
Show HN: 5000 best movies - arekp
http://5000best.com/movies/
======
Zimahl
The problem with these rankings (assuming they are from IMDB) is that they are
more friendly to contemporary, Internet-age movies and TV. Anything older than
about 30 years is significantly down further in the list.

As an example, I can't imagine a world where 'The Avengers' is better than
'Schindler's List', 'Godfather, Part 2', or 'Pulp Fiction' (just 3 examples).

A few stupid entries: #1721 'I Love Lucy' - easily considered by critics as
the best TV comedy of all time yet barely in the top 20% of all tv and movies?
I can't even find the MASH TV show, only the movie. Pretty weird considering
that it's considered the 2nd best TV comedy of all time. #74 'Seinfeld' -
considered the 3rd best TV comedy of all time. The internet is more friendly
to this one. #15 'Game of Thrones (TV)' - fanboys strike again, or they just
really like irrelevant nudity[1].

#1636 'The Constant Gardener' - it is an abomination that this is here, it's
lower ranked than 'Super Troopers' (#1626), 'Iron Man 2' (#1610), and 'Soul
Surfer' (#1599), just to name a few.

[1] [http://gawker.com/5902076/snl-explains-the-nudity-in-game-
of...](http://gawker.com/5902076/snl-explains-the-nudity-in-game-of-thrones)

~~~
arekp
That's the mass taste. I am not trying to discuss with the mainstream taste,
just made the tool. For those interested in getting a personalized movie
ranking I created another tool "Movie Galaxy" <http://arek-paterek.com/movie-
galaxy/>

~~~
nollidge
> That's the mass taste.

I _seriously_ doubt that. Just because it's what the available data show
doesn't mean that that's the popular taste. If you surveyed 100 people who
have seen both _The Avengers_ and _Godfather Part 2_ , I highly doubt a
majority will regard the former as a better film than the latter. People are
in different moods when they rate films, older films don't get rated as often,
the scale with which an individual rates different films may be wildly non-
normalized...

Website idea[0]: show two random movies, ask them if they've seen both, and if
they have, ask the user which one's better without prescribing what "better"
means. Repeat 1 trillion times. I'd be much more willing to trust differential
data like this.

[0] - not going to call it a startup idea, because I have no idea how it would
make money.

~~~
scottjackson
> Website idea: show two random movies, ask them if they've seen both, and if
> they have, ask the user which one's better without prescribing what "better"
> means. Repeat 1 trillion times.

<http://flickchart.com>

~~~
hansy
Would the two movies be from the same genre?

For example, I would have a difficult time deciding which of the two - "The
Secret in Their Eyes" or "Gladiator" - is better.

~~~
dagw
Having played with the site for the past 20 minutes now, the by far most
difficult thing is choosing between two horrible movies. I really wish there
was a "they're both equally horrible" button.

------
leejoramo
At first I thought this was an awful list, but then I filtered it by date up
to 1995 and I felt that the list made a lot more sense. Is this an issue that
it takes 15 to 20 years to get settle on what is truly worthy? Or is it an
issue with the dawning of the Internet Age?

There are plenty of films made after 1995 that I think are highly deserving.
But in 20 years from now, will we look and say Return of the King out ranks
Star Wars? Or The Avengers is better than 12 Angry Men? (The Avengers was
decent popcorn fun, but what was the plot?)

