Ranking the Greats: Please Make it Stop

When I was a young cinephile I was enthralled by the Sight and Sound Poll, which releases its latest ten year ranking today.  The first one I was aware of was the 1972 poll which had Citizen Kane at the top of the heap (as it was in 1962 and in 1982, 1992 and 2002).  I wasn’t aware of the list in 1972 when it was released but a few years later, probably around 1980 or so.  I had purchased The Book of Lists in 1980 and found the poll within its pages.  Being deeply immersed in a young cinephile’s love of film, I made sure to see every film on it.  That wasn’t easy (in fact, it was impossible at the time and still there are films like Satyajit Ray’s Apu Trilogy only recently available on DVD in most places) but I did my best.  I loved having such an elitist guide to my film watching.  This wasn’t some popularity poll, for goodness sake, this was film critics and connoisseurs ranking what they felt to be the greatest films ever made.  That was important to me at the time and, I think, important for film.

But now it’s not.  And I don’t care.  And you shouldn’t either.  And Sight and Sound needs to stop doing this.  Now.

There is a time in the early stages of any art form when it is important to delineate the good from the bad, to encourage the good artists to continue on their path and the mediocrities to fade into obscurity.   And when that happens with a modern art form, like cinema, in which it propels through periods at ten times the pace that something like literature or painting do, the early stages are over soon.  At that point everyone locks into a handful of movies that represent the good and a handful of others that represent the also-rans and everything just kind of dies.  I wrote about this with rock music rankings a while back, elsewhere, in which I ranted about how stale and unimagitive the lists of greatest albums and musicians have become (you can read it here) and the same thing has happened to film.  And there’s no need for it.

In 1972, film hadn’t even been around for 90 years.  The sound period wasn’t even fifty yet.  And Hollywood’s Golden Era had just ended with studio influence waning in the sixties.  The French New Wave wasn’t even twenty.  Now, we’ve had forty more years and new technologies from VCRS and Laser Discs to DVDs and online streaming which make more movies available to more people than ever before and the internet allows cinephiles like all of us to read about all kinds of films that all those “by rote” movie history books left out.   All the Sight and Sound poll does now is encourage stale adherence or insincere contrariness.    That is to say, you either have the group that says, “These are the greatest films ever made and we need to recognize that,” and so Citizen Kane and The Rules of the Game and Tokyo Story all get ranked, or you have the group that says, “This is boring.  Let’s rank all those forgotten films or the underrated ones or… whatever.”  From that group often comes movies that could easily be dismissed as mediocre or uber-niche and yet there they are, enshrined on the movie list of lists.  It’s all so ridiculous and dull and adolescent.

Now, full disclosure, I sent an e-mail to Sight and Sound about two or three years ago (and wrote about it five years ago) lobbying them to include many of the critics and bloggers online and, in fact, they did.  Whether I had any influence on that, I don’t know (I doubt it), but I’m glad that many of my friends in the critical world were included and this post is in no way meant to be disrespectful of their participation.   But I also suggested to Sight and Sound that they change how the list is done or not do it at all and there I clearly had absolutely no influence because they didn’t change it and, by gum, they’re still doing the damn thing.  My suggestion was simple:  Let the participants submit a list of the top 250 or 500, instead of 10.  Ten is moronic.  You’re talking about condensing over 120 years of cinema into 10 single works.  That’s beyond moronic, actually, it’s insulting.

If participants could submit a list of 250 to 500 (that may sound like a lot but, trust me, to a cinephile it’s a piece of cake), they could include all the movies they know they want to include due to their legacy  (like the usual canon material) and have plenty of room to include forgotten or overlooked films and you would have a much more complete representation.  There wouldn’t be this need to pick one or the other.  But more importantly, a top ten for anything in the arts is a gross under-representation (and, yes, I know the final list includes over 2,000 films of everything that got a vote but the main list is 10 and that’s the one that gets the publicity).  After 120 years of cinema, I think a top 5,000 would be more reflective of what there is to offer.  After all, in any given year, there are at least one or two movies that I believe qualify as great and plenty more from years past that have never been ranked.

Of course, the main justification for these things that their designers (and/or apologists) always give is “but they inspire debate.”

Please stop saying that.

Look, I’ve been online for twenty years now and I’ve been critically writing about film online for over five and I can tell you that  I have engaged in more debate that has illuminated my understanding of cinema from blog posts than any list has ever done!  Ever!  In fact, the only debate a list inspires is usually between how useful or useless the list is which is a circular, self-contained debate that wouldn’t exist without the list!  Outside of that, the debate is usually, “Yeah, that’s a good film but I’d pick this one instead.”  YAAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNN.  

That’s debate?  That’s baloney!  I’ll tell you about a good debate:  A few years back when my friends Bill Ryan and Dennis Cozzalio debated the varying qualities of Inglourious Basterds and Jonathan Rosenbaum got involved and then I got involved (somewhere in part three of the discussion, I believe) and Tony Dayoub and Don Mancini and a lot of other intelligent cinephiles and we discussed film technique, history and the Holocaust all without the aid of a single, stupid list!  You want to know about some other good debates?  I’ll make it easy for you:  Go to the main page here at The Morlocks and scroll down through each post and its comments and I’ll be damned if you don’t find some excellent debating going on in the comments and on the message boards here.

I’ve had so many great debates online and seen so many movies I’d never even heard of before thanks to the amazing online cinephile community that any kind of list now, even one as purportedly prestigious as the vaunted Sight and Sound poll, seems a little, well, silly.  Like something kids do.  Whether it’s baseball or rock and roll, when kids are just learning about something new they’re anxious to classify who’s the best, the worst and every other superlative in between (“superlatives in between” – oh what the hell, I’ll let it stay) and get into heated arguments over it all (“You’re so stupid!  Clayton Kershaw is soooo overrated!  Verlander could pitch circles around him.”).  But we’re not kids anymore and cinema isn’t the fresh new face on the block anymore.  It’s been around the corner quite a few times and top ten lists do nothing to further the understanding of the art itself.  So Sight and Sound, I’m glad your list was a success, really I am.  But let’s make 2012 the last one ever.  Let’s move on… and grow up.

215 Responses Ranking the Greats: Please Make it Stop
Posted By Andrew : August 1, 2012 9:03 am

I like your idea of expanding the number of submitted films. I would suggest that the process actually needs a second step. Compile all the lists into one big list of everything that got at least two mentions then send that list back to the experts. I suspect there will be a lot of “I completely forgot about that one”. Then have folks group this list into four groups (great, interesting, good, what the @#$% is it doing on this list???)
then compile a final list.

Posted By Andrew : August 1, 2012 9:03 am

I like your idea of expanding the number of submitted films. I would suggest that the process actually needs a second step. Compile all the lists into one big list of everything that got at least two mentions then send that list back to the experts. I suspect there will be a lot of “I completely forgot about that one”. Then have folks group this list into four groups (great, interesting, good, what the @#$% is it doing on this list???)
then compile a final list.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 9:04 am

Andrew, that’s a good idea, too. And the final list would still represent a large number of films, both canonical and underrated.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 9:04 am

Andrew, that’s a good idea, too. And the final list would still represent a large number of films, both canonical and underrated.

Posted By kimalysong : August 1, 2012 9:05 am

I have to admit I am obsessed with lists and when I was unemployed I tried watching films from several (never actually finishing any though).

My favorite list has always been TSPDT as I think it gives a pretty good round up of great films (especially in its first 100) & it takes into account Sight & Sound in its own rankings but I think everyone has to realize no list is definitive or the only say on film.

I like the Sight & Sound list because it’s short and sweet and I think it is a good start to film (and actually I have not seen everything on that list either, still missing Raging Bull).

Granted I can understand how someone who has been into film for a long time would find lists less useful but I think for a new fan (and I consider myself a newer fan) I find them invaluable to see what is out there. I just think people need to realize a list is only 1 voice or a limited voice and not the be all end all of film. Hence why I supplement my film watching with as many lists as I can. It’s not so much about finishing a list but about watching as many films as I can.

Posted By kimalysong : August 1, 2012 9:05 am

I have to admit I am obsessed with lists and when I was unemployed I tried watching films from several (never actually finishing any though).

My favorite list has always been TSPDT as I think it gives a pretty good round up of great films (especially in its first 100) & it takes into account Sight & Sound in its own rankings but I think everyone has to realize no list is definitive or the only say on film.

I like the Sight & Sound list because it’s short and sweet and I think it is a good start to film (and actually I have not seen everything on that list either, still missing Raging Bull).

Granted I can understand how someone who has been into film for a long time would find lists less useful but I think for a new fan (and I consider myself a newer fan) I find them invaluable to see what is out there. I just think people need to realize a list is only 1 voice or a limited voice and not the be all end all of film. Hence why I supplement my film watching with as many lists as I can. It’s not so much about finishing a list but about watching as many films as I can.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 9:07 am

Granted I can understand how someone who has been into film for a long time would find lists less useful but I think for a new fan (and I consider myself a newer fan) I find them invaluable to see what is out there.

I certainly can’t deny their usefulness in that area, I just feel like now, with the sheer volume of discussion on the internet, it’s easier to get a feel for what needs to be seen from blogs and twitter and facebook than a list published once every ten years.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 9:07 am

Granted I can understand how someone who has been into film for a long time would find lists less useful but I think for a new fan (and I consider myself a newer fan) I find them invaluable to see what is out there.

I certainly can’t deny their usefulness in that area, I just feel like now, with the sheer volume of discussion on the internet, it’s easier to get a feel for what needs to be seen from blogs and twitter and facebook than a list published once every ten years.

Posted By swac44 : August 1, 2012 9:57 am

Funny, I first read that list in The Book of Lists as well, probably around the same time, and I’m sure it got me to view Citizen Kane (via late night airing on CBC) and Battleship Potemkin (via late night airing on the CBC’s French channel, which often ran silent classics with intertitles en francais) long before I would have come across them normally. In fact I saw Canadian comedy duo Wayne & Shuster’s parody of Citizen Kane (titled, of course, Citizen Wayne) long before I ever saw the Welles version, and didn’t make the connection until years later.

But I’m also listed out. I think those dreadful AFI/Blockbuster list-o-ramas were the final nail in the coffin, they just became utterly meaningless.

Posted By swac44 : August 1, 2012 9:57 am

Funny, I first read that list in The Book of Lists as well, probably around the same time, and I’m sure it got me to view Citizen Kane (via late night airing on CBC) and Battleship Potemkin (via late night airing on the CBC’s French channel, which often ran silent classics with intertitles en francais) long before I would have come across them normally. In fact I saw Canadian comedy duo Wayne & Shuster’s parody of Citizen Kane (titled, of course, Citizen Wayne) long before I ever saw the Welles version, and didn’t make the connection until years later.

But I’m also listed out. I think those dreadful AFI/Blockbuster list-o-ramas were the final nail in the coffin, they just became utterly meaningless.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 9:58 am

But I’m also listed out. I think those dreadful AFI/Blockbuster list-o-ramas were the final nail in the coffin, they just became utterly meaningless.

That’s a big part of my problem here, is that the poll served a function originally that it just doesn’t anymore. Before all the technology and ability of cinephiles miles apart to discuss film was there, a list like this meant something but now, not as much. And, as you point out, lists are everywhere, every day. There’s not an online publication that doesn’t put out a Top 10 or 100 this or that every other day.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 9:58 am

But I’m also listed out. I think those dreadful AFI/Blockbuster list-o-ramas were the final nail in the coffin, they just became utterly meaningless.

That’s a big part of my problem here, is that the poll served a function originally that it just doesn’t anymore. Before all the technology and ability of cinephiles miles apart to discuss film was there, a list like this meant something but now, not as much. And, as you point out, lists are everywhere, every day. There’s not an online publication that doesn’t put out a Top 10 or 100 this or that every other day.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 1, 2012 10:14 am

Only Tarantino´s list was fun,the last time around.
What we need is more honesty.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 1, 2012 10:14 am

Only Tarantino´s list was fun,the last time around.
What we need is more honesty.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 10:15 am

There were a few lists that were definitely interesting but, yes, most were and are pretty static.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 10:15 am

There were a few lists that were definitely interesting but, yes, most were and are pretty static.

Posted By marilynferdinand : August 1, 2012 10:16 am

Greg – As you know, I don’t make lists on my blog, and the only list that ever slipped out of me was one of films I enjoyed in a given year, which was not a best-of list, but a way to bring exposure to the offroad films that are my particular pleasure. I agree with you that lists have become ossified or contrarian. They serve a valuable purpose for the budding cinephile – my interest started later than yours, and I used Ebert’s The Great Movies as my checklist for getting up to speed on the essentials. After that, they simply seem like an exercise in “we’ve always done it this way.”

