Top 10 World War II action films of all time

So you list movies from American eyes… German eyes… British eyes… Russian eyes… but nothing from Japanese eyes? If this is an A&A forum, you should represent at least 5 major powers! :wink:
There are some GREAT movies with tons of action and great battle scenes that are not on this list but should be.

Letters from Iwo Jima, directed by Clint Eastwood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51lo2dpaZ_g

Battleship Yamato (2005)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4QWqDTCk2A
(apologize for the lack of subtitles in the trailer, but the DVD I have is subtitled in English… it’s a very good movie with top quality action sequences)

Oh, and if you want to bump something off the list, Battle of the Bulge needs to be removed… how that is in the Top 10 astounds me… it’s a terrible movie with corny acting, over the top stereotypes, bad action sequences with wrong equipment, set on false pretenses… nowhere near in the same category as the others on the list… I’d put Micheal Bay’s Pearl Harbor over Battle of the Bulge.

@Wolfshanze:

Oh, and if you want to bump something off the list, Battle of the Bulge needs to be removed… how that is in the Top 10 astounds me… it’s a terrible movie with corny acting, over the top stereotypes, bad action sequences with wrong equipment, set on false pretenses… nowhere near in the same category as the others on the list… I’d put Micheal Bay’s Pearl Harbor over Battle of the Bulge.

Ehhh… that may be a little too far. Pearl Harbor gets the nod over Battle of the Bulge for authenticity of equipment and setting, but beyond that it is pretty abysmal. Battle of the Bulge is wildly inaccurate and generalized, but in terms of scope, action and classic star power it is hard to beat. I was very young when I started watching the movie, so I enjoy it very much in a nostalgic sense, but if I saw it for the first time today, I would probably think it was awful. Oh, the music is excellent too.

I just think Pearl Harbor over BotB is too much… you made your point though.  :wink:

I think the only reason why people like Battle of the Bulge is because nobody saw it past the age of 15… memories are a wonderful thing, but I’m sorry… this movie is bad.  The acting was wooden and hokey… the script was terrible the “historical realism” just wasn’t there (and I’m talking beyond the equipment, but also most of the setup).  The combat sequences are probably where Michael Bay got all his ideas from how battles should look, but done cheaply and badly… Battle of the Bulge is a closer cousin of Hogan’s Heroes for realism than Saving Private Ryan, and it should not be in the same list with something like Saving Private Ryan. I was jesting with Pearl Harbor, I don’t think it belongs on this list, but putting those two together makes more sense than Battle of the Bulge being on this list.  Certainly something like Letters from Iwo Jima should rank higher than Battle of the Bulge… and OMG, the stereotypes in this movie and the “hokiness”…

Check out this terrible scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JDkdc246QQ

@Wolfshanze:

I think the only reason why people like Battle of the Bulge is because nobody saw it past the age of 15… memories are a wonderful thing, but I’m sorry… this movie is bad.  The acting was wooden and hokey… the script was terrible the “historical realism” just wasn’t there (and I’m talking beyond the equipment, but also most of the setup).  The combat sequences are probably where Michael Bay got all his ideas from how battles should look, but done cheaply and badly… Battle of the Bulge is a closer cousin of Hogan’s Heroes for realism than Saving Private Ryan, and it should not be in the same list with something like Saving Private Ryan. I was jesting with Pearl Harbor, I don’t think it belongs on this list, but putting those two together makes more sense than Battle of the Bulge being on this list.  Certainly something like Letters from Iwo Jima should rank higher than Battle of the Bulge… and OMG, the stereotypes in this movie and the “hokiness”…

Check out this terrible scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JDkdc246QQ

Hey dude that’s a great song!!!  Heh, but truly very hokey and, to be honest, last time I watched the movie I cringed at that part.

Since this list is predominantly about WWII “Action” films, I think Battle of the Bulge belongs or at least should be considered. The scope of the action is quite large. Just the fact that they were able to use so many real tanks is rather astounding, nevermind if they aren’t the right kind or the tactics shown are inaccurate. If this list were defined some other way, I would consider leaving BotB off. There are few WWII films which can claim to be so big, so consistently about the fighting and so real (with their props). While Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima are both excellent films (far better than BotB), they really are not action films but dramas. They devote a comparatively small amount of screen time to spraying bullets. That isn’t bad, it just doesn’t qualify them well for this list.

Letters from Iwo Jima has a lot of combat scenes… not sure which film you watched. Downfall its not. You seem to be leaning back towards nominating Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor if all you want is action scenes and nothing else bordering on reality.

