EDITORIALS

Lord of the Rings should not be on there at all. Never, ever, ever has such film junk been praised as much as those pieces of filth. Sorry, Mr. Jackson, but your talents as a filmmaker have gone to waste until District 9. Three movies that should be on that list, in no particular order, instead of "LOTR" (there's some corn for the geeks); Watchmen - best ever page to screen adaptation, ever. Crash - best emsemble piece that came out of left field. Batman Begins - best reboot of a dead franchise. Honourable mention goes to Sin City. Debate that fellow cinephiles...

I didn't like half of those movies. T___T The only good movies are with Ryan Reynolds D:

I couldn't disagree with #1 more. LOTR as a whole was fantastic. Watchmen was laughably bad due to horrendous acting and ridiculous tone shifts throughout that destroyed the pacing. Crash was a melodramatic, manipulative piece of garbage. Batman Begins was a great reboot but nothing special in terms of film. It was entertaining, and that's about it. The only thing I agree with is that Sin City deserves a mention. I still don't think it belongs on the list, though.

ugh I hope all this D9 vs. Avatar talks die. Both are completely different films.

guys don't hate the list, hate the people who vote. #1 LOTR does belong there, but I'mm say this I loved the Dark Knight but really its overrated. But I understand why its up there, but why is Up on the list, if anything I'd give it to Monster's Inc. or Finding Nemo even though that movie wasn't all that good either. #6 the only terrible pixar movie is Cars, Up and Wall-E are good pixar films. But it IMDB and most of us don't really care about what they say, hell most don't care about what I say, so its never ending, somebody going to have a problem with this list.

D9 will be on that list soon. imo equal to tdk, as they're different kinds of films. two towers should not be on that list. watchmen as the best adaptation, maybe, but a decent movie at best. nemo was better than up. Up was just more of an accomplishment as it was their 1st in 3D. and pretty much what #5& 6(dqniel) said.

With regards to Lord of the Rings' place on the list, I believe only the first one (Fellowship of the Ring) should be present. I shook my head when the Return of the King won the Oscar, even if it was in recognition of the trilogy. They were all great movies, but the first was easily the film. To replace those two I would add Gran Torino and the Wrestler. I'm also glad Spotless ended up on the list; really a great film. In response to the first post: Watchmen was likely the best literally page-to-screen adaption (every scene looks like it is from the novel) but given it's a graphical novel that is not a terribly grand feat to accomplish if that is your goal. Aside from that, it had it's flaws which certainly should have, and did, keep it out of the top 15. Don't get me wrong, it was good but not great. Crash was weighted down by it's narcissistic self-importance. Batman Begins are awesome fun, and likely the best reboot as you stated - what held it back was the villains. Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul were fairly shallow compared to the Joker, which we all know is who transcended the film to such a height. The Batman-Joker dichotomy makes for great analytical comparison to other existing dichotomies that everyone came out of the movie with something to compare it to. As a result, The Dark Knight became a great film, while Batman made a fun movie unworthy of the top 15.

where's the cronicles of narnia? this list is bullshit

The Fall was a bumbling mess. Visually stunning, however. I agree wholeheartedly with everything #13 said. "Crash was weighted down by it's narcissistic self-importance." Thanks for putting my thoughts into words in a manner better than I could do :p

Up sucks.

Just saw 'Requiem for a Dream' for the first time last week, well deserving to be on the list. For all you people hating, the list is perfect and nothing should be moved or added.

would have liked to see black hawk down whale rider the prestige but i guess its all a matter of opinion anyway

Children of Men should be on this list. So should Once.

No country for old men should definetely be on that list haha everyone hates #1

Gladiator maybe...but children of men?

The Academy has alway's been out of touch with what people have thought was the best picture and what the academy as seen has the best picture it's not a new thing.

Let's be honest with ourselves; Lord of the Rings was a good film. Epic, sweeping, beautifully scored, decently acted. But what made it what it was? Nostalgia factor and the power of the faithful nerd. It's the same reason Star Trek was so good; it relied heavily on what we already knew as the source material, and we were able to fill in the blanks. It allowed for spaces and gaps. That isn't to say they weren't good movies, but they had a lot of momentum and a lot going for them to begin with. I do not feel they belong in the top 15, based on those reasons alone. More movies did more with less; Up and District 9 provide good examples of this. Working outside the limits of a licensed franchise to create something completely unique. I think Gran Torino needs to be in the top 15. District 9, Children of Men. Memento.

