The Best Movies of 2009 and 2008

[CJackson]

2009



2008



2008 box office - ranked qualitatively from one to ten; with box office rank to the right of quality rank.

[Fighter]

'Tyson' is an excellent film.....highly recommended

[Sixx]

I wanna see the Hurt Locker bad!!!!!

[Elvis]

Wow no Gran Torino on the 2008 list?

Where are you pulling this stuff? Rotten Tomatoes?

[CJackson]

[jhiggy23]

Has anyone here seen The Cove? I realllly want to see it and hurt it was fantastic.

[surfdude12]

The Fall was my favorite of '08

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Has anyone here seen The Cove? I realllly want to see it and hurt it was fantastic.

Nope. That and 500 Days of Summer, Moon and The Hurt Locker never made it to my area.

[JTStarkiller]

That sucks. Those are three of the best films of the year.

[CJackson]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Wow no Gran Torino on the 2008 list?

Where are you pulling this stuff? Rotten Tomatoes?

Rotten tomatoes, MRQE and Metecritic, to be exact. I find movies that have one hundred or more reviews, 80% and higher popularity, and ratings that exceed 7/10. This is combined with data from MRQE and Metacritic so that pictures can be balanced out. For instance, if a movie got a higher number on one aggregate and a lower number on another, a third aggregate is used to determine that movie's balance.

See below:

The Dark Knight 94, Average Rating: 8.5/10 | MRQE: 87 | Metacritic: 82
Man On Wire 100, Average Rating: 8.4/10 | MRQE: 85 | Metacritic: 89

RT lists MoW as being 100% and TDK as 94%. The average for each film is 8.5 and 8.4 respectively. Though, MoW rates higher on the tomatometer it has a lower average. MRQE lists TDK at 87 and MoW two points behind, with 85. The score so far is TDK: 2; MoW: 1. BUT WAIT! Metacritic has MoW seven points ahead of TDK. Now the score is even at 2 - 2. Many films are like this, and come down to personal preference as to which picture is better. What isn't subjective is that critics consider TDK and MoW to be among the best films released last year.

This is just a brief introduction to my system for determining a movie's worth. It's not perfect, hence my altering it into different gro$$ groups and then using the superior-inferior system (it's not really fair to have indy films no one has heard of clogging up the top few spots).

To conclude, I'll not consider watching a film in theater, or purchasing it on blu-ray unless it is 90% or higher and 7.5/10+ at RT, 75+ at MRQE and 75+ at Metacritic; 5.0 out 5 overall and 5.0 out of 5 for video here at blu-ray.com

[coralfangs]

I did not expect Ponyo to make that much

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by CJackson

Rotten tomatoes, MRQE and Metecritic, to be exact. I find movies that have one hundred or more reviews, 80% and higher popularity, and ratings that exceed 7/10. This is combined with data from MRQE and Metacritic so that pictures can be balanced out. For instance, if a movie got a higher number on one aggregate and a lower number on another, a third aggregate is used to determine that movie's balance.

See below:

The Dark Knight 94, Average Rating: 8.5/10 | MRQE: 87 | Metacritic: 82
Man On Wire 100, Average Rating: 8.4/10 | MRQE: 85 | Metacritic: 89

RT lists MoW as being 100% and TDK as 94%. The average for each film is 8.5 and 8.4 respectively. Though, MoW rates higher on the tomatometer it has a lower average. MRQE lists TDK at 87 and MoW two points behind, with 85. The score so far is TDK: 2; MoW: 1. BUT WAIT! Metacritic has MoW seven points ahead of TDK. Now the score is even at 2 - 2. Many films are like this, and come down to personal preference as to which picture is better. What isn't subjective is that critics consider TDK and MoW to be among the best films released last year.

This is just a brief introduction to my system for determining a movie's worth. It's not perfect, hence my altering it into different gro$$ groups and then using the superior-inferior system (it's not really fair to have indy films no one has heard of clogging up the top few spots).