~~~
cutie
Good point, a 10+ year cooling off period would definitely help.

~~~
yoshamano
Which is how the National Film Registry here in the States operates
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Film_Registry>

"The National Film Registry is the United States National Film Preservation
Board's selection of films for preservation in the Library of Congress."

"The National Film Registry names to its list up to 25 'culturally,
historically, or aesthetically significant films' each year, showcasing the
range and diversity of American film heritage to increase awareness for its
preservation.... To be eligible for inclusion, a film must be at least ten
years old."

------
dundun
Best movies(and TV shows) by decade (top 100 in parens):

    
    
      < 1910:       4 (0)
      1911-1920:    7 (0)
      1921-1930:   48 (0)
      1931-1940:  123 (4)
      1941-1950:  168 (8)
      1951-1960:  243 (10)
      1961-1970:  297 (5)
      1971-1980:  362 (13)
      1981-1990:  583 (7)
      1991-2000: 1030 (21)
      2001-2010: 1937 (27)
      2011-Now:   198 (5)

------
guard-of-terra
If you try to go down this list, your head will explode. Half of top movies
are highly bogus comices (sorry guys, they are), the other half are highly
epic dramas. You just should not mix them on a single page. This is so wrong.

As the whole idea of an universal list is.

~~~
rorrr
Even if you view them by genre, it makes little sense. Like in sci-fi,
Avengers is #1 (which I thought was a boring movie full of cliches), whereas
the brilliant Watchmen is ranked #1780.

WTF?

~~~
cynest
And that's even assuming that Avengers should have been categorized as scifi.

~~~
philwelch
Or Watchmen. If there was a separate category for superheroes, maybe....

------
steve8918
How did you get this data? Did you screenscrape IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes?

If so, is there a legal issue with reusing this data? I actually don't know
what the answer is, I'm curious if there is or not.

~~~
xaro
Well, Rotten Tomatoes offers an API, and IMDB offers all their data for
download in text files.

~~~
zevyoura
Not sure about RT, but IMDB has some fairly strict rules about how their data
can be used. <http://www.imdb.com/help/show_article?conditions>

IANAL but from my reading it sounds like non-commercial use is ok.

~~~
rcfox
I'm also not a lawyer, but I think you'd have a very hard time litigating for
user-contributed content that has no creative value and is publicly available
for download.

------
getriver
This is awesome! Only minor suggestion is to improve readability a little
more. Font is way too small with too little space in between each entry.

Also, I got this error: <http://cl.ly/image/2D2S1E020e0W>. I think I clicked
on Stanley Kubrick and then came back to the home page.

~~~
arekp
Thanks for the suggestions and for the bug report.

------
pooriaazimi
Very good implementation.

But please change the title to "500 best movies according to IMDB &
RottenTomatoes".

I mean, look here: <http://5000best.com/movies/Stanley_Kubrick>

Clockwork Orange is 46th, 2001 is 211st, and Lolita (Kubrick's version),
1018th. Best movie that poor, not-so-much-talented Kubrick has apparently made
is Strangelove, which is 32nd "best movie ever made".

It's very informative to know what IMDB thinks _(for one thing, you know what
movies to skip)_ , but basing our "best movies" list on what they think is not
all right.

~~~
Simucal
I wonder what a better metric would be to account for this contemporary bias?

------
ekianjo
Still trying to figure out why Avengers got such a high rating while it was
one of the worst Marvel flicks I have seen so far. Even the action scenes are
dead boring.

------
b_emery
Very cool! I could have really used this a week ago, when the wife and kids
were out of town and I had some free time to catch up on movies I've missed
from the last 3.5 yrs.

What's the ranking criteria?

Also, being able to exclude based on categories (comedy, no animations, no
family for example) would be a great feature.

~~~
arekp
Thanks.

The ranking criteria - basically, I combined ratings from IMDb and Rotten
Tomatoes, with additional heuristic tweaks. The ranking method I use for is
different than the popular IMDb method aka "True Bayesian estimate", which is
not really a Bayesian estimate. I wrote more about how I approach ranking in
my e-book <http://arek-paterek.com/book/> , for people who are really
interested in such technical details.

~~~
nollidge
This really doesn't seem to solve the main problem that most current ranking
systems have - it doesn't compensate for recency. Newer critically-acclaimed
movies like _The Dark Knight_ rank higher than much older but just as well-
liked movies like _Citizen Kane_.

