Your Favorite Films of All Time

[Flyersfan1]

naah I like Cameron, but the last movie I enjoy watching of him is True Lies

+1 one of Ahnold's finest.

[User Was Banned]

I think the CG in Prometheus was really well done, even though people like to hate on the film.

I loved Prometheus, and I agree. Never really understood the hate either. Perhaps because I was never a diehard Aliens fan.

[hashbaz]

Ran across this list of favorites as voted by "Hollywood insiders":

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/list/100-greatest-films-all-time-713215

The top ten are an interesting mix of de rigueur "bests", cinematic pioneers, and E.T.

The Godfather
The Wizard of Oz
Citizen Kane
The Shawshank Redemption
Pulp Fiction
Casablanca
The Godfather Part II
E.T.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Schindler's List

[Malphas]

CGI is atrocious and lazy. It's pitiful when movies from 30 years ago like Gremlins, that used physical effects looks 100 times better than a CGI-dependent movie today.

Show Image

Show Image

In my opinion CGI should be used sparingly for non-offensive things like adding depth to scenes, like shrapnel, particle effects, concealing wire work, or non-realistic stylistic stuff like Sin City. Creating CGI dinosaurs or aliens or whatever and your movie is about as convincing to look at as Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Did you really just use Paul as an example of modern CGI...?

Well considering it is an example of modern CGI, yes. There are dozens of movies with similarly terrible effects, you can't just pretend they don't exist. Swap it out for Golem or whatever if you want, it's still just as bad.

Right, but you're pulling an example from the bottom of the barrel. That's like saying the English Premier League sucks because you watched Cardiff play Fulham.

You mentioned Gollum. I think his most recent incarnation in The Hobbit was very well done:

Also, the subtle uses of CGI. For example, in The Walking Dead:

and

I don't agree. Gollum looks just as jarringly fake as Paul to me. There's a massive difference between even the best CGI available and physical effects from decades ago.

[hashbaz]

CGI is atrocious and lazy. It's pitiful when movies from 30 years ago like Gremlins, that used physical effects looks 100 times better than a CGI-dependent movie today.

In my opinion CGI should be used sparingly for non-offensive things like adding depth to scenes, like shrapnel, particle effects, concealing wire work, or non-realistic stylistic stuff like Sin City. Creating CGI dinosaurs or aliens or whatever and your movie is about as convincing to look at as Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Are you trolling here?  Obviously we are arguing taste, but your stated opinion is just kind of laughable.  CG is the only viable way to do wide shots of, say, dinosaurs running at full speed.  Without question CG is overused and abused, but it has its place, and that place is waaaay larger than shrapnel and background extensions.

Calling out Gollum is particularly ridiculous, as he is the crown jewel of photoreal character animation done right.  CG Gollum can act and emote and carry scenes standing next to photographed actors.  A puppet, or a contortionist in prosthetics would be far more jarring.

[hashbaz]

P.S. I'm very excited to see where the new Star Wars films end up in the visual vs. practical effects spectrum.  Abrams knows how to use CG to great effect, but he's also made it clear that he understands that a big part of why the prequels sucked was their terrible abuse of visual effects.  I'd love to see Episode VII spark a renaissance in puppets and practical effects.

[jdcarpe]

Calling out Gollum is particularly ridiculous, as he is the crown jewel of photoreal character animation done right.  CG Gollum can act and emote and carry scenes standing next to photographed actors.  A puppet, or a contortionist in prosthetics would be far more jarring.

In contrast to CG Yoda.

[hashbaz]

Calling out Gollum is particularly ridiculous, as he is the crown jewel of photoreal character animation done right.  CG Gollum can act and emote and carry scenes standing next to photographed actors.  A puppet, or a contortionist in prosthetics would be far more jarring.

In contrast to CG Yoda.

Show Image

Yep.

terrible abuse of visual effects.

[jdcarpe]

These were both great films for their respective eras:




Short Circuit (1986)

WALL·E (2008)

[Malphas]

CGI is atrocious and lazy. It's pitiful when movies from 30 years ago like Gremlins, that used physical effects looks 100 times better than a CGI-dependent movie today.