I think Wonders in the Dark does a hell of a service by holding polls on specific years and on genre films. You and I have both participated in voting on Musicals and Comedies, and I do think the varied opinions of enthusiasts rather than scholars leads to so very interesting, not contrarian, selections. The lists are long enough to represent a variety of tastes, countries, directors, actors, etc. You can argue about the people chosen to vote, but in general, I think the invitations are really great. Let Sight and Sound preach to the choir if they want. The critics’ world has greatly enlarged since then, and we’re going where no one has gone before.

Posted By marilynferdinand : August 1, 2012 10:16 am

Greg – As you know, I don’t make lists on my blog, and the only list that ever slipped out of me was one of films I enjoyed in a given year, which was not a best-of list, but a way to bring exposure to the offroad films that are my particular pleasure. I agree with you that lists have become ossified or contrarian. They serve a valuable purpose for the budding cinephile – my interest started later than yours, and I used Ebert’s The Great Movies as my checklist for getting up to speed on the essentials. After that, they simply seem like an exercise in “we’ve always done it this way.”

I think Wonders in the Dark does a hell of a service by holding polls on specific years and on genre films. You and I have both participated in voting on Musicals and Comedies, and I do think the varied opinions of enthusiasts rather than scholars leads to so very interesting, not contrarian, selections. The lists are long enough to represent a variety of tastes, countries, directors, actors, etc. You can argue about the people chosen to vote, but in general, I think the invitations are really great. Let Sight and Sound preach to the choir if they want. The critics’ world has greatly enlarged since then, and we’re going where no one has gone before.

Posted By robbushblog : August 1, 2012 11:39 am

Lists are useful to someone who doesn’t have as large a knowledge as others regarding a certain topic, in this case film. They are also fun to create and to debate. They should not be taken seriously. I am reminded of this fact everytime my nephew tells me that FDR and Woodrow Wilson are considered among the greatest Presidents by historians. And when Rolling Stone puts out a list of greatest singers or greatest rock and roll artists and puts anybody above the King, I cry foul. The opinion of “experts” rarely means much to me.

Posted By robbushblog : August 1, 2012 11:39 am

Lists are useful to someone who doesn’t have as large a knowledge as others regarding a certain topic, in this case film. They are also fun to create and to debate. They should not be taken seriously. I am reminded of this fact everytime my nephew tells me that FDR and Woodrow Wilson are considered among the greatest Presidents by historians. And when Rolling Stone puts out a list of greatest singers or greatest rock and roll artists and puts anybody above the King, I cry foul. The opinion of “experts” rarely means much to me.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 1:03 pm

Marilyn, Wonders in the Dark does indeed do a great job. I said to Tony on Facebook that I’ve participated in many lists so I think one of the things about the Sight and Sound poll is the equation with prestige when it’s just another list. Maybe I’m just listed out for now, like swac said.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 1:03 pm

Marilyn, Wonders in the Dark does indeed do a great job. I said to Tony on Facebook that I’ve participated in many lists so I think one of the things about the Sight and Sound poll is the equation with prestige when it’s just another list. Maybe I’m just listed out for now, like swac said.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 1:04 pm

Duke, I’m the only expert you need to follow.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 1:04 pm

Duke, I’m the only expert you need to follow.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 1, 2012 2:02 pm

Take the List of Alex Cox for instance.
From someone who is that obsessed with the Italo Western Genre,
you would guess that at least a Leone Picture make the way to
his list.
But no.
Or Tim Lucas.
He spend 30 years of his Life writing about two Tons of Book
about one Single Director.Mario Bava.
Yep,not in the list.
Instead,the same,lame usual Suspects of Safer Cinema.
O.K. King Kong is on Cox List,and Lucas got Leone.A Revolution.
At least in John Woo´s list you can see the influence Peckinpah
and Melville had on him.
Even if i´am not sure that he really understood them,at least
that makes sense.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 1, 2012 2:02 pm

Take the List of Alex Cox for instance.
From someone who is that obsessed with the Italo Western Genre,
you would guess that at least a Leone Picture make the way to
his list.
But no.
Or Tim Lucas.
He spend 30 years of his Life writing about two Tons of Book
about one Single Director.Mario Bava.
Yep,not in the list.
Instead,the same,lame usual Suspects of Safer Cinema.
O.K. King Kong is on Cox List,and Lucas got Leone.A Revolution.
At least in John Woo´s list you can see the influence Peckinpah
and Melville had on him.
Even if i´am not sure that he really understood them,at least
that makes sense.

Posted By Kingrat : August 1, 2012 2:30 pm

Greg, there was a previous Morlocks post inviting people to select 10 great films which had never been picked in any decade by anyone on the Sight & Sound lists. Most people who responded didn’t understand the challenge and just named their favorites, which is OK, too. But it was fun to realize that some critic or director had already picked less likely suspects like BONJOUR TRISTESSE, THE NUN’S STORY, STRAY DOG, and WHISTLE DOWN THE WIND, all of which were strong candidates for me.

At least the Sight & Sound polls are light years better than the AFI polls which confuse “of all time” with “in the last few years.”

Another interesting kind of list would be to choose the 10 films which best illustrate your own aesthetic or point of view.

And though I’m very fond of CITIZEN KANE, PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, and TOKYO STORY, I’m a contrarian on THE RULES OF THE GAME, which has some great scenes, but because of some weak casting (especially Nora Gregor) I’d don’t give a rat’s patootie what happens to the aristocrats, and that’s not a good thing.

Posted By Kingrat : August 1, 2012 2:30 pm

Greg, there was a previous Morlocks post inviting people to select 10 great films which had never been picked in any decade by anyone on the Sight & Sound lists. Most people who responded didn’t understand the challenge and just named their favorites, which is OK, too. But it was fun to realize that some critic or director had already picked less likely suspects like BONJOUR TRISTESSE, THE NUN’S STORY, STRAY DOG, and WHISTLE DOWN THE WIND, all of which were strong candidates for me.

At least the Sight & Sound polls are light years better than the AFI polls which confuse “of all time” with “in the last few years.”

Another interesting kind of list would be to choose the 10 films which best illustrate your own aesthetic or point of view.

And though I’m very fond of CITIZEN KANE, PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, and TOKYO STORY, I’m a contrarian on THE RULES OF THE GAME, which has some great scenes, but because of some weak casting (especially Nora Gregor) I’d don’t give a rat’s patootie what happens to the aristocrats, and that’s not a good thing.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 1, 2012 2:49 pm

If i remember right,the great Jacky Chan named among other Films,
Buster Keaton´s The General
Donen and Kelly´s Singing in the Rain
And,i belive,a Harold Loyd Movie,but i´am not sure it was the
Sight and Sound List.
But to me,that seems to be very sympathetic,personal and honest
Choices.
And most of all,they make sense.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 1, 2012 2:49 pm

If i remember right,the great Jacky Chan named among other Films,
Buster Keaton´s The General
Donen and Kelly´s Singing in the Rain
And,i belive,a Harold Loyd Movie,but i´am not sure it was the
Sight and Sound List.
But to me,that seems to be very sympathetic,personal and honest
Choices.
And most of all,they make sense.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 3:18 pm

Well, since this post is about the list I suppose I should publish it for the curious. Here is the critic’s picks, with Vertigo supplanting Citizen Kane at the top.

THE TOP 50

1. Vertigo

Alfred Hitchcock, 1958 (191 votes)

2. Citizen Kane

Orson Welles, 1941 (157 votes)

3. Tokyo Story

Ozu Yasujiro, 1953 (107 votes)

4. La Règle du jeu

Jean Renoir, 1939 (100 votes)

5. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

FW Murnau, 1927 (93 votes)

6. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Stanley Kubrick, 1968 (90 votes)

7. The Searchers

John Ford, 1956 (78 votes)

8. Man with a Movie Camera

Dziga Vertov, 1939 (68 votes)

9. The Passion of Joan of Arc

Carl Dreyer, 1927 (65 votes)

10. 8½

Federico Fellini, 1963 (64 votes)

11. Battleship Potemkin

Sergei Eisenstein, 1925 (63 votes)

12. L’Atalante

Jean Vigo, 1934 (58 votes)

13. Breathless

Jean-Luc Godard, 1960 (57 votes)

14. Apocalypse Now

Francis Ford Coppola, 1979 (53 votes)

15. Late Spring

Ozu Yasujiro, 1949 (50 votes)

16. Au hasard Balthazar

Robert Bresson, 1966 (49 votes)

17= Seven Samurai

Kurosawa Akira, 1954 (48 votes)

17= Persona

Ingmar Bergman, 1966 (48 votes)

19. Mirror

Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974 (47 votes)

20. Singin’ in the Rain

Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1951 (46 votes)

21= L’avventura

Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960 (43 votes)

21= Le Mépris

Jean-Luc Godard, 1963 (43 votes)

21= The Godfather

Francis Ford Coppola, 1972 (43 votes)

24= Ordet

Carl Dreyer, 1955 (42 votes)

24= In the Mood for Love

Wong Kar-Wai, 2000 (42 votes)

26= Rashomon

Kurosawa Akira, 1950 (41 votes)

26= Andrei Rublev

Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966 (41 votes)

28. Mulholland Dr.

David Lynch, 2001 (40 votes)

29= Stalker

Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979 (39 votes)

29= Shoah

Claude Lanzmann, 1985 (39 votes)

31= The Godfather Part II

Francis Ford Coppola, 1974 (38 votes)

31= Taxi Driver

Martin Scorsese, 1976 (38 votes)

33. Bicycle Thieves

Vittoria De Sica, 1948 (37 votes)

34. The General

Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman, 1926 (35 votes)

35= Metropolis

Fritz Lang, 1927 (34 votes)

35= Psycho

Alfred Hitchcock, 1960 (34 votes)

35= Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles

Chantal Akerman, 1975 (34 votes)

35= Sátántangó

Béla Tarr, 1994 (34 votes)

39= The 400 Blows

François Truffaut, 1959 (33 votes)

39= La dolce vita

Federico Fellini, 1960 (33 votes)

41. Journey to Italy

Roberto Rossellini, 1954 (32 votes)

42= Pather Panchali

Satyajit Ray, 1955 (31 votes)

42= Some Like It Hot

Billy Wilder, 1959 (31 votes)

42= Gertrud

Carl Dreyer, 1964 (31 votes)

42= Pierrot le fou

Jean-Luc Godard, 1965 (31 votes)

42= Play Time

Jacques Tati, 1967 (31 votes)

42= Close-Up

Abbas Kiarostami, 1990 (31 votes)

48= The Battle of Algiers

Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966 (30 votes)

48= Histoire(s) du cinéma

Jean-Luc Godard, 1998 (30 votes)

50= City Lights

Charlie Chaplin, 1931 (29 votes)

50= Ugetsu monogatari

Mizoguchi Kenji, 1953 (29 votes)

50= La Jetée

Chris Marker, 1962 (29 votes)

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 3:18 pm

Well, since this post is about the list I suppose I should publish it for the curious. Here is the critic’s picks, with Vertigo supplanting Citizen Kane at the top.