So now what… do we have to break down the action % on film to determine if it qualifies for the list? Your argument that there’s not enough action in Letters from Iwo Jima would likewise apply to Saving Private Ryan, which devotes nearly the same % of film time to “boring old drama” as opposed to Michael Bay-style action.

I’m sorry… this list is pretty good, but if you’re going “top 10 ever”, I can’t see Battle of the Bulge on the same list as Saving Private Ryan or Bridge Too Far… that’s a travesty. You’re really trying to thread the needle on % of action if your last and only justification of a pure fluff film like Battle of the Bulge qualifies while other films with action but “a tad too much drama” don’t qualify. Patton has way too much story to be considered if you’re going down that road. I assure you there is more action in Letters from Iwo Jima than in Das Boot which is at the top of the list.

Rotten Tomatoes:
Das Boot 98%
Saving Private Ryan 97%
Patton 95%
Letters from Iwo Jima 91%
.
.
.
.
Battle of the Bulge 67%

P.S.
There is more film time devoted to randomly breaking out into song in Battle of the Bulge than any other movie (or proposed movie) on this list… that should tell you something! :roll:

@Wolfshanze:

Letters from Iwo Jima has a lot of combat scenes… not sure which film you watched. Downfall its not. You seem to be leaning back towards nominating Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor if all you want is action scenes and nothing else bordering on reality.

Pearl Harbor has action, but it is a chunk of ridiculousness sandwiched in between longer segments of romantic drama. Been a very long time since I have seen the movie, but I am quite certain that is accurate. My point is that BotB is at least grounded and realistically ambitious.

@Wolfshanze:

So now what… do we have to break down the action % on film to determine if it qualifies for the list? Your argument that there’s not enough action in Letters from Iwo Jima would likewise apply to Saving Private Ryan, which devotes nearly the same % of film time to “boring old drama” as opposed to Michael Bay-style action.

What would you categorize Letters from Iwo Jima as? An action film, a romance, a drama? Yes it is a war film, but would you call it an action film? I wouldn’t, even though it has some amount of action in it. Same can be said of Patton… has some action but it really isn’t something I would call an action movie. I made that point back on page 4. Das Boot is kinda a close call too, but it does have a consistent amount of action; just action that is different from firing machine guns-action.

Saving Private Ryan is a well balanced drama-action film. From my recollection there are at least (5) separate action/combat sequences throughout the movie, two of which are on a pretty large scale and bookend the film. For me that qualifies as an action movie.

@Wolfshanze:

I’m sorry… this list is pretty good, but if you’re going “top 10 ever”, I can’t see Battle of the Bulge on the same list as Saving Private Ryan or Bridge Too Far… that’s a travesty. You’re really trying to thread the needle on % of action if your last and only justification of a pure fluff film like Battle of the Bulge qualifies while other films with action but “a tad too much drama” don’t qualify. Patton has way too much story to be considered if you’re going down that road. I assure you there is more action in Letters from Iwo Jima than in Das Boot which is at the top of the list.

You are approaching this from the wrong perspective. This list is defined by action; therefore that should be the most important consideration. Overall quality is a close second because that factors into how good and best it really is. Kelley’s Heroes is another “pure fluff film” but it should be on this list for sure. It is a classic film, with lots of great actors, a concise plot and consistent (and better than decent) action.

Point: this list is not about the best WWII films. Or the most accurate. Or the most critically acclaimed. Or the most gritty and realistic. It was defined as the best Action, with no real additional qualifications. Bridge on the River Kwai (IMO) should not be on the list or even in honorable mentions. It is a great film to be sure, but it has precious little action in it. It may have been considered an action film in its day, but even compared to 70s war films like BotB, Midway, Patton and Tora Tora Tora, Bridge on the River Kwai has virtually no action until the very end.

Do I believe that Battle of the Bulge would make the Top 10 “Best” WWII films of all time… no, there are better ones. However, I think it deserves credit in certain areas.

@Wolfshanze:

Rotten Tomatoes:
Das Boot 98%
Saving Private Ryan 97%
Patton 95%
Letters from Iwo Jima 91%
.
.
.
.
Battle of the Bulge 67%

Again… ratings don’t matter most here. By your own admission (and mine) at least 3 of the 4 movies you listed are not/could not be classified as “action” films. If that is true, we have a very short list of predominantly action-only WWII films. BotB should be included.

@Wolfshanze:

P.S.
There is more film time devoted to randomly breaking out into song in Battle of the Bulge than any other movie (or proposed movie) on this list… that should tell you something! :roll:

False.