In my opinion CGI should be used sparingly for non-offensive things like adding depth to scenes, like shrapnel, particle effects, concealing wire work, or non-realistic stylistic stuff like Sin City. Creating CGI dinosaurs or aliens or whatever and your movie is about as convincing to look at as Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Are you trolling here?  Obviously we are arguing taste, but your stated opinion is just kind of laughable.  CG is the only viable way to do wide shots of, say, dinosaurs running at full speed.  Without question CG is overused and abused, but it has its place, and that place is waaaay larger than shrapnel and background extensions.

Calling out Gollum is particularly ridiculous, as he is the crown jewel of photoreal character animation done right.  CG Gollum can act and emote and carry scenes standing next to photographed actors.  A puppet, or a contortionist in prosthetics would be far more jarring.

I disagree. All I see when I look at Gollum is a video-game model placed into a live-action scene. It's as jarring as Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Examples like Gremlins, Legend, Star Wars, etc. that all used physical effects for non-human characters didn't do that. Good directors don't need gratuitous shots like your running dinosaurs example to make a good movie, or can limit the time and use speed, motion blur, etc. to keep it to an absolute minimum. I remember when Jurassic Park was released and the wide, panoramic shots of grazing dinosaurs looked absolutely atrocious, even at the time.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Ones I failed to mention:

- Apollo 13
- The Green Mile
- A Few Good Men
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
- Star Trek: First Contact
- Animal House (such a classic)

There are many others, but I'm failing to recall them at the moment...

These were both great films for their respective eras:

Show Image

Short Circuit (1986)

WALL·E (2008)

Yes! Short Circuit was such an underrated film, and to be perfectly honest, the sequel had much better acting than the original. It makes my honorable mentions list for sure. Long live Johnny 5.

[hashbaz]

I disagree. All I see when I look at Gollum is a video-game model placed into a live-action scene. It's as jarring as Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Examples like Gremlins, Legend, Star Wars, etc. that all used physical effects for non-human characters didn't do that.

Puppets have their own limitations and seams which are very visible, but ignored as part of the suspension of disbelief (just as with CG).  Facial articulation is generally at a minimum (see Yoda), and you are very limited in the kinds of shots you can do.

Good directors don't need gratuitous shots like your running dinosaurs example to make a good movie, or can limit the time and use speed, motion blur, etc. to keep it to an absolute minimum.

You're talking about the kind of cinematic compromises that directors _had_ to make in the past precisely because of the limitations of special effects.  Would you call wide shots of running dinosaurs gratuitous if puppets could achieve them?  One hugely important effect of Jurassic Park was to free up directors and DPs to compose shots the way they would choose to compose them if they were filming live creatures, rather than being artificially constrained by the cutaway floor rig necessary for puppet Yoda's performance.  That is a huge leap forward, cinematically, independent of the quality of the CG.

[noisyturtle]

Calling out Gollum is particularly ridiculous, as he is the crown jewel of photoreal character animation done right.  CG Gollum can act and emote and carry scenes standing next to photographed actors.  A puppet, or a contortionist in prosthetics would be far more jarring.

In contrast to CG Yoda.

Show Image

I can't say for absolute certainty, but I am pretty sure the pic on the left is from Soul Calibur which makes that an unfair comparison.

[Malphas]

Puppets have their own limitations and seams which are very visible, but ignored as part of the suspension of disbelief (just as with CG).  Facial articulation is generally at a minimum (see Yoda), and you are very limited in the kinds of shots you can do.

Yet it still looks 100 times better than CGI. The fact you have a physical thing there in the same space as the actors, and subject to the same lighting and camera conditions makes a massive difference, and trumps any downsides like lack of facial movement.

You're talking about the kind of cinematic compromises that directors _had_ to make in the past precisely because of the limitations of special effects.  Would you call wide shots of running dinosaurs gratuitous if puppets could achieve them?  One hugely important effect of Jurassic Park was to free up directors and DPs to compose shots the way they would choose to compose them if they were filming live creatures, rather than being artificially constrained by the cutaway floor rig necessary for puppet Yoda's performance.  That is a huge leap forward, cinematically, independent of the quality of the CG.

