What Movies Have You Seen The Most?

[Vicky82]

Die Hard with a vengeance, because BBC 1 are always airing this movie
Gremlins, because ITV are always airing this movie
All 3 original TMNT movies and 2007 movie
Ghostbusters
Snatch and Lock Stock and 2 smoking barrels
The Lion King (1994)
The Goonies
The original 3 Indiana Jones Movies because BBC 1 are always airing these movies
Who Framed Rodger Rabbit
Con Air
Twister
Gone in 60 seconds
Volcano
Jaws
Independence Day

[Leo656]

I swear that "Temple of Doom" is on somewhere every day. It was on again last night. I don't especially care for it - to me it's easily the worst in the series, so people's scorn for Crystal Skull kind of puzzles me, shoddy CGI aside - but it's on in the background while I'm not paying attention and doing other things, quite often. So that's a movie that I've seen a lot despite not really liking it much, simply because it's a functional "Eh, there's nothing else on" kinda movie. And it's ALWAYS on.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

I've surprisingly only seen 3 movies more than maybe 10 times.

• Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. I loved this film when I was really young.
  
• Toy Story 2 was another one I watched a lot. I've seen it probably 10 times more than the original film. That opening Buzz Lightyear Video game level blew my mind when I was younger (still the best Pixar opening ever)
  
• Iron Giant was yet another one I played to death. Watched it again last year after so long and loved it just as much

My other most watched films I've only seen maybe less than ten times each

• Rocky. I love all of them, but Rocky is the one I've watched the most. It's also the film I've seen on most formats (VHS, DVD and Blu Ray).
  
• Batman 1989. My introduction to Batman and still my favourite live action superhero film
  
• Batman: Mask of the phantasm. My favourite superhero film full stop
  
• 5 centimetres per second. At only an hour in total running length, this is super easy to rewatch a lot

[MikeandRaph87]

The movie I have seen the most is TMNT II: Secret of The Ooze. It was my favorite TMNT film as a kid and it still is. The movie I have seen second most is the first film. Aside from the first two TMNT films I have seen...

Home Alone I I have seen a dozen times by now and probably my third most watched film. For a while it was the go to Black Friday film and while the premise makes it dated it is quite fun and while taken from a 2nd grader's perspective adults can appreciate it too.

The Original Trilogy of Star Wars half a dozen times each. It will not be equaled and has memories of two to three generations it has in awe. Nothing more can be said.

Back to The Future trilogy...can't say the same for Back to the Future Part III, but I have seen Part I and Part II at least half a dozen times if not more.


A Christmas Story, so many memorable scenes in one film. I have seen it half dozen times and probably a few parts x times more due to the round the clock airings in December, but for good reason.

I do not have a number of how many times I have seen Rocky I-IV. The nobody rising to the top and continuously defying the odds as characters drop dead around him and a killer soundtrack.

The Sam Raimi Spider-Man films. The best film never made is Spider-Man 4. If allowed to breathe it has a little of everything and the characters actually look taken directly off the page. Its fun, epic, quotable, and has a few jaw dropping moments. I realize since we now have twice as many Spider-Man films these films especially the second one will never be surpassed in quality.

National Treasure I is a film that has a little of everything. I use it in the workplace and is a well thought out film with an intriguing premise. I have seen it atleast half a dozen times.

Another likely unique film from me is Batman Forever. It is my favorite Batman film. It has my favorite hero (Dick Grayson) and my favorite DC villain (Riddler). Sure I do not like Carey's costume and hate the neon aesthetic , want more psychoanalysis shown, but it is a fun film that I always enjoyed.

[Leo656]

Y'know, it's always been hip to kinda diminish Back to the Future Part III, and it's inarguable that I and II are probably better movies on the whole, but III might be my sentimental favorite.

For one thing, I'm a sucker for a happy ending and that's one of the all-time best trilogy-closers in the history of movies. "Your future hasn't been written yet, so make it a good one." I feel like if every single human being had that etched into their bathroom mirror so they were forced to see it every day when they woke up, the entire world would be a better place.

