192 thoughts on “Top 250 Movies”

1. Amazing!Truly amazing.How do you even come up with this stuff!It must have taken loads of time.Great job.voted up and shared!

   Reply

   1. Hey mmsu….thanks for such a nice compliment. As for the time issue….I can thank my wonderful wife for creating a Access database that makes hubs like this much easier to collect and maintain the statistics of these movies. Thanks for the share.

      Reply

2. Wow, what a great list! I think I have seen most of it, with few exceptions…… My favorite, favorite one is also Raiders of the lost Ark…. The adventure, the suspense, the, the…. Harrison Ford! Can’t go wrong :))

   Back to the future (first one), is my second best, which I see didn’t make the list!

   Voting up and interesting!

   Reply

   1. Hey LaThing…..thanks for the compliment and the visit….they are both greatly appreciated. I am right there with you about Raiders….I am going to see Raiders of the Lost Ark again at the theater….for a week before it’s release on Blu-Ray…it will be playing in selected theaters in IMAX….that should be a great way to rewatch my favorite movie.

      As for Back to the Future….checking out my database….Back to the Future got a 76.70 score which ranks it at #292…..it got no Oscar or Golden Globe love but it is a great movie. Thanks for stopping by and the votes.

      Reply

3. wo of my favorites didn’t make the list – Overboard with Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel, Real Genius with Val Kilmer.

   Where do these rank?

   Reply

   1. Hey Austinstar….thanks for the visit. Overboard and Real Genius are too very funny movies from the 1980s….let me check my database….Overboard with a score of 30.61 is currently ranked #3608 while Real Genius comes in at #3751 with a score of 29.50. Both did not fare very well at the box office but have gain momentum since they got to the home entertainment market. When Russell and Kilmer got together for Tombstone they did much better as that one cracked the Top 1000.

      Reply

4. Fun list, but I don’t understand some things. Rather than type a long message, I’ll just give you two examples: If “Best Years of our Lives” is #73 in Box Office (while “Casablanca” is not even in the Top 100 on any list I have ever seen); and “Lives” won 7 Oscars to “Casablanca”s 3 – how can just a 1% critical rating advantage for “Casablanca” allow it to finish 2 positions higher? Also: “Star Wars” (not really a favorite of mine) is so high in Box Office and critical reception, not to mention those 6 Oscars – exceeded by only about 25 films – why penalize it so much simply because it did not win Best Picture? There are other examples, but I thought I would just start there. I did a similar study 3 years ago, some similarities, some differences. Thanks.

   Reply

   1. Hey pythias….first of all thanks for reading and observing some possible issues. First of all….the difference between 2nd and 4th place is only .31 of a point. My system has ceilings for categories….on the box office total….if a movie crosses the 200 million dollar point it gets all the points so Casablanca and Best Years of Our Lives were equal in that category even though Best Years of Our Lives was more successful at the box office. The same is true for Oscar nominations and Oscar wins…the ceiling is 5 nominations and 2 wins are the ceiling….it is only a 5 point category. So they tied there as well…another tie happened when they both won Best Picture Oscars…..leaving the only difference being critic and audience rating…..which is the difference. I am including a snapshot of both Casablanca and Best Year of Our Lives scorecards so you can see how scores were calculated.

      As for Star Wars….in my system…winning the Best Picture earns a movie some extra points….Star Wars got a nomination but not the win….as great as Star Wars was back then…it still failed to win the biggest prize of all….so it gets hurt a little in my ranking system.

      I would be interested to see your list that you came up with 3 years ago….I really appreciate you checking out the numbers on this page.

      Reply

      1. Sure thing. Here it is: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~pciccozz/Movies/main…

         (I guarantee you’re at least more web-savvy than me. I hard-coded every piece of this.)

         Firstly, this was not a major project for me back in 2009, so I only considered the Top 100 films in each category (Top 100 in inflation-adjusted Box-Office, Top 100 adjusted Oscar winners, etc.) Kudos to you for cataloging thousands of films.

         The inflation-adjusted lists are what they are. I’m sure we’re pretty much looking at the same source data out there. I do make an adjustment that I noted. There is no doubt that while recent films (past 20 years or so) do very well (even after considering inflation), and dominate the Top 100, it is extremely difficult for one to crack the upper echelon, say top 15. The inflation adjustment, while essential, doesn’t quite balance things, in my opinion. But as you said, you also made an adjustment, in the form of a cap.