To conclude, I'll not consider watching a film in theater, or purchasing it on blu-ray unless it is 90% or higher and 7.5/10+ at RT, 75+ at MRQE and 75+ at Metacritic; 5.0 out 5 overall and 5.0 out of 5 for video here at blu-ray.com

I appreciate the effort you put in and your careful consideration of movies but it is absolutely ridiculous to me that you would possibly consider this inherently flawed system as being the sole predictor of a film's "worth" and whether you will even consider viewing it.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by coralfangs

I did not expect Ponyo to make that much

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ponyo.htm

I'm confused. Does domestic still mean America despite it being made in Japan?

Anyways domestic and foreign total up to almost 200 million. Really hope it comes to blu-ray because I didn't get to see it.

[CJackson]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I appreciate the effort you put in and your careful consideration of movies but it is absolutely ridiculous to me that you would possibly consider this inherently flawed system as being the sole predictor of a film's "worth" and whether you will even consider viewing it.

What's more ridiculous, going out to see a picture like The Dark Knight based on the online numbers, whichis odds on favor of being decent, or a mixed bag like Quantum of Solace based solely on it being a Bond picture; the latter of which is (critically) inferior to the former. I'm not loose with my money, and unless the odds are in favor of it being good I think it's rubbish. Check the critical ratings for the all-time best pictures, there aren't any 60s or 70s among them. If people didn't spend on the latest CGI demo reels (Transformers) and demanded quality then there might be more classics.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by CJackson

What's more ridiculous, going out to see a picture like The Dark Knight based on the online numbers, whichis odds on favor of being decent, or a mixed bag like Quantum of Solace based solely on it being a Bond picture; the latter of which is (critically) inferior to the former. I'm not loose with my money, and unless the odds are in favor of it being good I think it's rubbish. Check the critical ratings for the all-time best pictures, there aren't any 60s or 70s among them. If people didn't spend on the latest CGI demo reels (Transformers) and demanded quality then there might be more classics.

I am not loose with money either and I do not view films in theaters anymore...I have netflix. My post was about viewing films in general, not only about seeing them in theaters or buying them on blu (I never blind-buy), because you essentially said that you will not even view a film unless your flawed system says it is a "sure thing." If you get a netflix movie and don't like it, it turns out to be maybe $1 loss.

You are right about the numbers in that there are few classics in the 60s, although there are many films in the 70s which are widely liked and have been at least best picture nominees. a perfect example is forrest gump, which won best picture with a 72% Rotten Tomatoes rating.

I also disagree with your last point about ppl spending money on CGI fests and it being directly attributable to the lack of classics in modern cinema. People have been spending money on mindless, entertaining films for decades (how about westerns??), yet classics have come out of every decade. The only difference with modern films is the use of CGI, which is a natural progression of cinema, just like sound and color. There are still films being made today that potentially could be considered classics in the years to come (it is impossible to know at this very moment--it took Blade Runner more than a decade to be fully appreciated). An example is The Lives of Others. So, I don't think the propensity for many filmgoers to venture towards simply entertaining films instead of films with cinematic value has much to do with whether classics are created or not.

In summary, I have no problem with your method, so you really had no reason to get defensive. At the end of the day, you decide which films you want to view based on your method, and myself and others will do the same. My entire point was that you are really selling yourself short by only viewing films with high ratings. (note: my favorite film is The Fountain, which held steady with a 50% rating. I also love Malick's The New World, which also has in the 50s.)

[goochspot]

I know this is a pain in the butt request, but I can't see the list at work. Could someone list the movies? If you all don't feel like it, no worries. I can't really comment unless I know the movies we are discussing. Thanks!

[repete66211]

I can appreciate your use of resources to help you spend your time and money wisely, but your thread title should indicate "highest rated" rather than "best" movies.

This is just a brief introduction to my system for determining a movie's worth.

You can't determine a movie's worth until after you see it. Using subjective data objectively to evaluate a subjective experience is, as you note, inherently flawed. While doing so can give you a good idea of what movies you may or may not enjoy, you're going to miss some good movies if you stick to it too religiously. Besides, this sounds like something Mr. J. Evans Pritchard would say.