The first one is the best overall and has a tight story, impeccably executed. The second one is more of a grand spectacle, and I LOVE the extent they went to recreate and run parallel to the scenes from the first movie, because that was incredibly hard to pull off and I give them all the credit in the world for it. But Part III is nothing to sleep on. It has a certain heart, a poignancy, and a sincerity that the first two simply did not have. It's a much slower burn than the first two, by design, but you go on a much broader emotional journey. Marty and Doc get more character development and grow more as people in that one film than the previous two movies combined, which is no easy feat but it all feels completely organic and earned.

Then superficially, there's the simple fact that I love a good Western. I thought it was great fun how they played with the tropes and such.

So yeah, III is most people's bottom-feeder and I'll never say it's better than I or II but I think a strong case can be made for it, and personally I might enjoy watching it the most of all three.

I prefer not to only watch one or two of them ever, though. For me, you NEED all three and no one piece can be removed without ruining the grander Whole. They're each individually great movies, and while III arguably doesn't work as well as a stand-alone compared to its predecessors, that trilogy is a perfect example of three really awesome individual parts that combined to make up an even more spectacular completed piece. I sincerely think those three films are among mankind's greatest achievements in film, ever. And it's likely going to stay that way.

[Spike Spiegel]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Y'know, it's always been hip to kinda diminish Back to the Future Part III, and it's inarguable that I and II are probably better movies on the whole, but III might be my sentimental favorite.

For one thing, I'm a sucker for a happy ending and that's one of the all-time best trilogy-closers in the history of movies. "Your future hasn't been written yet, so make it a good one." I feel like if every single human being had that etched into their bathroom mirror so they were forced to see it every day when they woke up, the entire world would be a better place.


I prefer not to only watch one or two of them ever, though. For me, you NEED all three and no one piece can be removed without ruining the grander Whole. They're each individually great movies, and while III arguably doesn't work as well as a stand-alone compared to its predecessors, that trilogy is a perfect example of three really awesome individual parts that combined to make up an even more spectacular completed piece. I sincerely think those three films are among mankind's greatest achievements in film, ever. And it's likely going to stay that way.

"Run fer FUN? What the hell kinda fun ya call that?"

I used to have those movies practically memorized. Those of you who were around this forum in 2006-2008 or so might recall my original screen name here was Marty McFly.

I think the train sequence from III is almost as good as the clock tower sequence. And Marty/Doc's arcs worked so well from start to finish.



I know they didn't plan for any sequels initially, but I'm glad Gale and Zemeckis stuck to their guns in terms of the narrative choices, casting, execution, and style. There's nothing about the films of the trilogy that makes any of them wildly different from or incongruent with the others, and the story isn't written in a way where you can tell there was some kind of trend-chasing or executive meddling.

[Leo656]

When I was little I had no idea whatsoever that it wasn't initially planned to be a trilogy. I saw Part II before Part I as it was, and when I first watched all three in a row, it was all so seamless that it seemed completely impossible to me that it wasn't all planned that way from the start. It's so absolutely seamless from start to finish that you can really believe that every single thing went according to some grand design, rather than late-game decisions.

The train sequence isn't as iconic, for whatever reason, but I do believe it's altogether grander than the Clock Tower sequence. I have theories for why the latter resonates more strongly with people as a whole, but the sense of danger and risk of failure was much higher in Part III. I think there are a lot of little reasons why one sticks out more than the other; for one thing, objects in motion are harder to film in an "iconic" manner than stationary objects, so a train picking up steam as it heads towards a dead-end track isn't quite as vivid a memory as this giant, foreboding Clock Tower getting struck by lightning. Secondly, a lightning strike is a more clean and, once again, "iconic" visual than flames erupting from a locomotive. Thirdly, there's the fact that even though the entire framework is different, there's still a sense of We've Seen This Already by the time we get to the climax of Part III. It's all by design that the two climaxes run perfectly parallel to each other, but when you've already done something once it's just not going to be as memorable the second time.