In Das Boot the entire crew breaks out into “It’s a Long Way to Tipperary” at least once, maybe twice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pddW-HeHAwo

Memphis Belle has a beautiful rendition of “Oh Danny Boy” (from Harry Connick Jr. no less).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSFtAL3caSE

I don’t know if you want to call it singing, but Bridge on the River Kwai has those damn limeys whistling that inane Colonel Bogey marching song F-O-R-E-V-E-R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83bmsluWHZc

Ultimately… this isn’t even my topic. I am defending the inclusion of BotB because it fits the criteria set forth, not because it is a worthy historical piece. It has a lot of decent war action in it. Much more than most other films.

Trust me… I’m not nominating Pearl Harbor for this list… I was using it as a comparison of quality of action with Battle of the Bulge… and the Battle of the Bulge action scens are pure fluff… its along the line of C.H.I.P’s and Dukes of Hazzard where explosions of any kind = that looks cool, so put it in, I don’t care if it doesn’t make sense.

At the end of the day, I don’t really care… I was just pointing out that of all the films on the top-10 list, Battle of the Bulge lacks big time in quality and reality compared to any other movie on that list.

Also, something like Letters from Iwo Jima DOES, by definition and comparison to other movies on this list as an action movie… if you’re going to put Das Boot and Patton on this list, Letters from Iwo Jima easily has just as much action-vs-drama as those films, so it would at least qualify for consideration, vs something like Downfall or Schindlers List.

Ok, ok… so maybe there’s more singing going on in these films then one might like… but you gotta admit, that random break out into song in Battle of the Bulge is the hokiest singing of the lot!

All good… gotta go get my kids from school!

@Wolfshanze:

Also, something like Letters from Iwo Jima DOES, by definition and comparison to other movies on this list as an action movie… if you’re going to put Das Boot and Patton on this list, Letters from Iwo Jima easily has just as much action-vs-drama as those films, so it would at least qualify for consideration, vs something like Downfall or Schindlers List.

If Patton is present, I do think Letters could be considered. Again, IMO Patton isn’t really an action film in the way we have been defining them here, therefore Letters wouldn’t be either. But the one is here already and I really am trying not to take this that seriously so… what the heck.

@Wolfshanze:

Ok, ok… so maybe there’s more singing going on in these films then one might like… but you gotta admit, that random break out into song in Battle of the Bulge is the hokiest singing of the lot!

All good… gotta go get my kids from school!

Ah HA! I got you.

But no… those pale in comparison to the over-the-top cheese of the Panzerlied. Even the song was made up. Tragically so. Such a manly and proud German fighting song should not come off so ridiculous. The young tank commanders in the scene are the worst. Their expressions range from stoutly engaged and serious to apathetic and unsure of the lyrics. The mismatch of the clearly post-dubbed vocals and image of Hans Christian Blech are bad too.

@LHoffman:

Ultimately… this isn’t even my topic. I am defending the inclusion of BotB because it fits the criteria set forth, not because it is a worthy historical piece. It has a lot of decent war action in it. Much more than most other films.

Ultimately… this isn’t my topic either… I was downing the inclusion of BotB, not because it doesn’t meet the criteria of “action”, but because it does NOT meet the criteria of “Top 10”… it’s a terrible movie… ugh.

@LHoffman:

Since this list is predominantly about WWII “Action” films, I think Battle of the Bulge belongs or at least should be considered. The scope of the action is quite large.

There’s a difference between a big movie and a great movie.  Battle of the Bulge may be big but it’s not great.  (As anecdotal evidence supporting Wolfshanze’s theory, I saw it when I was well past the age of 15 and I thought it was pretty awful.  And I’m not just talking about the cringe-worthy part about the wrong tanks standing in for iconic WWII models.  It’s one of the rare military movies that I own on DVD – and I own a lot – that I’ve never watched more than once.  The one good thing I’ll say about it is that I at least managed to watch the whole thing, which is more than I can say about The Thin Red Line.)

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

Since this list is predominantly about WWII “Action” films, I think Battle of the Bulge belongs or at least should be considered. The scope of the action is quite large.

There’s a difference between a big movie and a great movie.  Battle of the Bulge may be big but it’s not great.  (As anecdotal evidence supporting Wolfshanze’s theory, I saw it when I was well past the age of 15 and I thought it was pretty awful.  And I’m not just talking about the cringe-worthy part about the wrong tanks standing in for iconic WWII models.  It’s one of the rare military movies that I own on DVD – and I own a lot – that I’ve never watched more than once.  The one good thing I’ll say about it is that I at least managed to watch the whole thing, which is more than I can say about The Thin Red Line.)