If you can't make the shot look decent, and it's superfluous to the plot then yeah it's gratuitous. I don't really see how it's of any benefit cinematically that CGI allows directors to make those kinds of shots, when it looks like a pile of crap and makes them too lazy to try and frame the shots in a less jarring way, which they would have done in the past due to the limitations of physical effects (although actually, bad/lazy directors just used claymation, and did the same crap as bad/lazy directors today do with CGI).

[engicoder]

I think my favorite movie to date has to be O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Every scene, every line.

Glorious.

Fantastic adaptation of the Odyssey. One of my favorites as well. Another great John Goodman performance.

[hashbaz]

Puppets have their own limitations and seams which are very visible, but ignored as part of the suspension of disbelief (just as with CG).  Facial articulation is generally at a minimum (see Yoda), and you are very limited in the kinds of shots you can do.

Yet it still looks 100 times better than CGI. The fact you have a physical thing there in the same space as the actors, and subject to the same lighting and camera conditions makes a massive difference, and trumps any downsides like lack of facial movement.

You're talking about the kind of cinematic compromises that directors _had_ to make in the past precisely because of the limitations of special effects.  Would you call wide shots of running dinosaurs gratuitous if puppets could achieve them?  One hugely important effect of Jurassic Park was to free up directors and DPs to compose shots the way they would choose to compose them if they were filming live creatures, rather than being artificially constrained by the cutaway floor rig necessary for puppet Yoda's performance.  That is a huge leap forward, cinematically, independent of the quality of the CG.

If you can't make the shot look decent, and it's superfluous to the plot then yeah it's gratuitous. I don't really see how it's of any benefit cinematically that CGI allows directors to make those kinds of shots, when it looks like a pile of crap and makes them too lazy to try and frame the shots in a less jarring way, which they would have done in the past due to the limitations of physical effects (although actually, bad/lazy directors just used claymation, and did the same crap as bad/lazy directors today do with CGI).

Plot is not the only consideration.  If I want to convey the majesty, speed, and dynamism of dinosaurs in my film, but can't use wide shots, or tracking shots, or helicopter shots due to constraints imposed by the puppets, my film is diminished as a result.  There are tradeoffs to consider, as always.  But the fact that I don't have the _choice_ to do X is an arbitrary constraint that has nothing to do with filmmaking per se.

There is nothing magical about the cinematic conventions of 80s-era fantasy and sci-fi films.  Those conventions were dictated to a large degree by the technology of the day (i.e., they were arbitrary).  Saying that stepping out of those bounds is automatically gratuitous or lazy really shows a disrespect toward and ignorance of filmmaking.

[Malphas]

Puppets have their own limitations and seams which are very visible, but ignored as part of the suspension of disbelief (just as with CG).  Facial articulation is generally at a minimum (see Yoda), and you are very limited in the kinds of shots you can do.

Yet it still looks 100 times better than CGI. The fact you have a physical thing there in the same space as the actors, and subject to the same lighting and camera conditions makes a massive difference, and trumps any downsides like lack of facial movement.

You're talking about the kind of cinematic compromises that directors _had_ to make in the past precisely because of the limitations of special effects.  Would you call wide shots of running dinosaurs gratuitous if puppets could achieve them?  One hugely important effect of Jurassic Park was to free up directors and DPs to compose shots the way they would choose to compose them if they were filming live creatures, rather than being artificially constrained by the cutaway floor rig necessary for puppet Yoda's performance.  That is a huge leap forward, cinematically, independent of the quality of the CG.

If you can't make the shot look decent, and it's superfluous to the plot then yeah it's gratuitous. I don't really see how it's of any benefit cinematically that CGI allows directors to make those kinds of shots, when it looks like a pile of crap and makes them too lazy to try and frame the shots in a less jarring way, which they would have done in the past due to the limitations of physical effects (although actually, bad/lazy directors just used claymation, and did the same crap as bad/lazy directors today do with CGI).