That said, the stakes in Part III are much higher and there's a much higher element of danger, absolutely. But all the moving parts maybe prevent it from being quite as memorable as the climax of the original.

[Wildcat]

Leo656,

Thanks for the reply but thought it was too long to quote. I think you understood what I was trying to say but I want to clarify a little more in general because it seems to come off as just nostalgia.

What I meant was that our opinions might have been impacted by the fact we gave these movies so much attention to begin with. As adults we do not let ourselves get caught up in our modern favorites which lessens the impact because we changed our viewing habits.

Although increasing our viewings now might not have the same effect either since we are adults. As kids were naturally more impressed and like I said just want more.

Anyway like Ive said I do not agree that todays movies are made with less care. Im against this notion because its saying that studios/filmmakers stopped caring (or decided to care less) at some point between now and whatever the cutoff year is supposed to be.

Movies have been around so long. To say this is specifically when they stopped caring does not make sense. Theres no real examples of this. Just our bias towards certain eras. Its such an intangible thing.

Its not about CGI vs Practical Effects. The same argument could have been made then by older people too. That the 80s/90s relied too much on flashy scenes and monster effects. Its the same difference.

In Terminators case they really have no where to go but bigger. Some might not want that but its true. In this storyline the threat can only grow. As much as I enjoy T2 its very much a redoing of the original imo. Except now the humans have a good robot for a bodyguard to keep it fair.

Also technology was going to advance (its still going). So including more spectacle was bound to happen. Whether it was Amazing CGI or Super Practical Effects.

I DO agree there seemed to be more variety and stuff being tried out back then. Maybe because practical effects were at their peak. That might have been a big reason the 80s/90s made such an impact. Not that movies were necessarily better. Its just something that era became known for.

As for modern day equivalents or classics I dont know. I think thats kind of decided by each generation. Im sure kids today will consider stuff like the MCU and others Classic.

Those tv specials that look back on old movies and pop culture look back decades after and reflect those times. Todays movies cannot break the same ground over again.

[Andrew NDB]

Come to think of it, I do dust off the Dirty Harry and Death Wish movies every couple of years or so.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

I didn't care much for movies as a child. Playing with toys, reading, drawing and playing video games were funnier. When it came to television, it was usually the action cartoons that faschinated me.

But I recall liking Spaceballs (before I'd seen Star Wars) and Hot Shots, and watching them a few times.

[Leo656]

Wildcat:

I get what you're saying, but you're also over-simplifying a lot.

For one thing, there's always a shift in filmmaking every generation or so.
Long ago it was all about making Westerns, then nobody wanted 'em. Even within a genre like horror, sensibilities change: mid-70s, you had more "traumatic horror" stuff like "The Hills Have Eyes" and "Last House on the Left" and "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer", where a "horror movie" was legit something that would make a viewer feel like they needed a shower and to go see their therapist or something. Then came the rise of 80s "Slasher Movies" which were more popcorn and "quippy", and thus the whole "Root for the Bad Guy" motif of the Freddy and Jason style of "horror". And then in the 90s you had "Scream" and all the "self-aware horror movies" where they kept winking at the audience and poking fun at the tropes, which thankfully didn't last long. And then in the early-2000s came "Hostel" and "Saw" and the "torture porn" style of horror. Late-2000s saw the "Modern Reboot" trend of horror, where everything from "Friday the 13th" to "The Hills Have Eyes" got a mediocre remake within three-year span. And so on. That's ONE genre of films but I think you get my point.

Fact is, the priorities of filmmakers has always shifted every decade or generation, due to a variety of factors such as "What's popular with the audience Right Now", "How much can we afford to spend Right Now", and so on. But there is never a "Cutoff Year" as you put it for when these things change, it's a gradual shift in priority. Sometimes it happens more abruptly than others but it's always a wave.