Fair enough. Though I never implied that big=great… simply that its scale and prevalence of battle/action scenes deserves consideration. That is what we are supposedly grading here. If films like Patton, Das Boat, Flags/Letters cannot be considered due to lack of action or skewing towards drama rather than action, it seems like we have few truly great action films that are also great overall. Basically, a shortage of great films in the action category means we need to consider some non-great ones to stand in.

Besides the lack of historical accuracy, BotB is very similar to The Longest Day, which is typically regarded as a classic (great) film, but hopelessly unrealistic and antiseptic. To boot, it has generally poor acting and even a level of camp-ness at times. Now to me, this is okay because it is one of the great WWII action films for a number of other very positive reasons such as casting/star power, consistent action, faithfulness to events (intent), scope (it is still a pretty big production) and film legacy.

Similar sacrifices need to be made in evaluating The Battle of Britain. Again, perhaps not in the Top 10 of the Greatest WWII films ever, but as an action film, perhaps. There is a big, star-laden cast, the locations are excellent, the acting is pretty good, generally accurate, the props used are superb (perhaps THE best in any WWII film ever - real He-111s, Me-109s, Spitfires and Hurricanes re-enacting dogfights)…      However, like BotB, it only has a 63% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I think a great deal of that is due to terrible pacing and the lack of any real climax. Been a long time since I watched the movie, but it always seems like a bit of a slog to get through. Additionally, like BotB, the film often simplifies events and synthesizes multiple real people into a single on-screen character, however the general intent and strategic elements of the rel life battle are conveyed.

My point here is that none of these films are totally perfect and you can find fault in many different places. What we are trying to do here is identify the top WWII movies with the best action. I do not see how, even with its faults, Battle of the Bulge should be excluded from the list. The film is an action fest that doesn’t shy away from showing big battle scenes done primarily with practical effects and real life pieces of equipment. There are few films that can claim to do that at all, let alone successfully (not that BotB totally does). If we are actually judging films on the amount, consistency and quality of action (in addition to other elements), Battle of the Bulge is one of maybe five or six other WWII films that can claim to be so. Almost all of the rest are already on this Top 10 list.

@CWO:

As anecdotal evidence supporting Wolfshanze’s theory, I saw it when I was well past the age of 15 and I thought it was pretty awful.  And I’m not just talking about the cringe-worthy part about the wrong tanks standing in for iconic WWII models.  It’s one of the rare military movies that I own on DVD – and I own a lot – that I’ve never watched more than once.

Thank you… I am firm in the belief that anyone over the age of 15 who views Battle of the Bulge, and has at least some basic grasp of WWII’s history and equipment better also have an airsick bag handy when they watch the movie… i felt very queasy and seriously ill several times during the viewing of that film as an adult!

I will get a little personal here.  My father was a ball (belly) turret gunner on a B-17.  His plane was shot down over Yugoslavia, and he was rescued/saved by Yugoslav partisans. Received the Bronze Star.  He HATED ‘Memphis Belle’.  He said about the ‘colorful metaphors’ so often used, “We never talked liked that!  We never used language that harsh”  His words not mine. So I’m a little biased and would never include that movie in a top 10.  Just my opinion.  the movie has merits, as many of you testify.  I’m just biased.

Surprised that not one person mentioned (or I missed it going too fast thru the posts) “Hell is for Heroes!”  What a great movie.  And the cast!!! Steve McQueen, James Coburn, a very young Bob Newhart, Fes Parker, and many other great character actors.  If you haven’t seen it give it a look.

Another great one, though not a real battle movie, “Hell in the Pacific” with Lee Marvin. sorta like ‘Castaway’ meets ‘Hatfields vs McCoys’.

I too vote for ‘Battleground’

Does ‘Band of Brothers’ count?  I guess a series isn’t a single movie.  But would be #1 for me.

‘Iron Cross’ with James Coburn is pretty good.  Though the ending is blahhhhh.  German soldiers trapped behind Russian lines in the waning year of the war.

Not a huge fan of ‘Battle of the Bulge’.  Just not well done in my opinion.  I like it, but feel there are many better movies out there.  I also downgrade ‘The Longest day’.  Too disjointed by jumping around too much.  Book was great.  I own it.  Just don’t like the movie any more.  It doesn’t stand the test of time.  Saw it once shortly after ‘Saving Private Ryan’ came out, after that I couldn’t understand why I’d like ‘longest day’ so much before. Maybe ‘Band of brothers’ ruined ‘Battle of the bulge’ for me in the same way.