         As far as Oscar winners, we’re both making an adjustment. I am adjusting because the number of categories has changed over the years, while you adjust by applying a cap. We both agree that Best Picture winners should rank higher, than non. The Godfather’s 3 Oscars in 1972 beats Cabaret’s 8.

         Concerning which polls to use. That was tough for me. I didn’t want polls where people routinely “stuff the ballot box”, but I also didn’t want polls of critics who can be very out of touch with mainstream filmgoers. That’s why I selected AFI. I believe it does represent a composite poll. In retrospect, it should have been just one of several polls that I used. When I get some time to update this, I will revisit that issue.

         Oh, if you didn’t already know, “pythias” is Jerry Lewis’ character’s name in his first film without Dean.

         Reply

         1. Hey pythias…I did not know that came from the first Jerry Lewis movie without Dean Martin…very interesting.

            After I type this comment I am on my way over to the link you provided. As for the reasons for my ceilings in certain categories…I was finding it very hard to figure out a way to calculate movies with huge box office numbers…I figure once a movie crosses the 200 million dollar mark that has to be ceiling….as it represents a huge block buster….only 7 movies crossed that mark in 2011.

            For my critical rating I used many different sources…I did not use AFI has they do not rank as many movies as I need for my movies…they do the best…but I have done over a 100 actors as well….and the AFI does not really look at movies that were not successful.

            My percentage in the rating….Rotten Tomatoes.com 40%, Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin 10%(my two favorite critics), IMDB 30%, Yahoo Movies 10%, and Fandango 10%….sometimes these sites do not have a rating for a certain movie….so I rearrange the % of the ones I do find. Thanks for sharing the link…going there now.

            Reply

            1. Hey pythias…just checked out your website…very interesting information…I tried to send the following e-mail but it came back as undeliverable ..

               “Very interesting site. I see we are thinking on the same grounds, as I also think the same three factors are important for a movie. Box office, critical review and award recognition. I noticed that Citizen Kane and Shawshank Redemption seem to be the movies ranked high on your list that did not make my Top 100. Box office results killed both of those movies in my scoring system. My scoring system uses roughly(it changes some for old movies and current movies) 40% for box office, 37% for critical reviews, and 22% for award recognition. I have bookmarked your website for further investigation. Bruce Cogerson”.

            2. No, “Shawshank” and “Kane” do not rank high overall for me. They didn’t have the box office nor the Academy Awards. I think you may be referring to the poll part. I listed (at the time) a poll of top 10 critics’ films, and another poll of top 10 IMDB films – just to show how different they can be. At the time, “Shawshank” was tops in IMDB, and “Kane” of course is tops among critics – neither of which meant a lot to me. Then, I show the poll that I used, which was AFI’s. I do believe my poll part had the weakest reasoning because it is the most difficult to quantify.

               The Golden Globes began in 1944, so I assume you factored that in. One of the reasons I didn’t use them was that they are chosen by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association – U.S. and non-U.S voters alike. Since I don’t use worldwide Box Office (only domestic), I kept it consistent by using primarily domestic awards criteria (the Oscars).

         2. Hey pythias. Thanks for all the information….I think it is fascinating to see how people rank movies…I respect those that use information to back up their results. We might not agree on the results of systems….but I respect the reasoning behind your results and others that have done the same thing as us.

            My calculation is different for different time lines….I use more box office information for current movies(1980-2012)….movies from 1944 to 1980 use Golden Globe in the calculation…while movies 1927 to 1944 are calculated without GoldenGlobes…I have not done movies pre-Oscar days…but I will be doing a Chaplin hub soon…and will have to come up with a new calculation for the silent era that Chaplin started out in.

            I would love to use worldwide numbers but any movie before 1980 is almost impossible to find worldwide box office numbers….so I just stick with domestic….although I admit it is one of the weaknesses in my calculation that I do not look at worldwide box office…thanks for returning.

            Reply

            1. Hey pythias….just checked out your Top Ten list….hard to argue against Gone With The Wind getting the top spot….one of my hubpage buddies loves Ben-Hur so he is happy that it made the Top 10…..checking out our two lists….we have many of the same movies. I think the only one I can not see on your list is On the Waterfront…it is good but it was not a box office blockbuster…it was a hit but compared to the others on your list it did not make hardly any money. Thanks for including the link.

            2. True (about “Waterfront”). If a film ranked really high in 2 of 3 categories, that was enough for me to forgive the 3rd category. Similarly, “E.T.” did nothing as far as awards, but scores very high elsewhere. If I had “thrown out” films that are not in the Top 100 in any one category, “Waterfront” and “E.T.” drop out of the Top 10.

