Top Ten Movies

[Moe_Syzlak]

To me “favorite” (as SonofSinbad had put it) implies rewatchability. So this is favorite, but not necessarily most admired. 

No order:

Godfather
Godfather 2
Empire Strikes Back
Blade Runner 
Raiders of the Lost Ark
This is Spinal Tap
Holy Grail
Fellowship of the Ring
Raising Arizona
Pulp Fiction

 

[Sinbad]

oldboy

Which one? (The correct answer is the original).

harakiri

Which one? (The correct answer is the original).

bad lieutenant

Which one? (The correct answer is the remake).

---

My favourites today but not necessarily yesterday, or tomorrow...

Top-10 "Genre/Pop-Culture/Popcorn/Whatever" films from the 1980s because it's a decade that demands it's own separate list, just to give the other years a chance! (one per Franchise and Director). Alphabetical order:

Aliens (1986) James Cameron
Back to the Future (1985) Robert Zemeckis
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) Steven Spielberg
The Killer (1989) John Woo
Predator (1987) John McTiernan
Return of the Jedi (1983) Richard Marquand
Robocop (1987) Paul Verhoeven
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) Leonard Nimoy
The Thing (1982) John Carpenter
The Untouchables (1987) Brian De Palma

---

Some surprises in there (RoTJ, ST3) but Doom over Raiders?
Any strong reasons why or just preference?

 

[Masirimso17]

I understand all the reasons why people love Temple of Doom, but I personally can't enjoy it. The tone is extremely uneven, ranging from extremely silly to downright depressing (especially the second act). A huge step back from Raiders' consistent tone.

Furthermore, I find Willie Scott insufferable, even more than even Jar Jar Binks. Sure she's a unique character and makes sense... But oh my God is she annoying.

That's just my opinion of course. Admittedly I really enjoy the third act, but not enough to save the movie.

 

[Sinbad]

I understand all the reasons why people love Temple of Doom, but I personally can't enjoy it. The tone is extremely uneven, ranging from extremely silly to downright depressing (especially the second act). A huge step back from Raiders' consistent tone.

Furthermore, I find Willie Scott insufferable, even more than even Jar Jar Binks. Sure she's a unique character and makes sense... But oh my God is she annoying.

That's just my opinion of course. Admittedly I really enjoy the third act, but not enough to save the movie.

I think I liked Temple of Doom more when I first saw it 30+ years ago as it was a literal rollercoaster ride on first viewing, the flaws became more and more evident over time, I can't think of anything that could improve Raiders

 

[TM2YC]

Some surprises in there (RoTJ, ST3) but Doom over Raiders?
Any strong reasons why or just preference?

Er, random unfocused thoughts...

Doom because of this...

...and it's just a lot of scary, action-packed icky  fun. It looks amazing with that deep red glowing light. Raiders is a close second, Crusade has slipped in my estimation over time.

ST3 mainly because of the strong "bridge crew family" thing. You think being in the Captain's chair is the most important thing to Kirk but he throws it away to save his friend in a heartbeat. The "stealing the Enterprise" sequence is one of the best things ever. The pacing, the music and the crew refusing to even acknowledge that Kirk has questioned if they'll come with him. The movie looks the best and most expensive of all the ST films. I think it might be the only ST movie (or TV show too really) to not re-use any shot/models to save money. It introduced the Bird of Prey, the Excelsior, the Grissom, Starbase and other miniatures. I love 2, 6 and 8 as well but 3 is just that little bit better.

ROTJ because we literally got to see the "return of the Jedi", taking down Jabba's minions with one blade (set to one of Williams' best pieces of music). Still the greatest space-battle ever. The VisFX and camera work when Lando and Wedge "fly into the superstructure and attempt to knock out the main reactor" will never be topped (sadly). Admiral Ackbar. Arguably ROTJ and Crusade are still the only satisfactory third films in an original trilogy (not counting Lord of the Rings and let's pretend Crystal Skull doesn't exist ). Although even Crusade is just a separate stand-alone adventure, it doesn't have to successfully wrap-up a 3-film story-arc like ROTJ does. Fingers crossed for Episode 9!

 

[Masirimso17]

True, the Indy/Short Round story was pretty great. I also liked Mutt (sorry!), though not as much as Mr. Round.

 

[TM2YC]

I find Willie Scott insufferable, even more than even Jar Jar Binks. Sure she's a unique character and makes sense... But oh my God is she annoying.

As a viewer, I never found her annoying, outside of when she is supposed to be annoying to Indy and Short-Round for the purpose of comedy. Jar Jar isn't supposed to be annoying to the audience and we are supposed to find him charming and funny, when the characters find him annoying within the context of a scene, that isn't funny either. I'm in a minority on the Scott front I admit.

 

[lapis molari]

+1 for Temple of Doom. :heart:
But I'm biased of course, i could hardly put my own edit in my Top 10.

 

[Zamros]

Arguably ROTJ and Crusade are still the only satisfactory third films in an original trilogy

But... The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was the best one!

 

[The Scribbling Man]

Arguably ROTJ and Crusade are still the only satisfactory third films in an original trilogy

But... The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was the best one!

I finished the dollars trilogy just recently and actually think I prefer the 2nd one (so shoot me). 

Also, I'm not sure the dollars trilogy really counts, does it? I've heard there are arguments of some vague connection, but really, they're all quite different and feel like seperate films. Also, you have Lee Van Cleef and Gian Maria Valonte starring in more than one of the 3 films as different characters. 