You actually CAN easily point out to where there was a Big Huge Break in priority, and it's when "Jaws" and "Star Wars" first came out, as those were the first "blockbuster" movies that 1. "Everyone" had to see and the movie was now An Event, 2. They cost a lot to make, and 3. Thus needed to make HUGE earnings in order to justify the cost in making them. THEN they became some of the first films to be aggressively sequelized - sequels had existed long before them, but in the past it was implicitly understood by most people that sequels were bad movies; NOW with stuff like Jaws 2 and "Empire Strikes Back" we were being told, "No, you HAVE to see this, it's BETTER than the first one!" which really was never the case before. BUT, it was all still purely profit-driven; movies pre-Jaws, pre-Planet of the Apes, pre-Star Wars, were always "just" movies. People worked hard to make the best movie they could within their budget, and if it made a lot of money that's great, but it was simply "impossible" for a movie to make Star Wars money before Star Wars was a thing, so nobody ever went into a movie hoping or expecting it to be a "blockbuster". The term didn't even exist; "Nobody is ever going to make $100 million back on a movie because there's never going to be a movie that popular" was the general thinking of filmmakers, up through the '70s. "I hope we make money, but we probably won't" was how most films were made before that. Losses were expected. Billion-dollar profits weren't even within the realm of imagination.

BUT, everything changed, post-Star Wars. If you just look at movies released year-by-year by major studios, all the way up through the mid-70s you had a much broader range of films, everything from drama to romance to "art house" stuff to horror to sci-fi and there was no overwhelming "genre" of movies; everything just sort of came out, and some stuff was more popular than others, but the range of studio releases was very, very broad. Not so much after the rise of the "blockbuster"; once they all saw you COULD make $100 million - to say NOTHING of a billion - that's all anyone wanted to do. EVERYTHING became about chasing profits, and nobody just made movies "for art" anymore. Independent cinema and "grindhouse" and "exploitation" movies ALL quickly died a death when blockbusters and franchises like "Friday the 13th" became standard, and if you didn't have a plan to get your character on a T-shirt and make six more movies and franchise your work, then you didn't get your movie made at all.

It's STILL like that, although "independent" cinema has seen a resurgence somewhat thanks to YouTube and NetFlix and such. But insofar as Hollywood goes, it's STILL all about chasing money and not telling stories. And no, it was NOT always like that. It used to be "Let's tell a great story, I hope we make money with it." Post-1975 or so to today, it's "Let's make some money. We don't need a story, people who buy tickets are idiots anyway." Some movies have good or even great stories but it's not a PRIORITY and has not been for a very, very long time. You say "you can't point to a cutoff", but you can. In fact, I'm not the one who came up with this little thesis of mine; I'm merely echoing what directors, screenwriters and actors who were around back then have been saying for years: That at one point, writers and directors were "artists", and now they're just hired guns for a studio that's chasing a pot of gold, and if you can't make a billion dollars you're easily replaced.

It was NOT always like that, not even close. And it DOES hurt the industry. Movies ARE worse now than they used to be. They're just prettier to look at, that's all. I know some people don't care about anything but escapism and having a fun little two hours in the air conditioning. But they SHOULD care. Movies SHOULD be Art, not a paint-by-numbers exercise in chasing an endless river of cash. I'm not saying blockbusters have no place in cinema but not EVERY film should HAVE to be a blockbuster just to have a right to exist. But that's exactly where we are Right Now. "If we can't make a billion dollars and eight sequels, why would we even back this project?" That's terrible, but it's the state we live in. And it's bad for everyone.

A lot of it IS about CGI vs. Practical Effects. When you had to actually spend a year building sets, costumes, props, and puppets, you had to be a LOT more careful with what you were doing because you had to justify every dollar that went on screen and filmmakers had to be a lot more creative. Now, you can push a few buttons and in a couple hours, there's your Death Star or whatever. And that's very freeing for the VFX artists but 1. CGI always looks like sh*t, and the editors don't care because "Well, the audience knows we're using CGI so it's okay if it looks like sh*t, they expect it", and 2. It makes people careless when they can just go into "Edit", press a button, and completely redesign everything. It makes them sloppy. When you actually had to build things with your hands, there was craftsmanship. When you push buttons, standards drop. You get stuff like Cavill's upper lip in "Justice League", or those horrible Transformers designs. Ugly, ugly sh*t. So no, it's not ALL about CGI but the prevalence of CGI is absolutely a factor. People care less about "mistakes" when you can "fix" it by pushing a button or swiping a light pen. It leads to a general lack of care across the board.