THE TOP 50

1. Vertigo

Alfred Hitchcock, 1958 (191 votes)

2. Citizen Kane

Orson Welles, 1941 (157 votes)

3. Tokyo Story

Ozu Yasujiro, 1953 (107 votes)

4. La Règle du jeu

Jean Renoir, 1939 (100 votes)

5. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

FW Murnau, 1927 (93 votes)

6. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Stanley Kubrick, 1968 (90 votes)

7. The Searchers

John Ford, 1956 (78 votes)

8. Man with a Movie Camera

Dziga Vertov, 1939 (68 votes)

9. The Passion of Joan of Arc

Carl Dreyer, 1927 (65 votes)

10. 8½

Federico Fellini, 1963 (64 votes)

11. Battleship Potemkin

Sergei Eisenstein, 1925 (63 votes)

12. L’Atalante

Jean Vigo, 1934 (58 votes)

13. Breathless

Jean-Luc Godard, 1960 (57 votes)

14. Apocalypse Now

Francis Ford Coppola, 1979 (53 votes)

15. Late Spring

Ozu Yasujiro, 1949 (50 votes)

16. Au hasard Balthazar

Robert Bresson, 1966 (49 votes)

17= Seven Samurai

Kurosawa Akira, 1954 (48 votes)

17= Persona

Ingmar Bergman, 1966 (48 votes)

19. Mirror

Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974 (47 votes)

20. Singin’ in the Rain

Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1951 (46 votes)

21= L’avventura

Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960 (43 votes)

21= Le Mépris

Jean-Luc Godard, 1963 (43 votes)

21= The Godfather

Francis Ford Coppola, 1972 (43 votes)

24= Ordet

Carl Dreyer, 1955 (42 votes)

24= In the Mood for Love

Wong Kar-Wai, 2000 (42 votes)

26= Rashomon

Kurosawa Akira, 1950 (41 votes)

26= Andrei Rublev

Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966 (41 votes)

28. Mulholland Dr.

David Lynch, 2001 (40 votes)

29= Stalker

Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979 (39 votes)

29= Shoah

Claude Lanzmann, 1985 (39 votes)

31= The Godfather Part II

Francis Ford Coppola, 1974 (38 votes)

31= Taxi Driver

Martin Scorsese, 1976 (38 votes)

33. Bicycle Thieves

Vittoria De Sica, 1948 (37 votes)

34. The General

Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman, 1926 (35 votes)

35= Metropolis

Fritz Lang, 1927 (34 votes)

35= Psycho

Alfred Hitchcock, 1960 (34 votes)

35= Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles

Chantal Akerman, 1975 (34 votes)

35= Sátántangó

Béla Tarr, 1994 (34 votes)

39= The 400 Blows

François Truffaut, 1959 (33 votes)

39= La dolce vita

Federico Fellini, 1960 (33 votes)

41. Journey to Italy

Roberto Rossellini, 1954 (32 votes)

42= Pather Panchali

Satyajit Ray, 1955 (31 votes)

42= Some Like It Hot

Billy Wilder, 1959 (31 votes)

42= Gertrud

Carl Dreyer, 1964 (31 votes)

42= Pierrot le fou

Jean-Luc Godard, 1965 (31 votes)

42= Play Time

Jacques Tati, 1967 (31 votes)

42= Close-Up

Abbas Kiarostami, 1990 (31 votes)

48= The Battle of Algiers

Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966 (30 votes)

48= Histoire(s) du cinéma

Jean-Luc Godard, 1998 (30 votes)

50= City Lights

Charlie Chaplin, 1931 (29 votes)

50= Ugetsu monogatari

Mizoguchi Kenji, 1953 (29 votes)

50= La Jetée

Chris Marker, 1962 (29 votes)

Posted By robbushblog : August 1, 2012 3:24 pm

Wow. Vertigo supplants Citizen kane after what, 50 years? I refuse to believe that 2001 is “better” than The Searchers though.

Posted By robbushblog : August 1, 2012 3:24 pm

Wow. Vertigo supplants Citizen kane after what, 50 years? I refuse to believe that 2001 is “better” than The Searchers though.

Posted By Emgee : August 1, 2012 3:51 pm

Lists are ludicrous to anyone who’s ever seen more than ten movies or listened to over a dozen albums. The more i read/listen/watch, the less i care about what anybody assures me are the “100 Movies That Youy Have To See Before You Die”.
Take the perennial Number One: Citizen Kane. Revolutionary, groundbreaking, inspirational, yes, for sure. Do i plain like it? Man, i really tried. “This is Cinema at its best. Look at all those in the know who regard it as the Holy Grail of Cinema.
They can’t all be wrong?”Probably they’re not. Is that any reason for liking any movie? I think we all know the answer.
I will now officially put “Lists of all time greats” in my Top Ten of pet hates.

Posted By Emgee : August 1, 2012 3:51 pm

Lists are ludicrous to anyone who’s ever seen more than ten movies or listened to over a dozen albums. The more i read/listen/watch, the less i care about what anybody assures me are the “100 Movies That Youy Have To See Before You Die”.
Take the perennial Number One: Citizen Kane. Revolutionary, groundbreaking, inspirational, yes, for sure. Do i plain like it? Man, i really tried. “This is Cinema at its best. Look at all those in the know who regard it as the Holy Grail of Cinema.
They can’t all be wrong?”Probably they’re not. Is that any reason for liking any movie? I think we all know the answer.
I will now officially put “Lists of all time greats” in my Top Ten of pet hates.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 3:55 pm

Emgee, I am, of course, in total agreement with you on “Top 100″ rankings. However, I do like Citizen Kane. I find it a very entertaining and energetic film but, like you, I don’t care at all, one way or another, who thinks it’s the best or the worst or whatever. I would rather talk about movies without giving them star ratings or quality rankings.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 3:55 pm

Emgee, I am, of course, in total agreement with you on “Top 100″ rankings. However, I do like Citizen Kane. I find it a very entertaining and energetic film but, like you, I don’t care at all, one way or another, who thinks it’s the best or the worst or whatever. I would rather talk about movies without giving them star ratings or quality rankings.

Posted By Kingrat : August 1, 2012 4:00 pm

Greg, I’m not overwhelmed by the list, as much as I love some of the films. Three films by Coppola? Are you kidding me? Coppola has never made a film which remotely approaches greatness–not saying he’s dog poop, just that there are many better directors and many better films. I loathe AU HASARD BALTHASAR; in his earlier films, like the wonderful A MAN ESCAPED, Bresson could love both human beings and God, but by BALTHASAR untalented non-actors = human beings and Bresson = God. Nasty. BREATHLESS seems really dated. Directors love Guido, the narcissistic bore of a director in 8 1/2, but I do not (there are some great scenes in the film, but a vacuum at the center). JEANNE DIELMANN seems more like a seminar paper than a movie, though I don’t dislike it.

Is that enough of a contrarian rant for one post?

Posted By Kingrat : August 1, 2012 4:00 pm

Greg, I’m not overwhelmed by the list, as much as I love some of the films. Three films by Coppola? Are you kidding me? Coppola has never made a film which remotely approaches greatness–not saying he’s dog poop, just that there are many better directors and many better films. I loathe AU HASARD BALTHASAR; in his earlier films, like the wonderful A MAN ESCAPED, Bresson could love both human beings and God, but by BALTHASAR untalented non-actors = human beings and Bresson = God. Nasty. BREATHLESS seems really dated. Directors love Guido, the narcissistic bore of a director in 8 1/2, but I do not (there are some great scenes in the film, but a vacuum at the center). JEANNE DIELMANN seems more like a seminar paper than a movie, though I don’t dislike it.

Is that enough of a contrarian rant for one post?

Posted By robbushblog : August 1, 2012 4:16 pm

I am the only member of my family that likes Citizen Kane. Surely that makes the rest of my family a bunch of Philistines.

Posted By robbushblog : August 1, 2012 4:16 pm

I am the only member of my family that likes Citizen Kane. Surely that makes the rest of my family a bunch of Philistines.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 4:20 pm

Duke, I think I’m the only person in my family who’s even seen Citizen Kane so I have no idea who likes it and who doesn’t.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 4:20 pm

Duke, I think I’m the only person in my family who’s even seen Citizen Kane so I have no idea who likes it and who doesn’t.

Posted By marilynferdinand : August 1, 2012 5:26 pm

The large number of Godard films already betrays this list as coming from a certain bias. After recently viewing Taxi Driver, I have to think these critics haven’t seen it in a while; it’s juvenilia. This list has no credibility with me.

Posted By marilynferdinand : August 1, 2012 5:26 pm

The large number of Godard films already betrays this list as coming from a certain bias. After recently viewing Taxi Driver, I have to think these critics haven’t seen it in a while; it’s juvenilia. This list has no credibility with me.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 5:30 pm

This list has no credibility with me.

Now you’re on the trolley! I thought Taxi Driver was pretty damn good but the last time I actually sat down and watched it all the way through was probably 25 years ago. I bought the special edition DVD literally just for the making-of-documentary and other special interview features. Maybe I’d have the same reaction as you did when I watch it again. God knows, I’ve made it kind of ritual rewatching movies I either loved or hated 25 years ago only to have a completely different reaction now.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 5:30 pm

This list has no credibility with me.

Now you’re on the trolley! I thought Taxi Driver was pretty damn good but the last time I actually sat down and watched it all the way through was probably 25 years ago. I bought the special edition DVD literally just for the making-of-documentary and other special interview features. Maybe I’d have the same reaction as you did when I watch it again. God knows, I’ve made it kind of ritual rewatching movies I either loved or hated 25 years ago only to have a completely different reaction now.

Posted By Bumphrey Hogart : August 1, 2012 5:46 pm

* Ultimately the value of these competing lists & canons — some more old-school than others — is that each spectator can use them as points of reference or contrast in creating their own value systems … You have to take them all with a grain of salt

* Will films like Close-up or In the Mood for Love really stand the test of time when a new list is compiled in 50 or 100 years? Or in fact are these films that seem trendy to po-mo grad students & academic critics — but which ultimately leave audiences if not cold then at least “meh” (My own assessment after seeing both of those recently as it chances …)

* Of course you have to find the middle road — & not err too much on the populist side either — or else you wind up with the imdb-type rankings glorifying superhero or Steven King type films

Posted By Bumphrey Hogart : August 1, 2012 5:46 pm

* Ultimately the value of these competing lists & canons — some more old-school than others — is that each spectator can use them as points of reference or contrast in creating their own value systems … You have to take them all with a grain of salt

* Will films like Close-up or In the Mood for Love really stand the test of time when a new list is compiled in 50 or 100 years? Or in fact are these films that seem trendy to po-mo grad students & academic critics — but which ultimately leave audiences if not cold then at least “meh” (My own assessment after seeing both of those recently as it chances …)

* Of course you have to find the middle road — & not err too much on the populist side either — or else you wind up with the imdb-type rankings glorifying superhero or Steven King type films

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 5:50 pm

Hogie, my answer would be “No, most films on the list will be supplanted in 100 years.” Probably about 25 percent will remain while the other 75 percent shifts in and out according to trends and moods.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 5:50 pm

Hogie, my answer would be “No, most films on the list will be supplanted in 100 years.” Probably about 25 percent will remain while the other 75 percent shifts in and out according to trends and moods.

Posted By tdraicer : August 1, 2012 7:12 pm

I’m not into “official” top 10 or top 100 lists, but I do enjoy reading people’s individual “my favorites” lists, if only to go, “Yeah, someone else out there loves The Satan Bug!” or to go,
Really? Really? That film? REALLY?”

Posted By tdraicer : August 1, 2012 7:12 pm

I’m not into “official” top 10 or top 100 lists, but I do enjoy reading people’s individual “my favorites” lists, if only to go, “Yeah, someone else out there loves The Satan Bug!” or to go,
Really? Really? That film? REALLY?”

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 9:57 pm

tdraicer, I admit, I have the same curiosity and I think it works better for me if the list isn’t ultra-hyped up to be something special, like the Sight and Sound poll. I like it better when some dumb movie site, looking to up view counts, puts out a list of the best movies of the last 100 years and then proceeds to include only three films made before 1999. Those are a lot of fun to read.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 9:57 pm

tdraicer, I admit, I have the same curiosity and I think it works better for me if the list isn’t ultra-hyped up to be something special, like the Sight and Sound poll. I like it better when some dumb movie site, looking to up view counts, puts out a list of the best movies of the last 100 years and then proceeds to include only three films made before 1999. Those are a lot of fun to read.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 10:01 pm

On Facebook, my friend Tom Sutpen responded to someone bemoaning the “same old pantheon” of these lists by writing this brilliant comment that I think, personally, says more (and says it better) in two paragraphs than I did in my entire post. Reprinted with his permission:

“There’s a reason for that: A ‘Same Old Pantheon’ is marketable . . . a more or less rigidly maintained Ten Best list being easier to sell to a specified demographic . . . and we cinephiles, whether we’re keen to admit it or not, are no less susceptible (in some senses even more susceptible) to market strategies than non-cinephiles.

Why do you think canons and lists hold such dominion in this realm? It’s not simply because they’re meant to honor the best the medium has wrought. Yes, they perform that function at times. But they also homogenize; they mold an artificial standard of cinema that, though limited, one can more successfully wade through than a headfirst plunge, however joyous, into the bottomless, wine dark sea of expression the medium embodies.”

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 10:01 pm

On Facebook, my friend Tom Sutpen responded to someone bemoaning the “same old pantheon” of these lists by writing this brilliant comment that I think, personally, says more (and says it better) in two paragraphs than I did in my entire post. Reprinted with his permission:

“There’s a reason for that: A ‘Same Old Pantheon’ is marketable . . . a more or less rigidly maintained Ten Best list being easier to sell to a specified demographic . . . and we cinephiles, whether we’re keen to admit it or not, are no less susceptible (in some senses even more susceptible) to market strategies than non-cinephiles.

Why do you think canons and lists hold such dominion in this realm? It’s not simply because they’re meant to honor the best the medium has wrought. Yes, they perform that function at times. But they also homogenize; they mold an artificial standard of cinema that, though limited, one can more successfully wade through than a headfirst plunge, however joyous, into the bottomless, wine dark sea of expression the medium embodies.”