Plot is not the only consideration.  If I want to convey the majesty, speed, and dynamism of dinosaurs in my film, but can't use wide shots, or tracking shots, or helicopter shots due to constraints imposed by the puppets, my film is diminished as a result.  There are tradeoffs to consider, as always.  But the fact that I don't have the _choice_ to do X is an arbitrary constraint that has nothing to do with filmmaking per se.

There is nothing magical about the cinematic conventions of 80s-era fantasy and sci-fi films.  Those conventions were dictated to a large degree by the technology of the day (i.e., they were arbitrary).  Saying that stepping out of those bounds is automatically gratuitous or lazy really shows a disrespect toward and ignorance of filmmaking.

You don't understand, I never claimed those things are automatically gratuitous or unnecessary in themselves, it's just that they look terrible due to CGI, there's no way around that. As I said, bad and lazy directors used to do the exact same thing with claymation, and those films are generally regarded as laughable now as a result. CGI has more public acceptance, but really the typical audience is hardly that discerning. I stand by my opinion that CGI looks like trash when used in the kind of circumstances you describe and the films are worse as a result of simply omitting or directing around those types of scenes.

There was no "majesty, speed, and dynamism" in Jurassic Park, there was just a load of really cheesy looking shots of unconvincing videogame dinosaurs plastered onto the screen. The close-up scenes where they used animatronics and puppets, on the other hand, looked fine.

[hashbaz]

You don't understand, I never claimed those things are automatically gratuitous or unnecessary in themselves, it's just that they look terrible due to CGI, there's no way around that.

There is if you don't think the CG looks terrible.

There was no "majesty, speed, and dynamism" in Jurassic Park, there was just a load of really cheesy looking shots of unconvincing videogame dinosaurs plastered onto the screen. The close-up scenes where they used animatronics and puppets, on the other hand, looked fine.

To me, the robot dinosaurs looked very fake, especially the T-rex.  I much preferred the CG shots in 1993, and I still do today.  They look dynamic, alive, and very real.  The raptors in the kitchen sequence is a great example of marrying the puppets and the CG dinosaurs that I think works a lot better than the T-rex scenes, but even there, the raptors look static and dead in the puppet shots (with the exception of the raptor leg rig that they used to do the clicking claw effect, that was very effective and looked great).

Good directors don't need gratuitous shots like your running dinosaurs example to make a good movie, or can limit the time and use speed, motion blur, etc. to keep it to an absolute minimum.

I've been responding primarily to this statement, which I think does strongly imply that cinematic compromise is the way to go, and if you want to transcend the limitations of puppets, well, that's just gratuitous.

[Malphas]

Well my point is using any effect that looks terrible when it isn't relevant to the plot is gratuitous yes. And that cinematic compromise is preferable to fake-looking CGI. I simply can't agree with your assessment of CGI on the whole. It just stands out a mile away to me as looking separate from the rest of the shot, in a lot of cases it's evident in the performances of the actors as well, and clear they're not working with what the audience is seeing (mistimed reactions, badly lined up eye contact, etc.), which isn't the case with physical effects.

If you compare Gollum to the witch from Legend, the latter may look a little bit off, but at least it fits in with the rest of the scene, whilst Gollum just looks thrown in there from a completely different medium (which is because it is, I guess). I know I've said it a few times now, but the best way I can describe it is by comparing it to movies where cell-shaded characters are put into live action movies for effect (Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Cool World, the music video for Opposites Attract), it's that same jarring effect I get when I see things like CGI characters in movies.

[Puddsy]

I've seen Lost in Translation 38 times.

[Frenir]

I've seen Lost in Translation 38 times.

W-what. That's insane.

[engicoder]

I've seen Lost in Translation 38 times.

Great movie. Bill Murray, young Scarlett Johanssen, great pacing.

[tp4tissue]

Ones I failed to mention:

- Apollo 13
- The Green Mile
- A Few Good Men
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
- Star Trek: First Contact
- Animal House (such a classic)

There are many others, but I'm failing to recall them at the moment...

