Best 300 Movies - With Commentary By Experts

NOTE: The list is in ascending order, from 300 to 1.

Initially I wanted to post this list AFTER I'd "finished" it, but because I realized that this kind of list can never be fully finished, here it is. Not perfect, not yet thorough, but useful enough as it is.

I might expand this to 350 or even 400 films, at some point. I have around 150 (8/10) films to pick from to fill up those 50 (or 100) places.

Just as I pick my music based on how enjoyable a tune is to me personally (as opposed to what critics, hipsters, or the Wal Mart masses think of it), I do with movies too. There is no opinion in this world that I value anywhere nearly as much as my own - at least when it comes to my tastes in music and film. No lies, no agenda, only the good stuff makes it on my best-of lists (except when it comes to movies I hadn't watched in very many years: more on that later).

It gets even better though: I put together this list with no pretentious intentions, i.e. no intentions to make it an "arty" list, a list that film students would approve of and "respect". I couldn't care less what those pompous kids think, their opinions are stale air to me. If anything, the more they disagree with me the better. They are my compass for awfulness, dishonesty and delusion. Hence it follows logically that I also have no interest in how "important", legendary, influential, commercial or non-commercial films are. If only everyone made their best-of movie lists this way, we'd have a lot more honest - hence useful - lists to get tips from. But... what can you do! Many people tend to be awfully insecure, so they misuse any opportunity to try to win "intellectual points" from others. Pathetic, really.

"I really like that dumb comedy that nobody respects, but I guess I better include a Bergman or Fellini instead. That will make my list more legit." This is the way many people put together best-of-cinema lists. Ditto music lists. There is a fear of appearing "plebby" if you pick stuff that's considered non-artistic, as if sheer enjoyment of films and music isn't a top priority; it is replaced by useless/fake criteria such as quasi-intellectual appreciation and historical significance: i.e. that which film students and the art crowd consider "meaningful" and "groundbreaking". They get to "decide" what is or isn't "valid". Political affiliation is a big part of it too. Basically, the enjoyment you get out of a movie plays 5th fiddle to all these other, very dumb, criteria.

"Hang on... this list has no Bunuel! No Wes Anderson! Better include at least 5 of their movies so people think I'm smart! I really enjoyed Scrooged, Rambo and the Naked Gun movies but they'll have to go to make room for the arty stuff. I've never really understood Bunuel and Wes always kinda bores me but I'm sure their movies are amazing."

There's none of that here. All of my lists are made primarily to satisfy my need for making them (list fetishism), and secondarily to provide people with useful tips. I am obviously interested in feedback from other film-goers, but not to the extent that I would even vaguely entertain the possibility of pandering to their tastes and expectations by injecting the list with dishonesty and BS.

"Everyone seems to have Metropolis and Battleship Potemkin on their lists, so, well, I guess I need to have those on my top 100 list too, despite the fact that they're nothing special. I'll just follow the herd, as I always do. Perhaps if I add a few of those then the rest of my list will be taken much more seriously."

While I value entertainment above all else, I do place importance on stuff such as photography and music, as well. However, as stylistically slick as a film might be, it can use visuals only so far to make up for lack of content. Besides, most content-free movies are anyway ugly. I have no use for an empty-canvas "art" film executed with an out-of-focus hand-held camera with lengthy scenes of actors staring at empty walls while contemplating the meaning of life. Fill-in-the-blanks Rohrschach cinema works only if you make it visually and stylistically compelling, and when it has at least a basic framework story-wise. But very few (pretentious) directors are capable of that. This is logical though: because if you're pretentious then you're very likely to be daft as well. And untalented: because lack of talent pushes hipsters toward pseudo-artiness. It's a way to mask your own incompetence.

Selecting the best 300 for a movie list is a lot tougher than for a music list. It is easier to assess and rate music than movies. For example, just take repetition as a criteria: the more often you want to hear an album, the better it must be, regardless of the music style. This rule doesn't necessarily work for movies however, because a heavy drama and a goofy comedy are completely different in that sense. So how does one rate and especially compare a heavy drama with a comedy? You will find such movies side-by-side, because I can appreciate both, but this list shouldn't be regarded as literally - numerically - comparing such films. Hence the exact ranking isn't that important.

Some of these movies I've seen a long time ago: perhaps I wouldn't like them nearly as much now. With music, my taste changes a lot less over time so my older music ratings are fairly reliable whereas my film ratings aren't, not even close. Why this is, I don't know, but the reasons are irrelevant. Movies that I once upon a time gave 4 stars I might rate as low as 1.5 stars now; that's how extreme it can get, i.e. it's not always a matter of nuances. Similarly, there are films I've seen a dozen times but which I don't consider brilliant. Should I add them because I've seen them numerous times? Not necessarily, because the reasons for re-watching movies can vary from movie to movie. Frequency is an important factor but there are many others.