Watchmen wasn't better than any of the lord of the rings movies. You are in fact, wrong.

What a bullshit list!!! Who are these idiots that make these lists up!? Whatever... I hate these fuckin' lists they create. It's one persons (or a few) opinion. I would have a completely different list, might have a couple from the above. And DK #1... really thou??? A very overrated movie! Batman Begins was much better.

i live in india and have a diffrent take............... where is the gladiator.where is matrix. have not seen some of them so cannot say but tdk does not deserve to be there.agree with lotr

No Oldboy?!?

I don't understand the following comment made in the post: "Many complain that the Academy –- which is supposed to honor the best films of the year -– is out of touch with the general public, and IMDB's list certainly makes that point loud and clear." How many of these movies won an Oscar for Picture of the Year or Best Animated Film? Most of them have won SOME Oscar. 14. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) - Best Screenplay. 13. Spirited Away (2001) - Best animated movie. 12. The Pianist (2002) - Best Director, Best Screenplay. 11. The Lives of Others (2006) - Best Foreign Film. 10. The Departed (2006) - Best Picture, Screenplay, Director... 8. Wall-E (2008) - Best Animated Movie 2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) - Best Picture And they were ALL in the list nominated for SOME Oscar. So it's not like the Academy is snubbing the general public, they're simply not choosing what they exactly want. Hey, the general public can be pretty dumb.

I think it's an interesting list, but I don't think any list like this will ever really be worth anything. People will like or dislike whatever they want. I don't agree with a few of these, either, but I won't knock the list. At least none of the films up there are really BAD - as in poorly made, poorly shot poorly acted piles of crap like Transformers 2. On the topic of "Best Picture vs General Opinion"... I think there's a disconnect because there's a disconnect for a lot of people as to what exactly film IS. Most people out there consider it purely an entertainment medium. That's great, and those films are fun to watch. This list is a mix of the two ideals, I think. "City of God" and "Requiem" aren't really 'entertaining' in the same sense that "The Dark Knight" is, but they're easier to relate to in a lot of ways, and thus absorb some people more. I'd rank both of those above The Dark Knight, but that's just my opinion, i guess. All of these films are well-made. I think the Academy is looking at more than just "How fun was it", and i know they're ignoring "How much did it make" entirely. The Academy looks more at the art and craft rather than the resulting film. Some people look at a Rembrandt and see a painting of a dude's portrait. Nothing really amazing. Some people - people who have studied the craft of painting and know what they're looking at - will see the incredible detail along with the efficient brushwork and see a masterpiece of subtlety and confidence. This is the same sort of disconnect at play, I think. The academy are made up largely of people involved in film, and they know what they're looking at better than most. That's not to discredit either camp, tho. Many people just like to see entertaining films. The only film on there that I really object to is Wall-E. Wall-E was totally fucking brilliant for about 30-45 minutes. After they got onto the ship, tho, it went downhill fast, but I would have forgiven them that had they ended the film better. The "happily ever after" sort of ending killed it. It sucked all the weight out of the moral. "Don't worry, kids... if you totally destroy the planet and make it unable to sustain life, all you have to do is plant some trees!" So yeah, while i was watching it i was thinking "holy crap, this is possibly the best Pixar film - no, the best animated film - I've ever seen!" and later "oh my god, they totally ruined it!" @40: Trainspotting was released in 1996. @41: Oldboy is overrated. It's not bad, but I think people are obsessed over the hallway scene and the fact that the subject matter and a couple of scenes are somewhat controversial. Making a film about a controversial subject can go one of two ways for me... either it's used to make a point about something - social commentary - or it's used purely to be controversial and thus generate buzz. I think Oldboy falls into the latter category. @39: Matrix was released in 1999. @37: This isn't just a few people's opinions... these are the highest ranked films on IMBD from the year 2000 to now. Thousands of people have rated these as the best of the new millenium. @36: It would be interesting to see where "The Wrestler" and "Let the Right one in" fall on a larger list on IMDB. Maybe they're in the top 20 or 30 somewhere. I disagree with the Hurt Locker. Again, I liked it, but it feels more like a short film that got padded out to be feature length to me. There are a number of scenes that you could cut without hurting the film much, and for as 'realistic' as it's supposed to be, there are a lot of inaccuracies in procedure (aside from the obvious bomb-disposal recklessness of the main character). The suspense was lacking for me as well. @34: I can forgive suggesting "the matrix" or "trainspotting", as maybe those guys didn't know they were done before 2000. You simply need to learn how to read before commenting.