These were both great films for their respective eras:

Show Image

Short Circuit (1986)

WALL·E (2008)

Yes! Short Circuit was such an underrated film, and to be perfectly honest, the sequel had much better acting than the original. It makes my honorable mentions list for sure. Long live Johnny 5.

short circuit is the primary reason Tp4 wishes to become a machine..

[tp4tissue]

I've seen Lost in Translation 38 times.

W-what. That's insane.

yea.. it really is insane.. i mean.. why?

please elaborate..

[User Was Banned]

Yet it still looks 100 times better than CGI. The fact you have a physical thing there in the same space as the actors, and subject to the same lighting and camera conditions makes a massive difference, and trumps any downsides like lack of facial movement.

If you can't make the shot look decent, and it's superfluous to the plot then yeah it's gratuitous. I don't really see how it's of any benefit cinematically that CGI allows directors to make those kinds of shots, when it looks like a pile of crap and makes them too lazy to try and frame the shots in a less jarring way, which they would have done in the past due to the limitations of physical effects (although actually, bad/lazy directors just used claymation, and did the same crap as bad/lazy directors today do with CGI).

lol I just can't even take you seriously anymore.

Yet it still looks 100 times better than CGI. The fact you have a physical thing there in the same space as the actors, and subject to the same lighting and camera conditions makes a massive difference, and trumps any downsides like lack of facial movement.

There was no "majesty, speed, and dynamism" in Jurassic Park, there was just a load of really cheesy looking shots of unconvincing videogame dinosaurs plastered onto the screen. The close-up scenes where they used animatronics and puppets, on the other hand, looked fine.

You're whining about CG characters looking fake while extolling the use of stuffed animals on strings.

Muppets, so immersive.

[tp4tissue]

Yet it still looks 100 times better than CGI. The fact you have a physical thing there in the same space as the actors, and subject to the same lighting and camera conditions makes a massive difference, and trumps any downsides like lack of facial movement.

If you can't make the shot look decent, and it's superfluous to the plot then yeah it's gratuitous. I don't really see how it's of any benefit cinematically that CGI allows directors to make those kinds of shots, when it looks like a pile of crap and makes them too lazy to try and frame the shots in a less jarring way, which they would have done in the past due to the limitations of physical effects (although actually, bad/lazy directors just used claymation, and did the same crap as bad/lazy directors today do with CGI).

lol I just can't even take you seriously anymore.

Yet it still looks 100 times better than CGI. The fact you have a physical thing there in the same space as the actors, and subject to the same lighting and camera conditions makes a massive difference, and trumps any downsides like lack of facial movement.

There was no "majesty, speed, and dynamism" in Jurassic Park, there was just a load of really cheesy looking shots of unconvincing videogame dinosaurs plastered onto the screen. The close-up scenes where they used animatronics and puppets, on the other hand, looked fine.

You're whining about CG characters looking fake while extolling the use of stuffed animals on strings.

Muppets, so immersive.

hahahahhaha....   

The reason Jurassic park held up so well, even on Bluray is because of good props and animatron.

However... Given how much "effects" is expected in the modern SPACE ADVENTURE,  you're not going to get ANYWHERE with props..  you might as well CGI the whole thing...

It's come a long way..  You just need $150 million dollars and the movie is guaranteed to at least LOOK GREAT...

[fohat.digs]

Black and white is awesome.

[Badwrench]

Back on topic -------> a list of my favorite movies 

Aliens
Terminator 1/2
The Last Starfighter
Wall-e
Lord of the Rings (the first 3)
Blade Runner
Indiana Jones 1/2/3
Idiocracy
Galaxy Quest
Tron 1/2
Dr. No
Scott Pilgrim
The Green Mile
Big Trouble in Little China
Akira
Ghost in the Shell
The Matrix
Army of Darkness
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Spaceballs
Shawshank Redemtion
Starwars 4/5
Star Trek 2
Back to the Future
The Hunt for Red October
The Road Warrior
Spirited Away


I am sure I missed some, but these are all at the top of my list.  If any of these were to be on TV, I will sit and watch them, even with commercials. 