               Yep, we actually shared 4 or 5 films in our Top 10s: “Godfather”, “Wind”, “Hur”, “Arabia”, and (if I threw out “Waterfront” and “E.T.”), “Bridge”. Those few films are indisputable, no matter how you slice it – whether your system is complex or simple like mine.

               The only thing that bothers me a little about “Godfather” is that it didn’t dominate the 1973 Oscars. It did win “Best Picture”, but the Academy seemed to be just as enthralled with “Cabaret” that year.

               “French Connection” ranked very high for you. I had it as winning “only” 5 Oscars; not in the Top 100 in Box Office; and kind of so-so in the AFI poll. It would be around #35 for me.

               There were 5 films in my Top 27 from the site, that were not in your Top 100: “Amadeus”, “The Sting”, “It Happened One Night”, “All About Eve”, and “Snow White”. What they had in common for me was that they all lacked that third category.

               We both seem to be missing “The Ten Commandments”. I think we know why. 🙂 (If I’m not mistaken, it is the last theatrical film that is shown ONLY on one of the 3 broadcast networks. I wonder when ABC is going to give it up?)

               “Hur” is my personal favorite. Too bad it seems to be falling off gradually over time. Mo

            3. Hey pythias….my system does not forgive a weakness in one of the three categories. My thought process was what would be a perfect movie for a movie producer…..box office hit….critic and audience love….and finally holding up the final Oscar of the night.

               On the Waterfront did crack my Top 50 so I think we both agree that it is a classic movie….I remember seeing the clip where Brando says “I coulda been a contender” all the time when I was younger….sadly I do not see that clip nearly as much today….it seems to being fading away.

               The Sting is actually #44 on my list. Looking at the other ones we differ on Amadeus came in at #167, All About Eve #165, It Happened One Night #131, Snow White #243 and Ten Commandments #119…..so all of them rank pretty high in my system….as they all rank higher than almost all the movies I have ranked so far….currently it is right under 6000 movies.

               Ben-Hur is one of my HubPage(Steve Lensman) friend’s favorite movie…so I am sure he will be happy to see that there is another person that appreciates that classic movie.

               You make a good point on The Godfather….only winning 3 Oscars seems to diminish it a little….especially with Cabaret taking so many other Oscars…including Best Director ….but I think if they were to hold the vote today….The Godfather would be a double digit winner….as Cabaret is not mentioned very much when people talk about classic movies. Cabaret did end up in my Top 100(at #75)….so it did perform very well even though it did not get the Best Picture win. As always it is good talking movies with you.

            4. I don’t know about you, but to me, if I just take a step back and look at it subjectively from a distance (without trying to apply any kind of a scoring system), I really believe that 3 films “did it all” to a greater extent than any others, have stood the test of time, and truly stand out: “Gone With the Wind”, “The Godfather”, and “The Sound of Music”. Even though “Star Wars” scored very high for me, I’m sorry but you have to win Best Picture. “Titanic” also scores very high for me, but it remains to be seen how it will be viewed in another 20 years. I would love to say “Ben-Hur” too (and for a while, it would have been one of the big 3), but it’s just falling off a little with modern audiences.

               All 3 (“Wind”, “Godfather”, “Music”) won Best Picture and other awards against difficult competition – “Wind” during that great film year of 1939, “Godfather” vs. the academy darling “Cabaret” in 1972, and “Music” vs. “Dr. Zhivago” in 1965. All 3 were monster Box Office hits (“Godfather” slightly less so). And all 3 continue to be viewed as fan and critic classics (“Music” somewhat less so).

            5. never got this. Can you explain it?

               The Sound of Music and Dr. Zhivago were both released in 1965, so the inflation factor should be about the same. (Dr. Zhivago made some of it’s money in 1966 because it was released in December, 1965.) It cost about a dollar to see a film then, on average.

               Sound of Music is listed at Mojo as 1.115 Billion after inflation, and Dr. Zhivago is listed as 972 Million. The Sound of music is only about 15% more.

               BUT, in 1965-66 dollars, Sound of Music made 158 million and Dr. Zhivago made about 111 million. Sound

               of Music made about 42% more, a much larger gap.

               So, on the inflation list, why is Dr. Zhivago so close to Sound of Music? We know that Sound of Music was released only once, so its dollars are “pure”. Even if Zhivago was re-released later, if anything, its box office take after inflation would be devalued.

