Actual best movie ever made

Pic related, it’s it. You could easily get a plurality of humans to agree.
>inb4 “Citizen Kane”
Low rewatchability, only deserves best director

Attached: E0F39F78-26C1-424A-B267-1C7A055DAE7D.jpg (3861x2195, 2.71M)

Shawshank.

The Matrix

Attached: ArchitectHD.png (1791x792, 1.24M)

Engineer here, it's perfectly competent, but I hate it for the "we shouldn't change nature!!!!!" theme it rams down your throat. No, Jeff Goldblum, the park didn't fall apart because Hammond messed with nature. It fell apart because Hammond hired a fat traitorous fuck to run the entire island's control system. Fuck Jeff Goldblum's character, he sounds like a preachy conspiracy theorist more than a scientist.

I love movies like this and Jaws, simple story told very well. No forced romance, no mark-the-checkbox writing, no B-plots.

Attached: jaws.jpg (600x600, 127K)

I think Jurassic World sort of proved that point. It was fine for 10 years until someone specifically designed a dinosaur that can break out. What's a T-rex gonna do if it's surrounded by a moat anyway?

Jaws might be the cleanest execution of a film ive ever seen. Perfect pacing.

No meming when I stepped out of the cinema after watching crouching tiger hidden dragon I was in shock, and it was at that point the single greatest live action film I'd seen. I've never had a big screen experience like it since. Maybe it was because Asian cinema and the Chinese backdrop was so totally fresh to me that it had that impact.

Clearly the best is Mars Needs Moms

Attached: Mars Needs Moms - Ki Face 032.png (544x720, 578K)

I agree with you and your point, but I think Goldblum's obnoxious point, and the underpinning of chaos theory, is that it's irrelevant what the artificial force on the system is, that either way it will come crumbling down. In other words, if it wasn't Newman, it would have been something else. The type of chaotic catalyst is irrelevant, because the ultimate interest is that the system will continue to return to a more random state, in line with the ultimate fate of the universe - the pool of atoms returning to an increasingly random state of perpetual motion.

Attached: newman.jpg (665x499, 99K)

Is it worth going back for a rewatch? I haven't seen it in years, and only saw pieces originally.

>In other words, if it wasn't Newman, it would have been something else.
Why though? Because "muh nature, muh chaos"? It's a fine trope, whatever, but it's not realistic and the movie is trying to pass it off as if it is.

This is more rewatchable

Attached: 1533970487521.jpg (624x940, 105K)

Remember that they used frog dna to fill in the gaps. Its made more apparent in the modern films, but the dinosaurs aren't real dinosaurs. They're exaggerations made for entertainment purposes. The frog DNA lead to some of them changing sex and producing viable offspring.

Part of the point of the novel was that the dinosaurs were just monsters and weren't natural to begin with. It wasn't just "umm but they went extinct for a REASON!", it was "wow this is literally an unholy abomination".

No, this is part of the beauty of the film if you ask me. There are so many interesting views in there, but it never feels preachy. In contrast to the theistic minded Ian, you have the "power of science" views in there too. Genetic engineering and the morals of it are still talking points today so it aged really well.

Take it up with thermodynamics and Gibbs Free Energy - it's intro chemistry 1/2 type knowledge. I agree with you it's played out a bit pretentiously (albeit I think he's entertaining as the obnoxious mathematician).

But that's basically the same and just as stupid. "IT'S NOT NATURAL, THEREFORE IT'S BAD"

>rewatchability
something that only the most underage plebeian fuckhead with literally no taste would think is something you judge a film on

I read the book too (albeit ~6 years ago), and I agree that they are tonally different (i.e. Hammond's pretty gruesome death, for one). I should say again, I'm not defending Goldblum's character, nor the pretentious way he's written. Rather I was countering the notion that he was 'wrong'.

Movies are a product of creativity -- i.e. art. They are 100% subjective, and therefore there is no "best" movie. The best movie is literally whatever movie you like the most.

Someone who hasnt read the book here guys

Please ignore him and carryon

FUCK OUT THE WAYYYY

Attached: pred.jpg (1920x1040, 179K)

Definitely. Its a stunningly beautiful film.

Predator is a great and unique movie, but not one of the best.

Terminator 2 is legit one of the greatest movies ever made. A perfect action movie, and Arnies total lack of natural acting ability made no difference as he was playing a robot.

here you go then

Attached: macready.jpg (600x255, 34K)

Oh shit

Attached: 99255C38-BBAA-499B-9A80-AF86CBCA8E5D.gif (500x270, 952K)

Attached: 20190303_055636.jpg (916x1379, 493K)

The Thing is the best of that genre.

Attached: 65D101C6-F59A-4F95-BD58-EBFDE20CF1B4.gif (500x213, 801K)

An unpleasant film can’t be considered the greatest of all time.

The Thing is the best of all genres

You have got to be kidding me. I went to see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon because so many friends hyped it up to me just like you did here. It was so slow paced, so boring that I fell asleep twice and left the theatre before it even finished. One of the few movies in my life I have ever walked out of.