[Air tree]

I watch so many films, it's amazing how they all mesh together and I don't remember while writing up a list but once someone lists it off, I yell "Oh that's right!, I love that movie!"

[HoffmanMyster]

I watch so many films, it's amazing how they all mesh together and I don't remember while writing up a list but once someone lists it off, I yell "Oh that's right!, I love that movie!"

You should compile a list of all the movies you've seen.  I'm curious to see.   

[Air tree]

I watch so many films, it's amazing how they all mesh together and I don't remember while writing up a list but once someone lists it off, I yell "Oh that's right!, I love that movie!"

You should compile a list of all the movies you've seen.  I'm curious to see.   

Maybe one day, That's a lot of work. I've seen a good amount of ****ty forgettable movies also so it's hard to compile a full list. I'll get started and I'll post my results once I feel I have enough remembered

[HoffmanMyster]

I watch so many films, it's amazing how they all mesh together and I don't remember while writing up a list but once someone lists it off, I yell "Oh that's right!, I love that movie!"

You should compile a list of all the movies you've seen.  I'm curious to see.   

Maybe one day, That's a lot of work. I've seen a good amount of ****ty forgettable movies also so it's hard to compile a full list. I'll get started and I'll post my results once I feel I have enough remembered

I'm not sure the scope of your movie watching (and you probably won't know for sure until you're done with your list), but I know that I've seen 546 movies.  Movies have never been my strong suit (I watch more TV than movies), so you likely have seen more movies than me, but I'd be surprised if you're above 2,000.  Shouldn't be too hard.    My list only took about 3 days to put together. 

[Air tree]

I watch so many films, it's amazing how they all mesh together and I don't remember while writing up a list but once someone lists it off, I yell "Oh that's right!, I love that movie!"

You should compile a list of all the movies you've seen.  I'm curious to see.   

Maybe one day, That's a lot of work. I've seen a good amount of ****ty forgettable movies also so it's hard to compile a full list. I'll get started and I'll post my results once I feel I have enough remembered

I'm not sure the scope of your movie watching (and you probably won't know for sure until you're done with your list), but I know that I've seen 546 movies.  Movies have never been my strong suit (I watch more TV than movies), so you likely have seen more movies than me, but I'd be surprised if you're above 2,000.  Shouldn't be too hard.    My list only took about 3 days to put together.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out I haven't really watched all that many. After all it could just seem like a lot. I'll tally it up and come back with answers.  )

[smknjoe]

So many to choose from, but off the top of my head:

The Life of Brian
The Meaning of Life
The Holy Grail (in that order)
Blazing Saddles
The History of the World Part (())
The Kentucky Fried Movie
Haiku Tunnel
Spaceballs
Airplane
The Wraith
Clash of the Titans (Original 80's version)
A Clockwork Orange
Any Hitchcock Movie
Sneakers
War Games
Electric Dreams
Takedown (aka Trackdown)
Half Baked
Faster ****cat, Kill, Kill!
Goonies
Temple of Doom
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Die Hard
A River Runs Through It
Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang
Willy Wonka and Chocolate Factory (original)
The Doors
The Wall
Spies Like Us
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes
Tron (original)(sequel blew chunks)
Escape from New York
Big Trouble in Little China
All of the "Dirty Harry" Movies
Up in Smoke
Nice Dreams
Beverly Hills Cop
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Revenge of the Nerds
Vacation
European Vacation
Christmas Vacation
Christine
Most of Kubrick's stuff
Better Off Dead (how could I leave that one out?)
Office Space
Clerks
Home Alone
A Christmas Story
Disorderlies
Ghostbusters
Stand By Me
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Graduate
Young Frankenstein
Trading Places
Animal House
American Psycho
American Beauty
Tommy Boy
The Naked Gun
Scrooged
Beetlejuice
One Crazy Summer

...I'll try to stop now...wait...one more...

[dustinhxc]

The Fifth Element, X-Files, Alien.

[noisyturtle]

Any gorehounds out there? Not my favorite genre, but sometimes I go on a gore bender and watch a bunch of brutal films in like a week. Satisfies me for about 6 months. Is that weird?