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 11:39 pm

Also, tdraicer – For years now, you’ve commented here and at Cinema Styles and I’m curious about something. Is your first initial “T” and your last name “Draicer” or is it “TD” and last name “Raicer?” And you can write me at my cinemastyles at gmail if want to or don’t answer at all, totally up to you. For the record, and I know this is wrong, in my head you have always been “T.D. Racer,” pronounced like “racer,” ignoring the “i” in there.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 1, 2012 11:39 pm

Also, tdraicer – For years now, you’ve commented here and at Cinema Styles and I’m curious about something. Is your first initial “T” and your last name “Draicer” or is it “TD” and last name “Raicer?” And you can write me at my cinemastyles at gmail if want to or don’t answer at all, totally up to you. For the record, and I know this is wrong, in my head you have always been “T.D. Racer,” pronounced like “racer,” ignoring the “i” in there.

Posted By Tom S : August 1, 2012 11:53 pm

I love these lists, without them being an autodidact film guy would be almost impossible. S&S is far from my favorite- They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They is far more interesting- but a list like this one gives you an idea of what a good movie looks like, how it movies, what it feels like to be watching something great. You can never get that from watching one or five movies- which is why I think the endless focus on Kane never worked- but if you watch every movie in the top 50, you’ll know what a good movie looks like, and you’ll know which ones work for you and which don’t.

You could get the same effect from watching any broad spectrum curated group- 50 Masters of Cinema or Criterion movies, 50 of Ebert’s Great Films, etc, etc- but every one of those has some value to it. And to paraphrase Godard, the best way to critique a top 100 list is to make one of your own.

(By the way: there are zero po mo elements to In the Mood for Love, and I have no idea of why tentative, difficult romance would be catnip for pretentious grad students. And Close Up is no more postmodern than Brecht or 8 1/2 are. Also, it’s absurd simultaneous to attack highbrow newish movies for being only for intellectual jerks while attacking populist favorites for being only for the hoi palloi.)

(Also also: if you’re going to go after something for being self involved and impenetrable, Histoires du Cinema is sitting right there man)

Posted By Tom S : August 1, 2012 11:53 pm

I love these lists, without them being an autodidact film guy would be almost impossible. S&S is far from my favorite- They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They is far more interesting- but a list like this one gives you an idea of what a good movie looks like, how it movies, what it feels like to be watching something great. You can never get that from watching one or five movies- which is why I think the endless focus on Kane never worked- but if you watch every movie in the top 50, you’ll know what a good movie looks like, and you’ll know which ones work for you and which don’t.

You could get the same effect from watching any broad spectrum curated group- 50 Masters of Cinema or Criterion movies, 50 of Ebert’s Great Films, etc, etc- but every one of those has some value to it. And to paraphrase Godard, the best way to critique a top 100 list is to make one of your own.

(By the way: there are zero po mo elements to In the Mood for Love, and I have no idea of why tentative, difficult romance would be catnip for pretentious grad students. And Close Up is no more postmodern than Brecht or 8 1/2 are. Also, it’s absurd simultaneous to attack highbrow newish movies for being only for intellectual jerks while attacking populist favorites for being only for the hoi palloi.)

(Also also: if you’re going to go after something for being self involved and impenetrable, Histoires du Cinema is sitting right there man)

Posted By Tom S : August 1, 2012 11:56 pm

Also also also: almost every list is better if it forces the people entering lists to submit a top 50 or 100 instead of a top 10- greater diversity, greater barrier to entry without any abritrary ‘you must know this much’ rules, greater sense of personality in each list. But again, that just makes me want to make my own top 100 list.

Posted By Tom S : August 1, 2012 11:56 pm

Also also also: almost every list is better if it forces the people entering lists to submit a top 50 or 100 instead of a top 10- greater diversity, greater barrier to entry without any abritrary ‘you must know this much’ rules, greater sense of personality in each list. But again, that just makes me want to make my own top 100 list.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 12:20 am

Oh hey, also:

@Duke While your evident failure to embrace FDR is as unsurprising as it is wrong (you crazy person you) we totally agree about Woodrow Wilson. That guy was just, just awful.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 12:20 am

Oh hey, also:

@Duke While your evident failure to embrace FDR is as unsurprising as it is wrong (you crazy person you) we totally agree about Woodrow Wilson. That guy was just, just awful.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 1:39 am

Huh, I had like three posts and they all seem to have disappeared. What gives?

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 1:39 am

Huh, I had like three posts and they all seem to have disappeared. What gives?

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 2, 2012 3:41 am

Jesus.
The Borg Collectif strikes again.
Even Hitschcock himself,did not loves Vertigo that much.
Thanks God Truffaut came,and explain to him why it´s his
Masterpiece.
Where would we be now,without the Cahier Boy´s.
Imagine the Chaos.
Some would prefer “The Birds”over Vertigo.
Others would love “Donavan´s Reef” more than “The Searchers”.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 2, 2012 3:41 am

Jesus.
The Borg Collectif strikes again.
Even Hitschcock himself,did not loves Vertigo that much.
Thanks God Truffaut came,and explain to him why it´s his
Masterpiece.
Where would we be now,without the Cahier Boy´s.
Imagine the Chaos.
Some would prefer “The Birds”over Vertigo.
Others would love “Donavan´s Reef” more than “The Searchers”.

Posted By JonasEB : August 2, 2012 7:52 am

If you got rid of all of the lists “The Canon” would still continue, all it would do is disappear from people who might have a use for it (aka the 99.9% of people who have no clue about cinema and criticism.) That’s who these lists are for, not us…and so we would be slitting our own throats by making it that much more difficult to expose new people to the art. No one watches Citizen Kane and then immediately visits Jonathan Rosenbaum’s site or this one or Glenn Kenny’s or any good place of discussion; it’s a long process that starts out on the simplest of levels.

None of those people would bother reading a list 5,000 titles long. That’s even more ridiculous than a top 100, actually. It would be total turn off to anyone but our kind…and even I wouldn’t bother reading through it. 5,000 only comes off like some OCD rattled bucket list of films to see before the nuclear holocaust.

This problem isn’t at all exclusive to cinema, it’s the fact of all culture, and I can’t see it changing – the world just doesn’t work that way. Homogenization, for all it’s sins and deep faults, is a necessary part of existence.

I just try to explain to people I talk to that we don’t think of these lists in terms of “These are the best!” and we discourage those attitudes (I’ll call it the IMDB mentality) in general. Except for things like the AFI lists, which makes no attempt at expanding one’s view, I don’t get worked up about these things. They do more good than bad.

Posted By JonasEB : August 2, 2012 7:52 am

If you got rid of all of the lists “The Canon” would still continue, all it would do is disappear from people who might have a use for it (aka the 99.9% of people who have no clue about cinema and criticism.) That’s who these lists are for, not us…and so we would be slitting our own throats by making it that much more difficult to expose new people to the art. No one watches Citizen Kane and then immediately visits Jonathan Rosenbaum’s site or this one or Glenn Kenny’s or any good place of discussion; it’s a long process that starts out on the simplest of levels.

None of those people would bother reading a list 5,000 titles long. That’s even more ridiculous than a top 100, actually. It would be total turn off to anyone but our kind…and even I wouldn’t bother reading through it. 5,000 only comes off like some OCD rattled bucket list of films to see before the nuclear holocaust.

This problem isn’t at all exclusive to cinema, it’s the fact of all culture, and I can’t see it changing – the world just doesn’t work that way. Homogenization, for all it’s sins and deep faults, is a necessary part of existence.

I just try to explain to people I talk to that we don’t think of these lists in terms of “These are the best!” and we discourage those attitudes (I’ll call it the IMDB mentality) in general. Except for things like the AFI lists, which makes no attempt at expanding one’s view, I don’t get worked up about these things. They do more good than bad.

Posted By swac44 : August 2, 2012 8:11 am

I have to amend my previous “listed out” comment to say that I do enjoy compilations of titles that have a clever premise behind them, like “Best Slasher Films That Aren’t Part of a Franchise” or “Best Elisha Cook Jr. Films In Which He Isn’t Killed Off Before the End Credits” (basically Onion A.V. Club Inventory-style tabulations). Sometimes you just need to know which films have the best menacing ventriloquist dummies, or aren’t necessarily ruined by having a cast member from Friends in them, or perhaps a best-to-worst ranking of Francis the Talking Mule titles.

Posted By swac44 : August 2, 2012 8:11 am

I have to amend my previous “listed out” comment to say that I do enjoy compilations of titles that have a clever premise behind them, like “Best Slasher Films That Aren’t Part of a Franchise” or “Best Elisha Cook Jr. Films In Which He Isn’t Killed Off Before the End Credits” (basically Onion A.V. Club Inventory-style tabulations). Sometimes you just need to know which films have the best menacing ventriloquist dummies, or aren’t necessarily ruined by having a cast member from Friends in them, or perhaps a best-to-worst ranking of Francis the Talking Mule titles.

Posted By Andrew : August 2, 2012 8:25 am

Afraid to be accused of blasphemy but I kinda of like lists like this. As a non-cinephile it gives me a place to start looking for movies to see that I have missed.(I had never heard of Toyko Story for example.) I would just like to see the numerical rankings go away. Replace them with broader categories with the movies in no particular order and no fixed number of entries per category.

Something like:
Truly great, works on all levels.
Flawed but important/influential.
Great when released but hasn’t aged well.
Remarkable performance/score/FX/script/whatever in a pedestrian movie.
Deeply embedded in the culture and you should see it but it isn’t a great artistic achievement.

Posted By Andrew : August 2, 2012 8:25 am

Afraid to be accused of blasphemy but I kinda of like lists like this. As a non-cinephile it gives me a place to start looking for movies to see that I have missed.(I had never heard of Toyko Story for example.) I would just like to see the numerical rankings go away. Replace them with broader categories with the movies in no particular order and no fixed number of entries per category.

Something like:
Truly great, works on all levels.
Flawed but important/influential.
Great when released but hasn’t aged well.
Remarkable performance/score/FX/script/whatever in a pedestrian movie.
Deeply embedded in the culture and you should see it but it isn’t a great artistic achievement.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 9:02 am

Geez, for some reason there were a bunch of comments that went to spam (I have no idea why) and so, Tom and Kingrat, your comments are up now but I can’t respond right now. I’ll be back in a couple of hours though. I’m just glad to see you again, Tom, I thought I’d alienated you or something.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 9:02 am

Geez, for some reason there were a bunch of comments that went to spam (I have no idea why) and so, Tom and Kingrat, your comments are up now but I can’t respond right now. I’ll be back in a couple of hours though. I’m just glad to see you again, Tom, I thought I’d alienated you or something.

Posted By Emgee : August 2, 2012 10:03 am

My problem with Citizen Kane exactly illustrates my problem with lists. Before i saw it i had read about it, being universally hailed as the greatest masterpiece in cinema history.
What movie can survive such a buildup?

Instead if somebody had told me: “Yeah, good movie, you should check it out”, my response after watching would be more subdued.
“Much to praise here, just a bit too grandiose for my taste.”
In that respect, lists like the Sight and Sound one are more a hindrance than a help.

Posted By Emgee : August 2, 2012 10:03 am

My problem with Citizen Kane exactly illustrates my problem with lists. Before i saw it i had read about it, being universally hailed as the greatest masterpiece in cinema history.
What movie can survive such a buildup?

Instead if somebody had told me: “Yeah, good movie, you should check it out”, my response after watching would be more subdued.
“Much to praise here, just a bit too grandiose for my taste.”
In that respect, lists like the Sight and Sound one are more a hindrance than a help.

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 10:27 am

Tom- I was wondering where you were too, brother. I’m glad we finally agree on something! We will never agree on FDR though.

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 10:27 am

Tom- I was wondering where you were too, brother. I’m glad we finally agree on something! We will never agree on FDR though.

Posted By tdraicer : August 2, 2012 10:29 am

>Also, tdraicer – For years now, you’ve commented here and at Cinema Styles and I’m curious about something. Is your first initial “T” and your last name “Draicer” or is it “TD” and last name “Raicer?”

Not a state secret-my name it is Ted Raicer; I used td in my email so it just got carried over to my comments on blogs.

>For the record, and I know this is wrong, in my head you have always been “T.D. Racer,” pronounced like “racer,” ignoring the “i” in there.

Actually, you do pronounce it “Racer”, ignoring the i, though all my life people tend to change it to Racier in an apparent attempt to make me French.