~~~
TylerE
Is that really a bug? _Kane_ , while a technical masterpiece for it's time -
shouldn't be up on some pedestal. As art it is, while powerful, also not
flawless. If you had to pin me down to a black and white era drama, I much
prefer, say, _12 Angry Men_ to Kane as _art_.

~~~
icebraining
But as you can see from dundun[1]'s post, the rank is very biased towards the
more recent times; according to it, 43% of the best 5000 movies were made
between 2001 and now.

[1]: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4555723>

------
Avitas
The HN article title says "5000 best movies" instead of "Fairly decent jumble
of 5000 best movies with many of the best TV shows thrown in".

The HN title and site title are both mildly misleading.

I understand that your sources (RT & IMDB) may have these mixed and it will
take some time figure out what makes sense.

~~~
arekp
So which taste the best? I started in the Netflix Prize, and for me a movie
taste is a point in a 32-dimensional space or 64-dimensional space. Which
point is better than the others?

------
akkartik
Who has the most movies in the top 5000? Does anybody have more than Marlon
Brando's 19?

~~~
dmix
Counted 23 for Spielberg and 30 for Hitchcock.

Almost all of Kubrick's films are in the top 5000 except for one or two.

~~~
akkartik
Hmm, I explicitly checked Kubrick;
<http://5000best.com/movies/Stanley_Kubrick> shows just 12. But you're right
Hitchcock is the one to beat with 33.

~~~
dmix
Yes, Kubrick only directed 13 movies in his life and 12 of them made it on the
top 5000 list.

------
incision
Looking at this list renews my appreciation for the Netflix recommendation
engine.

Also, I think I'm going to re-watch #1772 - Sunshine [1].

1: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/>

------
unpsynd
Giving more importance to the average rating in RT, rather than the
tomatometer, would give a very different ranking. Avengers has more than a 10%
lower average ranking than any other movie in the top 10.

------
personlurking
Sorry this is off-topic but does anyone know why there are no independent
Netflix services? I'm thinking back when you could go to your neighborhood
movie rental place...well, now imagine that selection is specific (ex.
Western) or curated, and also imagine it is online, available for viewing. Is
this just too hard to get the rights to? How did local movie rental places get
the rights to rent out films?

People sell pirated films on the street here in Brazil and I once heard of a
cultured 'pirate' who only sold pirated, high-brow DVDs. It got me thinking

~~~
garethsprice
Licensing terms are really hard and expensive to get, streaming services are
expensive to set up/run and Internet brands are a "winner takes all" situation
that make it hard for regional or niche brands to compete.

You can buy a physical media copy of a film licensed for rental quite easily
through a standard-ish system (expensive, I think it's a few hundred bucks for
the disc?) but there's no standard system for licensing streaming and as long
as the studios are scared of the Internet there won't be one.

There's a few indie streaming services out there but they're small. Film
critic Roger Ebert runs "The Ebert Club", an online subscription club with
limited runs of fairly obscure older movies. I remember one for
horror/arthouse stuff too, but can't find it now. LoveFilm is really big in
the UK.

------
moviewatcher
I wanted to raise a point here, on the Internets (and I'm sure this will get
downvoted into oblivion, but since I am a huge movie watcher [self-assessment
based on large amounts of cash spent in theatres + Netflix], I will engage in
this conversation anyway).

While some movies are transcendent, they are also highly subjective to their
viewers tastes. As tastes change, so does the opinion of each generation and,
thus, the ratings of those movies. As each generation disappears, why
shouldn't the charts change, as that would be a reflection of the fact that
each generation is different from the next one?

For example, I didn't think Star Wars was a great movie, even though I am a
huge Sci-Fi fan! Most people would find this contradictory, but I can't argue
with my tastes: I watched all of the episodes in 2009 and I said: "meh". Now,
I am aware that at the time it had revolutionary graphics and it had a great
impact on the film industry (which is why I dedicated the time to watch it in
the first place). I can appreciate the impact it had in 1977, but in terms of
absolute value it brought to me in 2009 - I can't justify the decision to vote
for it as one of the top 10 best movies.