[Harrowed]

Okay, movies I absolutely love:

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Memento
12 Angry Men
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Other favorites:

Watchmen
The Pianist
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
Ink
American History X
Django (1966 version)
Pulp Fiction
The Last Samurai
Lord of War
Old Boy
The Prestige
There Will Be Blood
Die Hard
First Blood (I just ignore the franchise made after, this movie alone is a masterpiece)
Rainman

Let's just stop here, there could always be more...

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

The Naked Gun

Oh man, how did I forget those??? Classics...

Also, John Candy movies. Uncle Buck is my favorite overall, but Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is a close second. Plus his appearance in National Lampoon's Vacation (another classic comedy).

[Lanx]

not one person said robocop?

puts into perspective just how much peter weller did to make robocop 2014 suckass.

[smknjoe]

The Naked Gun

Oh man, how did I forget those??? Classics...

Also, John Candy movies. Uncle Buck is my favorite overall, but Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is a close second. Plus his appearance in National Lampoon's Vacation (another classic comedy).

I tried to not repeat too many movies that others already posted, but yeah those are all good movies. I put the Vacation movies in my list.

Candy was hilarious...I can't believe I left out "Armed and Dangerous" with Eugene Levy and "Stripes" and "The Blues Brothers". The SCTV TV series was great.

[hashbaz]

Christmas Vacation is a venerable holiday tradition in my home.

Also, have we really gotten to page 5 without Ghostbusters getting a mention?  One of the greatest films of all time.

[smknjoe]

Christmas Vacation is a venerable holiday tradition in my home.

Also, have we really gotten to page 5 without Ghostbusters getting a mention?  One of the greatest films of all time.

Re-read my list, Hash.

[hashbaz]

Christmas Vacation is a venerable holiday tradition in my home.

Also, have we really gotten to page 5 without Ghostbusters getting a mention?  One of the greatest films of all time.

Re-read my list, Hash.

Ok good, as long as someone covered it.

[fohat.digs]

Also, have we really gotten to page 5 without Ghostbusters getting a mention? 

Ghostbusters was great.

How do we have a Peter Weller video without a mention of Buckaroo Banzai?

[baldgye]

I don't have an order for them but;

Alien
Aliens
Blade Runner
Terminator 2
Vanilla Sky
Lost in Translation
Princes Mononoke
Primer
The Matrix
Anchorman
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Life of Brian
Akria


Probably others too...

[jwaz]

Blade Runner

Have you seen the fan edit? Amazing.

[baldgye]

Blade Runner

Have you seen the fan edit? Amazing.

Which one? I think I've seen it... but I've seen it so many times that all the versions have melded into one lol

I just googled some and one removed the 'Deckard is a replicant' theme while the other seems to be just a longer cut (done in 2008) which dsnt seem to add much more than the directors cut or later longer versions.

I think the directors cut is the best version and watching it in HD is really great, its surprising how much it adds to the look of the movie. That said I think if you like Blade Runner you should really read (as an accompaniment) Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. They are not the same and the characters are not the same but Blade Runner paints the world and the music while **** fills in the pieces and they really work well together.

[noisyturtle]

not one person said robocop?

puts into perspective just how much peter weller did to make robocop 2014 suckass.

You would love this: http://www.ourrobocopremake.com/watch.html

[Badwrench]

Blade Runner

Have you seen the fan edit? Amazing.

Which one? I think I've seen it... but I've seen it so many times that all the versions have melded into one lol

I just googled some and one removed the 'Deckard is a replicant' theme while the other seems to be just a longer cut (done in 2008) which dsnt seem to add much more than the directors cut or later longer versions.

I think the directors cut is the best version and watching it in HD is really great, its surprising how much it adds to the look of the movie. That said I think if you like Blade Runner you should really read (as an accompaniment) Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. They are not the same and the characters are not the same but Blade Runner paints the world and the music while **** fills in the pieces and they really work well together.

I could not agree more.  The HD "directors cut" felt like a new movie.  Soooo gooood.   

[User Was Banned]

Love Actually.