And to get back on topic, looking at that S&S poll, I can’t take seriously any Top 50 Movie List that doesn’t include a single film with Claude Rains, James Mason, Alec Guinness-or Peter Cushing!

Posted By tdraicer : August 2, 2012 10:29 am

>Also, tdraicer – For years now, you’ve commented here and at Cinema Styles and I’m curious about something. Is your first initial “T” and your last name “Draicer” or is it “TD” and last name “Raicer?”

Not a state secret-my name it is Ted Raicer; I used td in my email so it just got carried over to my comments on blogs.

>For the record, and I know this is wrong, in my head you have always been “T.D. Racer,” pronounced like “racer,” ignoring the “i” in there.

Actually, you do pronounce it “Racer”, ignoring the i, though all my life people tend to change it to Racier in an apparent attempt to make me French.

And to get back on topic, looking at that S&S poll, I can’t take seriously any Top 50 Movie List that doesn’t include a single film with Claude Rains, James Mason, Alec Guinness-or Peter Cushing!

Posted By Charley Blake : August 2, 2012 10:31 am

Emgee, you make an excellent point, which I first discovered contemplating the related phenomenon of Great Actors. Once an Olivier or Brando or DeNiro has been tagged by some well-meaning enthusiast as “The World’s Greatest Actor,” the viewer sits down to watch his films with elevated and artificial expectations. Inevitably, you focus on the actor and his technique and mannerisms when you should be giving yourself up to the story being told.

Posted By Charley Blake : August 2, 2012 10:31 am

Emgee, you make an excellent point, which I first discovered contemplating the related phenomenon of Great Actors. Once an Olivier or Brando or DeNiro has been tagged by some well-meaning enthusiast as “The World’s Greatest Actor,” the viewer sits down to watch his films with elevated and artificial expectations. Inevitably, you focus on the actor and his technique and mannerisms when you should be giving yourself up to the story being told.

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 10:35 am

TD- You’re right! One movie with both Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing should be on the list. How Star Wars was left off I’ll never know…

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 10:35 am

TD- You’re right! One movie with both Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing should be on the list. How Star Wars was left off I’ll never know…

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 10:36 am

Charley- For my money, Jimmy Stewart is the greatest film actor ever.

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 10:36 am

Charley- For my money, Jimmy Stewart is the greatest film actor ever.

Posted By Charley Blake : August 2, 2012 10:45 am

Rob: Maybe a tie with Jimmy Stewart and Spencer Tracy? As Bogart said of Tracy, you don’t see the mechanism at work when you watch him. Equally true of Jimmy.

Posted By Charley Blake : August 2, 2012 10:45 am

Rob: Maybe a tie with Jimmy Stewart and Spencer Tracy? As Bogart said of Tracy, you don’t see the mechanism at work when you watch him. Equally true of Jimmy.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 2, 2012 10:54 am

Just found this list.
God,that is depressing.
Is this a Top 10 list,or a cry for Help.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2012/08/if-i-had-a-sight-sound-film-ballot-diego-costas-top-10-films-of-all-time/

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 2, 2012 10:54 am

Just found this list.
God,that is depressing.
Is this a Top 10 list,or a cry for Help.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2012/08/if-i-had-a-sight-sound-film-ballot-diego-costas-top-10-films-of-all-time/

Posted By Emgee : August 2, 2012 10:57 am

This just in, folks: da Vinci’s Mona Lisa has just been toppled off the number one spot of Best Painting Ever by Picasso’s Guernica.

Posted By Emgee : August 2, 2012 10:57 am

This just in, folks: da Vinci’s Mona Lisa has just been toppled off the number one spot of Best Painting Ever by Picasso’s Guernica.

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 11:06 am

Diego Costas apparently doesn’t like American or English language films.

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 11:06 am

Diego Costas apparently doesn’t like American or English language films.

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 11:07 am

Emgee- I thought for certain The Last Supper would come out victorious. Oh well…

Posted By robbushblog : August 2, 2012 11:07 am

Emgee- I thought for certain The Last Supper would come out victorious. Oh well…

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 2, 2012 11:45 am

@ robbushblog
Diego Costas apparently doesen´t like American or English language films.

Or films that put a smile on your Face.
Or films,where you dont want to commit suicide,after watching.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 2, 2012 11:45 am

@ robbushblog
Diego Costas apparently doesen´t like American or English language films.

Or films that put a smile on your Face.
Or films,where you dont want to commit suicide,after watching.

Posted By swac44 : August 2, 2012 1:07 pm

The Last Supper would probably get more respect if there was a high-def, restored painter’s edition. It really needs to be seen on a big wall.

Posted By swac44 : August 2, 2012 1:07 pm

The Last Supper would probably get more respect if there was a high-def, restored painter’s edition. It really needs to be seen on a big wall.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 1:45 pm

Not everybody has to love English language movies.

(Though honestly a dude whose top ten includes Cries and Whispers AND Salo sounds like kind of a scary guy)

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 1:45 pm

Not everybody has to love English language movies.

(Though honestly a dude whose top ten includes Cries and Whispers AND Salo sounds like kind of a scary guy)

Posted By Peter Nellhaus : August 2, 2012 1:59 pm

I may have to argue that John Ford’s best film is Wagon Master. Every single shot is perfectly composed. I had to stop myself from doing screen grabs.

I’m also glad that In the Mood for Love made it as high as #24. I’ve been periodically seeing the older Hong Kong films that Wong pays homage to.

The main problem with the list is that it is primarily Hollywood and European-centric, reenforcing the idea that the only Asian films worth seeing are those in the Criterion Collection.

Posted By Peter Nellhaus : August 2, 2012 1:59 pm

I may have to argue that John Ford’s best film is Wagon Master. Every single shot is perfectly composed. I had to stop myself from doing screen grabs.

I’m also glad that In the Mood for Love made it as high as #24. I’ve been periodically seeing the older Hong Kong films that Wong pays homage to.

The main problem with the list is that it is primarily Hollywood and European-centric, reenforcing the idea that the only Asian films worth seeing are those in the Criterion Collection.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:10 pm

Oh his list isn’t that bad but Salo is garbage and interminable garbage at that.

Duke – You are crazy, as always, on many things but you are correct, James Stewart is one of the best. I don’t say the best simply because there really isn’t anything anywhere in the arts (acting, painting, directing, composing, etc) that has one single standard we can hold everyone to. That’s why I could never do a top ten list or top 100 because I couldn’t rank films I thought were great above other films I thought were great. I’d have to go with alphabetical order and probably have the list be no smaller than 500. I’ll get to work on that right away.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:10 pm

Oh his list isn’t that bad but Salo is garbage and interminable garbage at that.

Duke – You are crazy, as always, on many things but you are correct, James Stewart is one of the best. I don’t say the best simply because there really isn’t anything anywhere in the arts (acting, painting, directing, composing, etc) that has one single standard we can hold everyone to. That’s why I could never do a top ten list or top 100 because I couldn’t rank films I thought were great above other films I thought were great. I’d have to go with alphabetical order and probably have the list be no smaller than 500. I’ll get to work on that right away.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:11 pm

Also, I love, scratch that, adore Mulholland Drive so I was thrilled to see it ranked so highly.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:11 pm

Also, I love, scratch that, adore Mulholland Drive so I was thrilled to see it ranked so highly.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 2:11 pm

I think part of the problem there is that Asian films outside Criterion often aren’t well distributed, so people don’t know about them and can’t see them if they do. I mean, count how many South American films are on the list.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 2:11 pm

I think part of the problem there is that Asian films outside Criterion often aren’t well distributed, so people don’t know about them and can’t see them if they do. I mean, count how many South American films are on the list.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:13 pm

Once an Olivier or Brando or DeNiro has been tagged by some well-meaning enthusiast as “The World’s Greatest Actor,” the viewer sits down to watch his films with elevated and artificial expectations.

That is a major problem with these things, all the heightened expectations. Still, if the film is good enough, it should be able to withstand thousands of people talking about how good it is and still impress the first time viewer.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:13 pm

Once an Olivier or Brando or DeNiro has been tagged by some well-meaning enthusiast as “The World’s Greatest Actor,” the viewer sits down to watch his films with elevated and artificial expectations.

That is a major problem with these things, all the heightened expectations. Still, if the film is good enough, it should be able to withstand thousands of people talking about how good it is and still impress the first time viewer.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:15 pm

For Alec Guiness, I’d put The Lavender Hill Mob or Bridge on the River Kwai at the top. For Peter Cushing, The Curse of Frankenstein, the best job anyone has ever done of making the doctor the antagonist and garnering real sympathy for the monster (Christopher Lee).

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:15 pm

For Alec Guiness, I’d put The Lavender Hill Mob or Bridge on the River Kwai at the top. For Peter Cushing, The Curse of Frankenstein, the best job anyone has ever done of making the doctor the antagonist and garnering real sympathy for the monster (Christopher Lee).

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:16 pm

Yay, “T.D. Racer” it stays! Sounds kind of like “Speed Racer” but cooler. You should tell all your friends to start calling you “T.D. Racer” exclusively.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 2, 2012 2:16 pm

Yay, “T.D. Racer” it stays! Sounds kind of like “Speed Racer” but cooler. You should tell all your friends to start calling you “T.D. Racer” exclusively.

Posted By Juana Maria : August 2, 2012 2:18 pm

Greg:Can you believe it,I’ve seen most of the films on your list! Thanks to TCM, I have seen a ton of films, a lot of them in foreign languages. I love foreign languages,as I’m mulitlingual. I have seen just about everything Sam Peckinpah ever directed except for “Cross of Iron”,”Killer Elite” or “Straw Dogs”,and I am not sure if I want to. Well, maybe “Cross of Iron” because that has James Coburn!Yay! I have seen just about everthing that Sergio Leone ever directed and watched each one of his films more than 50 times! Especially those lovely Spaghetti Westerns!! Many more times than just 5o or 60.I love those movies! I love Lee Van Cleef! Of course I love Clint Eastwood too! Eli Wallach is priceless. Those films are so much a part of popular culture. Such as the spoof on “Animanics”:”The Good,The Boo & The Ugly”. So funny. Look it up on You-Tube. I have a ton of favorite movies,mostly Westerns. So I always love when everyone gets their thoughts out about the movies. Thanks!!

Posted By Juana Maria : August 2, 2012 2:18 pm

Greg:Can you believe it,I’ve seen most of the films on your list! Thanks to TCM, I have seen a ton of films, a lot of them in foreign languages. I love foreign languages,as I’m mulitlingual. I have seen just about everything Sam Peckinpah ever directed except for “Cross of Iron”,”Killer Elite” or “Straw Dogs”,and I am not sure if I want to. Well, maybe “Cross of Iron” because that has James Coburn!Yay! I have seen just about everthing that Sergio Leone ever directed and watched each one of his films more than 50 times! Especially those lovely Spaghetti Westerns!! Many more times than just 5o or 60.I love those movies! I love Lee Van Cleef! Of course I love Clint Eastwood too! Eli Wallach is priceless. Those films are so much a part of popular culture. Such as the spoof on “Animanics”:”The Good,The Boo & The Ugly”. So funny. Look it up on You-Tube. I have a ton of favorite movies,mostly Westerns. So I always love when everyone gets their thoughts out about the movies. Thanks!!

Posted By Juana Maria : August 2, 2012 2:27 pm

Duke & everyone:Jimmy Stewart was a great actor and certainly one of the best! I have seen nearly all of his films and thanks to TCM I hope to watch all of his films one day. I love his acting,it can seem bit goofy in his early work but he is so sweet. Even when he is in a “darker” role like he did for Mann, his inner sweetness comes shining through. I have read his biography,I borrowed it from the library. It was very interesting and it confirmed my feelings that Jimmy was a wonderful person in real life! Where as Gregory Peck,Henry Fonda,and Gary Cooper were excellent actors too,somehow after reading their biographies they just didn’t seem as wonderful as Jimmy.