I noticed there is a strong bias coming from people who have watched Star Wars
decades ago and only remember how awesome that movie made them feel at the
time. I understand, I'm the same about the first 2 Terminator movies (since
I'm in my late 20s) - there will always be a special place in my heart for
them, but, realistically speaking, if I'd rewatch Terminator 1 or 2 right now,
I wouldn't be as impressed with them as I was back then.

Obviously, it is unfair to compare movies from the 70s and 80s with the movies
of today, but these charts do exactly this when they place The Godfather on
2nd place. Now the problem is that the placement suggests that Godfather 2
will be more enjoyable _today_ than The Avengers. Well, why should that be the
case? My personal experience taught me otherwise.

Another example: the parent post mentions "I Love Lucy" as "the best TV comedy
of all time", according to the critics. I'm constantly in search of good
comedies and I watched the trailer to assess how much enjoyment I might get
out it. I have to say - the IMDB trailer shows a primitive comedy and it
didn't resonate with me, even though I'm not opposed to watching old comedies
(Noises Off (1992) is one of my favorite "old" comedies). So I probably won't
watch it, despite the fact that it was so highly acclaimed. Which then makes
me wonder: how accurate are the ratings of the "critics"? If they're all in
their 40s,50s and 60s (because it takes time to build a reputation as a
critic), why would my generation listen to them and expect an accurate
assessment of how enjoyable an old movie would be today ?

In conclusion, I'd like to suggest that maybe some movies naturally die out
(in terms of rating) as a fact of life, just as old basketball players have to
make room for new players, as they simply can't compete with the young ones.
Perhaps there is a similar trend with movies, where modern technology coupled
with a great plot simply creates a more immersive experience than old movies
can, solely with their plot. If it is so, then we shouldn't disregard these
charts just because "epic movie X from 100 years ago" ended up as #XXXXX.

Thanks for reading!

P.S.: Parent post should be Zimahl's "The problem with these rankings ... "

------
combataircraft
Most of the movies here are crap made for people who don't have any sense of
art. If you think the ones with highest scores are best, you don't even know
what a good movie is.

Check out this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFfTot3qYMc>

This is what a good movie is. It reflects the life as it is. It's not for
entertainment. It's for art and people looking for good movie.

~~~
rytis
Well, I don't know if I agree with some statements here... Art does not
necessarily "reflect the life as it is". I think art is an artist's expression
of his/her view of the world (or life). Some may see the same scene in bright
colours, some in gray, if you see what I mean.

EDIT: However I do agree that majority of the "good" movies these days are
just targeting the entertainment nerve of a potential consumer...

------
arkitaip
This is based on IMDB, right? Explains why the godawful "The Shawshank
Redemption" and "Avengers" top the chart.

~~~
marknutter
Honestly, this is the first time I've ever heard the words "godawful" and
"Shawshank Redemption" in one sentence. We got ourselves a movie hipster,
here.

~~~
sgarman
This is why we need curated lists like the AFI's top 100. I'm not saying they
are the answer rather what I'm saying is truly reflective lists require
critical thinking and evaluation.

~~~
TillE
Yes. I'm much more interested in the informed opinion of one person or a few
experts than I am in the bland, diluted aggregate opinion of everyone.

The former at least has the _potential_ to give me something other than safe,
obvious choices.

~~~
arkitaip
Have you tried out Criticker [1]? Its recommendations are based on your
previous scores and the scores of other members. The recommendations and the
probable scores are very spot on.

[1] <http://www.criticker.com/>

------
amalakar
A link to the canistrea.it would be helpful. It aggregats availability of
movies in streaming/renting sites. Example:
[http://www.canistream.it/search/term/The%20Shawshank%20Redem...](http://www.canistream.it/search/term/The%20Shawshank%20Redemption)

------
a3_nm
I find the "Writer" column strange. Sometimes it's the author of the
screenplay, sometimes it's the author of a book from which the film was
adapted, or out of which the film was inspired. It's strange to see Tolkien as
the "Writer" of the LOTR movies.