In wrestling - which is basically just "making movies in real time without a net" - we have a term called "training your audience". It's a fact that tastes and things can shift, but it's also true that an audience will "pop" for whatever they're repeatedly told is important. Right now, the movie audience is "told" that Only Billion-Dollar Blockbusters Matter, so they buy into it, and so it's all anyone pays to see and thus it's all anyone wants to make. You hear it all the time from people: "Movie X didn't make any money, so it has to be terrible. If it was good it would've made a billion!" But that's such a flawed way of thinking; lots of great films are ignored and lots of blockbusters are awful. BUT, we've been "trained" to pop for "spectacle". BUT, if anyone were inclined, movies COULD be "just" about telling stories again. They'd just have to start telling the audience that stories and plot and acting all matters, and not how much the movie cost to make.

Obviously, when they're spending $300 mil on every movie coming out, they're not gonna do that. It's a vicious cycle that's choking the industry to death, even if you choose not to see it.

Art shouldn't be about "technology", and the fact that they have computers now and insist that they have to use them to tell stories is asinine, it's just them masturbating. They put $200 million on the screen for each of those PD TMNT movies, and they couldn't draw flies to sh*t because the movies themselves were fundamentally terrible no matter how pretty they were. It was nice to see them fail, because it proves that sometimes it's NOT about spending a fortune on shiny toys, and if your story sucks people reject it. That was heartwarming. It sucks that TMNT had to be the Sacrificial Lamb in that experiment, but I wish it happened more often.

The current trend of "Spend More to Earn more" and "People Only Want Blockbusters" is not sustainable, and it never should have even gotten this far. Fewer movies get made altogether, VFX houses shut down because these "blockbusters" that make billions don't have to share that money with the SFX artists due to shady contracts, and there's a distinct lack of variety. "Bigger, Better, More" isn't how this sh*t should work. And it can't last forever.

This isn't "Old Man Yells At Clouds" stuff. This is all proven, and provable, Objective Truth. Movies as an art form have been on a downward slide for decades. They're just prettier and more expensive now. That's all. Things aren't "better", they're only "better" if you ONLY like blockbusters, because that's all anyone gets now. And when someone like Scorsese says that it's not sustainable, and we're all going to collectively come to regret our obsession with this popcorn stuff, he's 100 correct.

[DarkFell]

TMNT 1990.
Terminator 1 & 2.
Jurassic Park.
The first Land Before Time movie.
The Wizard of Oz.
The Goonies.

Honorable mentions are:
The Shadow.
Batman '89. (I plan on eventually getting the DVD.)
Mrs. Doubtfire.
Most Disney 2-D movies. (I know, I'm cheating - it's hard to pick a favorite.)
Predator 1 & 2.
Secret Of The Ooze.
Rock & Rule.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Infinity War.
Iron Man 1.
Spiderman 2002.

[ranger_scout]

I watch The Wizard of Oz on my birthday every year. So, that could be the movie I has seen the most times. However, I could be wrong.

Other movies include The Chipmunk Adventure, Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, The Sandlot as well the original Peter Pan, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King.

[Wildcat]

Leo656,

I understand about the shifts but based on that description the cutoff would have been way before suggesting the 80s/90s the era where things declined. Its when a lot of franchises came to be.

Anyway to say filmmakers outright stopped caring still does not make sense to me. I see how Blockbusters became dominant but saying this caused a wave of less care is more of an assumption to me.

I can see it being true in some part but thats a big assumption to use on the entire industry. The belief is that filmmakers cared more before some specific time frame. Not what trend became mainstream. I think thats a different topic.