Is the ‘Stalingrad’ listed by many the one that came out 2 years ago?  About the girl with 8 fathers?  I hope not because I thought that was a bad movie.

Back to my dad for a second.  He was a mountain hillbilly/redneck to the core.  He epitomized ‘Merica’ to the extreme, hated commies and such.  But till the day he died if you said one thing bad about Tito he’d smack the crap out of you…. :-D

Agreeing with Virginia General, Hell in the Pacific and Band of Brothers would be on my list, but I have not proposed them as I don’t think they meet YG’s criteria here.

I struggle to get worked up about BotB vs Memphis Belle (or whatever else) as the criteria limit the selection to films I find it hard to care very much about. A Bridge too Far and The Battle of Britain are worthy films and Saving Private Ryan has its strengths, but after that I am struggling.

However one comment would be that comparing Letters from Iwo Jima with Battle of the Pacific leads me to think the latter is the better film. Has anyone else seen it?

Y’all are still missing the point. If we are going to argue about these films primarily on the basis of how true-to-life, realistic or objectively “well done” they are… that is fine, but the topic would need to be defined that way. It isn’t. We are talking about Action first and foremost, so that should be given the greatest consideration of any factor. The scope and consistency of the action in Battle of the Bulge is hardly rivaled among WWII films. Nobody seems to be able to contend that or discuss these films primarily in regards to action. I have given some of my qualifications for what Action means to me… maybe others need to do the same.

@LHoffman:

Y’all are still missing the point.  We are talking about Action first and foremost.

I think you’ve lost all objectivity here… you’ve become so focused on one word, you’ve forgotten what else is the whole point of the thread… “action, Action, ACTION” is all you see, its all you talk about, it’s all you focus on… but you have COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN, this is a TOP 10 list… Top 10 generally refers to a GOOD MOVIE… sorry, but as many have pointed out quite correctly, Battle of the Bulge just isn’t good, and when people talk about other movies, they are trying to meet ALL the criteria, not just one.  Realism, believability, acting, pacing, storyline all go into making a top-10 list.

Bad movies are just that… bad movies, no matter how much action is in them.  Once again, I didn’t invent this thread, but pretty sure the ONLY criteria isn’t how much action is in the film… I think quality of the film has a little something to do with it to… all you have spoken about post after post is “does it have action?  how much action does it have?  Is there enough action to call it an action film?  What if there’s not enough action in our action film, I think there’s not enough action to call it action, so its not actiony-enough for me, it needs more action.”
You’ve really lost all focus on the fact it’s STILL a TOP-10 list… Top-10 infers more than just crossing an action threshold, as arbitrary as that is.  When people say they like or don’t like a movie for this or that reason, they’re referring to the Top-10 threshold… not the % of action that is in the film.

Maybe you should make a new thread and call it “LHoffman’s WWII Actionyist Action Films of all Actiony Time”

@Wolfshanze:

I think you’ve lost all objectivity here…

I disagree entirely. I am at least trying to evaluate these films in some sort of scientific method. There are multiple standards involved and some deserve more weight than others, given how this list is specifically defined, yet given vague parameters for measurement. You are the one who is completely writing off Battle of the Bulge in a decidedly un-objective manner, predominantly because you just think it is a poor film. You have emphasized all the negative elements but not discussed any of the positives about it or how it fits in under the Action category. That is where the lack of objectivity is here.

@Wolfshanze:

you’ve become so focused on one word, you’ve forgotten what else is the whole point of the thread… “action, Action, ACTION” is all you see, its all you talk about, it’s all you focus on… but you have COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN, this is a TOP 10 list…

Quite the contrary, you seem to be the one focused on it and it is clearly setting you precariously close to a fit of rage. I have tried to emphasize the action aspect, because that is what the topic is: Top 10 World War II Action Films of All Time. It is not the Top 10 most critically acclaimed WWII action films of all time. Or the Top 10 most realistic WWII action films of all time. Etc…

@Wolfshanze:

Top 10 generally refers to a GOOD MOVIE… sorry, but as many have pointed out quite correctly, Battle of the Bulge just isn’t good, and when people talk about other movies, they are trying to meet ALL the criteria, not just one.  Realism, believability, acting, pacing, storyline all go into making a top-10 list.