Posted By Juana Maria : August 2, 2012 2:27 pm

Duke & everyone:Jimmy Stewart was a great actor and certainly one of the best! I have seen nearly all of his films and thanks to TCM I hope to watch all of his films one day. I love his acting,it can seem bit goofy in his early work but he is so sweet. Even when he is in a “darker” role like he did for Mann, his inner sweetness comes shining through. I have read his biography,I borrowed it from the library. It was very interesting and it confirmed my feelings that Jimmy was a wonderful person in real life! Where as Gregory Peck,Henry Fonda,and Gary Cooper were excellent actors too,somehow after reading their biographies they just didn’t seem as wonderful as Jimmy.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 3:09 pm

Oh man, Star Wars is a decent enough movie but it’s number like 47 in the list of the best things Alec Guiness was in. The Ladykillers, Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Man in the White Suit, The Horse’s Mouth, Last Holiday, Great Expectations, Oliver Twist, Bridge over the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, the BBC Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy- and the list goes on and on. I could do a top 25 of Guiness projects without breaking a sweat.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 3:09 pm

Oh man, Star Wars is a decent enough movie but it’s number like 47 in the list of the best things Alec Guiness was in. The Ladykillers, Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Man in the White Suit, The Horse’s Mouth, Last Holiday, Great Expectations, Oliver Twist, Bridge over the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, the BBC Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy- and the list goes on and on. I could do a top 25 of Guiness projects without breaking a sweat.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 3:15 pm

Jimmy Stewart might have a legit claim to being in the greatest works by the most different directors (Hitchcock, Mann, Capra, whoever the hell directed Harvey, one of Ford’s masterpieces, and solid entries by Quine, Aldrich, and Siegel.)

Normally, when you have an actor like Stewart who was willing to darken their star image and make something terrifying- as he did in Vertigo and with Mann- the normal star image roles suddenly look kind of bland and uninteresting. But Stewart is just so goddamn charming that they still work, even when you know where else he can take it.

Posted By Tom S : August 2, 2012 3:15 pm

Jimmy Stewart might have a legit claim to being in the greatest works by the most different directors (Hitchcock, Mann, Capra, whoever the hell directed Harvey, one of Ford’s masterpieces, and solid entries by Quine, Aldrich, and Siegel.)

Normally, when you have an actor like Stewart who was willing to darken their star image and make something terrifying- as he did in Vertigo and with Mann- the normal star image roles suddenly look kind of bland and uninteresting. But Stewart is just so goddamn charming that they still work, even when you know where else he can take it.

Posted By michellegabrielle : August 3, 2012 1:09 am

No, it must go on. Are you kidding, G. Ferrara? I know you feel like Che Guevarra (sp?) tonight, but we’re talking film tradition here. Tradition, tried and true, must go on.
Listen, be real. We all watched CITIZEN KANE on the anniversary viewing featured by TCM last year, but blogs were postured afterwards debating CK’s rightful ownership in the #1 position. Everything was mentioned except which film would take over ownership.
No one dreamed, I believe, it would be Hitchcock. I can see if Ozu’s TOKYO STORY would have, and rightfully so.
VERTIGO happens to be Hitchcock’s most beguiling screen feature, a study in supposes with no assistance whatsoever to clarity. In the last 10 years, it has become, to this cinephile site follower, the most popular film up for discussion within the 20-30 age bracket that I have noticed. They, of course, have had the added advantage at having seen the historically corrected version of the film, something we baby boomers were not allowed upon the film’s released.
Do some research; read these recent blogs on VERTIGO. I believe when you are caught up, you will acknowledge this new state of events, and film richness will be yours.
At best, we can agree to disagree, and both enjoy this very wonderful night of great film discussion, brought forth by a so-called archaic decade rite powerhoused by Sight and Sound magazine. Aren’t you enjoying this? I am!

Posted By michellegabrielle : August 3, 2012 1:09 am

No, it must go on. Are you kidding, G. Ferrara? I know you feel like Che Guevarra (sp?) tonight, but we’re talking film tradition here. Tradition, tried and true, must go on.
Listen, be real. We all watched CITIZEN KANE on the anniversary viewing featured by TCM last year, but blogs were postured afterwards debating CK’s rightful ownership in the #1 position. Everything was mentioned except which film would take over ownership.
No one dreamed, I believe, it would be Hitchcock. I can see if Ozu’s TOKYO STORY would have, and rightfully so.
VERTIGO happens to be Hitchcock’s most beguiling screen feature, a study in supposes with no assistance whatsoever to clarity. In the last 10 years, it has become, to this cinephile site follower, the most popular film up for discussion within the 20-30 age bracket that I have noticed. They, of course, have had the added advantage at having seen the historically corrected version of the film, something we baby boomers were not allowed upon the film’s released.
Do some research; read these recent blogs on VERTIGO. I believe when you are caught up, you will acknowledge this new state of events, and film richness will be yours.
At best, we can agree to disagree, and both enjoy this very wonderful night of great film discussion, brought forth by a so-called archaic decade rite powerhoused by Sight and Sound magazine. Aren’t you enjoying this? I am!

Posted By swac44 : August 3, 2012 8:01 am

Also a big fan of The Wagon Master, I wish Ben Johnson had more opportunities to take a leading role. An underrated classic for sure.

Which reminds me, I still haven’t seen Sgt. Rutledge, I really need to track down a copy.

Posted By swac44 : August 3, 2012 8:01 am

Also a big fan of The Wagon Master, I wish Ben Johnson had more opportunities to take a leading role. An underrated classic for sure.

Which reminds me, I still haven’t seen Sgt. Rutledge, I really need to track down a copy.

Posted By fxreyman : August 3, 2012 9:41 am

These lists are a reminder that people do have opinions of the films they think are to use a phrase that in some circles would appear to be ludicrous….. “the Greatest”……

Over on my LISTS thread on the Favorites Forum we have debated over countless pages what constitutes greatest, best or what have you. At first I started publishing what I thought were the “greatest” films. After months of posting my thoughts and debating and listening to my fellow posters it finally dawned on me…..

And that was that no list is equal. Every list is different. No one list can or should even attempt to take a group of films and label them as better that the previous title. The best anyone can do when compiling a list of films by ranking them is to assume that everyone else is going to disagree with your choices. Therefore in my humble opinion, films should be ranked in numeric order as a listing of favorites only.

Throw out this insane “Greatest” ranking. Who is to assume which film is greater than the next film? That is where most film lists loose their point. And then we have this Sight and Sound List. At one point with the ranking of “The Searchers the author states “with John Ford’s stock having risen higher than ever this past decade and the citing of his influence in the unlikeliest of places in recent cinema”.

If this was the case then why aren’t more John Ford films on the list. Surely he has equals on the list, but just one film?

That is where I think this list from S&S is way overrated. I just happen to believe now, having been convinced that any list that purports to being a “greatest list”, is just a big waste of time.

If you want a list of films my suggestion is just make up a list based on a number of films from the past lets say 200 or 300 or however many films you think need to be considered, and then rank your “FAVORITES”. It is that simple.

Posted By fxreyman : August 3, 2012 9:41 am

These lists are a reminder that people do have opinions of the films they think are to use a phrase that in some circles would appear to be ludicrous….. “the Greatest”……

Over on my LISTS thread on the Favorites Forum we have debated over countless pages what constitutes greatest, best or what have you. At first I started publishing what I thought were the “greatest” films. After months of posting my thoughts and debating and listening to my fellow posters it finally dawned on me…..

And that was that no list is equal. Every list is different. No one list can or should even attempt to take a group of films and label them as better that the previous title. The best anyone can do when compiling a list of films by ranking them is to assume that everyone else is going to disagree with your choices. Therefore in my humble opinion, films should be ranked in numeric order as a listing of favorites only.

Throw out this insane “Greatest” ranking. Who is to assume which film is greater than the next film? That is where most film lists loose their point. And then we have this Sight and Sound List. At one point with the ranking of “The Searchers the author states “with John Ford’s stock having risen higher than ever this past decade and the citing of his influence in the unlikeliest of places in recent cinema”.

If this was the case then why aren’t more John Ford films on the list. Surely he has equals on the list, but just one film?

That is where I think this list from S&S is way overrated. I just happen to believe now, having been convinced that any list that purports to being a “greatest list”, is just a big waste of time.

If you want a list of films my suggestion is just make up a list based on a number of films from the past lets say 200 or 300 or however many films you think need to be considered, and then rank your “FAVORITES”. It is that simple.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 3, 2012 9:46 am

michellegabrielle

It was quiet clear it would be Vertigo.
It´s the “favorite”of all Snobs and wannabes for years now.
The Films,Books or Songs i love,are deeply Personal.
Thank´s God there is no law,that force me to care for Hitch´s
neurotic Mamas Boy´s.
All the research is already done.
Real Cinephiles dont need any Claqueure´s,to tell them what to like.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 3, 2012 9:46 am

michellegabrielle

It was quiet clear it would be Vertigo.
It´s the “favorite”of all Snobs and wannabes for years now.
The Films,Books or Songs i love,are deeply Personal.
Thank´s God there is no law,that force me to care for Hitch´s
neurotic Mamas Boy´s.
All the research is already done.
Real Cinephiles dont need any Claqueure´s,to tell them what to like.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 3, 2012 11:40 am

There is a slow,but growing Number of Critics,Filmmakers or
simply Film Fans,who dont worship on Hitchcock´s Altar.
We all respect the Mans Work.
We understand his Place in Film History.
But we don´t share the glowing Love for his Work.
We all come from different places.
Having different Backrounds,and lived different Lives.
The one Thing we have in common,is our love for the Movies.
But it´s unpossible,that we all love the same Films.
My favorite Hitchcock Film is the Birds.
One Reason i like it so much is,that not even Hitchcock was able
to castrate the great Rod Taylor.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 3, 2012 11:40 am

There is a slow,but growing Number of Critics,Filmmakers or
simply Film Fans,who dont worship on Hitchcock´s Altar.
We all respect the Mans Work.
We understand his Place in Film History.
But we don´t share the glowing Love for his Work.
We all come from different places.
Having different Backrounds,and lived different Lives.
The one Thing we have in common,is our love for the Movies.
But it´s unpossible,that we all love the same Films.
My favorite Hitchcock Film is the Birds.
One Reason i like it so much is,that not even Hitchcock was able
to castrate the great Rod Taylor.

Posted By Juana Maria : August 3, 2012 9:39 pm

Swac44:”Sgt.Rutledge” is played on TCM from time to time. Be patient and it will show up on the schedule. It has the amazing Woody Strode and Jeff Hunter,I recommend it.

Posted By Juana Maria : August 3, 2012 9:39 pm

Swac44:”Sgt.Rutledge” is played on TCM from time to time. Be patient and it will show up on the schedule. It has the amazing Woody Strode and Jeff Hunter,I recommend it.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 4, 2012 3:49 am

Like always,i find the Directors lists,much more intresting,than
the Critics lists.
Not much surprises on Allan´s and Scorsese´s lists.
But i did not know that Scorsese and Coppola love
“Ashes and Diamonds”.
I like,that Coppola include “The best years of our lives” and
two Scorsese Films.
Michael Mann´s naming of “Avatar”is both,odd and Fearless.
But like 2002,i like Tarantino´s list the best.(till now)
If alone for his brave include of Genre Movies.
He dropped Hi,Diddl Diddle,Coffy and the boring King Boxer.
But sadly “Rio Bravo”too.
But include “The Bad News Bears”(charmig)and “Pretty Maids…”
(i want to see this now).
And while his love for “Jaws”was clear.
“Apocalypse Now” and “Sorcerer” came out of nowhere.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 4, 2012 3:49 am

Like always,i find the Directors lists,much more intresting,than
the Critics lists.
Not much surprises on Allan´s and Scorsese´s lists.
But i did not know that Scorsese and Coppola love
“Ashes and Diamonds”.
I like,that Coppola include “The best years of our lives” and
two Scorsese Films.
Michael Mann´s naming of “Avatar”is both,odd and Fearless.
But like 2002,i like Tarantino´s list the best.(till now)
If alone for his brave include of Genre Movies.
He dropped Hi,Diddl Diddle,Coffy and the boring King Boxer.
But sadly “Rio Bravo”too.
But include “The Bad News Bears”(charmig)and “Pretty Maids…”
(i want to see this now).
And while his love for “Jaws”was clear.
“Apocalypse Now” and “Sorcerer” came out of nowhere.

Posted By Neil : August 4, 2012 4:46 pm

The Internet has certainly made it easy to make, assemble, compile and share lists, and I, too, have grown weary of them. This seems especially egregious for merely rearranging the canon. I’ll been toying with the idea of writing a similar post and I may still. I’ve watches as many well meaning were compiled and they still come out boring and reinforcing the known canon. That said, I would be interested in the list of 50 and 100 years from now. 10 years even… no interest at all still.

Posted By Neil : August 4, 2012 4:46 pm

The Internet has certainly made it easy to make, assemble, compile and share lists, and I, too, have grown weary of them. This seems especially egregious for merely rearranging the canon. I’ll been toying with the idea of writing a similar post and I may still. I’ve watches as many well meaning were compiled and they still come out boring and reinforcing the known canon. That said, I would be interested in the list of 50 and 100 years from now. 10 years even… no interest at all still.

Posted By tdraicer : August 5, 2012 12:03 am

>There is a slow,but growing Number of Critics,Filmmakers or
simply Film Fans,who dont worship on Hitchcock´s Altar.