I know its not just you making these claims. Ive seen this kind of stuff said before. I do agree some bigger budgets are not necessary but a lot of stuff has become more expensive over time. Thats not unique to the movie business.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the CGI thing. To label it as inferior and self indulgent is such a disservice to the technology and people who have worked to keep improving it imo.

Sometimes its over used or seems off. Not all cgi is treated the same. I saw CRAWL recently though. The alligators were completely cgi and they looked great to me. I checked because I thought they used a mix of real animals.

Always thought the Transformers looked good too. The designs at least. Im also happy Sonic was not made in the 90s. I am curious how they would have done it but I think he would have looked out of place. It was worth waiting.

Might seem like I prefer cgi over practical effects but I honestly like both the same. I never thought one should replace the other. CGI gets such a bad wrap though.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

It's strange in many ways how the general audience's views have changed. Back when CGI was introduced, people were blown away with what could be done.

But now, I find a lot of people are now being blown away when a shot isn't CGI, and is in fact practical effects.

It's strange

[DarkFell]

Originally Posted by Whatswiththeheadbands?

It's strange in many ways how the general audience's views have changed. Back when CGI was introduced, people were blown away with what could be done.

But now, I find a lot of people are now being blown away when a shot isn't CGI, and is in fact practical effects.

It's strange.

I think that a lot of folks are just burned out from the excessive CGI in most of today's movies.

[Leo656]

Yeah, I always gravitate towards sets and props more, that's never gonna change.

Did I say "Ernest Goes To Camp"? Because I've definitely seen that movie way more times than is necessary. When I was in like first grade it was on cable twice a day every day for several weeks so I got a huge head start with that one.

I think it's one of the few Ernest movies that is not completely terrible upon re-watching with adult eyes. It's heavy-handed and of course unrelentingly silly but there's a few moments that have genuine sincerity. I hate "kids movies" as a rule and can't stand most of the ones I even watched as a kid, or at least a lot of them, but I do think that one's a perfectly reasonable "kids movie".

[ABrown]

I don't really have to give this a whole lot of thought. The movie that I have seen the most times in my life is the original Transformers movie from 1986. I watched it about a billion times as a child. And then in 1999 when Kid Rhino re-released the movie, I purchased it and watched it dozens of times. And then in 2006 when the 20th anniversary DVD came out, I purchased that and have watch it many times over the last 10+ years.

[PizzaPower1985]

I've been unemployed for the majority of my life so I have seen A LOT of films and read a LOT of comics/books.

I'm 34 and up until about 6 years ago I watched 2 films a day everyday for 2 decades, be they old favorites or new releases.

My all time favorites that I have watched more than any other are:

Batman '89 I've seen it 80 times since I was 4 (my first movie theater film)

John Carpenter's Halloween and it's sequel (watched it at least 50 times)

TMNT 1990 (probably seen it 40 times in my life)

Superman: The Movie (watched it on TV as a kid and seen it about 30 times since)

Back to the Future Trilogy - Not sure of a number but a lot

Warriors (1979 - street gang movie) - watched it about 20 times

Suburbia (1983) - punk rock movie - was obsessed with this... 25 or so. weird flick.


Tourist Trap (1979 a creepy little proto-slasher that I recommend) - watched it about 15 times

King Kong (30's, 70's and 2006 versions) each version seen about 10 times

A Nightmare on Elm Street (all of them) - too many times to count

The Breakfast Club - This movie I watched nearly every week in high school so, about 100+ times

Indiana Jones films (the first 3) - at least 30 times each

Ghostbusters and II - at least 20 times each

RoboCop - seen it about 20 times

The Texas Chainsaw Masscare - seen it about 15 times.

First Blood (Rambo) - about 15 times

Jaws (1975) - about 20 times

Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho - about 30 times, at least

Total Recall (1990) - about 15 times

Pulp Fiction - probably at least 30 times
The Alien trilogy - at least 20 times a piece... Alien 3 at least 30 times.