~~~
drawkbox
Yes when I saw Stephen King as the Writer for Shawshank Redemption I was
surprised, didn't even know that was based on a short story by Stephen King.
But the writer or screenplay was by Frank Darabont.

~~~
arekp
I had to choose one name per movie. If a movie is based on a novel, I believe
the author of the novel should be credited in the first place. Usually the
script degrades the quality of the novel.

------
sehrope
Can you add a column that shows if it's available on Netflix/Amazon/etc?

I'm always looking for a new way to find movies/series to watch and this list
seems like a good one (I seem to agree with most of the ones I've seen near
the top).

~~~
allforJesse
This. This would make the whole thing dramatically more actionable, efficient,
and lovely.

------
davidbrent
I love the simplicity of the data! The alignment of the checkboxes/filters in
the top left bothers me though. With everything else aligned so well, anyway
you could do the same to those?

------
waynesutton
Wondering why 5000? It looks like the scores are based on "IMDb and Rotten
Tomatoes." Which means some opinionated data by the "crowds".

Regardless IMHO gladiator ranked at #57 is my favorite.

------
engtech
neat idea, I would be interested in how the score is calculated.

I tried restricting it to TV series, and I noticed an interesting trend that
anything older than 2000 is pretty far down the list.

This is probably just a factor of pre-Internet TV shows not being well
represented by number of reviews.

I see the same bias on sites like Rotten Tomatoes where if you look at an
excellent movie before 1995, it will have few reviews (unless there were a
bunch of reviews collected for the DVD / BluRay releases)

------
scoremotive
Looks like a useful site. I would consider left aligning the title, writer,
director and cast fields. It would help with readability when scanning the
list.

------
philfreo
Would be nice to know which of these are available on the various streaming
services (Netflix Instant Streaming, Amazon Prime, etc.)

~~~
arekp
It is doable, but because these companies compete with each other, would they
all be happy seeing their streaming links next to each other? They can cut off
access to their APIs at any time.

------
mavhc
Could you add the ability to link to a set of combinations of the check boxes?
eg 5000best.com/movies/#tv&1930-1965&scifi

~~~
arekp
It is there, but undocumented and the syntax may change in the future.
[http://5000best.com/movies?g2=on&y0=1990&y1=2005&...](http://5000best.com/movies?g2=on&y0=1990&y1=2005&t1=on)

------
paulsutter
This would be a lot more useful if I could filter according to what is
streamable from Netflix, Amazon, and iTunes.

------
m1ck
<http://www.top-5000.nl/imdb1.htm>

------
mosselman
List is not very strong. As said by many others before me. @Zimahl being the
first.

------
allbombs
i know thumbnails take up lots of space, but I don't remember titles.. i
remember movie covers. Adding thumbnails would help immensely, it's an extra
click away.. but still an extra click

------
niklaslogren
I like this! I'm looking forward to the book section.

------
brianfryer
Could you add in a filter for "not animation"?

------
releasedatez
Avatar is only 134!?

~~~
stinos
sorry, but: of course. Watch it a couple of times, not in 3D to make sure that
hype doesn't affect the regarded value, and you'll be suprised it even makes
it to 134.

------
cema
How many?!

~~~
fwr
5000.

------
hastur
Maybe it's interesting technically, but what's the use of this site, if the
movies are rated by retards? I mean, any ranking that puts Avengers in the
first 1000 best movies is obviously deeply flawed.

~~~
arekp
The Avengers has the highest average rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and I can
understand it. This movie has a very good script in my opinion, but de
gustibus...

~~~
anigbrowl
Oh come on. It's a fine piece of entertainment, but it's hardly the second-
best film of all time. Using the raw data like that is an immediate
statistical fail, you should be using a high-pass filter of some sort.

------
batista
Avengers, Dark Knight and LoTR on the top 5? FAIL.

