nothing really matters, anyone can see, nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me.