Movie Rankings: End Credits

If you are just joining us, this is the end of a four part series where I look at the movies in our home collection and how various Internet sites have ranked those movies.  Part 1 covered the ideas behind this series and how I would go about tabulating all of the information, Part 2 looked at the rankings from IMDb, Part 3 looked at scores from Rotten Tomatoes, and Part 4 delved into Metacritics less than complete list of movies.  I had considered posting about a combination score using all three of the sites listed above, but that would still leave out nearly 35 titles that did not have a combination of all three scores; which I know I already did by including Metacritic.  So rather than rehash the formula I used over the last three articles, I am just going to go over my impressions while writing this series as well as what my final takeaway after the last couple of weeks.

The first thing: I used the word "surprise" and variations of it a lot.  Like, a lot-a lot.  Well, a total of 14 times over the course of four articles (not including this one because it is still in the process of being written) seems like a lot when you are writing/reading/rereading them.  In my defense, I could not think of a better way of describing the "Huh. . ." sound I made whenever I came across something that did in fact surprise me.  I was legitimately surprised when I saw how low Tideland ranked from Metacritic's scores, just as I was surprised when I saw that there were only four movies on IMDb that ranked 9.0 and higher; these being The Shawshank Redemption [9.2], The Godfather [9.2], The Godfather: Part II [9.0], and The Dark Knight [9.0].

Which moves onto my next point, that IMDb apparently only has four movies that are worthy of a 9.0 and higher rating.  I know I already touched on this but I kind of wanted to expand on it a bit.  I know my feelings towards Rotten Tomatoes comes across as pretty harsh, which I acknowledge it is, only that I recognize that IMDb's ratings might come across as more pompous.  Kind of.  Only having four films above a 9.0 seems pretty harsh, but I actually appreciate that there are not any 100 scored movies.  I do not think that there should be any movies with a perfect score, or at least to date there shouldn't be.  I do not know if I believe that there is a perfect movie.  Flawless storytelling, memorable soundtrack, perfectly casted, sweeping cinematography, appropriate costumes/set design/props, etc?  Sure there are films where I felt that there was nearly nothing wrong with them, but I still do not know if I would call them perfectly flawless movies.

And then according to Rotten Tomatoes, we have six flawless, 100% Fresh rated films.  Six films out of I cannot figure out how many, are perfect examples of the film medium.  Although apparently not all six films made it to the official Rotten Tomatoes Top 100, despite the fact that Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri has a score of 90% with 343 reviews by critics; I haven't seen TBOE,M, so I cannot comment on the fact that it is part of this list.  Although according to this list, The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi are also the cream of the Top 100 layered crop, sitting respectively at 40 and 23.  So I genuinely have no idea how to interpret this data here.  Maybe a lower score from a larger pool of critics is weighted more than a film with a higher rating from fewer critics?  Maybe their algorithm is on par with the Atiyah-Singer Index Theorem?

And as for what Metacritic finds to be the best movies of all time, there are eight movies earning a 100 point Must See rating, three of which are by Alfred Hitchcock: Rear Window, Vertigo, and Notorious.  As was the case with how Metacritic rated the movies in my own collection, the films that are rated highest here seem to be more varied than the previous two sources.  There are a number of films that I did not find on either such as Three Colors: Red, My Left Foot, and Mean Streets, among a number of others.  This variation I do greatly appreciate, although there is still the issue that 35 of the films in my collection are not listed on Metacritic's site.

So why do this?  Why put together the scores from various sites for all of the movies in our collection?  Why talk about it for over two weeks, dedicating five articles to the whole endeavor?  Because I love movies as a medium.  And after finding out that Tideland, Jackhammer Massacre, and Your Highness are not considered to be watchable films, that does not mean I am going to purge the collection.  If anything, it will make me want to rewatch some of the films that were at the top and bottom of their respective lists, and that is really the whole point of buying movies.  To rewatch them*.



~JWfW/JDub/Jaconian
And the Tale, Boldly Told, of the One


*And if the film has some great commentaries too.  And blooper reels.  And just a butt-ton of special features.  But mainly the commentaries.