               The only thing I can think of is that maybe some places were charging a premium to see The Sound of Music and maybe they take that into consideration too. OR, maybe it’s just an error.

            6. Hey Pythias….It is hard to argue against the three movies you mentioned. Sound of Music, Godfather and Gone With The Wind have it all. In my scoring system I do not have anything for cultural reference….but these three would top those charts as well. On to your second comment now.

            7. Hey Pythias….looking at the two Doctor Zhivago got released December 31st 1965….so I think right away you have to look at 1966 and 1967 as it’s earning years. Plus it’s only re-release was in 1999, when the David Lean movies were all being re-released. Looking at Variety issue January 4th 1967…Doctor Zhivago was the 2nd biggest hit of the year only behind Thunderball….it’s box office rentals was an estimated 30,000,000 million.

               Meanwhile Sound of Music was released March 10th 1965 and Variety issue January 5th 1966 ranks Sound of Music as the 2nd biggest hit of the year(only behind Mary Poppins) and an estimated box office rentals of 35,000,000 million. So it looks like 5 million more in box office rental and 40 plus years of inflation gives Sound of Music the edge over Doctor Zhivago…but they are both in the top 10 with Sound being 3rd and Doctor being 8th.

               I have yet to see Doctor Zhivago….as it is on my list of movies to watch….thanks for the comments and hope I was able to answer your question.

            8. Looking at lifetime rentals(Variety May 4th 1983)…Sound of Music earned 79 million to Doctor Zhivago’s 46 million. That difference of 33 million….using my program that should have translated into an additional 259 million more in 2012 dollars for Sound over Doctor….but it looks like it is missing about 144 million according to Box Office Mojo. My program has Sound of Music’s inflated box office at 1.244 billion….which is about 117 million more than Box Office Mojo’s numbers.

               I have noticed that many of Box Office Mojo’s numbers before 1980 do not seem correct. I did a Clint Eastwood hub and noticed everything before 1980 was wrong….I even e-mailed them but they responded back that they were happy with their numbers.

               So in conclusion…I would have to agree with you that it seems odd that their box office numbers are so close….but inflated box office is not an exact science….as many people do the calculation many different ways.

            9. Thanks for confirming that. All I know is that – using BOM’s own numbers, Sound of Music has an adjusted-to-unadjusted ratio of 1.115b to 158m, or just over $7.00. Zhivago has a ratio of 972m to 111m, or about $8.75. Mary Poppins, released in 1964, made only 9 million less than Zhivago, but the adjusted gap is over 300 million. Clearly (to me), they have significantly overstated Zhivago’s adjusted numbers.

               (I would try to E-Mail them, but something tells me that BOM is not going to be able to (or will be unwilling) to explain the math.

            10. Thanks for confirming that. All I know is that – using BOM’s own numbers, Sound of Music has an adjusted-to-unadjusted ratio of 1.115b to 158m, or just over $7.00. Zhivago has a ratio of 972m to 111m, or about $8.75. Mary Poppins, released in 1964, made only 9 million less than Zhivago, but the adjusted gap is over 300 million. Clearly (to me), they have significantly overstated Zhivago’s adjusted numbers.

                (I would try to E-Mail them, but something tells me that BOM is not going to be able to (or will be unwilling) to explain the math.

5. As a movie fan I found this interesting. I think the major flaw in your system is the weight of the box office results. A movie like The Devil Inside can get a Cinemascore score F, and still open at $31 million. Great marketing is now more important than great film making. As an aside, To Kill a Mocking Bird is a lot better film than number 97. Good to see Cuckoo’s Nest where it deserves to be.

   Reply

   1. Hey Brian Mullins…when I was thinking about these scoring system…I thought what would be a perfect movie if I was producing a movie….box office results, critical results and award recognition would be the three things I would want.

      So if a movie like The Devil Inside gets box office but is hated by everybody….it will not score very high….but it will earn some points….I have 5300 movies scored in my database….and the average score is 39.63…..so a great box office will only get the movie so many points. As for To Kill A Mockingbird…I agree it is a great movie with a great performance by Gregory Peck….it however was not a huge hit at the box office….which caused its score to be lower than expected but in did reach the Top 100.

      I think all of the movies that made it to the Top 100 are all quality movies and ones that I love…..thanks for stopping by….and I appreciate your opinion….which is what makes looking at lists so interesting.

      Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.