And they are all terribly wrong. :)

Posted By tdraicer : August 5, 2012 12:03 am

>There is a slow,but growing Number of Critics,Filmmakers or
simply Film Fans,who dont worship on Hitchcock´s Altar.

And they are all terribly wrong. :)

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 5, 2012 8:20 am

I don´t think that is a right or wrong question.
It´s strict subjective.
However,there is no disagreement about Hitchcock´s Genius and his
place in the Cinema Olymp.
After all,he inspired some of my favorite Directors.
(Friedkin,Scorsese,De Palma)
For that alone,i have to be thankful.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 5, 2012 8:20 am

I don´t think that is a right or wrong question.
It´s strict subjective.
However,there is no disagreement about Hitchcock´s Genius and his
place in the Cinema Olymp.
After all,he inspired some of my favorite Directors.
(Friedkin,Scorsese,De Palma)
For that alone,i have to be thankful.

Posted By Jim Emerson : August 6, 2012 3:42 pm

Hi Greg: The best list hasn’t been published yet. That’s the list of individual critics’ lists, which is more like (though not exactly like) the 1,000 list you advocate — in fact, since the number of contributors grew this time from 145 in 2002 to 846 in 2012, that makes for 8,460 individual selections — and a total, according to S&S, of 2,045 different titles listed. Also, I’m glad that in the voter instructions this time there were really only three rules: 1) participants were free to use whatever criteria they wanted in defining “greatness” — whether that just meant “favorite” (as is always the case in my lists!) or “historically significant” or whatever; 2) the selections were not weighted — just one point awarded for each film; and 3) only one title per slot (so people couldn’t shoehorn originals and sequels into a single slot and expect that to count extra. Also, there’s the directors’ poll, which is interesting in itself — with more than 350 directors participating. I still find these things useful — but mainly because of the individual lists. When a critic I like mentions a movie I haven’t seen (or haven’t seen for a long time), that can pique my curiosity. I’ve discovered a lot of GREAT movies that way!

P.S. I fondly remember that discussion of “Inglourious Basterds,” at Dennis’s place, too.

Posted By Jim Emerson : August 6, 2012 3:42 pm

Hi Greg: The best list hasn’t been published yet. That’s the list of individual critics’ lists, which is more like (though not exactly like) the 1,000 list you advocate — in fact, since the number of contributors grew this time from 145 in 2002 to 846 in 2012, that makes for 8,460 individual selections — and a total, according to S&S, of 2,045 different titles listed. Also, I’m glad that in the voter instructions this time there were really only three rules: 1) participants were free to use whatever criteria they wanted in defining “greatness” — whether that just meant “favorite” (as is always the case in my lists!) or “historically significant” or whatever; 2) the selections were not weighted — just one point awarded for each film; and 3) only one title per slot (so people couldn’t shoehorn originals and sequels into a single slot and expect that to count extra. Also, there’s the directors’ poll, which is interesting in itself — with more than 350 directors participating. I still find these things useful — but mainly because of the individual lists. When a critic I like mentions a movie I haven’t seen (or haven’t seen for a long time), that can pique my curiosity. I’ve discovered a lot of GREAT movies that way!

P.S. I fondly remember that discussion of “Inglourious Basterds,” at Dennis’s place, too.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 6, 2012 5:54 pm

fxreyman, I agree that the list is seriously flawed. That’s why, again, I think submitting a big list is more useful. On a list of 250 or 500, I’d rank Stagecoach, 3 Godfathers, My Darling Clementine, The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence by John Ford… at least! But if restricted to ten choices, I’d have to pick one to make room for nine other deserving titles by nine other directors. And how ludicrous to have to pick and choose from Ford when there are so many that are great and deserve ranking. I believe limiting critics and directors to submitting ten ends up making sure a lot of movies, like most of John Ford’s, don’t make the cut at all in favor of one “big one” from that director.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 6, 2012 5:54 pm

fxreyman, I agree that the list is seriously flawed. That’s why, again, I think submitting a big list is more useful. On a list of 250 or 500, I’d rank Stagecoach, 3 Godfathers, My Darling Clementine, The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence by John Ford… at least! But if restricted to ten choices, I’d have to pick one to make room for nine other deserving titles by nine other directors. And how ludicrous to have to pick and choose from Ford when there are so many that are great and deserve ranking. I believe limiting critics and directors to submitting ten ends up making sure a lot of movies, like most of John Ford’s, don’t make the cut at all in favor of one “big one” from that director.

Posted By Tom S : August 6, 2012 6:10 pm

@Jim Emerson

There’s also the effect that when three directors I deeply respect all name Ashes and Diamonds, that movie goes from ‘something I’m aware of that I should get around to watching one of these days to ‘something I need to watch as soon as is physically possible’

Posted By Tom S : August 6, 2012 6:10 pm

@Jim Emerson

There’s also the effect that when three directors I deeply respect all name Ashes and Diamonds, that movie goes from ‘something I’m aware of that I should get around to watching one of these days to ‘something I need to watch as soon as is physically possible’

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 6, 2012 6:24 pm

Jim, I enjoy looking at the individual lists too but…

in fact, since the number of contributors grew this time from 145 in 2002 to 846 in 2012, that makes for 8,460 individual selections

… if you read my comment above, and in the post itself I make this point, no matter how many lists there are, with only ten picks, it’s too limited. For instance, let’s look at that number of selections, 8460. Now, in reference to my above comment about John Ford, even if half those critics(423) selected a John Ford movie for their top ten, chances are overwhelming that they picked The Searchers as that is canonically considered his best. All those other ones I listed are great Fords too but they never get picked because the critics are thinking, “I only have one. I should go with THE SEARCHERS.” And so even with 8460 selections, there’s not much representation for Ford outside of The Searchers. On the 2002 poll, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance got only five votes. Stagecoach, four. Now, give each critic a list of 250 and a lot more Ford makes the cut and we get a list of five or six thousand films that says a lot more.

Jim, tell them about the 250 idea because they don’t seem to be listening to me. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing your list. Did both Kane and Ambersons make your cut again? I hope so. The Magnificent Ambersons is a great example of a deserving movie that has been sacrificed over the years (1972 was the last Top Ten it made) because a choice of ten meant for most that Kane made the cut and Ambersons didn’t.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 6, 2012 6:24 pm

Jim, I enjoy looking at the individual lists too but…

in fact, since the number of contributors grew this time from 145 in 2002 to 846 in 2012, that makes for 8,460 individual selections

… if you read my comment above, and in the post itself I make this point, no matter how many lists there are, with only ten picks, it’s too limited. For instance, let’s look at that number of selections, 8460. Now, in reference to my above comment about John Ford, even if half those critics(423) selected a John Ford movie for their top ten, chances are overwhelming that they picked The Searchers as that is canonically considered his best. All those other ones I listed are great Fords too but they never get picked because the critics are thinking, “I only have one. I should go with THE SEARCHERS.” And so even with 8460 selections, there’s not much representation for Ford outside of The Searchers. On the 2002 poll, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance got only five votes. Stagecoach, four. Now, give each critic a list of 250 and a lot more Ford makes the cut and we get a list of five or six thousand films that says a lot more.

Jim, tell them about the 250 idea because they don’t seem to be listening to me. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing your list. Did both Kane and Ambersons make your cut again? I hope so. The Magnificent Ambersons is a great example of a deserving movie that has been sacrificed over the years (1972 was the last Top Ten it made) because a choice of ten meant for most that Kane made the cut and Ambersons didn’t.

Posted By jim emerson : August 6, 2012 7:27 pm

I was just trying to suggest other ways of using the lists. Of course 10 titles is ridiculous (I just made a list for another poll and found it impossible to make a top 10 or 20 “greatest” list even when I limited my selections to comedies). I suppose if i ranked just the movies I love most, Keaton, Hawks, Altman, Welles, the Coens, Polanski, Bunuel, Hitchcock, etc., would.crowd out everybody else…

Posted By jim emerson : August 6, 2012 7:27 pm

I was just trying to suggest other ways of using the lists. Of course 10 titles is ridiculous (I just made a list for another poll and found it impossible to make a top 10 or 20 “greatest” list even when I limited my selections to comedies). I suppose if i ranked just the movies I love most, Keaton, Hawks, Altman, Welles, the Coens, Polanski, Bunuel, Hitchcock, etc., would.crowd out everybody else…

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 6, 2012 8:21 pm

No, I understand and agree with you – I love looking at the individual lists. There are even some ones in there that make me chuckle at their brazen commercialism (This one may be my favorite Sight and Sound submission ever) but, yes, it’s much more interesting to look at the individual lists over the cumulative ones.

Here’s Jim’s from 2002, an excellent selection, if I do say so myself.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 6, 2012 8:21 pm

No, I understand and agree with you – I love looking at the individual lists. There are even some ones in there that make me chuckle at their brazen commercialism (This one may be my favorite Sight and Sound submission ever) but, yes, it’s much more interesting to look at the individual lists over the cumulative ones.

Here’s Jim’s from 2002, an excellent selection, if I do say so myself.

Posted By robbushblog : August 6, 2012 9:07 pm

I have two John Ford movies in my top 5 alone!

Posted By robbushblog : August 6, 2012 9:07 pm

I have two John Ford movies in my top 5 alone!

Posted By Tom S : August 6, 2012 10:13 pm

@Greg

That submission is better than I’d expect from the guy who wrote this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0820142/

Posted By Tom S : August 6, 2012 10:13 pm

@Greg

That submission is better than I’d expect from the guy who wrote this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0820142/

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 6, 2012 10:18 pm

And don’t forget, he was “Consulting Producer” on Disaster Date, whatever the hell that is.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 6, 2012 10:18 pm

And don’t forget, he was “Consulting Producer” on Disaster Date, whatever the hell that is.

Posted By Juana Maria : August 6, 2012 10:58 pm

“Liberty Valance” only got 5 votes! Wow! In the film he only got 2–and that was because they were his henchmen! Lee Van Cleef and Strother Martin,who played Reese and Floyd. Of course,if Linerty Valance were real..he would go around and beat the living daylights outta anybody who didn’t vote for him and make them eat their own poorly spelled words,just like he did to Mr. Peabody!!! Remember,you sodbusters are a brave bunch when you’re together but don’t vote no way you’ll regret when you’re alone! That pretty much paraphrases Valance. Close enough. I always raise my hand in voting scene…can you guess you I choose?

Posted By Juana Maria : August 6, 2012 10:58 pm

“Liberty Valance” only got 5 votes! Wow! In the film he only got 2–and that was because they were his henchmen! Lee Van Cleef and Strother Martin,who played Reese and Floyd. Of course,if Linerty Valance were real..he would go around and beat the living daylights outta anybody who didn’t vote for him and make them eat their own poorly spelled words,just like he did to Mr. Peabody!!! Remember,you sodbusters are a brave bunch when you’re together but don’t vote no way you’ll regret when you’re alone! That pretty much paraphrases Valance. Close enough. I always raise my hand in voting scene…can you guess you I choose?

Posted By michellegabrielle : August 7, 2012 2:17 am

G. Ferrara, reply to all, not to just who you think! you wrote an essay; we readers demand a rebuttal. Furnish us with! Don’t be cowed, do it!
Otherwise, have we wasted our time?xoxo1968B2

Posted By michellegabrielle : August 7, 2012 2:17 am

G. Ferrara, reply to all, not to just who you think! you wrote an essay; we readers demand a rebuttal. Furnish us with! Don’t be cowed, do it!
Otherwise, have we wasted our time?xoxo1968B2

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 7, 2012 6:57 am

I just wish,that more Critics and Filmmakers,would rate the
breathtaking beauty of a John Ford Film,the coolness of Hawks,
or the Grit of Anthony Mann,John Huston or Robert Aldrich as
high as Hitchcock´s baroque Nonsense.
Imagine a Cop,as dumb as Scottie Ferguson,in a John Huston or
Anthony Mann Noir.
He would not survive the first five minutes.
But who know´s ?
Maybe in 50 Years from now.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 7, 2012 6:57 am

I just wish,that more Critics and Filmmakers,would rate the
breathtaking beauty of a John Ford Film,the coolness of Hawks,
or the Grit of Anthony Mann,John Huston or Robert Aldrich as
high as Hitchcock´s baroque Nonsense.
Imagine a Cop,as dumb as Scottie Ferguson,in a John Huston or
Anthony Mann Noir.
He would not survive the first five minutes.
But who know´s ?
Maybe in 50 Years from now.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 7, 2012 8:22 am

michellgabrielle, the essay is what I think. After that, it’s a discussion thread that I take part in just like anyone else. Tom, Duke, Emgee, tdraicer, Juana Maria and me all talk to each other and everyone else. No one here is required to respond to everyone. Besides, I’ll be honest, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of this:

Do some research; read these recent blogs on VERTIGO. I believe when you are caught up, you will acknowledge this new state of events, and film richness will be yours.