Again, I refer you to a couple other movies listed in the current Top 10 here:  
Battle of Britain - great movie for many reasons, but poor on pacing, storyline and contains historical generalization. Even fewer people like it than like Battle of the Bulge according to Rotten Tomatoes (63% vs 67%). You have conveniently not addressed this example.
A Bridge Too Far - very well made film overall with lots of action but the pacing and length bring it down. Rotten Tomatoes gives 73% approval, which is only 6 points above BotB.
Stalingrad (2014) - Good heavens, only 48% rating from Rotten Tomatoes. That is abysmal. I haven’t seen this movie, but from what I have read and heard it is just not very good. Supposedly has a lot of action though.
Tora Tora Tora - very authentic and respectful production with a good amount of action, but only a 57% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Again, pacing and lack of storylines probably hinder it.

… these are just the ones I could analyze in 5 minutes. They all have issues, some are even rated less than Battle of the Bulge. Since you seem to hold these ratings in some regard, wouldn’t it be the objective thing to compare them all on that scale?

@Wolfshanze:

Bad movies are just that… bad movies, no matter how much action is in them.  Once again, I didn’t invent this thread, but pretty sure the ONLY criteria isn’t how much action is in the film… I think quality of the film has a little something to do with it to… all you have spoken about post after post is “does it have action?  how much action does it have?  Is there enough action to call it an action film?  What if there’s not enough action in our action film, I think there’s not enough action to call it action, so its not actiony-enough for me, it needs more action.”
You’ve really lost all focus on the fact it’s STILL a TOP-10 list… Top-10 infers more than just crossing an action threshold, as arbitrary as that is.  When people say they like or don’t like a movie for this or that reason, they’re referring to the Top-10 threshold… not the % of action that is in the film.

Well bad movies are bad movies regardless, but when you are including them in a “Top (whatever) List”, the implication (not the inference) is not that they are critically well received or even that great. Their inclusion is predicated on whatever limiting factors are imposed when defining the list. I refer you back to this list (http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-world-war-ii-movies-of-all-time?var=4&utm_expid=16418821-179.vk2gM_coRrOMcxn9T2riGQ.3&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F) which was posted earlier. How is The Dirty Dozen ranked number 5? Short answer: they had people vote on their favorites and the only criteria was that it had to take place during WWII. That is damn broad and essentially meaningless. Yet how Dirty Dozen, a completely fictional and inane story, can be above Band of Brothers, Das Boat, Bridge Too Far, etc… is beyond me.

Want another example? Here is something a little more focused than just a poll: 25 Best Space Movies of All Time (LA Weekly) http://www.laweekly.com/slideshow/the-25-best-space-movies-of-all-time-5199443/23
According to your assumptions, we should probably be looking to see the really (objectively) good movies towards the top. Suffice to say, even I was shocked at this one.

First off… Galaxy Quest (#7) is ahead of Apollo 13 (#19) - Does that tell you that Galaxy Quest is actually somehow better than Apollo 13? Objectively so?

Secondly, the sci-fi/space film with the general consensus as being the greatest and grandest of them all is 2001: A Space Odyssey. You would expect it to be number one, maybe two… No, it is #4. Ahead of it is Star Wars: ESB, The Right Stuff and at #1 Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan.

Those are all good films but who is judging them and how? 2001 blows everything away with originality and innovation and is darn near objectively the spacey-est space movie ever; containing just about every element of science fiction iconography in the modern lexicon… partly because it made the modern lexicon.

Again… my point being that your inference/assumption of Top 10 = Good is not accurate. First we need to define what “good” even means, but before that we need to pay attention to what the list is even about. If it is about Space movies, it should have a lot to do with space in it. Star Trek IV: The Voyage home may technically be a space movie, but 95% of the film takes place on Earth in San Francisco. Should it be worthy of Top 10 status then? Is that what most people think of when they hear “space movie”. Same thing with our WWII Action list… Letters from Iwo Jima is a great film, but do people think of Letters when someone says, give me a WWII action film? My contention is maybe, but not likely.

@Wolfshanze:

Maybe you should make a new thread and call it “LHoffman’s WWII Actionyist Action Films of all Actiony Time”

I’d rather not. YG is better at starting threads and getting people to talk about stuff than I am.

@LHoffman:

… Galaxy Quest (#7) is ahead of Apollo 13 (#19) - Does that tell you that Galaxy Quest is actually somehow better than Apollo 13?

Galaxy Quest is the best film ever made. Perhaps if we changed the heading and criteria for this thread I could get it in somehow?