Main criteria in approximate order of importance:

1. Entertainment factor: was I bored or immersed?
2. Awe factor: were there any fascinating scenes, and how many?
3. Repeat viewings: how recyclable is the film?
4. Visuals: scenery, photography, colours.
5. Soundtrack: timing, volume, quality (above all).
6. Casting: inspired/exact or lousy/absurd?
7. Dialog: intelligent/humorous/realistic or dumb/cringy/absurd?
8. Plot.
9. Originality.
10. Politically-correct, politically-intelligent, or apolitical?
...
893. What critics think.
894. What hipsters think.
895. What farm chickens think.

In fact, even this flatters critics and hipsters. Their opinions aren't even in the top 10,000 of my evaluation criteria. They aren't a factor at all. Farm chickens? Maybe. Their opinions might count for a bit more. Because animals are honest, poseurs aren't.

A problem in the selection process is the fact I had to rely on impressions that certain films left on me ages ago, decades ago in some cases. Those are usually the movies I've seen just once: they're the ones I might not even like much decades later, let alone place them on a best-of list. Hence the possibility is real that several such films - "subpar" or "not good enough" films - made their way on this list. Whereas with music, as I said, I can trust my past tastes and assessments, I can't with movies. As a general rule: if I've seen a film more than once then the rating is quite reliable. Another rule: if I've seen it just once - a long time ago - then the rating may be problematic. Perhaps to the extent where that film doesn't even deserve to be on this list.

I don't discriminate against horrors and comedies which are considered "inferior genres" by hipsters and the movie industry itself. I leave that kind of moronic attitude to Tinseltown's Oscar voters, snobs and insecure film buffies. How on Earth a vapid costume drama about romancing couples strolling in a neatly trimmed courtyard is supposed to be more intelligent - let alone more entertaining - than a good fantasy or a funny comedy is beyond me. How the hell a bone-headed drama with Meryl Streep directed by some politically-correct Establishment sycophant is supposed to be art and comedy is supposed to be "cheesy low-tier entertainment", I don't understand that either. That is moron logic, unconsciously adopted by the masses that are being too exposed to too many pompous, feeble-minded hipsters babbling hooey in their worthless dishonest columns and in TV interviews.

I often had to omit the "weaknesses" section for two simple reasons: either I couldn't remember or I didn't want to read my old review just in case I decide to re-visit the movie, because there are spoilers in many of these comments. Instead, I wrote "can't remember" or "it's been a while" even though I could easily find out the flaws by reading my reviews (in case I have one).

All genres are welcome here - except documentaries, short films, and animation because they're separate categories in my opinion. Obviously, I have my individual preferences like everyone else. For example, I prefer horror films while I avoid/dislike westerns.

I decided to make the list in ascending order, from no 300 to the best movie. Now, because numeration itself (on IMDb lists) cannot be manipulated you will get the reverse numerical order, which might be off-putting. In other words, my no 1 movie is actually numerated as no 300. You can easily fix this though by picking the reverse order option, available at the top of the list.

In terms of having proper numeration that avoids confusion I advise you do that, reverse the order. However, in terms of reading the comments (generously and miraculously provided by Ed Wood and his friends) I suggest you read them in order - from 300 to 1.

The list starts off with (very roughly) 150 4-star films, ends with roughly 50 5-star films. The lowest-ranked 50 or so movies can probably be replaced by other 4-star movies that are just as good, so I might make some changes there.

As I said, the list order is not very accurate, it is not exact. It can't be. There is no such thing as an exact order by quality, unless you're comparing films with very clear and distinct quality levels, which is not the case here. (For example, I can be "precise" with how I rank all 15 movies from one director, especially if they are all from the same genre, but comparing many completely different 5-star films is about nuances that are mostly elusive.) In fact, the order is approximate. This especially goes for the lower 100 movies i.e. roughly the ones from 150 to 300. Each of these films can be treated as having a "margin of error" of roughly +/- 30 places. I tried my best to rank the top 50 as "realistically" as possible, but obviously it'll always be far from perfect.

So what about this "expert commentary"? Here's the cast:

Ed Wood Jr - needs no introduction.

Travolta as Terl (from "Battlefield Earth") - legendary big-budget yet B-movie alien from planet Psychlo, blessing us with his own angles.

Tommy Wiseau - so young (only 156) yet already a legend. The director/star/producer/writer of "The Room" gives us gems of cinematic wisdom that only he can.

Ro-Man - ape-like alien invader from "Robot Monster".

Obviously, they are all just characters with fictional dialog/comments - although nevertheless based on real-life behaviour and real-life movie characters they'd created or helped to create. It's all in good fun, and all similarities to real aliens or film-makers are purely (un)intentional.

Bear in mind that I've read biographies of Wiseau and Wood, plus have watched "Battlefield Earth", "Plan 9", "Bride of the Monster", and "Robot Monster" countless times, hence in order to understand these pearls of genius uttered by them you need to be well-acquainted with their life and work...

I've seen around 4300 movies so far, so I have plenty to pick from. Not to mention the thousands of others that I know stink because I'd watched scenes from them and/or read what they are about, what they are like, who's in them, why they were made. You don't actually have to watch a Wes Anderson stinker with Schwartzman to know it is bad: that is a given.