When I’m caught up? I’ve been studying film in depth for the last 40 odd years. How much more caught up do I need to be to express the opinion that I don’t find Top Ten lists and canons as useful as some people?

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 7, 2012 8:22 am

michellgabrielle, the essay is what I think. After that, it’s a discussion thread that I take part in just like anyone else. Tom, Duke, Emgee, tdraicer, Juana Maria and me all talk to each other and everyone else. No one here is required to respond to everyone. Besides, I’ll be honest, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of this:

Do some research; read these recent blogs on VERTIGO. I believe when you are caught up, you will acknowledge this new state of events, and film richness will be yours.

When I’m caught up? I’ve been studying film in depth for the last 40 odd years. How much more caught up do I need to be to express the opinion that I don’t find Top Ten lists and canons as useful as some people?

Posted By Juana Maria : August 7, 2012 6:51 pm

Greg Ferrara:Thanks for including me in your comments! How kind! I don’t quite know what Michelle Gabrielle wants. Recents blogs on “Vertigo”,hmm,I haven’t studying any of those latelt myself. I just know it is an interesting movie. More nightmare than reality. No matter how many times I watch that film I’m left feeling the ending just isn’t right! There are other Hitchcock films that I just don’t see eye to eye with! I know they are classics and what I feel is terrible to some people but it’s how I feel! I’ll watch Jimmy Stewart in a Westerns any day of the week. Especially on Saturdays!

Posted By Juana Maria : August 7, 2012 6:51 pm

Greg Ferrara:Thanks for including me in your comments! How kind! I don’t quite know what Michelle Gabrielle wants. Recents blogs on “Vertigo”,hmm,I haven’t studying any of those latelt myself. I just know it is an interesting movie. More nightmare than reality. No matter how many times I watch that film I’m left feeling the ending just isn’t right! There are other Hitchcock films that I just don’t see eye to eye with! I know they are classics and what I feel is terrible to some people but it’s how I feel! I’ll watch Jimmy Stewart in a Westerns any day of the week. Especially on Saturdays!

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 7, 2012 10:38 pm

I love Vertigo and practically 90 percent of everything else Hitchcock ever did. If I had to say what my favorite Hitchcock movies were, I’d go with Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt and Psycho. But there’s so much more.

And Jimmy Stewart was such a great actor that he was equally at home playing comedies, dramas or westerns. He was one of the best.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 7, 2012 10:38 pm

I love Vertigo and practically 90 percent of everything else Hitchcock ever did. If I had to say what my favorite Hitchcock movies were, I’d go with Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt and Psycho. But there’s so much more.

And Jimmy Stewart was such a great actor that he was equally at home playing comedies, dramas or westerns. He was one of the best.

Posted By robbushblog : August 7, 2012 11:33 pm

THE best on MY list, Greg!

Posted By robbushblog : August 7, 2012 11:33 pm

THE best on MY list, Greg!

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 8, 2012 8:03 am

Duke, you accidentally left off the “You’re” in front of THE in your previous comment but I think everyone knows it’s implied you were talking about me. Thanks!

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 8, 2012 8:03 am

Duke, you accidentally left off the “You’re” in front of THE in your previous comment but I think everyone knows it’s implied you were talking about me. Thanks!

Posted By robbushblog : August 8, 2012 9:19 am

Oh Greg, so sorry, but wrong. You are pretty “special” though. :)

Posted By robbushblog : August 8, 2012 9:19 am

Oh Greg, so sorry, but wrong. You are pretty “special” though. :)

Posted By Juana Maria : August 8, 2012 2:55 pm

Greg:You and Duke have some sorta silly male rivalry don’t you? Being female, I am spared that sort of silliness! I am sure Duke was referring to our beloved Jimmy Stewart! Greg,you do write great articles! I don’t know of any great articles ever being written by Jimmy Stewart. He was great actor but apparently not a writer! Ha ha. I think both of you are so funny! Lol!

Posted By Juana Maria : August 8, 2012 2:55 pm

Greg:You and Duke have some sorta silly male rivalry don’t you? Being female, I am spared that sort of silliness! I am sure Duke was referring to our beloved Jimmy Stewart! Greg,you do write great articles! I don’t know of any great articles ever being written by Jimmy Stewart. He was great actor but apparently not a writer! Ha ha. I think both of you are so funny! Lol!

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 8, 2012 9:39 pm

Oh, Juana Maria, of course he was referring to the great Jimmy Stewart, I was just joking with him. Also, you’re the tops, so you don’t have to worry about competing with anyone. And thank you so much for the wonderful compliment. You’re too kind (unlike Duke).

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 8, 2012 9:39 pm

Oh, Juana Maria, of course he was referring to the great Jimmy Stewart, I was just joking with him. Also, you’re the tops, so you don’t have to worry about competing with anyone. And thank you so much for the wonderful compliment. You’re too kind (unlike Duke).

Posted By robbushblog : August 8, 2012 10:31 pm

Juana- Jimmy was a good writer, as Hollywood actors go. I have a book of his story poems that he wrote about 25 years ago.

And don’t let Greg fool you. He’s really a very mean person.

Posted By robbushblog : August 8, 2012 10:31 pm

Juana- Jimmy was a good writer, as Hollywood actors go. I have a book of his story poems that he wrote about 25 years ago.

And don’t let Greg fool you. He’s really a very mean person.

Posted By Tom S : August 8, 2012 10:47 pm

Duke only likes Jimmy Stewart because he was a Republican- I’m surprised Reagan isn’t his favorite actor.

(I am not going to sit around and let other people get called mean without getting in on it)

Posted By Tom S : August 8, 2012 10:47 pm

Duke only likes Jimmy Stewart because he was a Republican- I’m surprised Reagan isn’t his favorite actor.

(I am not going to sit around and let other people get called mean without getting in on it)

Posted By Jenni : August 9, 2012 12:00 am

There is a touching story/tribute Jimmy Stewart wrote about his dog that had passed away, he read it aloud on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. It was on You Tube, and I think it still is. I defy anyone to listen to this and not get a tear in their eye!

Posted By Jenni : August 9, 2012 12:00 am

There is a touching story/tribute Jimmy Stewart wrote about his dog that had passed away, he read it aloud on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. It was on You Tube, and I think it still is. I defy anyone to listen to this and not get a tear in their eye!

Posted By robbushblog : August 9, 2012 9:58 am

Tom- I love Jimmy Stewart because he’s in my favorite movie of all time and in 3 of my top 5.

And you agree that Greg is mean, right?

Posted By robbushblog : August 9, 2012 9:58 am

Tom- I love Jimmy Stewart because he’s in my favorite movie of all time and in 3 of my top 5.

And you agree that Greg is mean, right?

Posted By Tom S : August 9, 2012 10:55 am

Nobody is meaner than I, is my point

Posted By Tom S : August 9, 2012 10:55 am

Nobody is meaner than I, is my point

Posted By robbushblog : August 9, 2012 2:00 pm

Very true, Tom! You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch!

Posted By robbushblog : August 9, 2012 2:00 pm

Very true, Tom! You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch!

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 9, 2012 3:20 pm

I knock ice cream cones out of little kids’ hands. Then I just laugh and laugh. It’s fun.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 9, 2012 3:20 pm

I knock ice cream cones out of little kids’ hands. Then I just laugh and laugh. It’s fun.

Posted By RICK : August 9, 2012 5:46 pm

ALL DAY AND NIGHT OF JAPANESE MOVIES WITH SUB TITLE IS OVER THE TOP. I HAVE TCM AS MY TV DEFAULT STATION….HAVING TO WATCH THE GARBAGE ON OTHER CHANNELS IS STRESSFUL FOR AN OLD TIMER OF 77.

Posted By RICK : August 9, 2012 5:46 pm

ALL DAY AND NIGHT OF JAPANESE MOVIES WITH SUB TITLE IS OVER THE TOP. I HAVE TCM AS MY TV DEFAULT STATION….HAVING TO WATCH THE GARBAGE ON OTHER CHANNELS IS STRESSFUL FOR AN OLD TIMER OF 77.

Posted By Anonymous : August 9, 2012 6:55 pm

Which actually represents you being nice, as I drive around giving kids poisoned ice cream.

(don’t worry, it’s not fatal, it just makes you love Justin Bieber)

Posted By Anonymous : August 9, 2012 6:55 pm

Which actually represents you being nice, as I drive around giving kids poisoned ice cream.

(don’t worry, it’s not fatal, it just makes you love Justin Bieber)

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 9, 2012 8:40 pm

(don’t worry, it’s not fatal, it just makes you love Justin Bieber)

So it’s actually worse than death. You are, indeed, a cruel man.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 9, 2012 8:40 pm

(don’t worry, it’s not fatal, it just makes you love Justin Bieber)

So it’s actually worse than death. You are, indeed, a cruel man.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 9, 2012 8:41 pm

Rick, I never watch any regular premier movie channels on cable. TCM is the best one to go with. In fact, when I watch a classic movie on DVD or online (and I do both often), even now I expect Robert Osborne to show up before and after and tell me a little something about the movie. When he doesn’t, I’m always a little disappointed.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 9, 2012 8:41 pm

Rick, I never watch any regular premier movie channels on cable. TCM is the best one to go with. In fact, when I watch a classic movie on DVD or online (and I do both often), even now I expect Robert Osborne to show up before and after and tell me a little something about the movie. When he doesn’t, I’m always a little disappointed.

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 10, 2012 10:02 am

Peter Bogdanovich on the Poll.
And on Vertigo.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/peterbogdanovich/the-sight-and-sound-poll

Posted By Ghijath Naddaf : August 10, 2012 10:02 am

Peter Bogdanovich on the Poll.
And on Vertigo.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/peterbogdanovich/the-sight-and-sound-poll

Posted By arwel legaspi : June 13, 2014 11:54 am

The list seem fine to me.

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.
See more: facebook.com/tcmtv
See more: twitter.com/tcm
3-D  Action Films  Actors  Actors' Endorsements  Actresses  animal stars  Animation  Anime  Anthology Films  Art Direction  Art in Movies  Australian CInema  Autobiography  Avant-Garde  Aviation  Awards  B-movies  Beer in Film  Behind the Scenes  Best of the Year lists  Biography  Biopics  Black Film  Blu-Ray  Books on Film  Boxing films  British Cinema  Canadian Cinema  Character Actors  Chicago Film History  Cinematography  Classic Films  College Life on Film  Comedy  Comic Book Movies  Crime  Czech Film  Dance on Film  Digital Cinema  Directors  Disaster Films  Documentary  Drama  DVD  Early Talkies  Editing  Educational Films  European Influence on American Cinema  Experimental  Exploitation  Fairy Tales on Film  Faith or Christian-based Films  Family Films  Film Composers  Film Criticism  film festivals  Film History in Florida  Film Noir  Film Scholars  Film titles  Filmmaking Techniques  Films About Gambling  Films of the 1960s  Films of the 1980s  Food in Film  Foreign Film  French Film  Gangster films  Genre  Genre spoofs  HD & Blu-Ray  Holiday Movies  Hollywood history  Hollywood lifestyles  Horror  Horror Movies  Icons  independent film  Italian Film  Japanese Film  Korean Film  Literary Adaptations  Martial Arts  Melodramas  Method Acting  Mexican Cinema  Moguls  Monster Movies  Movie Books  Movie Costumes  movie flops  Movie locations  Movie lovers  Movie Reviewers  Movie settings  Movie Stars  Movie titles  Movies about movies  Music in Film  Musicals  Outdoor Cinema  Paranoid Thrillers  Parenting on film  Pirate movies  Polish film industry  political thrillers  Politics in Film  Pornography  Pre-Code  Producers  Race in American Film  Remakes  Revenge  Road Movies  Romance  Romantic Comedies  Satire  Scandals  Science Fiction  Screenwriters  Semi-documentaries  Serials  Short Films  Silent Film  silent films  Social Problem Film  Sports  Sports on Film  Stereotypes  Straight-to-DVD  Studio Politics  Stunts and stuntmen  Suspense thriller  Swashbucklers  TCM Classic Film Festival  TCM Underground  Television  The British in Hollywood  The Germans in Hollywood  The Hungarians in Hollywood  The Irish in Hollywood  Theaters  Thriller  Trains in movies  Underground Cinema  VOD  War film  Westerns  Women in the Film Industry  Women's Weepies