@44: I don't know why people like Pan's Labyrinth, it was weird and had 2 totally different stories going on. I didn't like The Orphanage or whatever his next movie was called either. The Wrestler is much more overrated than Dark Knight and you listed it twice. No to Black Hawk Down It's sad that the only comedies were animated or foreign...any movies from the Frat Pack? Apatow gang? Maybe comedies should just be separate. Also, you're an idiot if you don't think at least one of the LOTR movies should be up there.

@45 Great talk about public opinion vs. the academy. However I totally disagree with you about Wall-E, as I thought it was brilliant all around.

@49: Hehe, yeah... I seem to be in a minority on Wall-E. I still enjoy watching it, but I think when I first saw it I noticed some parallels in the film that apparently Pixar didn't notice or intend or forgot to follow through on. For the first half hour I was looking at Wall-E and the Earth as having a dual relationship. I felt that the character of Wall-E was a representation of the earth. He was fixing a broken planet while at the same time he was falling apart and fixing himself. At the end, the planet was still in a state of ruin but there was a new hope of it returning to it's former state. Wall-E was in a similar situation. He had been 'fixed', but was gone... his personality was lost. But then a little static 'kiss' totally fixed him. That one little thing at the end of the movie really bothers me to this day. Had they just had him only remember one part of his past... only hum that little tune or something... that would have been fitting with the duality between himself and the Earth. He was still there, but it would take time for him to return to his former state. Another ending I thought would have been more fitting would have seen Wall-E and the earth have an opposing relationship... again, as he was fixing the earth he was falling apart. If he had actually died at the end of the film, that relationship would have also been fulfilled. The earth returns to it's former state while Wall-E succumbs and dies. Surely a bittersweet sort of ending, but one that would have given more gravity to the film. I guess in my head either of those would have made for a better ending. The first leaving you with hope for the future without blatantly coming out and doing the typical animation "Happy ever after" sort of cliche. The second would have been harder for a lot of people to swallow, but would have been a better fit for the metaphors going on. I guess I was just really excited towards the end of the film because I could see either of those two playing out in my head, and totally wanted one of them to happen. I just KNEW it wasn't going to be the standard cliche ending. I just knew it. And then they dropped the cliche on me. I was just a bit upset by that.

I am #1 and I am back!!! For all you folks who keep ripping me about Jackson being the producer, I AM WELL AWARE OF THAT. His name is what he lent to the project when he realized it was going to be huge. It take great talent and vision to recognize brilliance, and big balls to put your name on it. But that doesn't excuse putting Jack Black in a semi-lead role for a three hour drama and taking ten years to make three shitty movies that should have been left alone. For McGruff who asked me if Watchmen is better than Godfather, re-read the title of this article you dumb idiot. Interesting though how most people who saw and hated Watchmen didn't read the book. "Hrrmmm.." And yes, I read LOTR in original release format for a project in school. Great book, too much fat, just like the movies. My taste in movies is mine and mine alone. I enjoy movies that deliver on what they promise and nothing less (Waiting... is great example of that, no plot with fantastic humour). That way, I don't feel ripped off like so many of you over analytical types that think you know what your talking about. Peace.

I'd just like to add that this is NOT the "best films of the new Millennium", this is what the general audience voted for, that's all it is. The actual Top films are often intellectual and brings something extra and different to the cinema. Such examples, in my oppinion, are Watchmen, Cloverfield and Dark Knight - quite few, cba to get a larger list, those are just at the top of my head, havn't seen District 9 yet because it hasn't had premier in Sweden (sigh... Globalization my ass) but I think it will be on the list, same goes for Inglourious Basterds.

generalwoundwort ur list sucks except for the movies already on the list and #48 fightclub was in 1999..nice and why do u ppl like children of men so much and #33 gran torino? children of men? district 9? the only one that actually deserves to be on the list is memento and it is

Where are all the Seth Rogen pieces of crap!???????

Revenge Of The Sith. I think they should include this film, as Lucas did finally 'get it right' in the final installment of the Star Wars prequels, and it is a pretty meaningful, important bridge to the original trilogy. I suspect that in a few years, after the Jar Jar bruises go away from the collective skins of Star Wars geeks, Revenge at least will get some recognition.

transformers should have been on there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#61, thanks for proving my point.