Yup, I dont agree with the list, except raging bull. Here’s mine:
sci-fi: terminator 2
rom-com: can’t think of any, but if it’s just comedy then Superbad
gangster: scarface
epic: LOTR trilogy
sports: raging bull
western: proposition
animation: lion king
courtroom drama: few good men
mystery: Seven
fantasy: LOTR trilogy

Goodfellas > The Godfather

A few thing I think should have been different:

Fantasy: replace Fellowship with Return of the King
Science Fiction: replace New Hope with Empire, and put it #1…2001 is completely overrated. And add Planet of the Apes
Westerns: put Open Range on there somewhere
Sports: add Cinderella Man
Courtroom drama: add Runaway Jury
Epic: agree with above poster, LOTR is as epic as they come, plus, Lawrence of Arabia bores me

does the afi have one really big eyebrow and like pizza alot ?

As a humble fan of good movies, I am not really concerned about the movies list mentioned here as much as I am really concerned

about who were comprised in the group that voted for the Sc-Fi genre. I and my girlfriend, both software engineers and my sister,

a main-frame programmer herself, have always been interested in sci-fi movies, however whackily or realistically they have been

made. From the movies mentioned in the sci-fi list, we have watched exactly eight of those. And after a not-so-long discussion, we

immediately came to the conclusion, that the jury is SIMPLY INCOMPETENT to understand SCIENCE. Not surprising, considering

that (according to this article) the jury consisted of - over 1,500 leaders from the creative community, including film artists

(directors, screenwriters, actors, editors, cinematographers), critics and historians. Fiction, maybe they understood. But they

should not, in my humble opinion, have had the rights to vote for the Sci-Fi section where Science was concerned.

Reason: There is this particular movie created by a Master, that we three, have described in single line as - ‘ The Most Realistic

Non-Exaggerated Practical Scientific Movie ever made.’ - This Master is non other than Steven Spielberg and the movie is

‘Artificial Intelligence(2001)’ and we all three (me, my sis, my GF) have majored in AI. That speaks for itself. And this movie is

simply not present anywhere in the Top 10 (?) Sci-Fi List. Ouch! That hurts.

The fact that this movie does not contain any black leather, Ray-Bans, bullets, guns, explosions, ruthless man-killing robots and

mind-boggling action scenes or other fireworks does not mean that this movie is not a Sci-Fi Masterpiece.

This is movie has not been made keeping the ordinary non-technical movie-loving public in mind even though ironically it IS

concerned with the very near-future of all human beings.

So we three, who also enjoy-adore-love good movies even as fictional as ‘The Lord of the Rings’, have this to say about the Sci-Fi list of AFI - "That Sci-Fi List is Trash without the Best Sci-Fictional and yet realistic Movie of all time - Artificial Intelligence (2001) and the Jury is hypocrite."
My request to AFI jury or anyone in general: "Just because you failed to understand (a movie/anything in life), Never Under-rate it.Take opinion of someone who is Expert in that field to rate it."

As a humble fan of good movies, I am not really concerned about the movies list mentioned here as much as I am really concerned about who were comprised in the group that voted for the Sc-Fi genre. I and my girlfriend, both software engineers and my sister, a main-frame programmer herself, have always been interested in sci-fi movies, however whackily or realistically they have been made.

From the movies mentioned in the sci-fi list, we have watched exactly eight of those. And after a not-so-long discussion, we immediately came to the conclusion, that the jury is SIMPLY INCOMPETENT to understand SCIENCE. Not surprising, considering that (according to this article) the jury consisted of - over 1,500 leaders from the creative community, including film artists (directors, screenwriters, actors, editors, cinematographers), critics and historians. Fiction, maybe they understood. But they should not, in my humble opinion, have had the rights to vote for the Sci-Fi section where Science was concerned.

Reason: There is this particular movie created by a Master, that we three, have described in single line as - ‘ The Most Realistic Non-Exaggerated Practical Scientific Movie ever made.’ - This Master is non other than Steven Spielberg and the movie is ‘Artificial Intelligence(2001)’ and this movie is simply not present anywhere in the Top 10 (?) Sci-Fi List. Ouch! That hurts. We all three (me, my sis, my GF) have majored in AI. That speaks for itself.

The fact that this movie does not contain any black leather, Ray-Bans, bullets, guns, explosions, ruthless man-killing robots and mind-boggling action scenes or other fireworks does not mean that this movie is not a Sci-Fi Masterpiece. This is movie has not been made keeping the ordinary non-technical movie-loving public in mind even though ironically it IS concerned with the very near-future of all human beings.

The out-of-this-world ‘Star-Wars’, any one can make - a whole series of it. But it requires gumption to create one single masterpiece like ‘Artificial Intelligence(2001)’

So we three, who also enjoy-adore-love good movies even as fictional as ‘The Lord of the Rings’, have this to say about the Sci-Fi list of AFI - "That Sci-Fi List is Trash without the Best Sci-Fi Movie of all time - Artificial Intelligence (2001) and the Jury is
hypocrite."My request to AFI jury or anyone in general: "Never under-rate (a movie/anything in life) simply because you do not understand it. Ask some one who is Expert in to rate it"

A suggestion to anybody who is reading this: Watch ‘AI’ keeping your feet on the ground and feel the effect of getting enlightened.