There are two things that keep me from being able to let this go unchallenged. They’re small details, but they really kicked me out of the movie when I was watching it. First off, aside from the well-done attack on the Arizona, the majority of the other explosions on ships during the attack were showing pyrotechnics going off on various Spruance-class style hulls. Even worse, I can’t seem to recall that they had made any effort to cover over the VLS cells on some of those ships. It’s as much a FUBAR to me, as the use of Korean War era US tanks for German WWII tanks in Battle of the Bulge. The other detail was having the CGI’d Zeros flying through billowing smoke - without ever affecting how the smoke was moving. I just can’t give the battle sequence there any credit after those jarring errors, I’m afraid. (Though I’ll admit that the CGI one might have been beyond the state of the art to avoid.)
We have it on DVD. Liked it okay but wouldn’t go quite that far.
For the “300” fans, we really didn’t think it was that good. It was okay. I guess we were hoping for something as good as “Sin City,” a far superior film, and “300” just wasn’t as good.
I agree with CNN about the helicopter scene in “Apocalypse Now” and the “Saving Private Ryal” beach landing being the top two.
Das Boot gets me every time, especially on the full, “uncut” version. The tension of long those depth-charge attacks is close to unbearable.
There’s a reason Das Boot is assigned watching in my AP Euro classes! 
I have to take issue with the numerous posters who say that a CGI-based battle sequence can’t qualify for the list. What makes a good battle scene? Cinematography, editing, acting (by the principals), use of the landscape, set design, sound, score, script.
I don’t see why it matters one iota whether the armies are faceless human extras, or faceless CGI.
The two battle scenes in Master and Commander: The far Side of the World seem reasonably accurate in their depictions of torn sails, shattered wood and the resulting fragments acting like shrapnel, smoke, other damage, chaos and confusion, not to mention all the casualties on both sides.
OK, then. Ignorance fought.
Woah, I’ve never done that before! 
A lot of film critics make the same mistake, praising or denouncing Leone for his inventiveness, when the generals and campaigns he name-checks were all real (Though the bridge battle was fictional.) It’s a minor pet peeve of mine. Admittedly the New Mexico campaign was a tiny irrelevant sideshow to the Civil War, and is usually ignored by most brief Civil War histories, but it did happen.
I think people forget that much of the Braveheart battles included CGI.
“Enemy at the Gates” nominated for the worst. Horrible. It’s like they desperately tried to cram as many cold war inspired myths about the eastern front into as little time as possible. Their inaccuracy per minute rate is as high as campy John Wayne style war movies, but without the obvious campiness, making them deceptive.