But back on satisfactory third entries, what about Die Hard 3? Or Toy Story 3?

I've heard it said a few times that the second is often the worst, as well as both the third and the first being claimed on different occasions as universally superior in trilogies - but to be honest, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule (and I often disagree with the consensus  )

Regardless, I think we can all probably come up with examples of trilogies in which the first, second or third all recieve the highest praise (or vice versa).

 

[bionicbob]

But back on satisfactory third entries, what about Die Hard 3? Or Toy Story 3?

I say it again, STAR TREK III THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK! 

Seriously, this movie is an under rated gem.
It is a more intimate character story about friendship, loyalty and sacrifice.
Nimoy's direction is solid.  A great balance of drama, humour and tragedy.  He easily brought forth Shatner's best performance as Kirk.  The scene of Kirk learning of his son's death still feels like a kick to the gut.
Llyod's Klingon performance became the template for all Klingons that followed.
The ILM visuals are excellent, particularly considering these Trek films were smaller budget affairs.   The cinematography and the injection of brighter colours is wonderful.

I love this movie!   :heart:

 

[The Scribbling Man]

I say it again, STAR TREK III THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK!   

And yet you edited it (Am I right to assume your version is the version you favour?) 

I'm not a big Trek fan, but I keep trying to be. I was brought up watching it, so there's this lingering nostalgia I just can't shake. 

I'm currently watching through the Original Series and I plan on rewatching the movies at somepoint (I've seen them all once, apart from The Motion Picture and Undiscovered Country, which I'm yet to see). Some of which I may watch fanedits of this time around - including yours!

 

[bionicbob]

I say it again, STAR TREK III THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK!   

And yet you edited it (Am I right to assume your version is the version you favour?) 

Actually, I view my Trek edits as just Alternate Viewing (I was trying to give them a TV feel) not as better or improvements.  Plus, I have learned a lot since those early editing days, and I sort of cringe when I rewatch some of the edits I made.  Though, in regards TREK III, I was happy with moving the Saavik/Genesis plot to the opening scene, as I believe that was how it was originally written.

Nimoy's Trek IV definitely has more mainstream appeal.  But I think Trek III is more rewarding for long time TOS fans.

 

[The Scribbling Man]

Actually, I view my Trek edits as just Alternate Viewing (I was trying to give them a TV feel) not as better or improvements.  Plus, I have learned a lot since those early editing days, and I sort of cringe when I rewatch some of the edits I made.

 

Fair enough! 

What causes you to cringe, out of curiosity? Is it that you think your editing was bad? Or do you regret the choices of changes? 

Nimoy's Trek IV definitely has more mainstream appeal.  But I think Trek III is more rewarding for long time TOS fans.

Trek IV is the only one I remember thinking was terrible, and Trek II is the only one I remember definitely liking. The rest are just a blur really. Although it's been a while, I do recall enjoying The Final Frontier despite its flaws, and it baffles me that it's the lowest rated Trek film on IMDB. 

Then again, I think what appeals about the movies to a Trek fan and a non-Trek fan is probably quite different.

 

[TM2YC]

Dollars-3 is just a third seperate film (or is it a prequel?) not the third in narrative trilogy like ROTJ. ST3 is the second part in the Spock narrative trilogy, part 3 (ST4) drops the ball a bit for me because although it is enormous fun it isn't a satisfactory continuation or conclusion to the high-stakes space battles and emotional sacrifice of ST2/3. I've said it before but can you imagine the fan reaction if for ROTJ, George Lucas had decided to have the movie not be about Luke, Vader, the Rebels and a vast interstellar war (plus some Ewoks) and instead focused the film entirely on Han's acquisition of 2 dewbacks called George and Gracey .

 

[Gaith]

But back on satisfactory third entries, what about Die Hard 3? Or Toy Story 3?

The Bourne Ultimatum? (Maybe not an "original" trilogy, but pretty close to, as I understand it.)

Before Midnight? (Not perfect, but definitely worthwhile, IMO.)

Fast and Furious (#4) or Furious 7? (Tokyo Drift doesn't really count, and #4 completes the Brian/Dom brotherhood arc, whereas 7 serves as an unofficial third/concluding part of a whole-team trilogy, before Brian and Mia retire.)

(Dan Brown's) Inferno?

Once Upon a Time in Mexico?!

And, finally: the criminally underrated The Hangover Part III?!

 

[Sinbad]

I think most would agree that the dollars trilogy gets better with each film but I'm inclined to favour the second as well whereas the third was more sprawling from memory (been a while though). The new apes trilogy I would say got better with each film a definite rarity nowadays!

 

[Masirimso17]

Great third movies in my opinion: Return of the Jedi, Revenge of the Sith, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Back to the Future: Part III, Toy Story 3, The Dark Knight Rises

 

[TM2YC]

Great third movies in my opinion: Revenge of the Sith

Relatively speaking .

Back to the Future: Part III, Toy Story 3, The Dark Knight Rises

Yep to all 3.

 

[TM2YC]

'Temple of Doom' was on TV the other night, so I gave it a re-watch. The opening half is a lot goofier than I remembered... I take it back about it being better than Raiders  .

The joyous ending where Indy brings all the kids back is heart warming. The rope-bridge set piece is iconic. Superb work from John Williams as he intertwines Indy and Short Rounds themes in the mine fight. You gotta love the oldskool film-making techniques: