The greatest movies ever made

Thanks Roger - is there a link to the article with this list?

Ebert: Oddly, it was print-only. Peter Hoskin writes a daily blog on the Spectator's website, but has not mentioned his list!

I have a very strange love/hate relationship with lists. On one hand, you are right --- they're propagandist, borderline reductive. At their most insidious they imply that their can only be x amount of great movies, and that if a movie isn't canonized then it's worthless.

But, on the other hand, I kind of love them! I love the whimsical nature of them, I love their mixture of subjectivity and objectivity, and I love, when acknowledged, what they reflect about the person who made it. That's what a list made by a committee is just about the most useless thing imaginable, it tries to take away the subjective element from lists, which is what gives them power.

What I'm thinking of doing over at mi casa to supplant the end of the year 10 best lists is just picking all the memorable experiences I had at the movies and simply alphabetizing them or putting them in chronological order. Don't the end of the year top 10 lists, in a way, reduce movie culture in the same way the all time best lists do? They imply that, in a given year, there can be 10 great movies --- which is nonsense, there can be 1 or there can be 100.

I seem to remember you choosing Raging Bull and Wings of Desire as the top two movies of the 1980s. Not even on this list. Bad list. Bad list.

Yet again, Sergio Leone gets shafted.
Ho Hum.

Such lists are not only propaganda pieces drawing attention to particular movies, but they are also propaganda pieces for the listmakers. Reading this entry, I was compelled to revisit The Spectator magazine itself. Works well, after my having rediscovered The New Yorker -- by way of those cartoons -- in time to read its reposting of an old article by Henry Louis Gates.

Roger: do you distinguish between the best films and your favorite films? I'm thinking, based on a journal entry about La Dolce Vita (that I would probably have to revisit), that you do.

I'd be interested in seeing lists from filmmakers, critics, laypeople compiling the movies that *define* them, in the way, for example that scriptures (or particular passages of scripture) have carried seemingly permanent roles in certain peoples' lives, hearts, psyches, senses of self, etc.. If we were to somehow remove them from our biographies, we would be changing ourselves perhaps significantly.

For example, as is the case with so many of my peers, I cannot put any of the original Star Wars movies on a list of my favorite movies. They've gone far beyond that: they have become part of me. Or, for any of my South Asian (male) peers, the film Sholay (or Amitabh Bachchan himself, in that string of "Angry Young Man" movies) probably has that status as well. Perhaps every Muslim kid in America has seen Moustapha Akkad's "The Message" dozens of times before reaching high school.

Thus, at some point if/when you'd get to it, I'd be interested in learning what those movies are that define you.

Best wishes.

Omer M

A little off topic, but I must say that I really enjoy your journal entries, especially the people essays. The ones about Billy Baxter, John Wayne, and John McHugh were immensely enjoyable to read. Thank you for sharing and please keep them coming.

"Any list of great films helps breaks the hammer-lock of box office performance that grips too many American moviegoers. I can't tell you how many people responded to my attack on "Transformers" by telling me how much money the movie was grossing, as if that had the slightest relevance."

Lists compiled by The Film Establishment are facinating and important, but to play Devil's advocate...movies have always been a popular art form (they cost so damn much to make, they'd better be!). There'd be no film establishment at all without a mass audience for motion pictures. So perhaps we should not be so dismisive of their collective opinions.

My wife likes movies and watches them all the time, but her favorite movies are hard core horror films and low brow comedies, titles clearly absent from this list (although #1 is certainly qualifies as a certain kind of horror movie. "Jaws" also). Still, movies for her seem to serve a completly different role and function that they do for the cinephiles, scholars, arcivists, and festival directors who make up a list like this.

I don't know. I think the movies are actually "Greatest" when they manage to bring large numbers of disparate groups of people into one place, where they can sit together in the dark and leave reminded of their shared humanity. With that as a guide, "ET" might top a list like this. But of course, it's nowhere to be found here.

No Dr. Zhivago? For shame!

I wrote an article recently (http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2009/07/23/the-dreaded-movie-question/#more-3389) that said something very similar to what you are: that naming one's favorite film can be utterly arbitrary, and what's more interesting is when an individual lists several of his or her favorites. Someone saying that "Star Wars" is their favorite film doesn't necessarily tell us much about their personality or tastes, but if they tell you that other favorites are "The Big Lebowski" and "Fight Club," you have a much better idea of who you're talking to.

As for your assertion that these lists are propaganda, I agree, for I had never even heard of "Black Narcissus" until reading this just now, and I pride myself on knowing about these things. To the top of my Netflix queue it will go!

Before my comment, I'll come out as the neophyte that I am by admitting that I've only seen two of the seven films highlighted here. Allow that fact to color your opinion of my thoughts as you will.

One of the things that continues to interest me about these lists is the lack of contemporary films in their ranks. Is it accurate to say that only 10-15% of this list is comprised of films made after 1970, with the remaining selections coming from the 30-40 years before that?

If so, my questions are these: having seen mostly movies made in the last 40 years (post-1970), do I have any business at all carrying an opinion on film? Until I catch up on decades of classic cinema, will I be forever left out of any conversation about "the greatest"? Did the art of film truly die in the 70's, and has everything released since then really been that irrelevant?

To be clear, I'm not a champion of contemporary cinema, only a patron. I think the IMDb list has been untrustworthy for at least the last decade (I consider "The Matrix" the moment when fanboys hijacked the list), and I don't buy for a minute any "corrections" that IMDb internally displaces on the list. A simple look at the Top 250 will reveal that the proportion of old to new is nearly the reverse as the one I described with most lists, including Sight & Sound. In other words, you won't see "The Dark Knight" as the 7th greatest movie of all time anywhere else - because it isn't the 7th greatest movie of all time. In my opinion, it's not even the 70th.

But then, where will "The Dark Knight" and "City of God" and "Fight Club" and "The Usual Suspects" end up in 100 years? Will the Sight & Sound list remain the same? My guess is yes, for the most part.

So what's the point of going to a movie theater in 2009 if everything I'm seeing is automatically considered inferior to the past?

Ebert: The 1970s was a great decade for films. Today it is much harder to get an inventive, original idea bankrolled.

Great comments, Roger. But I believe all of these lists serve a purpose and can be very useful. The IMDb's ratings are certainly flawed in various ways, but at the same time, they are not without value. Great films are still considered great, lousy ones are considered lousy. Sometimes the masses can actually tell us something worthwhile.

In fact, I recently used the IMDb Top 250 and a bit of arithmetic to do exactly what you're suggesting the lists you revere should do. Tell us which movies we should check out that we may have missed:
Top IMDb Hidden Gems
I'm now making my way through the ones on that list I haven't seen, and it's been of great value to me.

And then, just for fun, I used their ratings to try to determine which films are really "chick flicks":
Chickiest Flicks
To be perfectly honest, I'm not prioritizing the ones I've missed from that list...

I found Martin Scorsese's visit to Roger and Gene's show when Scorsese & Roger compiled their "Best of 1990's" list was one of the most interesting examples of movie list making I've seen.

I liked the narrower focus, (and the individual take) which insured a closer context for the movies listed than one finds on a list spanning 2 centuries and many countries. I would like to see more lists like that. Best of the 70's, best of the 2000's, etc. That might be a very revealing project. Imagine how sad the 2000's would look by comparison to almost every other decade...

My main problem with "Best of" lists, especially contemporary ones, is that they're usually made by people who think that the history of cinema began when they started watching movies, and that anything made before they were born is worthless. It's depressing enough to see this mentality routinely expressed on film message boards and discussion groups, but it's now been mainstreamed in such publications as ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY and EMPIRE. Never mind the loss of film criticism: what about the loss of film history?

Incidentally, I think SIGHT AND SOUND got it right the first time around. BICYCLE THIEF is my choice for greatest film of all time.

Roger, care to share your ballot with us?

Ebert: For 2002:

1. Aguirre, Wrath of God (Herzog)
2. Apocalypse Now (Coppola)
3. Citizen Kane (Welles)
4. Dekalog (Kieslowski)
5. La dolce vita (Fellini)
6. The General (Keaton)
7. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
8. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
9. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
10. Vertigo (Hitchcock)

The "Spectator" list is pretty good in its wide selection, but it has some odd choices of films by directors who should have other movies there; one that jumps right out to me is "Pierrot le fou" by Godard instead of "Breathless", "My Life to Live" or even "Weekend". Same for Scorsese, "Taxi Driver" over "Raging Bull"?, and lastly "La Grande Ilusion" over "The Rules of the Game". But maybe that's what is nice about this list; the fact that it does select the same titles that most list do.

To answer Dave Glanz's question, the list is available online here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3705178/the-spectators-50-essential-films-part-one.thtml

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3735463/the-spectators-50-essential-films-part-two.thtml

Ebert: Thanks. Hadn't been able to find that earlier.

"Greatest lists" are a good way to discover new items. I have discovered quite a few cds or books that way. And of course, also quite a few movies. If you've loved one of the movies on such a list, maybe you'll take a look at the other works of the director/actor and find even more movies you'd otherwise never see.

Does this mean you're taking requests for future Great Movie entries? I nominate Gertrud, The Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice, A Little Stiff, and The Sacrifice as overlooked Great Movies.

Roger, thanks for bringing my attention to Spectator magazine. I had never heard of it before, but it seems very interesting.

Was this list from the July 2009 issue? If so, I may pick it up.

Ebert: Two issues starting in late June. I have added a link above.

It's funny that so many of these lists, as you mention, are called "best" lists, when in some cases they are more like "favorite" lists, but that's not quite the right word either. Some movies seem to belong on a "most influential" list, given their influence on the subsequent development of cinema, but I rarely hear them called that, except perhaps in the review.

For example, there are some movies that I see once and say "wow, what a transformative experience" yet I would not necessarily want to see again. I'd be tempted to put these on a "best" list.

There are other movies that I enjoy seeing regularly (once every year or two, say) that I would never put on a "best" list, movies like "Stranger than Fiction" or "The Secret of Roan Inish" or "Lars and the Real Girl" or "Stand by Me." I like these movies and many people to whom I've recommended them also liked them (though if you don't like the sound of the pennywhistle or Irish brogues then you definitely should pass on "Secret of"!)

There are a few movies, like Bergman's "Magic Flute" or "Shawshank Redepmtion" that might make both lists.

I like your idea of a collection of great movies a good deal, and at the same time, one of the problems these kinds of lists have is that all sorts of different kinds of movies are all lumped together. What I would most enjoy, and I suggest this might also be fun for you and many of your readers, is to categorize movies by "genre" and then list the best in the genre, rather than lump them all together. Maybe five or ten in each one.

"Best" westerns might include "The Seven Samurai", "The Searchers", "Shane", "The Unforgiven", "Stagecoach" for example..."best" sci-fi / fantasy "Star Wars", "Metropolis," "2001", "Forbidden Planet", etc.... you can see how this would go...it also would give you wonderful fodder for a whole series of blog entries, as you could share with us what makes a genre attractive, what elements of a genre film contribute to its greatness, how the genre has developed and evolved over time, etc. etc. (For example, my wife doesn't like westerns because the bad guys are generally so unrelentingly evil it gives her the creeps; to me that's an essential part of the moral equation that makes a western such a compelling genre).

I'm glad to see The Roaring Twenties on the list because it's one of my favorite films. Until now I thought it to be unjustly unloved and overlooked in favor of White Heat, Public Enemy, and other James Cagney gangster films. The Roaring Twenties never fails to thrill me then break my heart.

Lists are lists, however I think there are two things that they do well, 1) they get people to talk about films 2) they provide a reference for people who want to go back and see films from the past. I see the Searchers is #6, the Michigan Theater here in Ann Arbor is showing it this Sunday and then on Tuesday. I have it on DVD, but I plan to check it out anyway as I have never seen it on the big screen.
Is there a film on this list that you would point people towards that they likely haven't seen?

Ebert: "Black Narcissus" is circling to land as a Great Movie.

I really couldn't stand "Night of the Hunter," either. I found it cartoonish.

I'm angry at this list, not because it didn't include "The Bicycle Thief" or "The Bride of Frankenstein," but because I would have, and I am insecure enough to get defensive when someone disagrees with me.

But, it has done me a great service by inspiring me to add nine more dvds to my Netflix queue.

Roger,
Fascinating list!
Twenty-eight films I have yet to see. Hmmm... guess I now have more titles to put into my Netflix queue! Speaking of Netflix, their Top 100 (based on rentals) has "The Bucket List" at #3. Needless to say I do NOT use that as a reference guide for rental suggestions...

Cheers!
Chris

Thanks for the interesting take on greatest movie lists!

Your readers might be interested to know that "The Night of the Hunter" will be on Turner Classic Movies October 23 at 8:00PM. I haven't seen it yet, but I'll definitely be checking it out.

Thanks Rog for this: lists that push people to explore and find the greatest movies in their eyes. Too many treat the different great movie lists as checklists with boxes to be ticked off. But art is way to subjective for such an approach and what may strike one as great may not resonate as much with another. Personally, I've always loved Unforgiven, every scene and every line. For me, it's my choice for greatest film.

What, no link to Roger Ebert's collection of Great Movies in this post?
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=greatmovies_fulllist

How can you expect to spread your own "propaganda" without helpful nudges towards it?

Well, as lists go, I find I have only seen 14 of them. But, of that 14, 11 of them were in a movie theatre. Thanks to the revival houses here in Seattle!

So glad City Lights is on there... it is my absolute favorite of all time. I'm 28, was introduced to City Lights by my drama teacher back in the sixth grade, and every time I view it I'm just blown away. He also had us listen to the old-time radio shows. Great teacher.

I use these lists to find movies i may have overlooked, or never heard of before. Sometimes i don't "get" it, but sometimes i do. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is one example of a movie i never would have thought about seeing if not for a "best of" list. Fantastic.

Ever feel like making a All Time Movie List actually devalues the movie? To use an example from my own life, when I once read a list of the top 20 video games from every console, it annoyed me that when one of the game(Super Mario Sunshine) was placed number 4 on one list, the blurb stating its significance instead spoke about how it was "a small step" behind its prequels and that the funnest parts were the parts reminiscent of the old games. Though they could have a point, it felt rather sad that the game was actually being DISHONRED for being great but not great enough. Do you get the same feeling with these lists?

So Roger, given your choice to participate in this Sight & Sound once-a-decade poll, how does it feel to NOT see your absolute favorite film - "Citizen Kane" - appear at number one?

Of course these polls are useless, as you've suggested. Still, if a rabid movie lover like yourself sees that Welles' magnum opus does not even reach the top ten, it must make you think "Boy, these other critics are just mad!"

It's surprising to see two American westerns ranked above "Citizen Kane" in a British poll. It's also strange that Europeans prefer "Rear Window" over "Psycho" for Hitchcock (as I do). My favorite film of all time, "Jaws", made the list, so I won't complain.

I'm excited to find so many film's I've never seen on this list. My Netflix que next month is going to be exciting.

Thanks Rog for this: lists that push people to explore and find the greatest movies in their eyes. Too many treat the different great movie lists as checklists with boxes to be ticked off. But art is way to subjective for such an approach and what may strike one as great may not resonate as much with another. Personally, I've always loved Unforgiven, every scene and every line. For me, it's my choice for greatest film.

Hello, Roger.

These are ten movies I like better than almost any on the S&S list:

High Fidelity
The Nightmare Before Christmas
The Killing
Barfly
Aguirre: The Wrath of God
The Insider
Crumb
Before Sunrise/Sunset
North By Northwest
Chimes At Midnight

I have no idea how good my taste is, but I don't think anyone, anywhere, would have a bad time with any of these Movies.

I like lists. As you said, the rankings really don't mean anything, but something like the IMDb Top 250 is very interesting because it reflects the movie taste of the general population. People make the mistake of calling it the "Top 250 of all time" list...that isn't what it is at all. It's simply a list of movies that have the most consensus as being well-liked. I think the two main purposes of the IMDb list are 1) giving newcomers a starting point as to which films they might want to become familiar with and form an opinion on, and 2) providing interesting statistics on the movies people like (using "people" in the broadest sense of the word).

Thanks Roger. This is probably one of the best "list" blog posts of the multitude of list posts out there. List posts are typically the most popular for blogs and I'm glad you've taken the time to examine their somewhat silly and ambiguous nature. I guess they are our attempt at condensing knowledge and information but few ever ask what goes on behind them.

J

It's a shame to say I haven't seen many of the movies on the list - that makes me quite glad, though, as there's a lot for me to see on recommendation. I agree with you, Roger, lists are wholly subjective and serve only to tell others what we think they should watch and like. Saying that, I do like a good list - I've always been obsessed with the "ranking" process, and it's something I can't seem to shake.

So glad to see "Manhattan" and "Jaws" on the list. "Jaws", especially, deserves relentless praise. It is still, perhaps, the only true blockbuster to ever give us crafted characters with so much identity.

I'd like to guess, based on what I know of your taste, that you would be a big fan of "Jaws".

The big problem with these movie lists is that they never contain enough selections from the silent era. The German Expressionists alone could fill the top ten slots. "Faust," "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," and "Nosforatu" are, in my opinion, more stylistic, dramatic, and timeless than most of the films that gain recognition and accolades today.

In 500 years from now, I bet most people won't find "Pulp Fiction" as amusing as we do. But I'm sure they'll still be creeped out and stunned by Murnau's vampire.

La Dolce Vita? Nowhere to be found. I love 8 1/2. But I am surprised La Dolce did not make the list. I watch this film every few years, and always the poignancy becomes more intense, I suppose the reason is that I grow old and begin to wear my trousers rolled. (apology to Prufrock) But there are titles I haven't seen and I am excited about tracking them down.
I am delighted that Rio Bravo is getting some recognition these days. Your recent writings on it, including your defense of the scene in the office when Dino and Ricki exchange songs while the Duke looks (reacts) on. The film works and is a pleasure and there is a film and a time in the lives of us lads when seeing Angie D. for the first time in Rio Bravo or Ann-Margaret (Bye Bye Birdie) for the first time made our teen aged hearts go pitty pat.
Then we grow up, we struggle with flesh and the spirit and somewhere in that process, The Seventh Seal plays a significant part in who we become.

It's interesting that Double Indemnity wasn't even considered in the list. Or any Wilder film for that matter. But if it is indeed propagandistic for news papers to bring awareness to certain films. Than let it be so, as long as they are doing us a favor.

And as for wanting to know what Martin Scorsese's and Werner Herzogs' top favorite films are, it's more like why they like those films and what it is that they find so special in them that made them the filmmaker they are.

Also I always thought your great movies was closest to your top favorites than your top ten were.

Ebert: "Sunset Boulevard" is on there.

I know it's meaningless, I know it's petty, but any list that doesn't include 2001: A Space Odyssey is wrong. Yes, wrong.

Have you ever looked at the Criterion Collection's lists? They have filmmakers rate their top 10 Criterion dvds, which can give a lot of insight into their own work (Ramin Bahrani has a lot of Passolini and Bresson on his, not surprisingly).

My God!!! The Black Narcissus footage looks spectacular! I’ve recently gotten into the films of Powell and Pressburger. I saw The Red Shoes and The Life and Death of Cornel Blimp and I can safely say they are now two of my favorite films of all time. I don't know of any other directors that I’ve fallen instantly in love with this fast. I cannot think of the ending of Colonel Blimp without tearing up. A Matter of Life and Death, Peeping Tom, A Canterbury Tale, and Black Narcissus are on my Netflix queue as we speak. I want to write a collection of essays on their collaboration process and their greatest works for my film site.

As for the topic of film list I do agree with you. They are just reflecting the taste of the critics who voted, there is no such thing as a definitive list. Everyone has their own tastes. For instance North by Northwest is my favorite Hitchcock film and last I checked it’s not on your Great Movies list. No problem you just don’t think it’s his best. It’s just your taste, you just prefer Vertigo. My favorite film of recent years is Synecdoche, New York (definitely would make my top 50). I’ve showed it to many friends and none were very big fans. They appreciated that it’s a well made and wholly original film but they just weren’t that crazy about it. I’m the same way with Slumdog Millionaire, I think it’s an ok film but that’s as far as my feelings go for it. But these lists do serve a purpose; they have introduced me to some great films I had never heard of. Top 100 film lists are where I first read about 8 ½ and Seven Samurai. So this list means that a lot more people are going to rent Night of the Hunter now, which is always a good thing.

Ebert: The latest of Michael Powell's films in my Great Movies Collection is "The Thief of Baghdad."

I'm happy to see the movie David Lean's Great Expectations on that list. After seeing it, it remains one of the few movies that I can think of where the ending was so powerful, it often comes to mind whenever someone experiences a much needed awakening to truth.

Now I feel compelled to sign up for a netflix account so I can see the rest of the films on this list. (Sadly, the local Blockbuster would probably only carry less than a quarter of this list.)

I did, finally, get to see Citizen Kane for the first time last year, and I'm stumped to know what was up with that scene where a woman was screaming during the big picnic.

When I first saw it, I did a double take, rewound it back and played the picnic scene again, just in case I missed something. Who was screaming, why, and why were there people laughing as this was going on? It was kinda disturbing.

Rules of the Game isn't on the list? That's absurd!

The problem is that there have been a lot of very great movies. Well, maybe not a lot, but still, there have been a fair number in the history of the cinema. You're right, compiling lists like this (or of favorite albums, best state flower, and so forth) is a somewhat futile exercise.

Still, one of the advantages of such a list is that maybe people will say "Hey, so-and-so said this was one of the greatest films, maybe we should watch it!" I know your own Great Movies has inspired me to watch some films that have enriched me in that particular way that only great art can.

But it's no list at all if it doesn't have Rules of the Game, The Seven Samurai or 2001: A Space Odyssey on it. I'm sorry, as meaningless as lists are, this, to me, makes it extra meaningless (sort of like infinity squared).

I think those lists are better when they have more focused criteria, because comparing, for instance, Rear Window and Apocalypse Now in all their aspects is an exercise in futility, one could only point out their various differences. On the other hand, you could compare them choosing only one common aspect, (say, how the camera works to show the point of view of the characters) and only then get to a conclusion such as which movie is better IN THAT ASPECT (in this case Rear Window being better than Apocalypse Now, in my opinion).

When there's a list of best movies, one can only wonder what is the criterium/aspect most desired by those who made the list, and more importantly, why should this criterium/aspect outweigh all the others?

The Roaring Twenties! Yes! Watched that as a kid with my brothers late at night on TBS or WGN--great memories.

My friends frequently ask me what my favorite movies are, and I always find it to be a trivial exercise. It's impossible for me to condense all the great movies I've seen into a brief list. I usually answer by talking about a special movie I plan on rewatching soon, hopefully enticing others to join. What's the next movie you plan on watching again in your free time?

I'm just curious, has there ever been a well-respected independent all-time ranking list that contains a movie made within a few years from when the list was published? Or is it just a requirement that movies ferment for a while before they appear on such lists?

Thanks for drawing attention to this! And for writing about it so thoughtfully.

What I find most interesting about these lists—popular as well as critical—is how they evolve over time, and how they reflect current taste and film availability. For example, a lot of people I know have for a while now been championing "Barry Lyndon" as Kubrick's best film. (I'd probably pick "The Shining," but of course it's largely subjective—what we're really agreeing on is that Kubrick, like Ozu, should be represented.) "2001" is magnificent, and one of the greatest films ever made—but it gets so boring to pick it over and over again! What more can we say about that choice? "Barry Lyndon," meanwhile, was critically neglected upon it's initial release, is once again widely available, and is obviously a masterpiece. Picking it as Kubrick's best stirs discussion, and refreshes things. Later, we can always shift back to "2001" (or nominate "The Shining").

Criticism, like all things, needs to be shaken up time and again. Hence shifts like "Pierrot le Fou" in place of "Breathless." Or putting "Night of the Hunter" first, which is an audacious move—and one that will generate lots of discussion. (I say that Laughton and Mitchum and Gish, et al, deserve the attention!)

And critical lists, like popular lists, exhibit fads and recent developments. For example, Burnett's "Killer of Sheep" made a huge splash upon its recent actual release, and this list reflects that. Will its reputation last? It's a great film, but being great isn't the sole criterion. (No Buster Keaton here.) "Rio Bravo" and "Point Blank" have been huge influences on contemporary filmmakers, so their reputations improve. (Still no Richard Lester, though!)

Other great directors are limited by unavailability. You can't easily watch Jacques Rivette's "Out 1," so no matter how great it is (and it is truly great), it has no shot at consideration.

So, yes, these lists make for great windows into film and film history, and provide dozens of excellent suggestions. (Any serious cineaste should eventually see every film on this list.) But they're still just starting places, for viewing and discussion. Their evolution offers critics the opportunity to reflect upon themselves, and their profession.

Cheers, Adam

I used to be a mega-blockbuster-only filmgoer. Then a few years back I decided on a lark to see all the Top 100 movies on AFI's list. I saw some great films (and a few not-so great) and my interest was stirred. I then started making my way through Sight & Sound's list, Ebert's Greatest Movies list, and the "1,001 Movies You Have to See Before you Die" list (299 to go, with half of those unavailable on Netflix).

I queue them up when I see them on Turner Classic Movies, IFC, Sundance, and the afore-mentioned Netlix. I've even seen some at film festivals like M. Hulot's Holiday and Mon Oncle at our local Sacramento French Film Festival.

This last year, my wife and I went to the Sundance Film Festival and saw a lot of movies we would not normally be exposed to, and most of them were magnificent.

The point I'm trying to make, I guess is, I like these lists because as you say they expose you to something you wouldn't normally run across at the multiplex, and while I don't begrudge anyone their blockbuster if you test the waters, you may just open up a whole new world of movies to enjoy.

I agree with your point that the most interesting lists are the ones that reflect one person's point of view. (Jonathan Rosenbaum's idiosyncratic lists are always fascinating, whatever you think of them.) I largely agree with your point that that mass voting polls like IMDb 250 are the least interesting, since they tend to the great middle of the road.

I would point out, though, that I've found the "genre" charts on IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/chart/) useful because of the solid films that are not household names that regularly crop up. The charts are particularly good at calling out non-U.S films that might be well known at home but never got much U.S. exposure. I put titles I've never heard of on my Netflix list and I'm seldom disappointed. A random example--no 41 from the IMDb sci-fi chart, "Toki o kakeru shôjo" (US title "The Girl Who Leapt Through Time"). I'd never heard of it, although I gather it was a hit in Japan. It turns out to be an anime that is both a charming coming of age story and a riproaring time travel adventure.

A friend of mine made a film called "The Man From Earth". Although it's distributed on DVD by a big company, it never had the benefit of theatrical release, television exposure or mass media reviews. Nonetheless the IMDb crowd loved it, and it ranks in the top 50 on both the IMDb sci-fi and independent charts. I have no doubt that a lot of sales resulted from the exposure the film got on IMDb.

The IMDb top 250 may not be that interesting, but I suspect the IMDb genre charts are doing good work in getting smaller films to the attention of the general public.

Roger,

We must have our lists. They are the cinematic equivalent of mixtapes: look at me. Behold my opinions. Share my passions. Our choices are so wrapped up in who we are -- how a particular film spoke to us, when and where we saw it, in what kind of a mood, and with whom. Few of us can separate the idea of a "great" film from a "favorite" one. And that's OK, I suppose, so long as our responses aren't personal, like that reader who attacked you because he couldn't appreciate "The Night of the Hunter." Another person's list can expand my world; if it doesn't, I hope that I can respectfully disagree.

But how could those bastards leave off "Chinatown"?

The most interesting lists are those by one person...
I hear you. For a while now I have been answering, when someone asks me about the best films to see, that I wouldn't know. I'd rather talk about the films I like or, as you say, other people's favorites films. In fact, from time to time I will recommend from your "Overlooked Films" list, or from mexican critic (and my friend) Ernesto Diezmartinez's list of "Movies we never got to see".
Those types of lists have more meaning than simply saying: these are the best films ever.

A great list, of course, but do my eyes deceive me, or is "2001" missing from this compilation? And "Blade Runner" made the top 20? Impressive, and proof that a film that failed in its initial release can grow in stature over the decades (as I tell people who hated "Watchmen"). "Jaws" from Spielberg, but not "Schindler's List"? Interesting. Glad to see "Manhattan" on the list, it's Allen's best film. And is it just me (probably so), but is "Pulp Fiction" ... um, erm, how to say this ... not just a little overrated? It was great in the day, but I can't even contemplate watching it any more. It seems to me these days that there are a great many long stretches in that movie where ... nothing happens. (Perhaps I've just OD'd on it.) Thanks for bringing us these great lists, Roger, I've been following them for years via your Video Home Companions and other books.

Ebert: Out of the universe of missing titles, the most startling is "2001."

I have a small blog of my own with some friends and recently got into a long long debate with some readers about whether popularity should have anything to do with making a list of greats. I had included The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada on my Top 11 movies of the 2000's, and they freaked out because they had never seen the thing nor remembered much about hearing of it. I love blockbusters like anyone else - I feel like Spielberg was a second Dad, in a (bizarre) way. There are plenty of blockbuster types on my list.

But they were having none of Three Burials. “You have to appeal commercially too. I don't know anyone who has seen this movie, sorry.” “Look I like movies that a lot of people have not seen but if you’re making a list about best movies of the decade popularity has to be a figure.” “So your telling me if Marty S. made a movie three years ago and I was the only one who has seen it and I declared it one of the best movies of this decade it would be ok? The list would have no credibility.”

Yes! Yes! I wanted to scream. Why wouldn’t it be ok? And all of a sudden I’d be hungry to see Marty S.’s three year old movie!

Originally, my intent was to celebrate what an AWESOME decade it's been for movies (24 Hour Party People and There Will Be Blood being my two favorite highlights), but I ended up becoming frustrated and sorta kinda depressed by the debate - which ultimately went nowhere. It's extremely disheartening that…

a) people truly do believe that something's popular success is a major indicator of quality. It’s as if the director and stars and crew make a movie they love and feel is great, but they’re shaking in their boots opening day saying, “Oh god, I HOPE our movie is good.”

…and b) that people feel the need to inflict parameters on MY stupid list.

Anyway, I agree that top ten lists have no great significance. I'd go further and say that "awards" can be especially insignificant and even harmful to the art. But I love learning from "best of" lists and debating them from time to time (I’m also excited about seeing Point Blank; I’ve moved it up on my queue.) Yours are often particularly unpredictable and fun and baffling. I don’t know why a silly list I made and the subsequent silly debate frustrated me so, but I thought I’d share it with you.

I'm 29, by the way, and just found out I'm going to be a dad for the first time. That has no significance to this post, but it does to me. :)

I didn't know Steve Guttenberg was in Pierrot le Fou. He looks good for his age. :) I'll have to see some of these. By the way, The Hurt Locker finally opened within 75 miles of Buchanan, MI. Not at The Vickers, but the megaplex on the far south side of South Bend.

I have gone into television stores where everyone (including my children)tries to convince me to get High-Definition. I tell them that they are missing the point. Great entertainment doesn't come from the outside, it comes from the actual story. I have watched the most maimed copy of My Man Godfrey for years. I don't think my children even know that families used to huddle around a radio for their entertainment. What good would High-Def have done Amos and Andy, or The Shadow? What good would it do Citizen Kane? It's the storytelling that matters. Too many recent films have dispensed with story for effect. Sadly, many people perpetuate it with complacency and apathy. I'll get off of my soapbox, now. Robert

Somebody once said: "What makes a good movie?--Three great scenes, and no bad scenes". That seems like as good advice as any, but what really does make a film great? Many factors count as bona fide fact and some are more subjective.

Call me stupid or crazy but I sincerely believe you have to be a certain kind of person to truly appreciate a good film. There are certain people in the world (dare I call them stupid) who simply don't deserve to enjoy this great art form. Now I acknowledge the fact that people will always have tastes, that’s not what I'm talking about at all. What I'm referring to is the sheer inability to interpret or appreciate good art. Indeed, the inability to relate to humanity. There are people like this, believe me I've met them! To give an example they would say things like: I hated the movie "Forrest Gump", I didn't get it--How could a retard do all that? He wouldn't. It was totally fake!

I've actually met a person who said this to me, and believe me when I say that they weren't being sarcastic. They really didn't understand it, not because of lack of intelligence but indeed a lack of personal appreciation and delicate thinking. And yet, I don't want to call such people hard cases but in a way they are. Then again, these are different from people who won't watch "Brokeback Mountain" because they feel inclined to disagree with homosexuality. I feel that sensible people can separate themselves from the work and judge it for what it is. Just because you walk into a synagogue doesn't mean you must convert. A sensible, open-minded person is always more welcome than a narrow-minded, unreasonable one. Believe it.

At the same time I understand and appreciate the fact that movies in their own little way aren't really meant to be analyzed and dissected like the stone tablets in Egypt. They are primarily an entertainment and money making vehicle. But don't deny it, it does take a certain amount of intelligence and mental ability to try and decipher why a storyteller does what he does. About 99% of this is intuitive to all people (that is if you let the power of a film wash over you and accept it for what it is). I'm happy to say that most people do this, at least the people who really enjoy films and don't just go because its a chore or because its a fad (100 year old fad). But indeed, its the ones who care who really keep it going. And its the ones who care who keep grinding out the good stories. These are not the stories that recycle themselves in a haphazard and irresponsible way but instead the ones that challenge, provoke and enlighten us. Those are the ones that stick with you. These are the movies that actually matter.

If you show a nine year old Schindler's List, he probably won't appreciate it like you and I do; however, they will likely have an emotional reaction to it. Whether it be sensory, mental or spiritual. In actuality, this is how I really judge the value of a film. Not by its aesthetic skill, production history, acting craft or intent but rather by its intangible power. Certain films are very well made, and they might well be great films. Some films are competently made, not without flawless but masterpieces nonetheless. Indeed, who doesn't love the Bill Murray comedy "Groundhog Day". Take a look at that film as an example of a broad, humble Hollywood comedy that has blossomed into a subtle and poignant fable loved and admired by millions of movie fans. It takes time for a film to truly gain footing: "The Shawshank Redemption", "Citizen Kane" and "Dark City" (a personal favorite) are great examples of films that weren't well-received but later gained huge cult-like followings. It takes time for good films to be accepted in the correct light.

Other films are almost great by accident or by some kind of cosmic power. You wouldn't know it by looking at them but there is something magical happening. Films like David Gordon Green's low-budget "George Washington" and "Juno" come to mind, indie-hits that hit an emotional chord whether by the unaffected performances, nuanced atmosphere, a great script or the like. I use these sorts of adjectives to describe aspects of movies that are truly indescribable. Everybody who watches films knows exactly what they are but like most probably have a hard time describing them in simple words. They might be emotional, visual or audible; aspects of the experience which relate to the drama. The key to all storytelling is inherent in the drama or dramatic devices. Without the key conflict, you don't have a story. And without development you don't grow. Some of the best stories I've ever seen, heard or read were never about something; they were always about someone. Oh, and great score doesn't hurt either.

Ebert: That was Howard Hawks who said that.

I admit that I gravitate to these lists, for whatever reason. Like you I am anxious to see if there is something I've not considered on it. Night Of The Hunter, for instance, I have never seen. I am not a Charles Laughton fan, though his performances in The Big Clock and Witness For The Prosecution are just wonderful. Perhaps I'll take a gander at that one.

More often than not though, people say what they thinnk they should and toss in Gone With The Wind andd Citizen Kane at the top, even though they are some people's favorite only, and cannot possibly speak to all of us.

I went through a very painful divorce and the only movie I could watch for weeks was The Shawshank Redemption. It soothed me. There is a magic in that that Gone With The Wind did not have. If Shawshank saved me, then I have to give it the nod. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles says more to me about humanity that Citizen Kane does, though I do love madly that film. Am I bad for preferring Candy to Kane? If so let me be bad.

These lists are silly, but they are wonderful inspirations for people to discuss our favorite movies. Undoubtedly we will see that here, so thanks!

I have long considered "The Wizard of Oz" one of my two or three favorite films. Upon recently viewing it alongside "The Night of the Hunter," I find the latter film to be nearly every bit as magical and meaningful, and perhaps a lot more mysterious. We are feeling creatures, and Laughton's film is one that proves the point that a movie's greatness is not necessarily in how impressive it looks on paper (whatever that entails), but in how it makes one feel, deep, deep, on the inside. I hope Mr. Dobrin considers a second viewing; though, of course, he may certainly feel however he's inclined to feel about the directing, scripting, editing, casting, and such things.

Some movies are undoubtedly more important than others. The Film industry might not be the same without Citizen Kane and The Godfather whereas it will continue on if Pulp Fiction was never made. A vague argument, I know, but that's one way to rank movies.

How do you object to ranking films if all of them are A+ in the first place? By just appearing on the list a film assumes importance? Is one film more of a 100%, A+, greater movie than the other?

Hrmmm....

You know, it's funny that you wrote this article on lists of great movies. You see, I really got into movies about two years ago when I attended a college screening of "The Shining" by Stanley Kubrick. Ever since then, I have watched an average of about ten movies a week. I am desperately trying to become a film aficionado. When I first got into movies, I tried to figure out which movies I should see first. So, I used two different lists as guidance.

The first was the Criterion Collection. After two years and countless hours of combing through youtube accounts, I have seen 315 movies that are a part of the collection. Some of them have changed my life and others make me curious as to why they are so popular (seriously, I still don't understand the fuss surrounding L'avventura).

Well, the second list was your Great Movies list. Were you aware that you currently have 324 Great Movies (not including every separate entry in the UP documentaries and treating the Films of Buster Keaton as one entry)? Over the past two years I have seen 234 of them.

I'm going to Japan for a year in order to study abroad and hopefully when I come home I am going to try and become a filmmaker. All of my passion concerning movies and film making were established by watching the movies on your list and in the Criterion Collection.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that film lists can be a double edged sword. They can make phenomenal films seem less relevant to potential moviegoers simply because they are higher up the list than others. I don't think that films should be given numeric rankings that determine their quality.

However, lists of great movies help young film buffs (like myself...) to find what movies are worth looking at first. So I guess we must create them and take them seriously as a kind of gift to film goers, those working in the industry, and those who would like to one day create masterworks of the cinema.

Has anyone made a list of the top five lists in "High Fidelity"? Or maybe top five lists that contain no repeats from other, previous lists?

To everyone complaining about the list: did you bother reading the article?

I watched "Night of the Hunter" a couple of weeks ago, on TCM. It was exciting to finally see a film about which I had heard so much. While I had some issues with Shelley Winters' performance, and those of the boy and girl, well, Mitchum was just so damn creepy! And the cinematography was superb; Winters was shot beautifully, and the framing in her final scene was magnificent. It wouldn't have played well at all if shot in color. Laughton definitely knew his suspense, as well. The two paper dolls being blown by Mitchum's feet made me squirm. Still, I think that it was a great film. Preacher is one of the most terrifying villains I've ever seen on film.

Oh, Gish's character wasn't the kids' grandmother; she was a kind lady who seemed to take in orphans and otherwise abandoned children.

Wasn't it interesting that, even while he was terrorizing them, the young girls were still drawn to Preacher? What was Laughton saying about young girls? At the end, after everyone (even the depressed hangman) is celebrating the imminent hanging, Gish's eldest charge is still pining for him.

Roger:

Why aren't "The Maltese Falcon," "La Dolce Vita," "The Leopard," and "The Bicycle Thief" on this list?

A lot of people may not realize how influential Black Narcissus really is. Martin Scorcese is a huge Powell fan, and Narcissus was an obvious visual and thematic influence on both The Last Temptation of Christ and Kundun.

I recently read a column by James Emerson, in which he basically stated he had no real problem with "Transformers" or other such films, aside from the fact that the movie was obviously not made with him in mind as an audience member. To me, this is a rather keen observation. Any filmmaker who thinks it's a good idea to give testicles to a robot is obviously not thinking in my best interests as a moviegoer. They have other concerns.

But this argument goes both ways. I'm thinking specifically of the reader you cited, who wrote that "Night of the Hunter" was poorly made, badly edited, etc. Well, obviously Charles Laughton did not have this guy in mind when he was making the movie. He was making it for audience members who are more advanced; there's no other word for it.

I guess I think of it in terms of college courses. If someone who is just starting (or still stuck in) Film 101 [fans of "Transformers", "Charlie's Angels", "Battlefield Earth"], it would be unwise for them to try to sit and watch "Bicycle Thieves" or "Pandora's Box", or even "Being John Malkovich." Is this because they're stupid? No, just inexperienced, either by design (younger viewers) or choice (readers of the National Enquirer). These films will fly over their heads like lob shots from Venus Williams.

Likewise, "students" who have advanced to Film 401 or higher [fans of Fellini, Michael Cimino, Terence Malick, Kurosawa, etc.] should think twice before trying to watch "Scooby Doo 2" or "I Spy" or "Baby Geniuses", because these movies are made for (and usually by) people who are still in Film 101. Advanced students watching "basic" films will be as uninterested as a board-certified lawyer auditing a basic legal course.

To me, this metaphor answers any and all questions about anti-intellectualism, or matters of opinion, when it comes to liking or disliking a movie. Don't like "Apocalypse Now"? You're not dumb, you're just in the wrong classroom; Intro to Film is down the hall. Didn't care for "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"? Sorry about that, madame, you're in the wrong room; "Advanced Film Studies" is being held in the auditorium this week. They're watching "City Lights" today; tomorrow is "In Bruges".

And since your entry is about great films, the greatest film ever made is, of course, "Lawrence of Arabia". Surprised you didn't know that. (...he said with his tongue tucked firmly in his cheek...)

Interesting choices.
I love reading movie lists. I don't take them as propaganda, I generally just ignore the fact that some of them are named "The Greatest..."

I prefer lists of favorite films, or ones where a lot of people vote...
I quit liked Empire Magazine's list of 500 movies was really eclectic, partly because it was a list composed by 10,000 readers, 150 artists and 50 critics. It was good, because a lot of movies I like that tend not to be on lists like these were included, as were a handful I've never heard of and was surprised that they got enough voted to be included, as they sounded interesting, yet obscure (http://www.empireonline.com/500/)
IMDB's list is fun, although grades-wise I prefer to see a movie's median votes, rather than the graded average utilized by the administrators.

Another great list was the one done by the sadly defunct Mexican magazine "SOMOS", which worked like the Sight and Sound poll, done in 1994. It's a great guide, and I've seen 20 of them, and I don't mind that a lot of great movies I love were left out, because the list's quality is terrific. Too bad the magazine didn't live long enough for it's second poll in 2004. The list itself is preserved (http://cinemexicano.mty.itesm.mx/pelicula1.html) but it's in Spanish, and is not as thoroughly descripted as it was in the magazine (so I've heard)

When ranking my hundreds of favorite movies, I have no problem. In my mind, I weigh in the movie's artistics merits and add it to how much I enjoyed the movie and it's re-playability value. This explains why from 64-67, the movies are Casino Royale (2005)-Raging Bull-Collateral-Pulp Fiction. Sometimes they may change depending on m

My 10...not my "favorite" as watching some of them multiple times could cause depression...lol...but these are powerful films that have more or less changed cinema, have had huge cultural affects, or are just "art" in its purest form...

1 The Seventh Seal
2 Citizen Kane
3 Pinocchio
4 The Shawshank Redemption
5 Star Wars
6 The Wizard of Oz
7 The General
8 Rear Window
9 Life is Beautiful
10 Amadeus

On the subject of Vertigo, Roger, you once wrote: "Hitchcock was the master manipulator, with the male actors as his surrogates. 'Vertigo treats this theme so openly it almost gives the game away."

Since you bring up Vertigo in conjunction with the Sight and Sound list (where you yourself voted it in at the #10 spot), I can't help but asking what you think of Tom Shone's opinion of it. In his book Blockbuster: How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Summer, he specifically faults the Sight and Sound list for putting it above Hitchcock's other masterpieces, and writes:

"Hitchcock is a director who delights in getting his plot mechanisms buffed up to a nice humming shine, and so the Sight and Sound team praise the one film of his in which this is not the case – it's all loose ends and lopsided angles, its plumbing out on display for the critic to pick over at his leisure."

You've also written that Hitchcock's best films are "Vertigo, Notorious, Psycho and perhaps Shadow of a Doubt". I'm curious, then, as to whether Vertigo is indeed your favorite Hitchcock, or whether its placement on your Sight and Sound list was another instance of strategizing. After all, Psycho has its infamous psychiatrist scene, but there are certainly no "loose ends and lopsided angles" in Notorious.

Ebert: Vertigo eventually replaced Notorious on my list, after I went through it a shot at a time at the U of Virginia and was deeply impressed.

It is very unsettling to see Kurosawa's name is missing from any great movies list. It is not a complaint. I was hoping that as time goes by, his movies resonate more.

For example, through out the recent BEER gate (with Gates and Crowley) incident, the only thing that popped into my mind was "Rashomon". After Michael Jackson's death, the way people (and media) discussed his life and death was eerily similar to how the Watanabe's family and colleggues in Ikiru try to unravel the mystery of his life and death.

May be its just me trying to seeing life through his movies. But I still hope a similar trend does not creep into the Sight and Sound and other polls.

So how long do we have to wait before "Andrei Rublev" becomes a Great Movie?

Why do you credit the director for every movie except Pinocchio? I know Disney may have shaped that movie more than anyone else, but he wasn't a director.

The list was difficult to navigate on that website but I noticed that they credited the directors.

So much debate over the greatest films of all time, I want to know whether Ishtar or Plan 9 is truly the worst.

I was happy to see "Shadows" on the list, John Cassavetes' first film--available from Netflix, by the way. Aside from the cool Jean Shepherd connection (see the "trivia" page for the movie at imdb), the picture itself delivers in terms of structure and mood.

"Barry Lyndon" may be an odd Kubrick pick, but I never get tired of it.

It's a shame that "The Long Day Closes" isn't readily available on video. I ran into it somewhere on TV a few years ago--the final fifteen minutes, so mesmerizing I broke the rule that you must watch a movie from the beginning and just gazed. It still haunts me.

Hey: "Gun Crazy" is waiting for me at home right now, nestled in my vintage Netflix caddy. I'm re-viewing it for The Book That Ate Up All My Time.

And while the funniest question people ask me when I say I love movies is "Which one is your favorite?" if pressed, I would have to say that "Pinocchio" is my favorite Disney cell animation.

I notice the list is all but devoid of horror/supernatural titles. No "Kwaidan"? "Nosferatu"? "Bride of Frankenstein"? "Cat People"? "Onibaba"? "Woman in the Dunes"? "Alien"? But this is where listing gets frustrating/fascinating. There's only room for so much--and so much gets left behind.

Still, thanks for playing "lists" with us, Roger.

I love such lists for exactly the reasons you describe. I don't want someone's list to confirm my good taste, I want the opportunity to discover something new or encourage me to reconsider something I am familiar with. (Complaining about individual rankings is just snarkiness...occasionally fun, but still snarkiness.)

I'm working my way through your Great Movies list, and confess I track my progress (currently 204/308, just over 66%). I'm in no hurry to see them all, rather I try to watch about 3 or 4 each month that I've not seen before, and really savor each. I've been introduced to entire genres through the Great Movies, like 50's French crime movies. Can I look forward to Great Movies III with the next hundred Great Movies sometime soon?

I look forward to the bi-weekly Great Movie reviews, especially westerns and children's movies...not so much because I prefer those genres as I think its more difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff in those genres, there's so much chaff.

There's several films I'm looking forward to reading a Great Movie review for:
Forbidden Planet (1956)
The Grifters (1990)
The Lives of Others (2006)
Spirited Away (2001)
Stagecoach (1939)
Wallace and Gromit: Three Amazing Adventures (1996) A Grand Day Out, The Wrong Trousers, A Close Shave

I'm also working my way through the Ray Memorial 100 list of non-English language films (there's a fair amount of overlap between this list and the Great Movies). I've seen 46 of the 100 films. It's a great list.
http://eddieonfilm.blogspot.com/2005/12/foreign-art.html

I went to the Spectator site as soon as I saw the links. Interesting list, but the first movie I read about, 'Out of the Past', contained a rather glaring error. Their synopsis says that the movie starts out with Mitchum dating Meta Carson (Rhonda Fleming). Mitchum's girlfriend throughout the film is Ann, played by Virginia Huston.

I have a difficult time with "Best of" lists as well. I think a "classic" film is somewhat of an arbitrary thing.

Much of it depends on WHEN you personally saw a film. I have much love for Jaws, Apocalypse Now, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars & Halloween but since I born in 1973 these were the films that made an impression on me.

I find it difficult to appreciate Psycho (1960) as a better suspense film than Halloween (1978). I'm sure many younger moviegoers today would find Halloween boring & predictable because of the countless imitators in the last 30 years.

Comparing the classic films of the 30s, 40s & 50s is unfair because the style, pacing, dialogue and acting seemed new, fresh and exciting when they first came out but is very different from the way films are made now.

Spot on regarding the nature of lists. They are propaganda, they are arbitrary, and they are - ultimately - silly.

Yet they are useful. I have not seen many of the films on the list, particularly the foreign ones. I will someday get around to seeing them, I suppose. And I will have enjoyed a few, I am sure. To that extent, this list will have proven useful to me.

That aside, whenever one sees a list, his first reaction is usually to compare that list with his own. How can a list of the 50 greatest films of all time only have one Scorsese picture (and it not be Raging Bull?).

I watched "Night of the Hunter" a couple of weeks ago, on TCM. It was exciting to finally see a film about which I had heard so much. While I had some issues with Shelley Winters' performance, and those of the boy and girl, well, Mitchum was just so damn creepy! And the cinematography was superb; Winters was shot beautifully, and the framing in her final scene was magnificent. It wouldn't have played well at all if shot in color.

Laughton definitely knew his suspense, as well. The two paper-money dolls being blown by Mitchum's feet made me squirm. Still, I think that it was a great film. Preacher is one of the most terrifying villains I've ever seen on film.

Oh, Gish's character wasn't the kids' grandmother; she was a kind lady who seemed to take in orphans and otherwise abandoned children.

Wasn't it interesting that, even while he was terrorizing them, the young girls were still drawn to Preacher? What was Laughton saying about young girls? At the end, while everyone (even the depressed hangman) is celebrating the imminent excecution, Gish's eldest charge is still pining for him.

Some months ago I ran a few versions of my "best of" lists at my blog. First I ran through my top ten by genre, then my top ten by decade.

Going through those lists I realized that Ebert's opinions of great films have had an influence on me. It was his glowing review of 2001 that made me seek the film out and...I didn't like it. 15 years later I still don't like it. I like 2010 more than 2001. What are you gonna do?

Ebert also highly recommended Some Like it Hot, which I disliked to the point of loathing. When I see it top lists of "greatest comedies" (like AFI's) I cringe. And while I like the photography of the Searchers, I think it's otherwise dull and prefer Unforgiven or Long Riders if I must watch a western.

But Ebert also helped lead me to films I really like: Night of the Hunter, Double Indemnity, Dark City (I guess Ebert is my authority on pseudo-noir?), Paths of Glory, das Boot, Duel, the Magnificent Ambersons, Pi; I don't agree with Ebert on all of the greats, but I've often been rewarded by his insight.

I share your distrust of "greatest something" lists, especially the ones that come neatly ordered. I could (maybe) give you a list of my twenty favorite novels of all time, but if you asked me to order them from 1 to 20, I'd still be agonizing over it a year from now. And the bigger the list gets, the less this tend to make sense; [i]Rolling Stone[/i]'s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, for instance, baffles me. What makes #363 better than #364?
That being said, I do like such lists when they provide original and interesting choices, thus inviting discussion (how deliciously ironic, given how peremptory a "greatest" list is, by essence). I remember seeing [i]The Night of the Hunter[/i] back when I was 12 or 13 in class, and generally disliking it; seeing it in two sessions probably didn't help (what better way to defuse the suspense than to stop the movie after an hour and come back to it three days later). Yet upon seeing it on top of that list, I got a very clear picture of Robert Mitchum's character towering over the two children, which seems to indicate the movie struck me more than I thought it had. Now I definitely want to see it again. The second time might be the charm.

What a curious thing! And not entirely sure what to make of it. Another message from the Gods, perhaps? Or just a coincidence?

ALL the titles on the Spectator list, can be found on DVD at my local library, where I had to go earlier today to return some borrowed items. I'd scanned the shelves you see, looking for something new, so that's how I know.

I saw each and every title on that list. Trippy!

I've also watched many of them, too. The last was "L'avventura" a few weeks ago, and not for the first time either, having seen two or three times before that. It's like "Last Year at Marienbad" in that the B/W cinematography is a meal, all by itself. And thus it ranks up there with other rare films where you don't actually need any sound to enjoy it. Or even subtitles. You just watch how much there is "to see" for it not being in color.

Films that could be silent and work just as well. For me, anyway.

As for the list, and lists in general - they have their uses. You might see something you'd never heard of, leading to a wonderful discovery! But that aside, and however compiled, they're all subjective at the end of the day, no?

Of course, that's no reason not to compare them to one's own. :)

A video clip synopsis of Jean-Luc Godard's 1960 new wave masterpiece "Breathless" as set to "Bittersweet Symphony"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAtOoWIbRI8

That it was possible to score the film to a completely differently audio track and still have it work, is a testament to the timeless power of those B/W images. For while they are indeed "of a time" they also have the ability to transcend it. That's what makes this film eternally cool. So too, this video clip (in my opinion) and kudos to "dylbiebee" for making it, whoever you are. :)

P.S. by way of comparison, here's the official video for that song by the English alternative rock band The Verve back in 1997...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3m4e45bTo

Which also has the power to move me, as it too, has the power the move the viewer, even if you turn off the sound.

And it seems to me that it's a common nominator at work in many of the films I adore. They can work either way. And in that sense, there's my measuring stick for greatness. If you can turn OFF the sound and still enjoy it, it's worthy of being on a list.

I agree with your assessment of greatest films lists, in that they are essentially useless, but what fun to look at and contemplate! Thank you for sharing your own recent list in a reply to one of your readers here, and for consistently placing Buster Keaton's "The General" in your Top Ten through the years! When it comes to film, comedies are my favorite, mostly because I love to laugh, but also because they seem so hard to make successfully. When a good one comes along, I cherish it, marvel at it, replay the funniest bits in my mind, smiling. "The General" is a true epic comedy, and Keaton is a true American master.

DVD trailer for "The General":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g193eTLigrQ&feature=related

P.S. A worst films list would be scrumptious too, but I suppose that would involve firing up far too many brain neurons in order to sort through far too many repressed memories of far too many forced viewings of far too many horribly bad movies. Maybe on a day you are feeling especially courageous?

Dear Roger
I think greatest movies lists tell us more about the individual or the group of people who compiled them than the actual movies (film makers, young people, women, men etc...)

I have seen thirty five of the movies on the list. The most recent was Killer of Sheep when it was on TCM ( saving grace for a busy mom).
"Best" lists both infuriate and inspire me. It's also an easy way to throw out a blog post when one needs it. I'm currently working on a blog list of the Greatest TV series which I know is going to get me yelled at, especially when I get to the number one show. The truth is, I'm no arbiter of what is "best". These lists are always done through the eyes of people who experience different things and are moved by different emotions. I find " The Magnificent Ambersons" indulgent, and I prefer " Wild Strawberries" to " The Seventh Seal", but what do I know? The point is, compiling a list is fun, and most importantly, I use them to try and bring attention to things that sometimes get lost in the shuffle. If one person who never saw "It's Garry Shandling's Show" Netflixes it when it comes out on DVD because they read about it on my blog, I'm happy and it makes the hours of decision making feel almost worth it. At least, until I feel compelled to tell the jackass who proclaims some idiotic thing about how crappy Seinfeld was. Then we're gonna rumble.

"The Night of the Hunter" is underappreciated, and I'm glad that it receives some appreciation here. By the way, there's a really interesting book about the film in German, where each author writes a book about exactly one minute of the film ("Minutentexte", see http://minutentexte.de/hunter.html) - authors include film critics, film scholars, film directors, cutters and actors, writers and webloggers.

Great movies are in the eye of the beholder.

Huh. I've seen 18 out of the 26 movies on the Spectator list (69%), and 8 out of the 10 movies on your ballot (80%). I further note that of the Spectator 26, I've seen 8 more than once (30.7%), but from your ballot of 10, 7 (70%).

I think that one important thing that a critic does for a layperson that a Big Faceless List (maybe not the Spectator list, if that's just two folks) is to provide a point of view. Whether you agree or disagree is often not as important as understanding what the critic is saying. If Joe Critic hates a movie, that may be your cue that your going to love it. In any case, you can read or listen to what they're saying and, if they have some coherence, form some idea about the movie. Returning to the critic later should allow for the same experience, if you've found a good one-- or, at least, a good one for you.

I'll take a moment to thank you for your Great Movies list, and for all of the who-knows-how-many of your reviews I've read. Thanks.

I remember watching L'avventura and being captivated. I'm one of those types that likes to explore a scene, I guess. I don't necessarily want to be told what to think, but instead be given a great environment that'll stimulate me and get my mind wandering. If there happens to be a good plot or character development that's just super, but some of my best movie experiences have been with not as much going on on screen.

L'Avventura was an exploration film (just like Antonioni's La Notte), where I found myself starting to wonder about what the characters would find. I didn't expect things to just fall into my lap, like they do in films like Children of Men, I had to meet them half way.

I suppose that's why Andrei Tarkovsky's films always excite me. He holds on to scenes, lets you take them in and look at all the details. It's like looking through a window into another world.

I've come a long way, I suppose, from when I was a kid who couldn't sit through more than a few minutes of Solaris.

One of my favorites is still Darren Aronofsky's Pi; I think because I always come out of it with a different take on what's going on, and I feel some sort of sympatico with the way Aronofsky constructs his films (I know a lot of people scoff at The Fountain, but there's some underlying truth in that film that resonates with me, despite its clunky expository scenes, like no other film has).

I always took your Great Movies list as I would a bunch of suggestions from a trusted friend. I knew I would run into some which wouldn't connect with me, but I'm always happy to hear more, in part because you actually go through the trouble of qualifying them rather than just listing titles. We like lists as an information age species, I think. I just hope we'll move past them some day.

I have wanted to be a movie critic for as long as I can remember. So, I saw an ad in the Frankfort Station for reviews from readers for their "Unscripted" section. So, a week or so ago, I wrote and submitted a review of "My Sister's Keeper" to the Frankfort Station in hopes that it would see the light of day. Well, today during my garage sale, my Mom opens up the Frankfort Station newspaper browsing through. All of a sudden, I hear her screaming right next to me. I ask her, "what's wrong" and she showed me the newspaper with MY review in it!!!!! As you can imagine, I'm OVERJOYED with happiness and hopefully I'll be writing more reviews next to Ebert & Roeper at the Sun-Times!
Below is the link to my VERY FIRST FILM REVIEW
http://www.frankfortstation.com/Articles-c-2009-07-31-198210.112113_Unscripted_My_Sisters_Keeper.html
Please let me know what you think of it,
Future film critic of the threesome Ebert, Roeper, & Meyers, Bobby Meyers

Ebert: Hey, congratulations! I still remember the thrill of my first byline.

I like this list, mostly because it's a completely different order than we're expected to see. I also saw both "The Night of the Hunter" and "Black Narcissus" within the past year, and so they are fresh in my mind as unusual, thrilling masterpieces. I don't know if they belong in the top ten, but I can't see any reason they shouldn't be there.

Besides "2001," Keaton, and "The Third Man" there's also "Casablanca" missing, but of course it's not often considered a "great" film critically; certainly you can't point to a single genius auteur, there, even though it's an incredibly entertaining, moving, even inspiring movie, which manages to create and maintain a number of memorable characters, all with their own moment in the spotlight, speaking style, ideology.

To quibble with individual titles is fruitless, but to protest the wholesale genre or director omissions can certainly bring to light salient problems. I find only three silent movies (not two: City Lights,The Passion of Joan of Arc and Sunrise) and two Asian movies (like the great movies list fails to have any Hong Kong cinema) on any list of that size to be of curious oversight. As you mention there is no Keaton or Kurosawa, but there is also no Mizoguchi, Griffith or one mainland Chinese film from a director like Zhang Yimou.

If you study regional critics as opposed to just English/American critics you can get a different aspect on what is considered cinematic canon. For example, In The Mood For Love is often mentioned as Wong Kar-wai's top film on such lists as Paul Schrader's Film Canon (he does state he is biased towards western directors), but many Hong Kong critics put Days of Being Wild as Wong's greatest film. This can be seen in the wonderful list Hong Kong Film Award's List of the Best 100 Chinese Motion Pictures: http://www.monkeypeaches.com/050316A.html. Here is lists work the best – to see cinema you would have not thought of before.

To be fair, if this list gets people to see The Night of the Hunter then it had a positive outcome (such a beautiful, brilliant film though I do love his acting performances too).

I would think that Rules of the Game (not including 2001) would be the most serious omission, but since The Grand Illusion is there it certainly makes up for it. Having one director's pick (especially if you are keen on the auteur approach) does help lead to others. So hopefully those who like M will look out for Metropolis (or have already seen).

Roger, while I too find something disconcerting about the IMDB list, I think we have to all finally just agree that all lists are legitimate. To say that the IMDB list is only meant to reflect IMDB users' tastes back to them (and I am not an IMDB user) is to forget that in every Sight and Sound Poll, critics and filmmakers are looking for their tastes to be reflected back to them just as much. All lists serve as some kind of image of ourselves, do they not? And having a list contain movies I have never seen is no merit either. Do you want to see 'Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon'? It's number one on some list.

Finally, don't you think its curious that by Sight and Sound's estimation, cinema's greatest era is long behind us? How can that be? How can you possibly agree? How can no film made in the last ten years be better than the best films of the decades before it?

Ultimately, though, I agree that lists can be superbly instructive - I've been using your 'Great Movies' as one for years. And I'm not even half-way through.

"What is interesting is that the most recent films are Wong Kar-Wei's 'In the Mood for Love' (2000) and Tarantino's 'Pulp Fiction.'"

While the IMDb list is absurdly pointed towards more recent, fan-driven films, it seems nearly as strange how reticent cinephile's are to acknowledge more recent masterpieces. Many lists assume the position that the last great film was made in the 1970s, save for a few odd ducks, when in reality I see things I think equal the canonized "masterpieces" every year. The Great Movies list, thankfully, has not had that limitation, but you seem to be the only critic to who is doing that.

To me, Chop Shop is as good as De Sica, and Wendy and Lucy as great as Bresson. Not to mention David Gordon Green's five films, all of which are distinct and great in their own ways, or the work of Sofia Coppola, Wes Anderson, Jim Jarmusch and Paul Thomas Anderson. And that's just in this country. Every few years a new film from Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, Zhang Yimou, Christophe Honore, Arnaud Desplechin...and dozens of other filmmakers who's work, I predict, will be canonized in the same way Ozu, Godard, and Kurosawa have been.

I understand the importance of distance as it relates to perspective, and certainly there are movies the critical mass, or more often the Academy have lauded that in retrospect seem insignificant, but it seems silly that new master works are put aside until they can become approved classics.

The last film I saw was Munyurangabo, and I had no doubt that it was among the best films I've seen.

Ebert: Isn't that a discovery? Did you ses it at Facets Cinematheque? How did the audience react?

Some list.

No Charlie Chan? No Mr. Moto? No Boston Blackie?

No Laurel & Hardy? No Charley Chase? No Little Rascals?

Nothing by William Castle? Roger Corman? Albert Zugsmith?

Not a single Republic serial? Nothing from Monogram?

Hey, English guys made this list, and no George Formby?

For shame for sure.

The preceding was not Ironic Satire. It is just silly joking around.Once you get past a cretain age, as I have, watching how seriously some people seem to take things like this becomes more amusing (not to say bemusing) than anything else.

OK, I got it out of my system. You can all go back to being Serious now.

(But really - no Bowery Boys?)

I'm seeking an explanation for the lack of recent films on the list. Here are some stats:

Films made in the:
20s = 4%
30s = 14%
40s = 22%
50s = 26%
60s = 12%
70s = 14%
80s = 2%
90s = 4%
00s = 2%

Longest gaps between entries in the top 50:
10 years (82-92)
9 years (00-present)
6 years (94-00)
5 years 67-72

Of the 50 greatest films of all time, only 8% were made in the last 3 decades and 92% were made in the 5 decades prior to that?

Is this because it's too soon to declare a movie is great? If so, why is Pulp Fiction and In The Mood For Love (2000) on the list? Or is it because the art of movie-making is completely dead? Because if that's the case, I'll just quit going. Or is there some other explanation?

Ebert: They're conservative. They live in the past. :)

To me the list has at least one too many Westerns on it. It's just not a genre that holds much appeal for me. I do like noir, however. I'm very surprised they chose Out of the Past (a film I like but one that has a terrible editing flaw I'm afraid) and not Laura. (And Gun Crazy higher than either one!) However, I'm most surprised that Tati is not represented by either Mon Oncle or Playtime. I admit to not enjoying Playtime at all the first time I saw it, but it has grown immeasurably in my estimation over time. Still, this is a pretty good list as these things go.

Oh, braincramp. I was thinking of Gilda which is nearly perfect except one botched edit. Oh well.

Roger, I used to have a book of the best 100 movies, put out by the publishers of Entertainment Weekly. More informative than the list itself (with The Godfather as #1 and Citizen Kane listed #2) was a comment the author made in the preface: Lists are made to be argued. Every time I see a Top 10 or 100 list, I always keep that in mind.

Lists are personal, arbitrary and silly. I love your suggestion that the lists you discuss should be guide us to watch a movie, or to watch one again. And the fact that you don't number your own collection of Great Movies is great.

As far as Powell goes, I find it a shame that Peeping Tom is not kindly regarded as his best. It challenges its audience, which few current films do.

Ebert: It's one of my Great Movies. Surprising that many people don't seem to know of him.

I'm more interested in an individual's "top lists", than something from IMDB or AFI, for example.

Whether it be a film critc, a filmmaker or someone involved in the film industry, or just a random moviegoer...I want to know why the films they see are so important to them and why they inspired or impacted the movie industry and people.

It was great to see Scorsese on your top films of 1990's show and to see what films he thought were the best and I was surprised to see some of the films he chose. Interesting choices.

"Rotten Tomaotes" has a "Five Favorite Films" feature on their website that asks actors, directors, etc. what their top 5 films are and why.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/comic_con_2009/news/1834113/five_favorite_films_with_richard_kelly

Also, comparing film-lists of people of different ages, or someone that has a deeper affection for film, than the average movie goer is also interesting. You might hear about a film you never heard before, either because the film was made wayyy long ago, the film was not "popular" or the film could be independent or foreign.

Hollywood is certainly not what it used to be. Today its remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, adaptations and barely, anything original. The "GOOD" films are not being released as much as they used to and actually, mmany of these good movies are now, non-studio, independent films. Huge lack of creativity and originality these days in Hollywood. It's sad. On that note however, I want to mention that "District 9" looks and sounds original and quite fantastic. It's a risk and it's trying something a little new.

But whose to say a film IS the best, when it's really, all on an opinion of a person? A film is a film. It's art. People can form their own opinions on it. Just because "Citizen Kane" is at the top of one list or a few lists, doesnt at all mean, it IS the best film ever made...again, all on opinion, and not FACT. We can judge what makes a "good" and "bad" film, based on whatever criteria there is for film and people's tastes.

Saying one movie is better than another is based on opinion. There is certainly a gray area with opinion/fact. Comparing two films, either just on how they are put together, or if they are in the same genre, which does the better job...thats where there's a grey area and crossing a line on what makes a film a film.

If you ask, what is the better film, "Citizen Kane" or "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"? I'm going to ask, based on what? Overall? Because "Kane" follows the film formula better, it IS the best film? Maybe not to the average moviegoer.

Individual lists make more sense to me, than say an organization/group's lists, such as IMDB. I'm more interested in the toughts of the single mind and not the majority, when it comes to "top lists" of films, because many of those lists are generic and they omit films that could also be considered "good" films, but were not given the chance, because of marketing or whatever. The small films. The independent films and foreign films.

What about all those films we dont usually hear about, but probably just are as damn good as the "Oscar contenders"? Thank god for IFC, Sundance, Cannes, etc.

The lists are fascinating and hopefully inspiring, inviting, and provocative. They tell us something about the movies. But they probably tell us more about the listmaker(s), whether the listmaker is a single person or a generation of filmmakers.

If you want to understand movies, then watch the recommended films. And if you want to attempt to better understand the listmaker(s), then watch the recommended films.

In my own writing, I've often avoided making "Best of" lists, even though it is tempting to do so (Oh, how we Americans seem to love "Countdown" lists). I'm not sure all the reasons why, but part of me finds the process of numbering and ordering films as one "better" than another as dishonest. It would be like listing the "10 Best Fruits of All Time." For me, there could be 10 fruits of equal value. How do you create a numbered superiority list when comparing so many archetypal examples of "greatness"? I have trouble doing that honestly.

Roger,
I'm with you on 'Floating Weeds'. Along with its beauty, Machiko Kyo just blows me away every time I watch it.

I, for one, was very glad to see THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS on the list - for my money, until the forced ending by the studio, it's better than CITIZEN KANE in many ways.

I can see both the problems and the fun in these lists. The problems are obvious - they fall prey to picking films because the list maker thinks they should be there even if they themselves don't like it (which is why I brought up CITIZEN KANE. I think it's a brilliant film, and obviously, it was a groundbreaking film, but I don't think it's the end-all be-all of cinema), or they're too mainstream, too obscure, too contemporary, too forgetful of history, etc. On the other hand, it gets people arguing, and inspires people to check out movies they might not have checked out otherwise. This goes double for past films.

Daniel wondered what was the point of going to see movies if everything is automatically considered inferior to the past. This leads me to think you've been taught about classic films as if they were medicinal - they taste bad, but they're good for you. That's a shame, because many films from back then are as entertaining as they are artful - as much, again, as I think CITIZEN KANE is too automatic as a choice for best film of all time, it's also damn entertaining - if nothing else for the scene where Kane is arguing with Mr. Thatcher on how to run a newspaper. Also, while there are still terrific movies being made today, some as good as those in the past, people are forgetting movies from the past, or refusing to see them because they're in black-and-white or such nonsense, so these lists are a good corrective.

For myself, I don't know what my top 10 would be, simply because I've seen so many films. I do know THE GODFATHER PART II would get my vote for being the best movie ever made.

I count 14 movies not currently on the Great Movies list. With Rio Bravo, it would be 15...30% of their list when it was released. I'm not sure that the fact is indicative of anything, but I do find it interesting.

4. Black Narcissus, Powell & Pressburger
7. The Magnificent Ambersons, Welles
19. Point Blank, Boorman
22. Shadows, Cassavetes
24. Viridiana, Bunuel
25. Barry Lyndon, Kubrick
27. Pierrot le Fou, Godard
31. The Roaring Twenties, Walsh
33. The Long Day Closes, Davies
35. Gun Crazy, Lewis
36. Andrei Rublev, Tarkovsky
41. In the Mood for Love, Wong Kar-Wei
42. Sullivan's Travels, Sturges
46. Rome, Open City, Rossellini

I have to say that I agree and disagree. I think IMDB has the best list mainly because it's voted on by average people -- the true intended audience for movies. The compiled result is a perfect blend of the critical greats -- old and new, foreign and domestic -- and mass appeal films.

When you have a list formed by 'filmmakers, writers, critics, scholars, archivists and film festival directors', it tends to be a list created by a stuffy, elite group of people (sorry Roger, LOL) who choose a bunch of movies, in part, to prove just how 'knowledgeable' they are about film. While I believe there is some value to such a list, the result is really more useful to a small few than average Joe movie-watchers. Personally, I usually look at these kinds of lists just to see what great movies were omitted than what made the cut.

Here I go again: It's art we're talking about here, these Great Movies, and I just can't abide any kind of objective list of greatness. Blandness and safe choices are the only result. As you say, Roger, only an interesting individual's list holds real value, as that's where you're gonna find the one-shot movies that mean a lot to one writer (a la GATES OF HEAVEN) but wouldn't make it past the first few rounds in an elimination contest. (Although the SIGHT AND SOUND poll is as close to creating a respectable cinema-fan uni-mind as it gets)

But this list you've posted is presented as the SUBjective choices of two guys, right? In that case, it holds interest, even if there are few genuine surprises. It seems that there are about 200 movies from which these lists are cobbled together (PULP FICTION seemingly the most recent film to consistently make the cut), and there's never enough true passionate insanity for me. I remember Gore Vidal declaring AIRPLANE! the greatest American movie of the preceding 25 years at some point - I loved hearing that, not because I necessarily agree, but because it's much more interesting to here a passionate defense of an "insane choice" than a studied defense of a safe one.

NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (a great, great Great film) is a shock to see as number one only because HUNTER is not CITIZEN KANE. KANE, as long as I've been aware of film criticism, has been the Big Enchilada, and that's probably the reason I've always held the film at a certain distance. I love it, I'm entertained by it, I think it's a fascinating techincal exercise... but because it has been so loved and pawed over by so many, there no longer seems to be any fresh way "into" the picture. Rabid film fans have clogged every entryway with scribbled interpretations and drool. (My only legitimate knock against KANE is that, if the film were released today, Welles' Kabuki-esque performance as the old CFK would be criticized as callow and ageist... which it kinda is)

I am sad to see the three K's slightly slighted: Nothing from K(urosawa) or K(eaton) - not to worry, as long as there are eyes and souls, K(eaton) and K(urosawa) will be madly beloved - and BARRY LYNDON standing in for (K)ubrick is odd... just because BARRY LYNDON is underrated, underseen, and underappreciated, and just because 2001 has been on these lists before, this does not mean that BARRY is better than 2001.

That, in fact, is the big bugaboo about a list like this: it's always presenting itself as definitive, but also new at the same time. Nothing happened in 2008 that should make a sixty-year old movie lesser than it was in 2007. So one can only assume that this constant rearranging that happens, from among this pool of 200 movies, is done to draw readers in who might otherwise despair at seeing KANE or VERTIGO on top of the heap (VERTIGO is an interesting one because, as great as it is, I've always felt its status as Hitch's best flim has a lot to do with it being Hitch's most nakedly personal film... but that alone, I don't think, makes it a superior picture to REAR WINDOW or PSYCHO or SHADOW OF A DOUBT)

I'm very happy to see BLACK NARCISSUS up there, BTW. And the day THE SEARCHERS tops a poll like this (again?) will be a great one, because that picture just keeps on giving and giving, and seems to have been crafted gently by the rough hands of a god... which it was.

But I wanna get back to this "greatest" vs "favorite" thing that's been a constant bunching in my undies for years. How could I, as a fairly seasoned and educated movie nut, possibly have different movies to represent "favorite" and "greatest": It's recently been superceded by 2001, but for about 10 years my favorite picture was AMERICAN GRAFFITI. And since this is art we're taking about, and since such choices of preference are based on a lot more than simple intellectual appreciation, I would have answered that GRAFFITI was the "greatest" film of all time, too (and my defense: it does the two things movies can do - entertain me and stir my soul - more ably in concert than any other picture I can think of) - So how could I say otherwise? How could there be some "other" movie (KANE, VERTIGO, etc) that I held in higher regard than my favorite? Isn't that giving short-shrift to my own tastes? I'm a confident guy! I've seen thousands of movies, and dammit, my favorite is the greatest! Until I saw 2001 again on Blu-ray, and then THAT became my favorite and the greatest.

I think we need to see a new list: A list of the fifty greatest movies that nobody has ever seen on a list of Great Movies.

One last thing: It doesn't make sense that every (or most) major directors should each have one picture on a list like this. I look for Billy Wilder, and I see his one movie there (SUNSET BLVD, I might have chosen THE APARTMENT because it lives in my soul forever)... But why would that be? That renders this list more like a list of the greatest filmmakers and their greatest films, which is not what it purports to be. I guess what I'm saying is that a true list of the fifty greatest movies of all time should have all of Kubrick's pictures on it, five or six Hitchcocks and Fords, etc...

Man, I love movies! (That's the sentiment I most often get when appraising lists like this, and it's a nice one)

Roger,
I agree about the ranking in lists, and I too generally use them to revisit films that perhaps I've overlooked or have not seen in a long while.
This list is of course filled with wonderful films, but one thing that I always look for in such 'ranked lists' is the omission-inclusion choices when it comes to specific directors. When I see, such as in this list, a "Barry Lyndon" istead of "2001", or "Taxi Driver" instead of "Raging Bull", or "Magnificent Ambersons" above "Citizen Kane", I wonder if the list-maker(s) aren't trying to merely object to the 'convetional' choices- which I guess would be the object of creating a list in the first place- but nevertheless it intrigues me. The obvious example in this list is the inclusion of Grand Illusion (which I would also rate high if asked to rank a top 50) but not The Rules of the Game (which I believe still ranks in the top 10 in Sight & Sound)

Regarding "Night of the Hunter" and the influences it has had, I'm surprised more haven't noticed the obvious similarities between the Robert Mitchum character Harry Powell and the Nathan Fillion “evil preacher” character Caleb from the last season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Yes, I know Buffy hardly qualifies as Great Cinema, but the use of the character served as an intriguing homage to the original “Night Of The Hunter.” It’s just a pity so few of today’s audiences were able to catch the reference.

I love reading lists. But, I could never imagine making lists. Even when my choices are meaningless. For instance, hubby says, "What are your 10 favorite movies?" I still always endlessly vacillate. Should I list the films that were the most delightful ? Then for certain-- Singin' in the Rain. But, what if hubby thinks I'm silly? So, perhaps I should choose the films that transformed how I thought about the world? Or, the films that transformed what I perceived to be the limitations and possibilities of the art form. Ikiru with the scene in the snow like a poem. Or, do I pick the films that changed how I understood the world for instance when Jeremy Irons convinced me in The Mission that pacifism took guts. Or, do I pick a childhood favorite like The Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET or Ben Hur? Then, there are those recent movies I loved so much: Before Tomorrow, Silent Lights, The Diary of Knud Rasumussen. I don't know how you do? But, I am glad you do. Because, I love reading lists.

And yet again, women are disappeared from the film industry. When will a film like Vagabond or Wanda or Olympiad make a list like this with ease? I hate lists because they are propaganda in a negative way as well, and what's missing seems more important than what is included.

You are not a complete philistine in that, though you enthusiastically participate in the idiocy of such things as `awards` and `top film lists` you are willing to recognize the limitations and proper context of the latter, at least. In fact, it is refreshing to read your opinion on lists. You seem to be the only published critic Ive come across willing to admit that the list they contributed to making is not the Written Word. Youre welcome.

(Re Floating Weeds. Youre kidding right? Never has there been a more redundant film by a worthy artist than Floating Weeds. The first was absolutely wonderful. I know, you were tapped to do the commentary for Criterion on the remake, which I regarded as similar to being asked to do commentary for Godfather 3.)

if it interests you any i'll give you my ten favorite films.
and ones that i think belong on any list of this stature.
in no particular order.

1 fargo
2 princess mononoke
3 sleepy hollow
4 synecdoche new york
5 blade runner
6 punch drunk love
7 the darjeeling limited
8 terminator 2
9 let the right one in (it's like fargo BUT WITH VAMPIRES!)
10 and the one that's close to my heart though i know it's
not a great film. grosse point blank.

i know your star review for each of these.
my favorite of yours though has to be fargo.
synecdoche a close second. your writing makes me love the
movies more.
i can't pay a higher compliment than that i don't think.

Roger:

As you point out, the best thing you can do with a list of the "Greatest Movies" is not argue over whether this or that film should be number 1 or number 18 on the list, but to use the list as a guide to see great movies.

The "Greatest Movies" lists have an added advantage, in that they keep alive the reputation of films that would otherwise be forgotten. "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" will never appear on a "Greatest Movies" list, but movies like "Citizen Kane," "Tokyo Story," "Night of the Hunter," etc. will continue to be acknowledged for their greatness. Hopefully, when some of today's brain-dead, bolt-of-lightning-attention-span teenagers get a bit older, they will start to investigate cinema and look around for better movies to see. And hopefully, these "Greatest Movies" lists will point them in the right direction.

In a sense, you can also use the annual list of Oscar nominations as a guide to good cinema. Of course, it's best not to take the Oscars too seriously. In the past, they've nominated some very silly films for Best Picture -- "Kings Row," "Airport," "The Poseidon Adventure," "The Towering Inferno," "Fatal Attraction," "Gladiator."

But every year when the nominations are announced, you know that AMPAS is going to nominate at least four good films in the Best Picture category, or in a good year, five. [From now on, hopefully, it will be at least eight good films in the Best Picture, or in a good year, ten.]

You can use that list of Best Picture nominees to see some good movies. They may not all be considered all-time classics thirty years from now, but most often they will still be enjoyable, thought-provoking, and entertaining.

You can also use the list of acting nominees as a guide to see some great performances on film. Who cares who wins the Oscar in the end? I just want to see Meryl Streep give another entertaining or heartfelt performance, or to see a newcomer like Amy Adams or Ellen Page show us what she can do.

If you are a *serious* film student, you can use the nominees in the technical categories to study the technical aspects of films (i.e. you can use the Best Cinematography nominees to study the aspects of cinematography -- camera angles, focuses, color saturation, lighting, etc.)

You can also use the Documentary, Live Action Short, and Foreign Film categories as a guide to finding good films that are well outside the mainstream. These movies are out there, in the theaters and on DVD, if you take the time to look for them.

The key, of course, is to use different lists. The list of Oscar nominees is a good list, but not the only list. You have to look around for more lists (i.e. Critics annual "Top 10" lists) of great movies to see. And you have to keep watching movies to find those that you will consider true treasures.

To me, great movies are like bottles of fine wine, to be sipped and savored with the senses. But like wine, you must sample multiple movies to find the truly great vintages of cinema, or the ones that appeal to you. That's where the movie lists become useful. They are like a wine list, pointing you to the best vintages.

Ten more titles that deserve consideration:

"A.I." (Yes, really. Watch it again.)
"Amadeus"
"A Clockwork Orange"
"Close Encounters of the Third Kind"
"Do The Right Thing"
"Fantasia"
"Fargo"
"It's a Wonderful Life"
"Magnolia"
"Zodiac"

Roger,

Just checked both my Great Movies books and your website, and I do not believe Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons is included in your Great Movies collection.

Am I mistaken?

Night of the Hunter being number one surprised me. I'll have to take another look at it.

I was hoping that Lindsay Anderson's "If...." might be on the list (it being a British magazine gave me hope), forcing you to consider it for a future Great Movies review. Sadly, it must have been 51.

Anonymous said: There'd be no film establishment at all without a mass audience for motion pictures. So perhaps we should not be so dismisive of their collective opinions.

But is the box office gross really the best way of measuring their collective opinions? It's money made at the time of a film's release, in the first flush of the marketing campaign. It can't tell us whether the movie will earn a long-term place in our cultural memory. A decade from now, how many of the people who saw "Transformers 2" will look back on it fondly?

Most people spend more time ranking films than watching them. A movie is a personal experience; to convince others of its importance is a waste of time. I'm tired of discussing favourite movies with friends, only to find out they've never heard of "Persona." People who value films like "Fight Club" and "The Usual Suspects" are not movie fans, they are bored!

Speaking of "The Earrings of Madame de..." Turner Classic Movies is showing that film on September 13th at 2 AM EST in case anyone is making their way through the above list.

I don't really understand what all those TRANFORMERS lovers are doing in a website like yours anyway. I would think they could get easily their "highs" by reading the weekly box office report (or by watching Beverly Hillbillies re-runs).

As this thread bares witness to, lists provide the pretentious and base the opportunity to

1. pat themselves on the back for watching the `correct` films: Why, yes sir! I have seen blah blah blah and it was mah-tee fine! and on they drone;

2.` furiously` object to `oversights` (with conviction and insight similar to the bawling toddler, crying for its favourite stuffed bear), thus, in a classic exhibition of passive-aggressive anal-retentiveness, establish themselves (in their own sidewalk puddle minds, at least) as informing the `informed`, when of course, in reality, neither is which.

This is certainly a respectable list with lots of films worth checking out, but I had to automatically disregard it because it broke the Law of Including at Least One Keaton Film on Your All-Time-Best-Films List.

Night of the Hunter has been building its followers in recent years. Cahiers du Cinema put out a book last year—I think it said "most beautiful" or something rather than best—and Kane edged out Night of the Hunter by only one vote.

I just tracked it down by googling it and finding my own write-up: http://www.thesamedame.com/2008/12/frenchies-name-top-100-films-piss-off.html It's got a few things in common with Spectator's list, including Sunrise, Night of the Hunter and L'Atalante near the top. Of course, the Spectator included British films, while the Frenchies didn't.

One of the most interesting lists is the one from www.theyshootpictures.com. It's compiled from critics and filmmakers, and updated periodically. It ranks 1000 films, more than any other list that I've seen. I figured you are probably aware of it, but I thought I'd point it out for those who aren't.

Roger, there are a few titles on this list unseen by me, so please feel free to correct me, but how is it that these lists, year after year, fail to ever mention a true, red-blooded horror film?

Rosemary's Baby, Psycho, Alien, Halloween, The Silence of the Lambs. All of them "great" movies, in their own way. I understand that horror is, and always has been, a disreputable genre, but is it so looked down upon by cineastes that even the masterpieces I listed have no chance of recognition? How disheartening.

Oh, and to those who have never seen The Night of the Hunter, I envy you the experience you are about to have; I wish I could have it again for the first time. Flawless.

I have tried many times to make a list of my top ten favorite films. I found it frustrating because I have to leave out films I love and declare that some are better than others. I basically gave up and came to the conclusion that lists are pointless. There are lots of films I fell in love with such as Seven Samurai, La Dolce Vita, Vertigo, The Godfather, Citizen Kane, or Dr. Strangelove. I feel it is silly and perhaps idiotic for me to say that one of these films is inferior or superior to another. It wouldn't be right to say Vertigo is better than Dr. Strangelove or vice versa. As we already know, each of these films made equally great contributions to motion pictures, the film industry, and culture.

I have been using the IMDB for many years and I am completely confused as to why The Shawshank Redemption stays on the top 5; last I checked it was at #1. It is a great film and one of the best of 1994, but it is hardly the greatest movie ever made. If I was forced to make a top 200 list, I doubt it would make my list. If either you or your readers can explain to me why The Shawshank Redemption usually holds the #1 spot and rarely goes below #2, or why The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (another great film) stays on the top three year after year, I would appreciate it.

How many films by David Lean?

Surprised to see "Fellini Satyricon" missing... one of the few films I've ever seen so faithful to the book, be it 2,000 years old. Still werks fer me... I also agree with Kerry of Inframen about "La Dolce Vita."

Surprised "Cyrano DeBergerac" also missing, the version starring Depardieu.

Slightly surprised "Strictly Ballroom" not there. But I'm a sucker for anything the actors have rehearsed for a couple years by nightly onstage performances, like "Harvey."

Am relieved to not see "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover" or "Mozart." My ex wore them out and made me certain she was on the wrong planet.

Most surprised at how many of them I haven't seen yet. Good lord, I'm not going to live long enough.

Sadly, today's society would be more receptive of a list cataloging the best celebrity porn films.

I absolutely love your way of recommending movies and putting together lists. I know lists don't have any real meaning but when any of us love a movie (like Schindler's List) it absolutely kills to see that another group of people don't see what you see (as if Pulp Fiction is better). This is why i appreciate your Great Movies List even though I don't agree with some titles because you aren't putting any of "your" movies above "my" movies. I don't know how you feel about seeing movies literally put in front of Taxi Driver and maybe even something like Almost Famous. All I want to say is thank you for thinking rationally and not driving your readers bat-sh*t crazy.

The Spectator list bores me. It looks like every other "all-time best" list I've ever seen. I've seen all but three of the films on the list and consider only eight of them to be truly great. There are several that I actively dislike.

For once, I'd like to see a "best movies" list that surprises me. One with daring and individuality (but also one with intelligence and good taste). I just find it hard to believe that in a world with thousands upon thousands of movies, everyone seems to love the same small handful of "consensus classics," many of which aren't even particularly good movies (like Black Narcissus, for instance). It seems like people vote for what is historically significant or groundbreaking for its time, the tried and true films that everyone agrees on, rather than what they truly love on a personal level. Of course, I could be wrong. It could be that the makers of this list, and others like them, all share the exact same taste in film. But I doubt it.

One of my pet peeves is when you ask someone to make their top 10 list, and they give you a list of 23.

I asked you to make a list, not name me some movies you like.

I believe the act of creating a list has value; it teaches you to think about movies critically. Imposing a limit inevitably forces you to make choices about which stay on and which get bumped. The point of a list is to make you think, not impose a ranking on others. That's why they're fun.

My own top 10 list will change every time I give it, of course, depending on my mood. They're temporal in nature almost by definition; because you change, and your tastes change, and your understanding of the films change. When I first saw it, I thought "The Pianist" was not the equal of "Schindler's List". Now, I think it is superior in many ways.

That's the real reason why I enjoy your "Great Movies" column Roger - not only to see what you include and exclude, but also to see how your new review compared to your original review. In 30 years I hope you re-review all the great movies again. Maybe you'll see something new.

I agree that most lists of the greatest films ever made are rather arbitrary, and the simple fact is that there is no "greatest film of all time," nor a 2nd or a 121st.

That's why I value your Great Movies collection so much, as it doesn't try to assign rankings but rather explain personally why you think the movie is great. I've made it my goal in 2009 to see all 100 of the titles in the first Great Movies book (78 down so far!). And though I have enjoyed almost all of the films in the book, I also find myself straying from the list, and I think it is important for any moviegoer to make discoveries for him/herself, regardless of any lists. I find myself thinking that if I had such a collection I would include The King of Comedy instead of Taxi Driver, or Hiroshima Mon Amour instead of Last Year At Marienbad, to name only a few examples.

About The Night of the Hunter, I enjoyed it for its expressionism and cinematography, but I found the ending too sentimental given the dark tone that pervades the film. I just can't see it as being one of the all time greats.

Lists like this are designed to provoke discussion. They purposely diss "Citizen Kane" in favor of a movie that most people haven't heard. That being said, I really like "Night of the Hunter" and it definitely belongs in the AFI Top 100. So does "Night of the Living Dead." Imagine if there was a movie called "Night of the Living Hunter," with a group of survivors in a house attacked by a marauding group of Robert Mitchums moaning "chillll-dren." That's some scary s--t.

To make it easy on myself, I decided to compile a list of my "top 10" using only the movies in my DVD collection. I now own 400 movies, so the database was somewhat considerable, if nowhere near comprehensive. Of course this list is bound to change in any given month or year.
1) SANSHO THE BAILIFF. (This one will stay at the top for a long time!)
2) THE RULES OF THE GAME. (This one will probably stay here a while as well...)
3) THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (is there any other perfect romantic comedy? Maybe MOONSTRUCK. Consider that my 3B)
4) THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARK (Few movies today are as visually captivating. Not just for its closeups but for its camera movement, it's subtle visual styles--look at the skewed windows--for its skinned emotional purity.)
5) MCCABE & MRS. MILLER (you said before, Roger, that this movie came closest to resembling moving-image-poetry... I leaped in the air when I read that, and applauded. I had the same exact thought (a whole year earlier) during the same exact passage as you described; the shooting of the young man on the bridge.)
6) CASABLANCA (what a story...! That is all.)
7) JULES AND JIM (it gets better every time... deeper, more textured, more detailed... I'll say it; I think it's better than Citizen Kane.)
8) THE DEKALOG (some people will never know about this or even want to come across it; for the rest of us, there's treasure.)
9) PINOCCHIO (it's still disturbing, only for different reasons than when I was a wee-tyke)
10) (My wild card slot; for movies that have either been under appreciated or marginalized. I've two movies tied for #10)
10A BRAND UPON THE BRAIN (Normally the fast cutting and clipped images (Baz Luhrmann, eh hem) either disorient the eyes or stimulate without engaging the brain--the equivalent of a visual vibrator). It is not the case here. The succession of rapid, repeated--and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated--images serve to create the portrait of a subconscious brain gone haywire. There's real imaginative thinking here. Food for imaginative thought.
10B SOUTHLAND TALES (Just to be a jerk. Because so many people hated it and I love it. Because I've seen it four times and I still love it--Thank you, Manohla Dargis, etc., for your professional appreciation.)
The top 10 never feels comprehensive. Never will... But I'm pleased with my sampling. For now.

Greetings Roger and fellow readers!

The subjective nature of the art form dictates that much latitude be given when assessing lists. I am solidly in the corner of those who say such compilations are reflective of those individuals who create them. With that in mind, here's my own flawed and wince-inducing list:

(1) West Side Story
(2) Life is Beautiful
(3) The Sweet Hereafter
(4) La Dolce Vita
(5) Casablanca
(6) The Heiress
(7) Sunrise
(8) Juno
(9) Gone With The Wind
(10) Lawrence of Arabia

It's almost a statistical impossibility to compose such a list anymore, namely because one excludes so many other richly deserving films. But, to quote Jeffrey Jones' character in 1984's Amadeus, - "There it is."

Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada

I find lists to be an interesting, yet deeply personal experience. The idea that there can be some kind of objective ranking of what is inherently a subjective medium. Obviously in a purely broad construct, one can establish a pecking order within the bevy of films that have been released. But beyond such a broad construct (The Shawshank Redemption is always going to be better than North), any attempt at a definitive list is fruitless, yet people are seemingly fascinated by it.

From my own personal experience, five years ago if you had asked me what the top ten films of all time are, I would have said:

1) The Godfather
2) Ikiru
3) Citizen Kane
4) Dr. Strangelove
5) The Seventh Seal
6) 2001: A Space Odyssey
7) The 400 Blows
8) City Lights
9) 2001: A Space Odyssey
10) Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Now...it would be more like this:

1) Sansho the Baliff
2) Madame de...
3) Celine and Julie Go Boating
4) Ugetsu Monogatori
5) Tokyo Story
6) 8 1/2
7) Citizen Kane
8) Ugetsu Monogatori
9) Persona
10) Ikiru

Either list would have merit as a list of ten great films, and both are reflective of my personal opinion at that given moment in time. Lists are nothing more than that.

2001: A Space Odyssey is not on the list. This may be a list, but the list is not alive.

James S.: how is it that these lists, year after year, fail to ever mention a true, red-blooded horror film?

I would count "Night of the Hunter," "M," and "Jaws" as true horror films.

To redress the balance, here's a random top ten list of horror movies (in no particular order, and with the understanding that I could pick another ten horror movies that impressed me as much):

1. Cat People (1943)
2. The Seventh Victim
3. The Black Cat (1934)
4. Carnival of Souls
5. Curse (a.k.a. Night) of the Demon
6. The Haunting
7. The Devil and Daniel Webster (Technically I guess this is a comedy, but several scenes give me the creeps.)
8. The Rapture
9. Pulse (2001) (The Hollywood remake was reportedly awful, but the original Japanese film is eerie and profoundly strange.)
10. Onibaba

Roger,

A personal journey.

On a recent post you were surprised how many "great movies" I have seen this year.

Great movie lists should not be taken as gospel. My personal favorite sits at "theyshhotmovies.com" and places great weight on the sight and sound poll. In all they consider over 1800 perspectives.

The reason it's important is not because it is right. The reason it is important because it inspires me to explore great movies, challenge myself and form deeper opinions on the art form.

Upon reaching 50 I committed to myself that having seen 10,000 movies I would go on a journey of discovery and spend a few years making a real effort to watch great movies. I bought your books as a travel guide :-)

The last few months have simply been the most exciting film going times imaginable. With each film i watched the movie and then rewound to the beginning and watched it again where possible with the commentary track.

I feel in love with Criterion and Netflix.

I have now seen the top 100 completely.

Personal favorites new to my experience are Greed, Sunrise, Aguirre Wrath of God, Voyage In Iyaly, Madame De, To Be or Not To Be, Amarcord, Potemkin, Grande Illusion, Letter From An Unknown Woman, Ordet, City lights, Man With A Movie camera (I want to see it live), Pather Panchali, Pickpocket, Sansho the Bailiff, Au Hasard Balthazar.... I could go on.

I revisited many movies I had not seen lately and discovered that Citizen Kane was no longer my favorite film of all time. That honor was bestowed upon Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo"

I saw all these this year and I consider myself to be lucky.

I now move onto the next 100.

I am more aware of great directors, I'm more in love with cinema. I am happy and I'm excited about my next stop off on my journey.

As I said, these lists are a source of inspiration and explorations and I appreciate that.

Finally, as my head tour guide over recent months, I'd like to personally say - thank you!
Rob

All these "greatest films of all time" lists only serve one purpose in my opinion: The list of great and worthy films out there is practically endless. If I add up all of the "greatest films" and "favorite films" lists I have read (and I have read a lot of them), I'd probably come up with at least 3,000 movies, on the low side. It's an interesting experiment to take a selection of lists from respected film critics and filmmakers and see how many different films are named. That's what Sight and Sound does, and that is why I respect it more than any other list.

Now, at no point is any list gospel, but if an intelligent, learned person sees something special in a movie, that alone makes it worth watching. Roger's list of Great Movies is probably worth a year of film-watching, at least.

I don't like any of these best movies lists. I feel that a lot of the smaller independent films don't get their due.

I've put together many a Top Ten Movies list, and I like to look at them as "the ten films I feel most compelled to show reverence for at this moment." Unfortunately, they have also been "the ten films I most desire others to associate with my impeccable tastes (even if I've never seen some of the films)."

At their best, movie lists have introduced me to movies that I needed very much to see, such as FACES, your #4 film of 1968, which introduced me to all that Cassavetes had to offer; or 3 WOMEN, your top film of 1977, the great Altman film that I might always have overlooked; or EVE'S BAYOU or MABOROSI or GEORGE WASHINGTON.

They may also generate excitement for a film one has considered seeing but been a bit leery of, and strengthen a sense of appreciation for a film one has already seen and liked and now, with the help of the wise critic, feels comfortable loving.

At their worst, these lists bring the conversation about film down to a very low level, tossing films into yet more competition with one another, neglecting the wonderful example of thinking and writing about film set by you, Roger, as well as David Bordwell, Stanley Kaufmann, and others.

I had much greater enthusiasm for lists when I was younger. And when I've hurried through a meal with today's paper resting beneath my burger wrapper, a quick summary of what's good is always helpful. But I've grown very weary of living like that--of, for instance, not allowing enough time and focus for films to work the magic that their makers have toiled countless hours for them to work. It is, in the end, no more rewarding to have seen BLOW-UP and not really understood it than to have it still lurking in the twenties on my Must-See list.

I've begun reading Bordwell's "Poetics of Cinema" and really dedicated myself to savoring the films I've always wanted to see and never allowed enough time and focus for (or simply was too young to have a proper perspective for appreciating). Lists are, for me, at this stage in my relationship with films, beginning to lose their magic of quantifying, crunching, and solving the mysteries of the unseen cinema.

Ebert: The only problem with that book is that you keep wanting to put it down and watch a movie he's discussing.

Hey Roger,

I really enjoy lists, they do exactly what you say they do, they inspire me to seek out titles I had never heard of before and see what all the fuss is about. Lists are the reason why I hired Citizen Kane and your articles on great movies are why I did the same with Raging Bull, 2001, Vertigo and many others (just FYI 2001 is my favorite).

Anyway, the main purpose of this comment is to inform you, if you are not already aware, of a website called 'Flickchart', Anne Thompson made me aware and I joined. You are constantly presented with two one-sheets of films of which you pick the better and as a result a list of your favorite movies is formed. It takes a while for a list that somewhat reflects your tastes to take form and as always there is an inherent silliness to picking between 'Apocalypse Now' and 'Raging Bull' but I think it is fun being forced to make a choice. My list informs me that my top 5 is 2001, Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, Brokeback Mountain and The Assassination of Jesse James, which is getting there I suppose...

Ebert: I'll check it out. Also, Netflix just awarded their big prize for superior member-taste-prediction software.

I agree wholeheartedly with the early anonymous poster. This whole bashing of "Transformers 2" really should just stop.

I love lists best when the author explains what each entry in a list means to him, like James Berardinelli used to do with his Top 100. It fascinates me to see what interests people. I haven't made a top 10 list (I've seen too few films to do that) but I think I might follow Larry's example. However, two films that I don't think will ever change are 2001: A Space Odyssey and Jaws. Jaws opened my eyes to how a great story is told, with sympathetic, funny, intimate characters, clear, crisp dialogue, and actual scares. The night I saw Jaws for the first time in about 7 years, was the night my movie journey began.

As for 2001, well, no film has ever inspired such reverence and awe in me for the unknown. Not to mention, it depicts aliens in the only realistic way we might encounter aliens.

I don't see how David Lynch can be ignored.
His best in my estimation is Mulholland Drive, though Elephant Man and Blue Velvet were powerful.
Yes, some of his work is repugnant; as you've observed, sometimes his work involves too much information, like the child in grammar school with pictures of the murdered Jews in WWII.
Lynch is nevertheless worthy of honors.

Reading the list and seeing "Pinocchio, Disney" on it was a little jarring for me. It suddenly reminded me that there was once such a man and not just a corporation with the same name. I feel that says a lot for the direction cinema has gone in.

I'd also laud them for including Barry Lyndon over 2001. 2001 has found its way into the cultural conscience while Barry Lyndon is usually ignored. I think Barry Lyndon works pretty perfectly as the inverse of 2001 and is brilliant at what it does; examining humanity, as Roger put it, "through the reverse end of a telescope". It's also got some moments that are as funny as anything in Dr. Strangelove.

As far as "greatest movies" lists go this one is rather compelling. I always feel that reading such a list is more akin to listening to someone take a Rorschach test than anything else. Also, speaking as someone who aspires to make films (great ones, obviously, why aspire to less?) browsing these lists and exploring their titles are always a great source of renewed inspiration.

I must say, I feel like I'm in agreement with this Brian Dobrin. Not so much that "Night of the Hunter" is "terribly directed, horribly written, and badly edited," or that "You must have been drunk when you saw it," but that I wasn't as enthused about it as its reputation would merit. (Personally, I love the idea that if a bad movie makes it into the Great Movies, it means that Roger was drunk. Considering that writing a Great Movies essay probably entails seeing the movie again, writing down thoughts, and organizing the thoughts in a coherent essay, and some other things I'm not aware of... that must be some good alcohol you're getting.)

I feel like a lot of movies that people acclaim just don't click with me. It took me half a year to get through "La Dolce Vita," and I felt bored senseless and confused; nothing about it added up to me. Does that mean I think Fellini is a hack? Perhaps (I wasn't fond of "La Strada," either), but I wouldn't dare say that everybody who disagrees with me must have been high; I'd just say that I "didn't get it." It sounds more diplomatic.

Personally, I think making a list saying "The Greatest [X] of All Time" is a ridiculous idea. Can we honestly say that the greatest paintings, poetry, films, etc., have already been made, and nothing exceeding their quality will ever be made? If so, why bother keeping up with the modern trends? If I were making such a list, it would more likely be called "My Favorite [X] as of [date]." Consistency is a bore, and if a later list contradicts an earlier one, I wouldn't care.

PS: The Top 250 is generally useful when I'm putting together movies for ideas ("Trainspotting" meets "Finding Nemo," for example). Otherwise, absurdities like "Star Trek '09" outranking "The Seventh Seal" or "Arsenic and Old Lace" makes you lose hope in humanity.

I'm always dismayed at how poorly silent films, foreign films and anything in black-and-white are served by such lists. One of the advantages of picking films by, say, decade is that it forces a certain degree of balance: you're obliged to choose highlights from earlier periods of time, and to stretch yourself. I adore "Modern Times", but I would be hard-pressed to give up "Oldboy".

I also feel that a label like "greatest movies ever" is a bit of a misnomer, because moviemaking is an ongoing concern, and anything on the list now can always be pushed down (however gently) by future work.

Ebert: Actually, b&w did OK on this list. And among my Great Movies.

"What is interesting is that the most recent films are Wong Kar-Wei's 'In the Mood for Love' (2000) and Tarantino's 'Pulp Fiction.'"

While the IMDb list is absurdly pointed towards more recent, fan-driven films, it seems nearly as strange how reticent cinephile's are to acknowledge more recent masterpieces. Many lists assume the position that the last great film was made in the 1970s, save for a few odd ducks, when in reality I see things I think equal the canonized "masterpieces" every year. The Great Movies list, thankfully, has not had that limitation, but you seem to be the only critic to who is doing that.

To me, Chop Shop is as good as De Sica, and Wendy and Lucy as great as Bresson. Not to mention David Gordon Green's five films, all of which are distinct and great in their own ways, or the work of Sofia Coppola, Wes Anderson, Jim Jarmusch and Paul Thomas Anderson. And that's just in this country. Every few years a new film from Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, Zhang Yimou, Christophe Honore, Arnaud Desplechin...and dozens of other filmmakers who's work, I predict, will be canonized in the same way Ozu, Godard, and Kurosawa have been.

I understand the importance of distance as it relates to perspective, and certainly there are movies the critical mass, or more often the Academy have lauded that in retrospect seem insignificant, but it seems silly that new master works are put aside until they can become approved classics.

The last film I saw was Munyurangabo, and I had no doubt that it was among the best films I've seen one the since the projector turned off.

Roger-

You're going to think I'm nuts, but I think that Rocky II should be on any list of Great Movies. Not Rocky I, but Rocky II.

Reason? Because with that movie along with Rambo II, Sylvester Stallone (AKA Judge Dredd!) wrote, directed, acted and basically created the modern action sequel that we know and enjoy today (Transformers III, I know). I know it's hard to believe, and sometimes I have to check IMDB three or four times to remind myself just how important Sly Stallone is to the history and study of film.

It just blows me away just how much he single-handedly effected the movie business because I still, to this day don't think anybody realizes just how big his contribution was.

If you continue to place Citizen Kane on your list because of the backstory of that film, and what Welles was up against and how he paid for it- think of Sly Stallone. A couple years prior to Rocky II he was making soft core porn, and writing Rocky in a dingy one-bedroom apartment.

Rocky II needs to be on someone's list.

I wonder why "avant-garde" or non-narrative films seem to be missing from all the "greatest" or "best" lists. Surely Bunuel and Dali's Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or deserve mention. And Stan Brakhage's The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes was one of the most intense and harrowing film experiences of my life, a film that more than any other I have even seen (documentary or 'fiction') brings the viewer face to face with the cold reality of what happens after we die. If The Act of Seeing... isn't one of the greatest films ever made, I'll slather my beloved pinstripe fedora in barbecue sauce and consume it.

I'm amazed at this blog entry - I was thinking just a moment ago, watching "The Big Sleep" again, how much of my DVD collection is due to you. Were it not for your list of Great Movies, I'd never have discovered what may be my favorite movie of all time - "Out of the Past." I've always wanted to thank you for introducing me to so many movies I'd have never heard of. I don't know how many of the blog comments you read, but if you read this, thank you so much, Mr. Ebert. I wasn't raised to love old movies, I found them through you, and for that I'm grateful.

Ebert: Exactly what I was hoping with the Great Movies project.

These, off the top of my head, are no attempt at the top 10, but in the horror category they were all disturbing and with good comic scenes too (such lists could be like the Ink Blot Test as an indicator of personality):
Invasion of the Body Snatchers, b&w
Rosemary's Baby
The Birds
Psycho
Angel heart
American Werewolf in London
The Tenant
Mulholland Drive
The 9th Gate
Sleepy Hollow

I can't help but wonder what these lists would be like if they took into account the votes of foreign film critics, moviemakers and so on. Looking at this list, I wonder if there's also a cultural bias to the selection. Would we see more European or Asian films higher in the list? Are most of the people who participate in this list American? I wonder if globalization would change the selection of films in these kinds of lists in the future.

Hello Mr. Ebert. I've been following your blog for quite a while. I think you're a terrific writer. Last year I had the pleasure of writing my very first (and only, it turns out) film review for publication in a weekly arts magazine. You were my inspiration and the film was Herzog's "Encounters at the End of the World." Here is a short list of some films I think deserve to be on someone's list besides my own. In no particular order, they are:

Children of Paradise
Santa Sangre
Foreign Correspondent
Young and Innocent
Nights of Cabiria
A Foreign Affair
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Cabeza de Vaca
The Dreamers

Ebert: Foreign Correspondent seems relatively forgotten. The umbrellas. The windmills.

Welp... I'm on the case. I just finished watching "The Night of the Hunter." It certainly moves along wonderfully. It won't be one of my all-time favorites, and I'm not sure why it would take the top of that list.

Maybe it didn't do so well at the box office because of the too-close-to-home portrayal of how gullible people can be when a man says he's a preacher.

Todd Fluhr wrote on July 31, 2009 6:12 PM -

"Regarding "Night of the Hunter" and the influences it has had, I'm surprised more haven't noticed the obvious similarities between the Robert Mitchum character Harry Powell and the Nathan Fillion “evil preacher” character Caleb from the last season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Yes, I know Buffy hardly qualifies as Great Cinema, but the use of the character served as an intriguing homage to the original “Night Of The Hunter.” It’s just a pity so few of today’s audiences were able to catch the reference."

BUFFY! (Making happy squeaky noises!)

People totally caught the film ref, dude! Just not in here. But back in the day and over at Buffyworld Forums... those of us living in the Jossverse knew our pop-culture. Mutant Enemy writers frequently dipped their pens into Film and Literature, and we were always finding stuff like that! Hell, remember those two Vamps "Spike and Drucilla?" They were a modern take on Lord and Lady Macbeth coupled with Sid & Nancy.

A favorite quote...

Spike: "I'm really glad I came here, you know? I've been all wrongheaded about this. Weeping, crawling, blaming everybody else. I want Dru back, I've just gotta be the man I was, the man she loved. I'm gonna do what I shoulda done in the first place: I'll find her, wherever she is, tie her up and torture her until she likes me again."

Chuckle; ahh, memories! I never participated in the Shipper Wars, myself, but I was nevertheless rooting for Spuffy over Bangel. :)

Mariyn wrote on July 31, 2009 6:24 PM -

"And yet again, women are disappeared from the film industry. When will a film like Vagabond or Wanda or Olympiad make a list like this with ease? I hate lists because they are propaganda in a negative way as well, and what's missing seems more important than what is included."

I thought the same thing Mariyn, but we're in a boy's Blog and such observations are often consequently a moot point to share. Those in need of enlightenment aren't open to it, and the ones already clued-in are part of a choir you'd just be preaching to, you know?

That said, screw it! I'm in the mood to rattle my cup along the bars - it's what Spike would do! Smile.

For men, by men and about them, that's what those lists say and who they really speak to. You'll never see the B/W film "Two Women" with Sophia Loren in the top 50, for example, despite Loren's Oscar for Best Actress - the first time an Oscar had ever been given for a non-English-speaking performance.

"All About Eve" - Bette Davis, enough said.

"An Angel at my Table" - 1990 film by Jane Campion. It's the remarkable biopic of writer Janet Frame, misdiagnosed as a schizophrenic in her youth, who narrowly escaped a lobotomy when her first book was awarded a national literary prize in New Zealand, Janet went on to become New Zealand's eminent literary writer.

"My Brilliant Career" - from 1979 by Director Gillian Armstrong and featuring actress Judy Davis. She didn't pick marriage.

"Born Yesterday" - 1950 film based on the play of the same name by Garson Kanin, directed by George Cukor. A corrupt tycoon brings his showgirl mistress with him to Washington when he tries to buy a Congressman. He hires a journalist to educate his girlfriend, and in the process, she learns just how corrupt her boyfriend is. It starred Judie Holliday (who won an Oscar and Golden Globe for it.)

"Klute" - Jane Fonda plays a hooker and she does not have a heart of gold. She got the Oscar for it.

Those are just a few examples that came to mind.

And from the Alliance of Women Film Journalists, there's this:

Thumbs Down - Representation of Women Film Critics in the Top 100 U.S. Daily Newspapers - A Study by Dr. Martha Lauzen

http://awfj.org/hot-topic/thumbs-down-representation-of-women-film-critics-in-the-top-100-us-newspapers-a-study-by-dr-martha-lauzen/

"Overall, these findings suggest that film criticism in this country’s newspapers is largely a male enterprise, echoing the predominance of men working on screen and behind the scenes in the film industry. In short, men dominate the reviewing process of films primarily made by men featuring mostly males intended for a largely male audience. The under-employment of women film reviewers, actors, and filmmakers perpetuates the nearly seamless dialogue among men in U.S. cinema." - Dr. Martha Lauzen

I say all this because it did not escape my notice that while they picked Blade Runner, they did not pick Alien.

To Wesley: Yours is a terrific list (particularly Onibaba), and to it I would like to add Ringu.

You know, as soon as I sent off my comment, I sat back and laughed: of course The Night of the Hunter could be considered a horror film. Jaws? Not so much for me, but it could maybe slide in there. M? Certainly.

So, I guess, thank you for pointing out what I clearly missed--particularly regarding the movie S&S chose for the top spot. I suppose I'm still chuckling about it.

In submitting your survey of 10 best this time around to Sight&Sound I hope due consideration will be made for "Dark City." If only so people can read your list seperately and be introduced to your [and my] favorite film of 1998. Perhaps in 10-15 years Proyas' "Knowing" will join the list :)

Miles Blanton

Roger as I think of all these great movies, I keep coming back to one of the most beautiful moments I've enjoyed at the movies - which was Sophia Loren working her way up a mountain road, on a beautiful day, on a beautiful Vespa, of which she rode, so beautiful-ly! I fell in love with both. What was it?

I've only seen 9 of them. Where is Midnight Run, A Simple Plan, Alien,
Aliens, Star Wars Episode IV and V the original versions, Point Break and Gallipoli on the list. Shame on them for not adding any of these films. Cheers,
geoff ( the guy who saw a lot of films with you and Gene in '94-95.)

http://www.cosmoetica.com/Cinegreatfilms.htm

This is a sub website of that outrageous (but thought provoking) website - Cosmoetica, run by Dan Schneider.

I frequently visit this list, read reviews, compare reviews on your website and then make my mind up on what movies to download. (yes download..shoot me..if you live in a city in India where some of these movies don’t even make it to a dvd store..torrents are your saviour.)

This isn't the greatest of lists (since it includes Terminator and a poor film about Jim Morrison (The Doors)).. but it has occasionally offered a movie I wouldn't have found usually .. such as THX 1138.

But that is what movie lists should be all about. Exploration for the audience, to wet your feet long enough to want to jump in.

list of directors and their top ten lists http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/timeout/directors.html:
(James Toback listed a few of his own and also did a list of 20)

I haven't seen enough great movies to make a very good list, so I'll make two lists that I really like and because I'm tired right now"

Here's mine:

Unconventional storytelling (interesting dream-like sequences, non-linear etc.), in no particular order:

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeois--Bunuel (I'm sure he has others like this that I haven't seen)

Fanny and Alexander--Bergman

Ugetsu--Mizoguchi (maybe more that I haven't seen)

Mulholland Drive/Inland Empire--Lynch

Nashville--Altman (and others, of course--"Short Cuts" etc.)

Weekend--Godard (and others)

2001: A Space Odyssey--Kubrick

Gummo--Korine (others I'd like to see by him as well)

Hotel/Timecode--Figgis

And there's more I'd like to add to that list, such as Bergman's, "Hour of the wolf", and particularly Cassavetes', "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie."

Horror movies, in no particular order:

Fear--starring Ally Sheedy (good TV movie I saw when I was a kid)

Dead Alive--Peter Jackson (hilariously over-the-top; I hear he has some other zany early work, esp. "Meet the Feebles")

The Shining--Kubrick (effective use of Bartok classical music)

Psycho--Hitchcock (and others, of course, and was almost put on the above list)

Nosferatu--Murnau (liked it for the artistry, really)

Night of the Living Dead/Dawn of the Dead--Romero

Peeping Tom--Powell

May--(Angela Bettis was scary)

Halloween--Carpenter

The Last House on the Left--Craven

I'd like to add Jodorowsky films to this list, and "Repulsion" by Polanski.

Hi Roger,

What a delight! My family, an ex-wife and an ex-girlfriend/roommate have long ago gotten very tired of me and my lists of movies. I am thrilled to find some souls with a common interest.

I started my passion for watching lists of movies with the AFI Top 100 movies series over ten years ago. After watching all 100 movies, I started seeking out other lists using Tim Dirks’ website and amazon.com. At this point, I am up to 107 lists, some from books, some from lists on line and some from annual awards. Of them, I have watched all of the films on half of those lists (such as all ten of the AFI 100 years series), and I am working my way through the other half of the lists. (In specific, I have watched 273 of the 310 Roger Ebert Great Movies, and 46 of the 50 movies from the above Spectator list.)

When I am not seeing someone I will watch an average of 5-7 new movies a week (thank-you Netflix!); when I am seeing someone, that number will drop to 2-3 new movies a week.

These lists have helped direct me to watching films that I would not have seen otherwise. For example, in the last four days, I have watched “A Man Escaped (1956),” “Not of this World (1999),” and “Dersu Uzala (1975)” only because they were on Arts and Faith’s “100 Spiritually Significant Film’s” that I found on-line. They were all simply incredible pictures that I would have never have seen otherwise.

A special shout out should go to the IMDb due to them maintaining the “My Movies” database where I have listed both the movies I have watched or want to watch.

Since I have been asked over and over again what my “favorite” movies are (as opposed to the “best” movies), my top 25 are as follows:

1. Schindler’s List.
2. Stand By Me.
3. Secretary.
4. High Noon.
5. Shawshank Redemption.
6. Star Wars.
7. It’s A Wonderful Life.
8. United 93.
9. Fearless.
10. Gran Torino.
11. Z.
12. The Lives of Others.
13. Singin’ in the Rain.
14. Breaking the Waves.
15. Amazing Grace.
16. American Pie 2.
17. Bridget Jones Diary.
18. The Dekalog.
19. The “Up” Series.
20. What the Bleep Do We Know?
21. Scent of a Woman.
22. Casablanca.
23. Once.
24. Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
25. The Shootist.

Thank you for the opportunity to be able to hold forth on this “hobby” of mine.

P.S. This evening I went with a friend to see “Funny People.” The first thing that he said about the movie was that Roger Ebert had given it 3 and a half stars. That was good enough for me. BTW, I thought that it is a great film, IF you are okay with the language of "Knocked-Up," "The 40 Year Old Virgin" and "Super-Bad."

The problem i see with the "greatest lists" is often the choices are repetitive. Celebrating masterpieces we are aware of, and informing us of films we likely already adore. To read on a lists films like: The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Thridman, becomes pointless. It is as if a writer of such a list needs to put these films down to prove his merit, and balance out his more opinionated choices. I would much rather read why a writer thinks these are the best films. Even as lists go, I would be much more interested in a list of the 15 favorite films that you will likely not find on other lists, because it is a shame to have so many great movies, and only a handful recommended over and over. Come to think of it, if you were to make such a list, which ones would you choose?

Ebert: An intriguing idea.

Not sure if I should be ashamed to have only seen about a dozen movies on that list. Probably so.

Ebert: Not too shabby.

I first saw Out of the Past in a Film Noir class screening back in college. It registered immediately, and opened up the door to a whole new world of anti-heroes. Some days I fancy myself just that, other times a nobody, and still other times a downright scumbag. That's why, when I think about it, I try to do right by someone. You know, to balance the scales.

Full disclosure; I am a high school film teacher and my students are always asking me to select my top ten films, a task which I regard as impossible. So many great films so few numbers!

I always tell them that since the viewers aesthetics change based upon their experiences in and out of the theater all lists are subject to change without notice. Furthermore my favorite films need not be their favorite films nor should they be as each film resonates with a person based not just on the artistic quality of the film but also on the viewers state of mind when they view it. That is why they call it art.

Like you I tend to regard such lists as a springboard for discussion and an opportunity for exploration. I remember the hoopla that surrounded the AFI list when it was first released. Everyone debated the nature of the list; were there too many recent films, should a film's placement on the list be higher or lower on the list, why didn't a particular film make the cut? At the time I became embroiled in a heated debate with a local film critic who insisted that it was "blasphemy" to have such a list (do you suppose he had never read Sight and Sound?), the debate was quelled when I pointed out that as a result of the show, the debates about the list, and arguments such as ours many people actually went out and rented classic films who would otherwise never have done so. As a film teacher I tend to think that is all to the good.

Having said that, like you, I tend to think Sight and Sound is one of the best touchstones around for evaluating films and I always send the kids to your web site to check out the great movies and the best reviews.

Films like Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin which stand the test of time and multiple viewings are always worth seeing and would probably be ignored by many people if it were not for lists.

Oddly, if I have one big beef with these lists it is not the tendency to ignore older films in favor of contemporary ones as much as it is the way they all too frequently ignore comedies. I tend to think the old saw, "Dying is easy, comedy is hard," is correct and it is sad that comedies all too often do not get the respect they deserve.

Thank you for another interesting post.

Ebert: Siskel's theory was that when someone asks for favorite film you can reply with almost any title and it will be all the same to them.

Well put on the topics of lists. Americans just seem to love 'em and it gets a little too silly when the same movies appear on the same lists all the time. Lists, I agree, should strive to refelct not just quality but a window into items you hadn't thought about before.

With that said, can someone fax this article to U.S. News and World Report so they can change those damn "best college" and "best high" school lists? How many times do we need to be told how great Harvard and its ivy cronies are? Draw some attention to some high quality neglected colleges like BYU or some public high schools that have more substance to them than a formula between AP scores and college acceptance rates.

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100films.htm
That's a link to the webiste "They Shott Pictures, Don't They." It's a site that takes lists and favorites from 1,825 film critics, scholars, and "other likely film types." This website uses the S&S polls in it's list as well. I personally find the They Shoot Pictures list to be very useful in terms of finding out about films that I never even heard of (i.e. Ordet.) It is in order, and it goes up to 1000 and has another 1000 films after that which is called "doubling the canon." I'm not sure if you're familiar with this, but it's a great tool and fun to see how many of the 1000 films you've seen.

Roger, I've been a fan of yours for many years and have been reading your articles and reviews for quite a while now. I was just wondering, which do you think is the best decade in film? I personally like the 50s a lot as most of my favorite movies are made during that period so I was wondering, what is your favorite decade in film? And if it has a different answer, which is the best decade for film?

Ebert: 1970s were pretty good. Bogdanovich says the best year in film history was 1929.

People make top ten lists because they are easy (believe me, the quality of mind required to invest meaning in them requires easy, very easy).

If you want a challenge (and an education) - make a list of the top 10000 films. Make an argument no longer than 3 sentences or 75 words as to why each deserves its placement. Make a new list every week.

Ebert: You go first.

Ten Good b&w's that pop into my head:
The Asphalt Jungle
From Here to Eternity
The Maltese Falcon
The Day of The Jackal
Nesfurutu
In Cold Blood
Citizen Kane
Dr. Strangelove
Treasure Island
The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Serious minds dont do comedy.

Marie wrote:

"... we're in a boy's Blog and such observations are often consequently a moot point to share. Those in need of enlightenment aren't open to it, and the ones already clued-in are part of a choir you'd just be preaching to, you know?"

Well, I wouldn't call Roger's blog a boy's blog. He's one of the most ecumenical film critics around and has done a lot for everyone who makes movies and all of us who love them. The Spectator is another matter, as are the zillions of lists out there. There are many more men than women talking about film formally, and their tastes are going to reflect their gender training. What I don't understand, however, is how serious film critics who manage to dig up film from Outer Mongolia for their "best" lists can't seem to find a few more women to include. The continued marginalization of Agnes Varda (as recently as a couple of weeks ago, she was accused of being self-indulgent with her latest films, a common attack on female directors - witness Sally Potter and her superb "The Tango Lesson") has me not only baffled, but positively raging.

Thanks for your support, Marie.

Ebert: Hey, don't look at me!

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/02/saint_agnes_of_montparnasse.html

'And, of course, Night of the Hunter deserves that b&w list too; that's why I've taken to this thread in the first place! I often wondered till now why it didn't have more praise.
La Strada is another ... oh heck, I can think of others now too...
You've had a tough job but I can think of worse.

Great insights, Roger. However I think that all these lists, even the ones from Sight and Sound, run bogus. The fact that Sight and Sound has lumped both "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II" together as one film is pathetic. They are separate films. And the combining trivializes the importance of the first one and its true place in the pantheon of film. For my money, it is THE film of all time. (One can argue against it I suppose.) But I can think of no other film in the last 50 years that has become as heralded, canonized, respected and imitated. I look at it today and it looks as contemporary and as edgy and as immediate as anything out since. It is a great character study of the morale decline of both our country and business as well as Michael Corleone. Its brilliance may be slightly tarnished by the third "Godfather" but that should not keep it from its rightful spot on the list, standing alone, and for my money, standing alone on the top.

And how did "Barry Lyndon" make the list? Good God, that's not even in the top 5 Kubrick films! Silly.

You want to see a different list? Check out what Ray Carney recommends. He does not praise Citizen Kane or a lot of what appears on many of these lists. He is a huge Cassavetes admirer and what he values in movies seems to differ greatly from other scholars/critics. I have only skimmed over some of his writings on his website, but what I have read has left an impression. His critiques of Citizen Kane and Schindler's List, for example, force me to view them differently. He seems to despise sentimentality (Schindler) and stylization (Kane) and hipster attitudes (Pulp Fiction) as they take away from a true emotional experience. I really like Cassavetes' films and understand what he means - his films certainly feel different. Carney's perspective and attitude is controversial. What do you think of Carney's aesthetic, Roger? I know I have done a dismal job of relating exactly what he stands behind, but I do know it's worth talking about and I hope to delve further into his writings because as I watch more and more movies and read more and more about them, my standards have intensified.

Good list Ebert...you are the best critic in my opinion...hope your doing well.

All lists are someones personal opinion and is their list and no one elses. Every list will be different, because those are the movies that most influenced them, and it definately depends on many, many variables such as what age you are, when you grew up, financial aspects, and on and on. I don't agree with most lists, but I can related to most of them, and than draw off of those list to make my own. Here are my top ten movies:

1.)The Godfather Part I & II
2.)Pulp Fiction
3.)Casablanca
4.)Citizen Kane
5.)Shawshank Redemption
6.)West Side Story
7.)The Graduate
8.)Oldboy
9.)Once
10.)Modern Times

That is my top ten...and I'm probably forgetting some great movies, and this is by no means a conventional top ten, tough the godfather, casablanca, and citizen kane are top five in most lists. But these are films that are not only great, but changed me in a number of ways. Modern Times was a movie I seen just this summer, and though it is about 65 years old and is a silent movie, it is pure genius and probably one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. Once is genuinely one of the best musicals ever...and one of the most purest romance movies I've seen. Oldboy is probably the only movie that was pure brilliance and shocking at the same time...if you haven't seen it, go rent it! The graduate is classic, and is very funny...plastics! West side story is not my favorite musical (rent is) but it is definately great with an even better message. Shawshank changed my life...I watched it with my dad, and it literally did a number on me. It was extremely well-written and overlooked, it should have take home oscars. Citizen Kane...I use to hate this movie. It was so boring! But this is a movie, like modern times, that I had to watch for a films class this summer. It's just a classic story with an amazing open ending. Casablanca is probably the greatest love story of all, and one of the most quotable movies of all time...here's looking at you kid! Pulp fiction is-in my opinion-one of the best written movies of all time. The dialogue, storytelling and the assebled cast are some of the best to come on screen in one movie. My favorite of all time is the Godfather part I and Part II. A great ganster movie about family and power. The book is a breeze to read and is almost better than the movie.

Movies like Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Crash, Finding Nemo, the departed, and city of god would be included just after those ten along with the conventional classics like schindler's List, singing in the rain, raging bull, jaws, platoon, ben-hur etc.

I like mostly any kind of movie, and am willing to watch any movie, because frankly you don't know when your going to have an amazing, life changing experience with a movie. These ten movies influenced me greatly as not only a movie watcher, but also as a person. It is my list and no one else's.

Interesting, interesting, interesting.

I've got main monomanias in my life, but I've always enjoyed dabbling in everything else, and being a critic awhile was one of them.

My local fame grew to such that one of the Duck's Breath Mystery Theater members made sure to repeatedly bend over and dangle her sumptuous boobs to me at the stage-side table they gave me -- this was in their early days in the San Francisco Bay Area. For their reward, I made sure to let readers know what a healthy, corn-fed Iowa bunch they all were, but the play wasn't that fun. Kinda disjointed.

Then I did my own act with a political comedy group. We had a long run at some theater or another. SF Chronicle critic Bernie Weiner called my opening skit "appallingly simple-minded." This was a mixed blessing, since it was supposed to be appallingly simple-minded. Years went by and my skit turned out to be on the money where the Bush administration was concerned and Bernie apologized. And so, having been on either side sufficient to be thoughtful about it, I always read Roger avidly and try to put myself on both sides when I do.

That bragging said, I couldn't put "Rocky II" on a greatest films list just because of the hell and high water Stallone went through. "Citizen Kane" isn't among my top faves because of the hell and high water Orson Welles went through. It's a great film for itself, and that's putting the miserable antics of that infernal son of a bitch William Randolph Hearst, who disapproved of it, aside. The film has outlasted him, and like the b&w "Dr. Strangelove," gathers new fans every generation.

Can't put "The Night of the Hunter" among my faves just because Charles Laughton turned out to be the damnedest good director come out of any movie I know from the 1950s, minus a few uncertainties. The editing showed he didn't want his audience to take their eyes off that screen for a second, and I was grateful. But when you're considering things like that as you watch, you're not dreaming in totem with the movie.

This thought started over at Roger's New Yorker Cartoons caption contest when I went through all the jokes to pick my favorite to vote for. Of course, "Tell him Walter Cronkite talks too much" is objectively the funniest joke there (juuuust teasing, Roger), but one mustn't vote for himself and I found myself getting "political-minded" in making my choice.

At least I didn't take into consideration how much hell and high water the entrants may have gone through to come up with their captions. But it became difficult to pick the one that gave me the biggest laff. I see one poster succumbed, picked one that did not make him laugh the most, and gave unmirthful reasons for choosing a joke that wasn't the one he liked best.

So it's brain-picking time, Roger. I'm trying to figure out how to frame the question so it doesn't take a book of nuances to answer.

Do you pick your favorites and less-so from your gut reaction to what's on the screen? Then add the knowledge for the article?

To a point, I'm sort of afraid to make a "greatest films" list of my own for fear that it'll expose my weaknesses to fellow cinephiles. I'd hate to make a list and have people scold me for not including anything by Dreyer or Ozu or for only including silent films starring Chaplin or Keaton.

Not a "top 15", but 15 omitted essentials (some unforgivably, starting with the first 2) for any list of 50 (not counting The Third Man, which you already mentioned), listed chronologically:

The Maltese Falcon (Huston)
Double Indemnity (Wilder)
The Asphalt Jungle (Huston)
Band Apart (Godard)
Touch of Evil (Welles)
Shame (Bergman)
Army of Shadows (Melville)
The King of Marvin Gardens (Rafelson)
Just Before Nightfall (Chabrol)
The Conversation (Coppola)
The Clockmaker (Tavernier)
Chinatown (Polanski)
My Dinner With Andre (Malle)
Autumn Tale (Rohmer)
Gosford Park (Altman)

I have my father to thank for my love of movies. He's not a film buff by any stretch, but he knows his stuff for the most part. A couple of months ago I viewed "The Night of the Hunter" and asked him if he had ever seen it. He didn't remember it right away but as soon as I started talking about it, it all came back to him. He said he hadn't seen it in probably 30 years, but he was able to quote lines from it and recall specific images. He had only seen it once, too. This comment isn't intended to showcase my dad's memory but the greatness of "The Night of the Hunter." 30 years since a viewing of it and it still sat fresh in his mind.

I think (though I've only seen 27 of the films on the list) that The Seventh Seal should have been picked as the greatest because it is (to me) the most powerful and intriguing film ever seen. When I watch it, everything about it grasps the attention of my mind and soul.

I guess I should be prepared to draw a minor firestorm of response here, but I cannot help asking this question: Why all the praise for Alex Proyas's "Dark City"? Roger, I've read your reviews of the film many times, and I own the movie on DVD and have watched it at least four times (maybe five), and I have to say: I don't get it. Not that I don't get the plot; I don't get the love for the movie. I've seen it mentioned here a couple of times as a contender for great-movie status; I wouldn't even have named it one of the best of 1998. To me, the movie is dull, stiflingly non-dramatic, performed in dismal monotone by actors who do not seem remotely interested in the material, and strikingly unaffecting: I have never been moved to laughter, excitement or curiosity by this film. The nominal "bad guys" are nothing but cartoons who seem to have been inspired by similar villains in an episode of, believe it or not, "Buffy The Vampire Slayer." Keifer Sutherland overacts, many of the special effects shots look simply goofy ... I could go on and on. Yes, I suppose the art direction is interesting, but Christ, the story completely fails to engage me. I think Proyas is an extremely talented director (haven't seen "Knowing" yet), and I love intelligent, well-crafted science fiction ("2001," "Blade Runner," "A.I.," etc.) but "Dark City" just does not do it for me. I am baffled now by comments from casual filmwatchers that this is one of the greatest movies of all time. I mean, I had a friend tell me a few months ago that "Dark City" is better than "Watchmen," which is A) apples to oranges and B) completely ridiculous, in my opinion. Is there any frame of mind I can adopt that might help me better get through yet another viewing of this movie? Thanks for your help; I'm willing to accept the possibility that the problem isn't with the film but the viewer, although believe me I've tried.

Ebert: Oh, my. Others may reply. All I can say is, I did a commentary track, which is on the DVD, and hope I made my point.

Perhaps Mr. Ebert would have another 10, but I can think of some serious comedy from perhaps unserious -- but sharp minds.
SOB
It's a Mad Mad Mad World
The Life of Brian/The Meaning of Life
Sleepy Hallow
Election
A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Forum
The Producers
Arsenic and Old Lace
The Importance of Being Ernest
Harvey

Hello Mr. Ebert,

Thank you,thank you oh so much, for bringing up a topic that has bothered me since I first looked at the AFI's Top 100 list when I was seventeen back in 2007. The question is: how can one rank movies if they are so different?

Certainly, some films are better than others. "Touch of Evil" will always beat "Dick Tracy" as both a character study and a detective movie. It is when you choose to compare films of similar caliber but of different styles that things get confusing and irritating.

For example, I recently watched "Peeping Tom", and it is one of the most terrifying movies I have ever seen. The claustrophobic and voyeuristic scenes are haunting and effective without splatter-house gore. However, the shots are nothing like the grand, vibrant canvas painted in my favorite movie "Apocalypse Now". Does that make "Apocalypse Now" the better film? I don't think so; I believe they are just different. Nevertheless, you will not find "Peeping Tom" on AFI's list.

I think the best part of any "best of" list is that it encourages fierce debate, and we all learn a thing or two from those debates. So, in that sense they are very productive.

Even so, any list that includes "Goodfellas" instead of "Casino" is going to leave me grumbling after I read it.

As usual, my best wishes, and I hope you keep up the good work big guy.

I started posting on movie forums a long time ago, and the first thing I learned, as you point out, is that lists are meaningless. That said, once you divorce yourself, they can be pretty damn fun as a way of gauging where cinemagoers are coming from.

This list, however, runs into the same problem that I find with most "great movie" lists. It seems clandestine, somewhat sterile. Created for maximum artistic effect. This runs into the essential problem of "favorite versus best" that I find frequently. Are they listing the films that they love, the ones that touch them personally and deeply...or are they listing the films with the largest impact on cinema, the strongest artistic choices? Hell, maybe I've just read too many of these things.

This is not to disparage the list, as I've seen twenty-two of the films listed and fully support most of them (they're absolutely correct in ignoring "Vertigo" in favor of "Rear Window" and "Notorious")...

Wait, we agreed it was meaningless. Ah well. And on a related note:

I wonder, Roger, if you'll ever get a chance to consider the original "Dawn of the Dead," seeing as how your original review dubbed it one of the best horror movies ever made. Granted, you may feel that your remaining time is best served not watching zombie heads explode. But every time I see a new great movie come up, I get just a little disheartened, since that film's a personal favorite and one of the best American satires ever filmed.

But I suppose there's value in "My Dinner with Andre" and "Le Samourai," too.

Good to see BARRY LYNODN in the last,dissapointed that THE GREAT DICTATOR wasnt in the list

Serious minds that don't do comedy aren't to be taken seriously.

Its quite shocking to see MANHATTAN and ANNIE HALL being left out

The obsession over rankings and tomatometer scores by "internet people" is depressing. Woe be to the critic who ruins a films 100% fresh rating. Have you tried reading the negative comments under reviews for "The Dark Knight"? One of the drawbacks of web2.0 is how it's brought the ugliness of messageboard culture to the surface. Outside of oasises like this blog I don't get anything out of being exposed to thousands of strangers opinions. Getting into angry debates in comment threads and under youtube videos is the best sign of a complete lack of spiritual development I can think of.

Ebert: It's a cesspool. Because this blog is curated, the troglodytes don't even try to post here. Even our Michael Bay lovers are above average.

I love lists. I love lists for the same reason I love audio commentaries on DVDs. I didn't go to film school and I didn't have anyone to discuss films with growing up. There wasn't someone or something to point me or nudge me in any proper direction when it came to watching films. All that I knew was that I loved them and I desperately needed to know more about them. Lists (or general compilations, like your Great Movies books) and audio commentaries were what finally provided me with that road map.

What little knowledge I have about films and filmmaking came directly from those sources. I would take a modern film that I enjoyed and listen to the audio commentary or read about your review of it, learning the how's and why's and learning what films influenced the filmmakers. I would then search out the aforementioned influencial films and watch/read about those. This was no easy task living in an area with only Blockbusters and Hollywood Videos and in a time before NetFlix. I continued to do this and continued to work my way backward, reverse engineering the history of movies.

I'm not sure I could ever properly put together a list of the 10 films I believe to be the best. But I can give you the list of films I refused to part with when I sold my 200+ DVD collection to finance my move from the East Coast to Los Angeles. In no particular order:

Thief
Lawrence of Arabia
Lone Star
Bob Le Flambeur
Citizen Kane
2001
Hard Eight (Sydney)
Pulp Fiction
Apocalypse Now
Mean Streets
Blood Simple
American Beauty
Alien

If I were to do it all over again there would probably be a few additions like On The Waterfront, Stagecoach, maybe a few others. Those films weren't chosen by me because I necessarily believed them to be the best ever made as much as I felt they each, in their own way, provided me with some invaluable lesson or piece of information I would need moving forward. Of the handful of books I brought, your first two Great Movies made the journey with me as well.

If you held a gun to my head and demanded that I choose only two sources to keep I wouldn't hesitate before answering your audio commentaries on both Citizen Kane and Casablanca. Those two commentaries combined were like a college course -- Watching Movies 101 -- for me. I've listened to your Kane commentary at least 10 times and will go back to it from time-to-time. That's what I love about lists; always there to point you in the right direction and to help steer you back on course.

I would imagine that in about 10 years we're going to start seeing No Country For Old Men pop its head onto the S&S list. I'm ready to put it there right now.

@Deb Twyman

I think you are entirely correct that comedies do not get the respect they deserve. If there were any justice, at least one list would include "Animal House". Yes it's raunchy, but there is a level of inspiration, even genius, that lifts it far above the likes of Porky's, etc. (Donning flame retardent suit). Too many cinemaphiles tend to morph into humorless stuffed shirts; watching this movie once a year will help them maintain perspective.

Ebert,
Love your work. My passion more goes towards the foreign films, mainly those over in eastern Asia. How do films such as Oldboy, which I find to be one of the most powerful displays of revenge in the history of the movies, not have a place anywhere. I'm sure you loved it. Also, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, which takes the most unordinary character and retracts all sense of morality and compassion in such a beautiful manner. Sure, there are 'classics' like CK and Casablanca, and I've begun to lean a little towards the more then liking of "It's a Wonderful Life". But cmon', give the true horrors a chance.
Scott.

Ebert: I'm reviewing "Thirst" for the 17th.

So glad to see Point Blank popping up. I watched it again a couple of nights ago and as I am every time, I was knocked out by the editing. What balls it takes to cut three tracks running at once before the picture has even opened properly--two simultaneous flashbacks as Marvin lies in a cell in real time. Just phenomenal. Really sets the stage for good modern films like The Limey.

I can't imagine trying to get a focus group to give their OK to this kind of singular vision, to get money people to agree that the audience is bright enough and involved enough to handle a fractured narrative and not just walk out for something less challenging.

It's a true piece of art, carried forward with just the tools at hand--writing, casting, shooting, editing. It could have been, and in fact was, done differently, by Mel Gibson, who I thought did a fine workmanlike job in Payback, an entertaining and well-paced picture (I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for it either, because it takes a pretty big set to take on a classic and come out with something that is watchable and worthwhile.)

Point Blank, though--Lee Marvin at his lethal best, Angie Dickinson at least as good as she was in The Killers, John Vernon. Truly a great picture. When was Vernon ever more menacing, with that basso profundo line reading and his pocky faced pushed right up into Marvin's? Terrific.

First of all Roger, my recently departed mom and I enjoyed watching Siskel & Ebert every Saturday afternoon. This thread just brought back old memories and it interesting to read some opinions.

Secondly, I have just recently discovered "NetFlix" and I am surprised how many old movies you can see. It is pretty disappointing to walk into Blockbuster and not see many older movies available.

Third. How do you think 80,90s, and 2000s will fare over time? I think 2000s are dreadful. CGI has ruined action flicks and sci fi. I might as well watch a video game.

Yo Roger!

I hate the IMDb Top 250 list. HATE IT! It always contains fanboy movies that haven't even been released. These internet geeks get online and vote based on what they've read about the films in their Spider-Man underoos in mommy's basement. For example, Dark Knight was on the list before it was even released. One idea that was proposed, on this site I think, was that a movie must be 5 years old before it can even be eligible, which would prevent stuff like that from happening. Presumably, after five years (and probably just 5 minutes) the internet geeks, those fickle little bastards, have moved onto another movie to worship and then a movie like Dark Knight can move up the list at its own speed. I'm all for that.

Ebert: "Fickle little bastards." I like that.

Some personal favorites in no particular order

Being There
My Dinner With Andre
Persona
Fanny and Alexander (made for tv version)
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (original)
Hannah and Her Sisters
Husbands and Wives
Roma
After Hours
It's a Wonderful Life
Talk To Her

"1970s were pretty good. Bogdanovich says the best year in film history was 1929."

I always thought that this honor goes to 1954 or 1960. At the very least, somehow the creative forces of cinema throughout the world, were at there al time peak. But again, I am only looking at this quantitatively based on how many of those movies are termed great by later generations. May be there is more to it than just making a number of good movies.

Somehow I always felt that more great movies were made in the 50's than any other decade (blame the beautiful black and white imagery). To test my intuition, I did cmd+F search on your great movies full list. Surprisingly (at-least for me) 50's, 60's and 70's similar highest number of great movies (50, 52 and 49).

What is the best year/decade/period of film history for you ?

Hi Roger.

This list makes me despondent. After 40 years of avid movie-going, I have only seen seven on this list. And I don't really remember the Godfather.

Apocalypse Now is the most memorable of the seven. Epic and formative for the time in my life that I saw it.

Also, as good as Pulp Fiction was, I prefer Kill Bill I and II of Tarantino's work.

A story:

I had a double-feature in mind last night at the theater, and had to kill time waiting to see "Funny People", which I found truly engaging. The only showtime that worked to kill time was for "The Collector", which I hadn't heard of. I bought a ticket and wondered in. What a sad commentary that movie is on how debased we've become as a culture - that torture porn is on the menu at the Cineplex. Awful and depressing. Easinly one of the worst and disturbing films I have ever seen. Then again, I haven't seen "AntiChrist" yet.

Randy

Is it just me or it's really so hard to find a DVD of "The Magnificent Ambersons" any standard place (Netflix)? If it's really not available anywhere, what's the point of it being on the list. I am just frustrated that it doesn't even show up on Netflix :-(.

Ebert: Criterion had it on laserdisc on their original list. I ordered my DVD from Brazil!

I have a mild, hopefully benign obsession with Top [Insert Number Here] movie lists of all sorts. Like you, whenever I encounter a new list I go searching for surprises and left-field selections, and I always find myself a little disappointed when Citizen Kane lands in the #1 slot, never mind that it's solidly located in my own top 10 list.

Every couple of years or so, I indulge a recurring itch by running my own Top Ten Movies poll, asking friends and acquaintances to submit their own lists. Assembling my own personal ballot is always an interesting struggle: Do I lean toward my own sentimental favorites, or toward films I greatly respect even though I rarely watch them? If my list is leaning toward titles of the last 20 years, should I deliberately make room for older classics? Should I avoid obvious choices altogether, in the interest of a more interesting final tally? My ballots turn into a balancing act among all these concerns, and usually end up including movies that represent all these angles in one way or another. What fascinates me, though, is that I can often see other participants struggling with the same issues through their selections—the ones who go with sentimental favorites, the ones who are attempting to make a capital-S Statement, the ones who shrug and simply write down the last ten movies they saw and didn't hate. (I've had people claim, "I don't think I've even SEEN ten movies." I don't talk to these people any more.)

The last few times I've done the poll, rather than collecting scraps of paper from coworkers and the like, I've opened things up to readers of my blog, asking them to pass the message along to their friends that their opinions are wanted. As soon as the poll's venue changed, so did the lists, because the majority of people in my online world tend to run in scifi/fantasy geekish circles. Where the final tallies used to be filled with a combination of expected classics and modern "comfort movies" (Grease and Dirty Dancing both appeared in the top 20 one year), they now contain titles like Serenity and Spirited Away. The number one choice for the last three polls? Rob Reiner's The Princess Bride. Last time out, it appeared on fully one-third of the submitted ballots. Seriously.

I've spent a lot of time griping about this fact, even though I do love the movie to the point of being able to recite large chunks of the dialogue. But for all my complaints, I do understand why it happens: The Princess Bride, like Star Wars or Brazil or 2001: A Space Odyssey, is part of our group's common language. Yes, TPB is a comfort movie, but it's more than that. Because we are a community based on media, we gravitate toward and embrace those pieces of the media that bind us together, that make us our own society. We know that if we wear a Dread Pirate Roberts T-shirt, or shout out, "Mawwiage is what bwings us togethaw today," those who share our cultural background will understand what we're talking about without further explanation, and for a moment that gap between us will be bridged, at the same time setting us apart from those who give us quizzical looks and requests to explain the reference.

Reading your essay and the comments here, I'm wondering if that may be part of why critics' lists tend toward repetition and similarity, too. Yours is a media-based society as well, one whose common language is the dedication to cinematic artistry, in a world that is to a great extent content with light escapism and eyeball candy. When a writer mentions the Odessa Steps scene in Battleship Potemkin or Welles' opening tracking shot in Touch of Evil or the final freeze-frame in The 400 Blows, s/he is making a connection with everyone reading who knows these films and these references, everyone who loves the cinema the way s/he does. And like geekdom, this is how a community is built, through shared experience. In a way, this makes Top Ten lists a celebration of film and filmmakers, yes, but perhaps more importantly a celebration of the people who love them.

This isn't meant accusatorily, but where's "Casablanca" on your 2002 ballot? I remember you saying in the audio commentary that it's your favorite film.

I love movie lists, and I'm very grateful they exist. There are many films that are now favorites of mine which I probably wouldn't have seen if they hadn't appeared on best of all time lists. And I agree that people should focus more on what's on the list than what isn't. I remember having discussions with people who seemed angry that some of their favorites hadn't made it onto the updated AFI top 100 list a couple of years ago, and who tried to completely discredit the list based on that. I kept arguing that a list like that is entirely subjective, and that there was no reason to be outraged at the great movies that weren't listed when there were so many masterpieces that were.

Not that the AFI wasn't wrong to exclude "Manhattan" and "American Beauty", though.

If there is one thing I've learned over the years from you Roger, it is that my taste in film need not be reduced to numerical order. A long time ago I would place films in pity Top 10 lists. How can such lists exists when titles that sit side by side differ so greatly from each other sometimes? In some lists, the only thing joining films together is their shared quality of excellence, but certainly not substance. I know from personal choices the films I'd pick 1, 2, and 3 certainly were much different from each other.

I think you've got the right thing going by placing your Great Movies list in alphabetical order, with no other order allowed. It's clean, it's simple, it states correctly "here they all are". The respect and rules governing ranking lists need to be re-evaluated. You've campaigned before on this topic, you campaign now on it, and I hope you will continue to campaign for it. As a supporter who broke free of the "Top 10" boundaries, I will follow and support you every step of the way!

Speaking of great movies, do you see a time when your review for "The Gambler" (1974)written by James Toback, will be available online? Does not have to be in the great movies section, just your original review would be great. Plus, thanks to your great movie section, I have found one of my favs of all time- "Picnic At Hanging Rock". I treasure my criterion collection DVD of that amazing film.

Ebert: No reason "The Gambler" isn't. I've alerted Emerson. I would have emailed it to you, but that's what you get for not providing your email.

I really do not know why Apocalypse Now is so often ignored or shunned by Greatest films lists, and by some people posting here. I'm glad to see it's inclusion so close to the top of Spectator's, and it's inclusion in your top 10 roger.
Maybe I'm just too young (17), and haven't seen enough films yet, but so far Apocalypse Now has been the only film to move me to tears by just the power of a scene. And that's why it's my favorite film and, so far, the greatest I've seen.

"Night of the Hunter" and "Apocolypse Now" as #1 & #2? That looks like the opening of my list of creepiest movies of all time. Not the best, not the scariest, but the creepiest. Films that make me squirm in my seat and think "this is sick! But I can't stop watching!":

1. Night of the Hunter
2. Apocolypse Now
3. A Clockwork Orange
4. Un Chien Andalou
5. Psycho
6. Eraserhead
7. Nosferatu
8. The Silence of the Lambs
9. The Naked Lunch
10. Freaks

Now it gets really creepy. I can't stop at 10!

11. The Tenant
12. Taxi Driver
13. Donnie Darko
14. Sexy Beast
15. Barton Fink
16. Requiuem for a Dream
17. Touch of Evil
18. Pan's Labyrinth
19. Return of the Jedi (the bits with Jabba the Hutt)
20. The Wizard of Oz

I actually like lists. They're fun to read. Maybe it's because I have OCD. Of course, I don't invest them with any significance whatsoever unless I have a very compelling reason to do so, I just enjoy reading them.

RDS wrote on August 1, 2009 8:31 AM - "Ten Good b&w's that pop into my head.."

Ooo, good Black & White movies! Marie rifles through part of her not entirely legal collection...

How Green Was My Valley (1941) John Ford
La Belle et la Bête (1946) Jean Cocteau
Rebecca (1940) Alfred Hitchcock
Cléo de 5 à 7 (1962) Agnès Varda
The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947) Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Sabrina (1954) Billy Wilder
The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934) Harold Young
Roman Holiday (1953) William Wyler
Sweet Smell of Success (1957) Alexander Mackendrick
A Hard Day's Night (1964) Directed by Richard Lester
Wings of Desire (1987) Directed by Wim Wenders
Strangers on a Train (1951) Alfred Hitchcock
A Place in the Sun (1951) George Stevens
Stage Fright (1950) Alfred Hitchcock
The Petrified Forest (1936) Archie Mayo
Of Human Bondage (1934) John Cromwell
Brief Encounter (1954) David Lean
The Bad and the Beautiful (1952) Vincente Minnelli
Laura (1944) Otto Preminger
Gaslight (1944) George Cukor
Hamlet (1948) Laurence Olivier
Closely Watched Trains (1966) Jirí Menzel
The Lavender Hill Mob (1951) Charles Crichton
Room at the Top (1959) Jack Clayton
Pride and Prejudice (1940) Robert Z. Leonard
Häxan (1922) Benjamin Christensen (totally freaky silent movie!)

I have noticed with these lists a bias towards earlier cinema, with only a handful of films made within the last 25 years on the list. Whatever the reason, it does bother me whenever I see a "greatest movies" list. Do classic films made in the 40's or 50's take on some sort of mystical quality in the voters' mind so that they refuse to put anything recent in the top 10? I suspect it has something to do with the passage of time, perhaps a movie simply has to exist for a decade or two before we can begin to put it in proper perspective.
I seem to have the same problem only in reverse. Whenever I watch a film made from the 40's or 50's (Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, I've watched a few Hitchcock films as well, Sunset Boulevard, Singin' In the Rain etc...), it just doesn't connect with me the way that more recent films like Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.. do. I feel like I am missing something when I watch those classics, like I am missing some major key to the puzzle which is blocking my full enjoyment of the picture. Then again, maybe my indifference to some of those early films is just a result of a generation gap between myself (I'm 21)and the times for which those films were made. If that were true, would I be any different than the older voters who help make up the "greatest movies" lists? I consider myself to have fairly decent taste in movies, but my disconnect with the older classics has always made me curious. Just food for thought!

P.S. Roger, I beg you to put Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back in your greatest movies list. No fanboy bias here (at least I hope), but I really believe it deserves a spot in the pantheon of greatest movies ever. Every time I watch it I gain a new appreciation for the majesty of the film. As you yourself said when entering the Godfather Part II into the Great movies list "Then why is it a "great movie"? Because it must be seen as a piece with the unqualified greatness of "The Godfather." The two can hardly be considered apart ("Part III" is another matter). When the characters in a film take on a virtual reality for us, when a character in another film made 30 years later can say "The Godfather" contains all the lessons in life you need to know, when an audience understands why that statement could be made, a film has become a cultural bedrock."
Substitute Star Wars and the Empire Strikes Back in for the Godfather Part I and II and the statement rings just as true. Empire elevated the whole Star Wars franchise to another level.

I guess it all comes down to why you like a movie or why you put it on the top of your list. Roger, you often use a quote that I like: It's not enough that you like a film, you must like it for the right reasons. Is it from Michel Ciment? I'm not sure I got it right. But, the bottom line is that i would like to read what reason they had to put Night of the Hunter number 1.

Ebert: Said by the immortal Pierre Rissient. Hre hs talking to me at Cannes 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6I6L-FPab0&feature=channel_page

I have a jumble of thoughts tonight after reading all this.

1. Someone beat me to it! "Yancy" up above said "It doesn't make sense that every (or most) major directors should each have one picture on a list like this." My thoughts exactly. If you're making a list of what you truly believe to be the best movies, why restrict yourself? Have your top eleven instead of a top ten. Or better yet, forget the numbers altogether and compile the movies that NEED to be on your list in any particular order until you're done.

2. I think the lack of recent movies on these lists does show a sense of "safety" by the list creators. Movies made in the last few decades have not established the critical following that movies like, say, "Citizen Kane" or "The Godfather" have. Over the years people still watch and enjoy and appreciate them. People are appreciating new movies, too, but not for as long! And opinions change. Some movies stand the test of time, but some movies considered great upfront become dated - fast. (I wonder if that won't happen to "Slumdog Millionaire". I liked that movie, but is it really going to hold up?) It makes citing a newer movie on a list like this a risk. Still, I can't figure out why "Pulp Fiction" has become one of the only "safe" entries from the '90s. It's a good movie, but what about "Magnolia", for instance?

3. I appreciate what I get out of lists like this: exposure to movies I haven't heard of or seen yet. (Oh, thank goodness for Netflix and TCM!) Even the AFI lists introduced me to the original "The Producers" before Mel Brooks brought it to Broadway, and for that I thank them. Ultimately my favorite lists, though, reflect the personality of their creator. My favorite movies sometimes overlap the "great movies" lists; sometimes they do not. While I can appreciate a "great" movie, in the end I may prefer something that moves me more. Something that changes how I look at life. I've been trying to watch a broader variety of movies this year - a little bit of everything. It's been a mixed experience. For instance, I was glad I watched "2001: A Space Odyssey", but I would not name it a "favorite" of mine. My favorite movies I've watched this year? "The Apartment". "Twelve Angry Men". And "Once". Reading other people's lists tells me something about them, just as my picks say something about me.

I've always enjoyed the Sight and Sound lists, especially for the thoughts offered by the various critics and directors. (Tarantino listed Jack Hill's COFFY as a top 10, while Soderbergh - I think in a Hitchcock issue - said that he had too many favourite Hitchcock moments to list, but then added that all of them were in PSYCHO).

I did three years of Cinema Studies at RMIT Uni in Melbourne, and noticed the class of young media students all responded to particular films in an interesting way. One teacher played us Herzog's FATA MORGANA in the first week of the first year, and then played it again in the final week of the last, a deeply moving experience. My own dark horse from that period for top 10 sainthood was Ross McElwee's SHERMAN'S MARCH, a firstperson doco by the filmmaker who travels across the U.S looking for love, gets rebuffed, worries about nuclear war, and meets Burt Reynolds, though not in that order. I've heard McElwee's other films are even better though.

It would be intersting to ask Japanese, Russian or German cinemagoers what their top 10 fave films of all time were.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

first of all let me give you some greetings from Germany. Your site is wonderful for someone like me who loves good movies.

This is for Mr. Thorne: My top ten as a German cinemagoer (The order is coincidental)

Once Upon A Time In The West
Once Upon A Time In America
No Country For Old Men
Metropolis
Vampyr
The Straight Story
Changeling
Unforgiven
The Seven Samurai

(While I am writing this many more come to my mind... There are just so many great movies.)
Now keep in mind that I am not the average German movie fan.

Well this is my list. There was an "official" poll some years ago by Germany's leading movie magazine "cinema".
I remember that "Schindler's List" was on number one.
I hope I could help you a bit.

Now to Mr. Ebert:

Thank you for posting this list here. After I worked through your list of great movies I have some new movies to look for.
Although I discovered your site very late in my life (I am 27 now) it was still able to broaden my horizon.
Thanks for that!

Ebert: Believe me, it's never too late.

"Ebert: Hey, don't look at me!
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/02/saint_agnes_of_montparnasse.html"

Certainly not! You are intelligent and enlightened. Bless you!

Rising junior in high school, my favorite films are (yes, it's a ten list):

1. The Untouchables (I can't resist! I love this film!)
2. Vertigo (Masterpiece! Pure Genius!)
3. The Truman Show (One of the most original plot outlines ever and brilliantly executed.)
4. Driving Miss Daisy (The best character study of all time.)
5. Sunset Blvd. (Pure entertainment! Brilliantly written!)
6. North by Northwest (Hitchcock's best decade was the 50s.)
7. Citizen Kane (It's art form is legend.)
8. Mulholland Drive (The most enigmatically thrilling film ever made.)
9. Taxi Driver (Scorsese's first "raging bull".)
10. The Godfather (Violence is excused here. Masterful film making.)

Although many might disagree with my number one favorite film of all time and my number 8, perhaps 9, this compilation is driven by entertainment... Mostly.... You can't deny the entertainment value in ANY of these films, regardless if one of them just happened to get a marginal "thumbs down" from the author of these archives for being "done before".

Mr. Ebert, I do respect you!

Ebert: I don't have any problem with a favorites list. It's the "best" lists that scare me.

This is one of the reasons (the many reasons) I love Netflix. Instead of simple "Best films" lists, you can create much more interesting, inventive, and "helpful" lists (I've got 61 lists so far). "Greatest Films" lists are less interesting to me (although admittedly a bunch of my own lists are called "best" when they perhaps ought to be called "favorite"), and (in my opinion) such lists often say less about a person than their "Favorite Films" lists, which will frequently be quite different.

What it takes to claim something is the "best" is more subjective, and as many here have already noted it's sometimes to hard to tell if the person basis their rankings on honest subjective assessment of the craft, or is biased due to films they THINK they should be picking. For "favorites", the standard is easier (well...) and more personal.

Not having seen every film ever made, I feel too ignorant to try to compile a list of the greatest, anyway. I can say that today, this week, right now, I tend to feel that the finest film I've ever seen is "City of God". Other days I might think "Das Boot" takes the cake. I used to think "Slingblade" was the winner, or "M", and so on.

So I love seeing and compiling lists like "Best Films You Probably Haven't Seen Yet" or "Foreign Films For People Who Think They Hate Foreign Films", and fun ones like "Run! Most Fun Huge Monster Movies" and so on. There's a site I help moderate, called "Batman On Film", where there's an ongoing discussion forum for "underrated" films and another for "overrated". People discuss the films, and why they think the film is under/overrated etc. Much fun ensues, some great discussions among film fans.

Plugging along here. "The Gate To Heaven," Errol Morris' '78 documentary about the pet cemetery business, a left turn from this list, but as Roger mentioned watching it 20 or so times, I found it. I didn't look at his review 'til afterward. (Criminee, Ebert, you were as good a writer then as you are now. I've followed some writers into their 80s).

Jeeze, what a melancholy. I couldn't add anything to that '78 review. Tho' that feeling reminded me of my rock'n'roll jobbing days in Southern California, meeting so many men who were once in one-hit-wonder bands, still at it, still the feeling of "any day now it'll happen again," stuck in time and sometimes sleeping in people's yards.

If Morris had waited a decade or three, he could've added my friend Merci, who at 98 said she was only hanging around for her pets... her 27 year old cat died, one cute old dog to go, then I brought her a kitten and wished I could've saved her phone message about saying now she'd live to 120. She's now 103, but settled on living to 104, as her family could take care of the cat.

...and the dumb-as-a-post farmboy from my home town who made a lively business of dumping dead pets in an open pit, making money by theft of services; at the time of the local news article they'd dug up an estimate 5000 once-beloved dogs on whom he'd saved the expense of cremation and a little jar to treasure.

(I buried my dog-of-all-time in the front yard under a peony bush, which bloomed wonderfully.)

Ebert: You write to keep me reading for what can possibly be next. And you have an inexhaustible supply of colorful friends.

No Maltese Falcon? No Casablanca?

Really?

Ebert: You go first.

Ah Roger. Youre a good egg, no doubt. A philistine, true. But a philistine with a heart of gold.

Nice to see a superb Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger film on the list. I also would have added a few Jean Renoir's and an equal number of Louis Bunuel's.

Hi Roger,

I loved this post. And I think that there is something that might be more valuable than “my favorite movies” that I posted at 1:32 a.m. on August 1, 2009. That would be a list of great movies that you might have not heard about or not heard about for awhile. I daresay that almost everyone has heard of 8 of my top 10 movies, namely Schindler’s List, Stand By Me, High Noon, Shawshank Redemption, Star Wars, It’s A Wonderful Life, United 93 and Gran Torino. What might be more helpful would be the movies that I recommend that you may not have heard of. In developing this list, I multiplied “how much I enjoyed the movie” by “how few people might have heard of it or remember it”.

As you would expect, there are a number of foreign language movies. They are:

• The Barbarian Invasions (2003)
• Battle for Algiers (1966)
• Breaking the Waves (1996)
• Day for Night (1973)
• The Dekalog (1989) A series of ten stories based on the Ten Commandments. I suggest watching these one (or two) stories at a time.
• Dersu Uzala (1975) One reviewer said that this movie had the most amazing scenery in all movies; see this movie on a wide screen.
• Knife in the Water (1962)
• The Lives of Others (2006) William F. Buckley, Jr.’s review of it said that it was the best movie of all time.
• A Man Escaped (1956)
• Nayakan “Hero” (1987)
• Not of This World (1999)
• Ordet “The Word” (1955)
• The Rules of the Game (1939) Some reviewers name this movie as second only to Citizen Kane.
• Run, Lola, Run (1998) Fun.
• The Shop on Main Street (1965) Shattering.
• The Tin Drum (1979)
• Wings Over Berlin (1987)
• Z (1969)

The English Language Movies are:

• Amazing Grace (2006)
• A Man for All Seasons (1966)
• Away from Her (2006)
• Bella (2006)
• Children of Men (2006)
• Fearless (1993)
• Femme Fatale (2002)
• High Art (1998)
• Metropolitan (1990)
• Once (2006) The best “musical” of the 2000’s
• The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)
• Peeping Tom (1960) This is the most terrifying movie I have ever seen. Most “horror” pictures have make-believe villains who couldn’t exist. This villain could exist.
• Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
• Real Women Have Curves (2002)
• Return to Paradise (1998)
• Rope (1948)
• Secretary (2002) My third favorite movie of all time, after Schindler’s List and Stand By Me.
• Secrets and Lies (1996)
• Spellbound (2002)
• United 93 (2006)
• The “Up” series Every seven years; I am waiting impatiently for 56 Up in 2012.

Best short and cartoons:

• George Lucas in Love (1999)
• Duck Amuck (1953)
• What’s Opera Doc? (1957)

Finally, there are some movies of special interest to various communities:

• For the Metaphysical Community: What the #$*! Do We Know? (2004)
• For People who did the est Training (or Landmark Forum) and benefitted from it: Transformation: The Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard (2006)
• For Joyful Christians: Godspell (1973)
• For Anti-Communists: Red Dawn (1984)
• For People Going Through a Hurtful Divorce: War of the Roses (1989)
• For People Who are in a Destructive Power Struggle: Changing Lanes (1992)

Roger, I'm the Pete Hoskin who's responsible for The Spectator's 50 films list. Thanks so much for blogging about it - to say that you are a hero of mine is a massive understatement. And thanks, too, to your readers for the perceptive comments above.

It's a little late here in London town, so - if no-one minds - I'll return tomorrow to respond to some of the more specific comments.

In the meantime, if people want to avoid clicking through dozens of pages on our website, you can email me on phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll gladly forward on pdf copies of how the list looked in the magazine.

Ebert: Now that's a handsome offer. I warn you: If you get into a discussion of this title or that title, there's no end to it. But the crowd on this blog won't bore you or insult your intelligence.

I love that magazine. I like to believe Auberon Waugh influenced my writing.

Anthony Thorne -- Funny you should mention Mr. McElwee's "Sherman March." I've seen that half a dozen times and am always amazed that every scene was not written and every performer wasn't cast. An amazing achievement.

Lists taught me to labor over artwork until I enjoyed it, instead of succumbing to the "I'll try everything once" pitfall.

I think I know why people shun critics. The people on this blog are a rare-ish type who see the dignity in not making an opinion until they are ready.

The others, well, They gave up too fast. At some point in their lives they must have come across something that they weren't ready to experience. Maybe they watched Citizen Kane too early? Or listened to Bach without first listening to some easier instrumental music?

I thoroughly believe that enjoying legitimately good things are important for a person's development. And contrary to what the layman believes, the goodness of a piece of work depends on the amount of entertainment contained in the piece of work. I don't think I need to explain what I mean.

I propose that the most useful lists are not "top ten"s or "best of"s but lists designed as aids. Lists where someone would start at the beginning and slowly work their way toward harder and more rewarding entertainment.

To add some fuel to the fire, there's a new(ish) website called flickchart.com that will get some readers either very excited or very fired up. It presents you with 2 movies and you have to choose which is better (or which you prefer) and it then ranks the movies you have voted on into a list of your "favorite" movies. And if you haven't seen the movie, they have a button for that and it will present you with a new one to choose. Currently, "The Dark Knight" sits atop their top 100 list (as ranked overall by users). It seems like a younger demographic so far. More recent popular movies seem to be ranked higher on the list (and only a small percentage have seen movies like "Sunset Blvd." and "Taxi Driver").

The site is still in beta testing, but it's extremely addictive. It's completely arbitrary and useless but addictive nonetheless.

Ebert: I find it interesting, but I'll bet their list ends up reading a lot like IMDb 's, because they'll draw similar voters.

Having seen most of the movies Netflix recommends to me, so I'm in a good position to judge, I'd say their software comes pretty close to having my number.

Movies I'd be embarrassed to admit how many times I've watched:

The Godfather/Godfather II
Goodfellas
Star Wars IV, V, VI
Strictly Ballroom
Harvey
Wizard of Oz
Dr. Strangelove
A Clockwork Orange
Robocop I, II
Witness
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Anything by Monty Python
Time Bandits
A Christmas Carol (with Alistair Sims)
Cyrano de Bergerac (with Depardieu)

Lots. Considubbly more than 20 each.

Marie has a fine collection, but not, 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre'?
It does inspire a list of other movie dramas, beyond making one hot or thirsty.
A Touch of Evil
The Sugarland Express
The Naked Prey
Apocalypto
The Mosquito Coast
Body Heat
Anaconda
The Bridge over the River [Qwei?]
King Rat
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
They're not all b&w, or even all south of the border but pretty good even so.

I've only been a film type of guy for roughly four years now, and I'm only 17, well 18 in two weeks. But I'm proud to say I've seen almost half of these films. The others looked very interesting and I definitely want to check them out. I like old movies. They come to me as something very intriguing, while most other people that are my age watch garbage, like Michael Bay films (with the exception of The Rock, and the negatively received The Island. I enjoyed it for some reason, even though the aerial shots, seen in every Bay film, with the 360 rotation, is overused).
In my High School, as a Senior they offered a class in place of English, in which they were supposed to teach Film. I knew more about the subject than the person teaching it. I suggested we watch a Coen Brothers film, Miller's Crossing because most of their other films would've been deemed inappropriate. She had know idea who I was talking about. It was weird.
Well, I've certainly come off track. Nice list.

Ebert: Extraordinary. You must rather pity some of your contemporaries.

I have seen just over half the movies on that list, and that's not giving myself credit for Taxi Driver, 8 1/2, and Sunset Boulevard, all of which I've watched enough parts of from time to time to qualify. It's a pretty good list, but I agree with everyone about "best" lists and refuse to build them myself. The only thing I will do is put together "10 must see" lists by category.

Black Narcissus and Twelve O'Clock High are the two great movies on management. Twelve O'Clock High is a contrast in management styles; Black Narcissus just portrays one style gone tragically wrong.

I hadn't realized that Black Narcissus hadn't made your "Great Movies" list yet. I think it's my pick for the best of the P/P films, although I Know Where I'm Going! is the most accessible.

P/P films are unusual in that they tiptoe just on the border of weirdness, the kind that you'd snorf at if you watched with a group--but then, just at the last minute, they tiptoe back into gripping and moving. For this reason, I hesitate to recommend them to anyone except true movie buffs. But the last 15 minutes of Black Narcissus has any sane person hiding behind his chair. Kathleen Byron, the mad nun, just died recently.

I've been pleased to see Rio Bravo move up the ranks towards greatness, but is El Dorado not given credit for being better simply because it was made second? Mitchum is better than Dean (even though Dean is very good), Caan is better than Nelson, and I actually prefer the old guy who took Brennan's place--less embarrassing. Chuck Connors is an excellent villain that isn't, a major story improvement. Dickinson is the only unequivocal plus for the first film--both the annoying Joey and the nonentity barmaid are a big step down.

Ebert: You write to keep me reading for what can possibly be next.

---"When him whom many praise, praises me, that is praise indeed."

And you have an inexhaustible supply of colorful friends.

---And to think that I met them on Mulberry Street! It surprises me too. I've never gone out of my way, have never been in a significant enough occupation for them to know anything about me (except maybe lately), and I surely ain't rich. Yet.

Just after I moved into a little apartment in Tucson, I met John Fleming's (the inventor of the vacuum tube) nephew, Thomas Watson's ("Watson, come here, I want you") nephew, Ralph Waldo Emerson's great great great granddaughter, and a young woman who'd done "Annie" on Broadway, all in the space of a month. I'm not even that sociable. Oh yes... and the brother of the Biggest Food Broker in America, who brokered all the potatoes in Idaho and all the fish in Iceland. From him I learned that Linda Ronstadt lived a couple blocks away from me in my $400/month apartment. Only one of them knew one of the others. Just casual meetings.

It was like they all had come out of some attic with news for me of what had become of America. Was amused to know that Thomas Watson grew just as wealthy as Alexander Graham Bell and had the world's largest pipe organ installed in a cave on his estate in North Carolina. Was disappointed to hear the Emersons had all long converted to Catholicism and moved to Missouri.

It gets worse. Just 3 months ago I learned why the Emersons converted to Catholicism from a scholar I encountered. It apparently had to do with an unrequited love of his.

Yes, inexhaustible. I've just learned the son of the lady who owned the Gheri-Curl franchise for all Chicago owes me $138, and I'm going to have a burrito with Commodore Perry's great great great granddaughter pretty soon. Her husband is descended from some famous English knights. She should show up here. She knew the man who invented the Burma-Shave signs.

They're all just minding their own businesses in nooks and crannies across the country, Roger. Hang out at a bus stop sometime. That's how I met the man who invented digital photography. And did you know that the man who invented the fax quit his job to become a sculptor? (Kirk's worth a plug: www.kirkmccoy.com ) Met in a dirty old coffeeshop. I met a great grandson of one of Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders and the great granddaughter of one of Pancho Villa's gang at another dirty coffeeshop. I implored her to introduce me to her grandma, who knew all about those days, so I might find out what happened to Ambrose Bierce. She never did.

They're kind of like unknown movies themselves. Maybe people don't think to just sit quietly and listen. Let's see whatever other of these movies I can scrounge up.

Ebert: This has to be more than blind luck. You must have some sort of ineffable quality that draws people out. Didn't you post that people tend to choose you for their confessions?

After reading Drugpunk's comment on this entry, I googled Ray Carney.

Here is an article on him:

http://www.organicanews.com/news/article.cfm?story_id=190

Some passages:

1) In the November-December 1996 issue of the same magazine, he went further: "My students always say a particular movie 'is so moving.' So what? If you want to feel emotions go to a hospital emergency room on a Saturday night...You can get emotional hearing a baby cry, but that's not art. It's biology," he continues. "Shine and The English Patient are cartoons for adults—no different from Schindler's List, Forrest Gump or Bambi... to put it more bluntly they're a pack of lies. There is not an original or truthful shot, scene, or line of dialogue in all of Shine. It's a sign of how our film festivals have been dumbed down to the level of the melodramatic mainstream that it played at Sundance last year."

2) In an advice column to young filmmakers published in Moviemaker in 1999 and used in his class syllabus on independent film, he boldly states: "Spielberg bragged that Holocaust survivors were proud of Schindler's List, and World War II veterans loved Saving Private Ryan. That's not a virtue but a vice. All it means is that he let them wallow in their own clichéd views of themselves." In Moviemaker of May/June 1995, Carney had already complained that Schindler's List could have been a better film if Spielberg had "entered into the German point of view in order to reveal how regular people with wives and children could be drawn into committing such horrors. A film that didn't show the bad guys is in an emotional galaxy far away."

Hmm. Interesting.

Ebert: Ray Carney is an unfailingly intelligent and stimulating critic.

from Answer Man March 20, 2005

Q. I have finally figured out how to read your reviews. A review isn't about what it says; it's about how it goes about saying it:

If you are stimulated to eloquence by the movie, then the movie is a must-see. It doesn't matter if you rate it well or poorly; it is the fact that you reacted strongly to the movie, and worked hard at clarity, that tells me what I need to know.

If the review looks like it "wrote itself," then you enjoyed the film and I may or may not like it based on personal preference.

If the review seems to lack punch, or seems confused, then I know the film was a stinker no matter which way you look at it, and should be avoided for mental health reasons.

Ron Wodaski, Cloudcroft, N.M.

A. By following these rules, one would not always see good movies, but one would usually see interesting ones.

Me again:

I just thought it was...an interesting one.

"Ebert: Isn't that a discovery? Did you ses it at Facets Cinematheque? How did the audience react? "

I did see it at Facets. It was the last show on the last night it played in there were still 7 or so people in the theater. They all stayed and what little chatter I heard was positive. I can't imagine someone going home unmoved or not feeling involved in that movie. That passage when Ngabo walks from town to town is such a wonderfully edited and composed piece of film. It reminded me a bit of Resnais, but it still felt original. The whole movie was that way infact, reminding me of great filmmakers while remaining distinct and new. I look forward to seeing it again on DVD.

If lists are propaganda (and I think they are), then they are the best type of propaganda in the world.

First off, I can't tell you how thrilling it is to see "Black Narcissus" at #4. It's my favorite movie of all time, and it doesn't seem to get the love it deserves - even when people are ranking Powell and Pressburger films. There's nothing like seeing you're own tastes justified a little.

So, here's my list of ten in alphabetical order.

Black Narcissus
The Conversation
E.T.
Forbidden Games
Magnolia
Meet Me in St. Louis
The Passion of Joan of Arc
The Searchers
The Shop Around the Corner
Taxi Driver
Zodiac

Ok, I cheated. There are 11 there. I can't kick anyone out.

Finally, I'd like to tell you again that your Great Movies list has been my primary guide in film history education. I started reading that column every other week about seven years ago. More than your reviews, articles, or answer man, I wait to see what you'll pick next. The fact that it grows is one of it's greatest advantages.

Whenever someone asks me for a good list of movies, I always point them to yours. It's the most well rounded out there. Films from all points in history, from many countries, and many many different film types are represented. You, through that list, have taught me the value of the variety in movies. Some of my friends and peers tend to get stuck in one type or genre of film. But great movies can be just about anything. I can't think of two films less similar than "Singin' in the Rain" and "Pickpocket", but they both are truly great films.

Thanks Roger, for pointing me in so many different directions.

P.S. - just for fun, I looked at your great movies list, and found 18 titles that I haven't seen yet.

"Yet again, Sergio Leone gets shafted.
Ho Hum."
Couldn't agree more. Where's "Once Upon A Time in the West"? (to my mind the best western (no pun intended...) after "The Searchers) or "The Good the Bad & the Ugly"?
And how about "The Adventures of Robin Hood?" or even "Star Wars"? and what I think is the biggest omission of all - "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"...ok, just kidding!

I suggest making a small correction: instead of calling these "best ever" movie lists, it should be changed to "must see" movie lists: "Top 50 must-see films" or "top 100 must-see films" sounds more 'grounded', no?

The Night of the Hunter #1? Sometime in the recent past I remotely channeled into a scene where Mitchum was menacing Winters and I kept on moving out of revulsion, later, if I remember correctly, looking again and seeing him acting creepy with a couple kids, after which I didn't look again. I wondered if those seeings were from the Spectator numbered one and this evening read enough to know I read too much, having previously existed in a selected alternate film reality of less inhumanity. Thank God for Gish!

Not to argue that the film isn't good or even great, but if surveying all of film history and choosing one film to be ordered first was to chance having to spend the rest of your life on an island with the ability to view one and only one movie of your choice and that choice the film you had ordered first having surveyed all of film history, I don't know that I wouldn't choose a documentary on raft making but I do know I wouldn't choose The Night of the Hunter.

"What you mean, "I wasn't expected?"" --Billy B

"How much for the pig?"

Stepping out tonight I heard the music tell me this night was the night this summer when a nearby house hosts an indoor and outdoor party with a live band so I asked my visiting from Chicago brother if he wanted to check it out. Front yard full of parked cars, people people everywhere, I made to introduce myself to one of the hosts but he was in conversation and then moved away, japanese lanterns, tiki torches tents tables chairs umbrellas wearing lights a big spread of food a wall full of photographs from previous parties older adults young adults children dancing. Singer electric keyboardist violinist pedal steel guitarist drummer. I kept looking for the pig of the advertised roast, eventually finding the still recognizable but less than appealing pig head cake platter. A guy who could have been The Dude for all I know was wearing a t-shirt that said Hippie Mafia and I asked him if I didn't want to know but then reconsidered and said I know--you could tell me but then you'd have to stone me. Up in a second floor window above the band on the back deck behind a semi-opaque window a woman was dancing, little dogs were running about and above the coffee maker in the garage in an antique frame was a color tinted photograph of a woman in an outdoor setting wearing a wonderful outfit and standing jauntily smiling which you should really look at if you ever get the chance, one of those still frames of who knows who from who knows where from who knows when that can make you wish some then and your now were simply ends of a single shoe lace you could tie together.

But "What you mean, I wasn't expected?" was the one I liked best, not even knowing what cartoon it was in relation to, a kind of "Kilroy was here" humorously imagined appearing in all sorts of unexpected and does not follow places, a grand and gentle non-sequiter of the internet.

You're absolutely correct. These "Best Films" lists are about personal preferance and opinion. How do you pick Barry Lyndon over 2001? But, there goes my personal preferance. I found it interesting that Goodfellas didn't reach thier list when it is close to the top of mine (and alot of other people I know.) Once again, preferance.

I have my favorites and I believe they are all great movies. They stand the test of time with "Me" and that is what matters. I would like to see more lists that contain Dawn of the Dead (1979) and Aliens, though.

Surely you realize, if you type "rog" into google it recommends you.

Isn't it "Kar-wai" (with an 'a')?

Ebert: It is. Fixed.

The greatest movie of all time is "Pleasantville" - and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

I completely agree with you on the point about "best of" lists being more worthwhile when they're made by individuals. every time I hear a filmmaker, critic, or anyone in general that i respect, such as Martin Scorsese, mention a title, even in passing in an interview or movie commentary, I have to look it up, and eventually get to watching it. Are there lists, such as Martin Scorsese's ten favorite movies, available? If so, could you provide me with a link?

Eh, just my two cents on Top X lists. I hate them because they're subjective, and there's this crazy mentality that if something is popular it must be crap. And in many cases there's these people who just aim to please, so include something like Citizen Kane no matter if they like it or not. And I really hate that some of the best movies ever made don't make these lists because of their relative obscurity. I like E.T., but it doesn't touch Being There or Chimes at Midnight, know what I mean?

The day I see Sympathy for Lady Vengeance on a Top 100 list, and see Jaws dropped, is the day I'll actually praise a list. In the meantime I'd rather listen to Scorsese gush about obscure directors.

Ebert: What's not to like about "Citizen Kane?"

Marilyn Ferdinand wrote on August 1, 2009 8:57 AM - "Well, I wouldn't call Roger's blog a boy's blog..."

Ebert: Hey, don't look at me!

Oh I wasn't thinking of YOU dude! Chuckle; I know Roger's long since embraced his inner Feminist, so no worries there. :)

The Blog is open to all, Marilyn, but it doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of posts are written by men. Almost 90%. Religion, Politics, Science - they're popular topics with Roger and tend to attract guys more so, accounting for the disparity - which in turn, directly influences what gets discussed and how, whenever things stray a bit off topic; I'm basically one of the few people in here who brings up Feminist themes.

The blog itself, has a gender. One which lends it a certain dynamic or vibe: it's male. That's what I meant. Case in point:

"Bring it on, my bitches!!! I got Roger to cry "Uncle" like a little schoolgirl when I threw down critic...syphilitic...hermaphroditic," so bring it on!" - Ron Barth Jr. in the quantum theory of reincarnation thread.

See? A penis! And since most of the people in here have one, they don't mind seeing Ron's. Hell, he went out of his way to show it to them. That's how comfortable guys are in here. And they're comfortable because they control the dialogue, for the most part. Just like the vast majority of film critics; Roger excluded.

The very thing you're commenting upon, Marilyn, exists in here too. What gets noticed, discussed, how it's talked about, etc. Every once in a while, I'll toss a pebble in the pond, see if I can make a ripple. But I've seen how often they amount to nothing. And so when I responded to your post, it was ironically to tell you that you're probably wasting your time - while encouraging you to ignore me, and drop your pebble anyway! Carpe diem!

NOTE: You fill a room with mostly women, you get the same thing. Gender-based topics and discussions. So I'm not arguing to see 90% women in Roger's blog. But 50/50 - that would be cool.

"What I don't understand, however, is how serious film critics who manage to dig up film from Outer Mongolia for their "best" lists can't seem to find a few more women to include. The continued marginalization of Agnes Varda (as recently as a couple of weeks ago, she was accused of being self-indulgent with her latest films, a common attack on female directors - witness Sally Potter and her superb "The Tango Lesson") has me not only baffled, but positively raging.

Thanks for your support, Marie."

And may the force be with you. :)

As noted, Roger adores Agnes Varda, so if someone's been taking a "pee" on her latest films - I know it wasn't him! Who called Varda a self-indulgent filmmaker?! I read this recently, and they loved her movie "The Beaches of Agnes"...

"Beaches Of Agnes' Fetes An Aging Queen Of Tides" - July 16th, 2009

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106690189

"Varda's deeply rooted feminism reveals itself mainly in her ferocious independence, in the way that she's always made the movies she's wanted to make, however personal or eccentric. As The Beaches of Agnes makes clear, Varda has a strong personality, and the result is one of the two best films currently in our theaters.

It's worth noting that the other one, The Hurt Locker, a brilliant drama about bomb-defusing soldiers in Iraq, was also directed by a world-class woman filmmaker, Kathryn Bigelow. She, like Varda, has followed her own interests, pointedly avoiding the female-film ghetto." - John Powers

FYI: the female-film ghetto = crappy chic-flicks.

And Roger had an entire thread devoted to The Hurt Locker just last month! I practically lived in there. :)

As for "The Tango Lesson" (1997) directed by Sally Potter - I'd never heard of it! I had to Wiki the title for the synopsis:

"The film tells of Sally (Sally Potter) a filmmaker and screenwriter who is suffering from writer's block. She is also dissatisfied with her film project, a murder mystery movie called Rage, which focuses on the fashion industry. She takes a break and travels to Paris, where she sees the dancer Pablo (Pablo Verón) performing tango.

She becomes obsessed with the dance and offers Pablo a part in her film in exchange for dance lessons. The two become deeply involved as dancers and as lovers, and their emotional intimacy threatens the success of their dancing together.

The film explores the conflict between the woman dancer accepting the man's lead in the dance, while the man must accept the woman's lead in the film." - wiki

Ooo! Time for You Tube! Where's that clip..??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoSfhKLgmho

Oh the sheer IRONY that stalks me every waking hour! I've seen this. Years ago. On TV. It had already started and so I never knew the name of the film until now! Chuckle!

So what's wrong with this one?! Shifting into recon mode...

"Sally Potter's The Tango Lesson is a cold, antiseptic romance, a love story without a heart or soul..." - James Berardinelli

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/t/tango.html

Now let's see what Roger thought of it - AH HAH! 3.5 STARS!

"For her pains in telling this story, Potter has been slapped down by several critics. How dare she, a middle-aged woman, star herself in a love story where she falls in love with a tango dancer--and, even worse, is good enough to dance as his partner? This is ``blatant narcissism'' (Britain's Empire magazine) and ``an act of wild hubris'' (the New York Times). ``Talk about self-indulgence!'' says a critic on the Internet.

Political correctness is not my favorite pose, and so I will not go into detail about the countless movies in which middle-age (and, indeed, elderly) men seduce 22-year-old models and jump out of airplanes while throwing bombs. I will note that Sally Potter really does dance the tango in this film; it's not a stunt woman or special effects. My theory is, if you've got it, flaunt it." - a very astute Roger Ebert.

See! I told you he'd totally embraced his inner Feminist. Awesome!
And not because Potter's a woman, but because a woman is no less a person deserving of fair and equal consideration, even if her gender is the measuring stick for some, of the inadequacies of their own.

This list is indeed completely absurd. Everyone knows the greatest movie of all time is Lehmann's Airheads.

This list is absurd. I doubt a sincere effort was made to list the 50 greatest movies. This is nothing but a PR stunt.

There are several movies that shouldn't be in the top 500 much less the top 50!

Apocalypse Now is Coppola's best movie?

Barry Lyndon is Kubrick's?

Where's GoodFellas? No Kurosawa? John Ford has the same number of "greatest films" as Tarantino?

Ebert: I've never had occasion to decide, but I also think "Apocalypse Now" is Coppola's best.

Rather than coming up with a Top Ten List of Greatest Movies of All Time (which will rarely change, if ever), I think it is preferable to do lists of the Greatest-Movies-By-The-Decade, which expands the number of great films to see by those of us who love movies. Siskel and Ebert's decade lists were always my "check" to make sure I had seen as many great films as possible.

So, since the decade is nearing an end, here's one person's list of the best ten of the decade thus far, in no particular order:

No Country For Old Men - The most perfect film of the decade. The scene in the grocery with Javier Bardem and the store owner may be the finest individual scene of the decade.

The Hurt Locker - Both the best war and suspense film of the decade.

Tell No One - A classic tale of mystery that will live like the films of Hitchcock.

WALL-E - Maybe the greatest modern animated film ever.

Million Dollar Baby - Eastwood made some of the best films of the 2000's. This man just keeps getting better and this one, with "Unforgiven," may be his finest of them all.

Kill Bill Vols. 1 & 2 - I can watch these over and over again with the biggest smile on my face. Uma Thurman may have given the most underrated performance of the decade.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Tough to pick only one Charlie Kaufman movie, but this one keeps getting better upon repeat viewings.

Children of Men - The best science fiction film of the decade and several of the greatest continuous shots ever filmed.

Crash - Has gotten some negative critique in the past few years, but for me, along with "Do The Right Thing," will be a lasting statement about race issues in this country.

Best in Show - Have to include at least one comedy, and this one makes me laugh out loud time and time again.

I find lists like this interesting, although usually they infuriate me, too. I don't think this is a list of the greatest films of all time, but it is certainly a list of great films - I think I've seen all but 2 or 3 of them, which surprised me. The one on the the list that's a stinker is "Barry Lyndon", which some people assume must be a great movie 'cause it's so freakin' boring. Anyway, I've seen a lot worse lists than this one (absence of "Rules of the Game" notwithstanding) but would wish that short subjects were sometimes included just to remind casual readers that they're never going to have a better time watching movies than they're going to have seeing Keaton's "One Week" or Laurel & Hardy's "The Music Box".

To answer the question about which decade of cinema is the "best", I'd say that it is the 2000s. Although in 6 months time it will be the 2010s.

Which is not to put down any other decade. I just feel that if you praise the 40s or 70s or whatever, and grouse about modern cinema, what you're really putting down...to some extent...is your own life and the time in which you live.

Therefore, I submit that the best decade for movies is now, and the other decades are tied for #2. Or, shall we say, #1A. And while we're here let us also admit that categorizing cinema by decades is arbitrary to the point that it makes zero sense.

The problems I usually have with older films are the soundtracks. It seems that the more innovative and intense the movie, the more mundane, annoying and predictive the music seems to be. Are there any books or articles around which document the influence or importance particular directors gave to their soundtracks? It seems to me most were just boiler plated out after films were completed. A lousy soundtrack pulls a 'great' film right back into the 'interesting but seriously flawed' category for me. Citizen Kane was the worst.

Ebert: You don't like the sound track for "Citizen Kane?" De gustibus non est disputandum. Somebody once told me "The Third Man" was spoiled by the discordant music.

Lists like this make me think that I need to start watching some older movies! My five favourite movies were each made in the last twenty years. I would argue their corner to the grave though, and would love to think that in years to come they would take residence in lists such as this (though one already has). I appreciate movie lists as without them, I would not have seen many films I have grown to adore. In fact, if I really made the effort, I could probably remember which of the several lists I have read turned me on to which of my many favourites. I do know for a fact that viewing my number one film for the first time came from reading your Great Movies essay. So thank you, Mr Ebert.

For those curious, my five favourite films are:
1. Magnolia
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Lost In Translation
4. Goodfellas
5. Fargo

Netflix often does well by me, too. Of course, quite often their top recommendations are movies I've already seen and enjoyed. It's not usually until fifteen or twenty down the list that I find a movie I saw and disliked. ("Terms of Endearment" and "Atonement" for instance.)

@Marie Haws

It isn't sexism that they picked Blade Runner over Alien. Simply put, Blade Runner is better. It says more and asks more about humanity than Alien. But Alien is close behind.

It just bothers me how quickly sexism and racism are blamed when there are often other, more accurate, reasons. But, of course, I do realize that both do exist.

The most conspicuous absences are Casablanca, 2001, and Raging Bull. While that certainly makes the list 'interesting', I would have found it slightly more interesting and daring had it not included Blade Runner like every other 'greatest movies' list I've seen this decade. And I'm baffled by the inclusion of Point Break. I understand the process of reevaluation and Patrick Swayze certainly gave a sterling performance as Bodhi, but I can't help but see it as a rather contrived way of drawing attention to Kathryn Bigelow's new film.

Well, let's just all be relieved Fight Club wasn't on it.

Ebert: Ah...I think that's "Point Blank."

Just in case people missed my comment a few up from here, I'm the Pete Hoskin who edited the Spectator 50 films list. Thanks to Roger and everyone else for their comments - now here's my reponse!

First things first, I should stress that the Speccie list isn't my personal top 50. It was compiled by Matt d'Ancona and myself, with an eye to making it a) Spectator-ish (which, as I write in the introduction to the list, means that a "premium has been placed on wit, Britishness and - above all - intelligence"), and b) wide-ranging. To some extent, this means that there's an element of artificiality to it, as there is to all such lists. 'Jaws,' for instance, was mainly put in as an example of a blockbuster. While 'Pulp Fiction,' got a nod largely because of its influence. Neither film, it must be said, would make my own personal top fifty.

But that doesn't make the list worthless (I hope!). For starters, it makes it accessible for the kind of casual film fans who don't frequent boards such as this! If most of the films were silent - and they easily cound have been - then it would have alienated a swathe of potential readers, rather than drawing them in from familiar films like 'Jaws' and 'Pulp Fiction' to the less familiar gems, such as 'The Scarlet Empress' and 'The Roaring Twenties'.

Second, as I rewatched some of the films in preparation for the list, I was surprised by just how, well, "great" some of them are. 'Jaws' really is a fabulous film, and I certainly don't think it blemishes the final selection.

And, third, we managed to squeeze in a few personal favourites. I'm delighted, for instance that 'The Roaring Twenties' is in there (the most underrated Studio era film, imho) - and likewise for 'Killer of Sheep', 'The Scarlet Empress' and even the high rankings for 'Sunrise' and 'Black Narcissus'.

As for a few of the question marks, omissions and controversial choices, I should say that I remain convinced that 'Barry Lyndon' and 'Pierrot le fou' are Kubrick's and Godard's best films, respectively. If I had to include another by each director, the Kubrick would be either 2001 or - another controversial choice - 'Eyes Wide Shut', and the Godard would probably be 'Weekend'. Looking back on the list, I wish we'd have been able to squeeze more John Ford films in - any of 'She Wore A Yellow Ribbon', 'They Were Expendable' and 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance' - as well as something by Mizoguchi, more by Jacques Tourneur, and some Eastern European cinema would have been nice too.

But that, in the end, is part of the joy of this - or any other - "interesting" list. It's not just my personal choice of 50 "best" films; otherwise we'd have ended up something that was mostly made up of Ford and Tourneur movies - and, besides, who wants to know what films a random 25-year-old likes? If it had have been my own personal list, a few of the following probably would have made the cut - and these are certainly films that I'd recommened to hardcore film fans such as yourselves:

Les Vampires (Louis Feuillade, 1915)
7th Heaven (Frank Borzage, 1927)
L'argent (Marcel L'Herbier, 1928)
The Mask of Fu Manchu (Charles Brabin, 1932)
The Old Dark House (James Whale, 1932)
Wooden Crosses (Raymond Bernard, 1932)
Young Mr. Lincoln (John Ford, 1939)
Cat People (Jacques Tourneur, 1942)
They Were Expendable (John Ford, 1945)
Canyon Passage (Jacques Tourneur, 1946)
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (John Ford, 1949)
Whisky Galore! (Alexander Mackendrick, 1949)
The Flame and the Arrow (Jacques Tourneur, 1950)
Panic in the Streets (Elia Kazan, 1950)
Chikamatsu monogatari (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1954)
Track of the Cat (William A. Wellman, 1954)
Ordet (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1955)
Night of the Demon (Jacques Tourneur, 1957)
Horror of Dracula (Terence Fisher, 1958)
Peeping Tom (Michael Powell, 1960)
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford, 1962)
This Sporting Life (Lindsay Anderson, 1963)
Daisies (Věra Chytilová, 1966)
Marketa Lazarová (Frantisek Vlácil, 1967)
Targets (Peter Bogdanovich, 1968)
Mean Streets (Martin Scorsese, 1973)
O Lucky Man! (Lindsay Anderson, 1973)
Dawn of the Dead (George A. Romero, 1978)
A Brighter Summer Day (Edward Yang, 1991)
Sátántangó (Béla Tarr, 1994)
Starship Troopers (Paul Verhoeven, 1997)
Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)
Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1999)
Atanarjuat (Zacharias Kunuk, 2001)
Elephant (Gus Van Sant, 2003)

And I could go on and on and on, and quickly go above 50 films! Simple fact is: there's so much great cinema out there, and it's an absolute pleasure to be able to sample much of it in the era of home video.

Roger: I'm really glad that you enjoy the Speccie so much. One of the joys of my job is that I have access to the full archives, which include so much great stuff by - as you say - Auberon Waugh and the like, as well as some truly great film criticism by Graham Greene, Peter Ackroyd and others. If I can every forward on any articles, do let me know.

Also - and I know this might be a weird forum to ask this, but I don't have contact details for you - is there any way we could convince you to write something for The Spectator? I know we'd certainly be honoured, if it's possible. You've got my email address now - phoskin @ spectator.co.uk - as does anyone else here who wants to chat film or get in touch about the Spectator more generally.

Finally, another "thank you" to everyone for commenting on the list. It was great fun to put together, but even more fun to see people's responses to it.

Ebert: A list like your supplementary list reflects the resources available from the National Film Theater, London rep houses, the BFI's DVDs, Channel 4, etc. No doubt expeditions to the Cinematheque Francais, too. I am envious. You have a great depth of filmgoing experience.

BTW, I love the Spectator's daily reports URL:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse

Roger,

I may have shared this with you before, but after fielding so many "What's your favorite movie?" or "What's the best movie you've ever seen" questions over the years, I finally landed on an internally Socratic second-question, higlighting the only criteria that could bypass all the complexities of my personal tastes re: music, dialogue, cinematography, etc., etc.; namely...

Instead of "best" or "favorite," what is the movie that has had the most impact on my heart & mind, to an inescapable degree?

I won't bore you with my personal list, but I'm genuinely curious as to how you'd answer that question. With all the films you've seen, which is the one - or are the ones - that truly "stick with you" on a mental and/or emotional level in a way that you simply can't avoid?

Just curious...

With much respect,

Deacon Godsey
Omaha, NE

Ebert: Curiously, perhaps, "2001," "Gates of Heaven" "Ikiru," "La Dolce Vita," among others.

By William B on July 31, 2009 4:44 PM

there's also "Casablanca" missing, but of course it's not often considered a "great" film critically; certainly you can't point to a single genius auteur, there, even though it's an incredibly entertaining, moving, even inspiring movie, which manages to create and maintain a number of memorable characters, all with their own moment in the spotlight, speaking style, ideology.

I would recommend Aljean Harmetz' book The Making of Casablanca to anyone interested in just how chaotic and multicultural, almost accidental, was the "greatness" of Casablanca.

The ultimate objective of "best films" lists must be to encourage viewings of these films by new audiences. I agree that a simple list of 10 best of all time is not sufficient to achieve this end. So I recommend the following alternative lists:

- best 10 films from each decade
- best 10 films by nationality
- best 10 films by director

I was born in 1974, so I didn't develop a scholar's approach to film until college (thanks in part to shot-by-shot analyses some guy spearheaded at Virginia's Film Festival of Sunset Boulevard, The Third Man, Vertigo, and Bonnie & Clyde). It was shortly thereafter that I wished to explore more films from past decades. It was a bit overwhelming to decide where to begin, but my decision came after I sat down to watch Ingmar Bergman's "Persona". I was so fascinated that I just rented every Bergman movie available to get the full Bergman experience. Then, I dabbled in Ray, Rohmer, Fellini...etc.

I sometimes would get sidetracked into exploring one nation's films from a particular period of time that can provide a fascinating insight into historical context. Other times, I would see films from a particular time period from a variety of countries that would provide remarkable commentary on the mood of an era.

I propose that more focused best lists provide greater motivation and interest for novice filmgoers to explore the vast landscape of the medium.

Ebert: Once you get the fever...

Soundtracks from a lot of highly acclaimed older movies presume to tell me how I'm supposed to be feeling as I'm supposed to be feeling it. I'd rather the music be patterned on the cinematography then on the action of the characters or the plot line.
Also: When do you say 'film' and when do you say 'movie'? I always stop and ponder over which word to use. Do they mean different things to you?

(This is in response to a question you asked after my previous comment.)

Nothing is wrong with Citizen Kane, but half the people singing their praises don't know why it's so important. I think it's actually way more important than just being the film that invented cinema, considering it's the only film I've seen with a story about a man - not a story about a man who does anything exceptional, or an extraordinary man, but just the story of a man. Innovations wouldn't hold with an average viewer, and yet here I find my friends (teenagers) being completely mesmerised by what is, to them, just a black and white film. But way too many people just go "Yeah it's great," then never explain why. I get the notion they're just joining the mob. I don't think I've ever met a film professor who's managed to explain why it's any good - or important. Maybe Kane is not something explained by logic, but sentiment? I don't know.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Citizen Kane, I love how so far ahead of its time it was, and I love how completely relevant it is today in a world with Bush and Rove and a recession. I just don't think it's the greatest film ever made (no idea what that is), or Orson Welles's best film (the underappreciated masterpiece Chimes at Midnight, but Ambersons ever shows up uncut it may take the crown).

Actually, I do have an interesting documentary on my computer, where Welles is interviewed for > 1 hour about his films. Kane is given a lot of attention. There's a lot of explanation as to how and why his other films were cut. Maybe nothing you haven't seen before (it was his interview with Leslie Megahey for BBC Arena), but if you're interested I guess I can upload it to Youtube.

You do need to revisit Point Blank. It is #29 on my list and maybe now it will be revisited and get the recognition it deserves. Lee Marvin gives an incomparable performance. He is like a human Terminator moving forward inexhorably to his goal, which he never achieves. Revisit it and write an updated review. CRB

Perhaps some kind of advance correlation between book, script, craftsmanship, and final movie can be the new wave in a criticism to meet objective comparisons in quality.
For example, a score of one to ten on a book the critic reads, without first seeing the movie; certainly some scripts are weightier than others ( I love to read a book in advance of seeing the movie, just to see how a directors vision compares to what I see. It never fails to amaze me how often great minds think alike!); give a score of one to ten on the sound track, movie unseen; rate the movie (for staging composition and b&w or color usage, photography); rate the movie in advance for casting, but wait and rate the actors in the final creation with their performance having a greater weight -- for example, Dustin Hoffman's performances in the Marathon Man in the chase scene or his work as an autistic man later in his career...certainly such acting can over ride other movie failings.
Add up the numbers for each analysis and one would have a fair appraisal beyond 'opinion' ... not to say a good critic cannot achieve that degree of inspection on the balcony aisle seats ... plus, I doubt most script writers, producers or directors would allow such 'previewing'.
Hmm, perhaps that could be Satchi Cohen's next part -- a pushy movie critic.

"That's why my Great Movies have never been a ranking, but a Collection, assembled in no particular order."

Yes - except for two occasions. The movie you launched the list with and, should you ever decide to end the feature, the last movie you include. I'm tempted to ask that if you were going to end the feature next week, what would the final movie be?

Ebert: "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls."

Sigh; can you check your spam folder? Thank-you. :)

Ebert: That's where it was. The spam folder. And no wonder.

Marie! What were you thinking! It contains these words: bitches, schoolgirl, syphilitic, hermaphroditic, penis, pee, seduce, models.

Canonized lists, such as the one you've printed above, are I suppose interesting to some degree, but I prefer more personalized lists. It's far more interesting to hear someone's own list of ten or fifteen, to try to get an idea of their taste from this list. I encourage people to try to develop a film personality, to find aesthetics and ideas that represent them and stimulate them. My top 15 are as follows:

1. Come and See (Elem Klimov)
2. The Double Life of Veronique (Krystof Kieslowski)
3. Punishment Park (Peter Watkins)
4. Two-Lane Blacktop (Monte Hellman)
5. Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick)
6. Love Streams (John Cassavetes)
7. Werckmeister Harmonies (Bela Tarr)
8. Possession (Andrzej Zulawski)
9. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch)
10. Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Werner Herzog)
11. Magnolia (P.T. Anderson)
12. Mister Lonely (Harmony Korine)
13. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (Peter Greenaway)
14. The Thing (John Carpenter)
15. Singin' in the Rain (Gene Kelly)

It is, you'll notice, more slanted towards post-1970s. But a list should be a constantly evolving creature, which mirrors your own personal development. I think one can get a good idea of what I look for in films from this list, though, and potentially offer me some more suggestions based on this sampling of my taste. Tarkovsky said that the function of art was to prepare a person for death and render the soul capable of turning to the good. I want more films that can do that.

My current top 10 (warning: skews recent and a bit fanboy-ey with a lot of fantasy and animation):

1. Pan's Labyrinth
2. Spirited Away
3. Pulp Fiction
4. Wall-E
5. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
6. The Shawshank Redemption
7. The Incredibles
8. Citizen Kane
9. Akira
10. Raiders of the Lost Arc

Would you ever consider putting anymore selections on your Great Movies list like the “Chuck Jones: Three Cartoons” pick? “Duck Amuck,” “One Froggy Evening,” and “What’s Opera, Doc?” are timeless classics. However, you have “Tom and Jerry,” “Betty Boop,” “Private Snafu,” “Popeye,” “Mickey Mouse,” “Mr. Magoo,” “Droopy,” “Felix the Cat,” and countless others.

Roger,

Thanks for sharing this excellent article with us. You've been quite supportive of Kubrick's work in the past. In addition to years of consistent praise of masterpieces like "2001" and "Dr. Strangelove", you've added "The Shining" and "Paths of Glory" to your Great Movies collection. In short, you've been very vocal in supporting Kubrick's work, and I'm truly grateful for that.

But seeing this Spectator list leaves me hoping that you'll follow up with a "Barry Lyndon" Great Movies review soon. I am admittedly biased, as after "2001", I personally consider "Barry Lyndon" my second favorite film of all time. Yet there's a reason, in my mind, why directors like Todd Field and Martin Scorsese (both in his forward to Michel Ciment's book "Kubrick" and on Charlie Rose's "Remembering Kubrick" episode) consider this the greatest Kubrick film of all time and why film buffs increasingly flock to the film. One 2008 Lincoln Center screening, for instance, began with a euphoric cheer as the Barry Lyndon title card flashed on screen and ended with a standing ovation from sobbing audience members.

I don't mean to undermine any other filmmaker. I am a huge fan of Bergman, Bresson, Kieslowski, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Ray, and other auteurs that critics and academics frequently cite. Yet at the end of the day, with all due respect to the masters of cinema, I PERSONALLY believe that Kubrick is light years ahead of them. In many ways, Kubrick did for film what Joyce did for literature--and I think a film like "Barry Lyndon" encapsulates that brilliant mix of technical innovation, cerebral craftsmanship, great storytelling, and profound insight. What is more, I think any detractors who label Kubrick as cold and distant should take another look at "Barry Lyndon". My guess is that many of them will be blown away and will agree with Martin Scorsese that "Barry Lyndon" is a "profoundly emotional experience"--not to mention sublimely edited.

There are certain gems in film--forgotten or celebrated--that expand one's cinematic mind or emotional register ("Killer of Sheep," "Apocalypse Now," "Aguirre," "2001," "Raging Bull" and "Bodas de Sangre" all come to mind). I think that many viewers either unfamiliar with the film or thirty-five years removed from it will find a similar type of inspiration with "Barry Lyndon", and as readers trust your taste and suggestions, I hope we will be lucky enough to see a Great Movies review in the near future. Plus, it would be fascinating to hear your thoughts thirty-five years after your 3.5-star review. My apologies for the long entry and thanks for your endless contributions to cinema.

Ebert: I will have another look at "Barry Lyndon."

Lists are great, but they always point to the same titles, those available in the English speaking lands. For example, Buñuel is usually considered the best Spanish director, but in Spain we know better: the best is Luis García Berlanga. Two of his movies, "Plácido" (1961) and "El verdugo" (1963) are masterpieces, but I doubt critics can find them in the USA or UK, so they are never mentioned.

(About my unusual knack for meeting most unusual people "out of the blue":>

Ebert: This has to be more than blind luck. You must have some sort of ineffable quality that draws people out. Didn't you post that people tend to choose you for their confessions?

---In a hurry, must go meet with Commodore Perry's g-g-g'daughter AND a BBC writer AND one of the first developers of the mainframe computer, met by this "blind luck," for no other reason than they're just passin' through and we made friends some years back.

Of course it isn't blind luck, tho' I'm a bit disappointed with Mankind to think that a talent for patient listening must be this rare. I didn't even mention the man who moved into my cheap apt. bldg back in Tucson who'd written this famous speech you'd probably know, was a direct descendant of John Adams and all this other stuff. On top of that when he introduced himself in the laundry room he said he was going to die in a few weeks -- had had enough of kidney dialysis, was a goner for sure for stopping it, but at 80 that was enough life for him.

Long story short, I sprang for an inordinately expensive bottle of tequila, we had a fine drunk, and he died the next day.

Probably 100 residents in that building and I was the only one paying any attention. That's how it goes. The probability of anybody who pays attention this way of bumping into people like this is high, the probability for those who don't, very low. None of them knew that the odd-looking carport around the corner had been designed by a quite famous scientist whose name escapes me in my hurry.

Tellin' ya, they're out there. But I have no explanation about how and why midgets moved into the apartment next to mine and raised a yowling for 2 hours a night that would drown out any 8 singing cats, having sex. So there's a bit of mystery to it yet.

Bingo! Just in time. I hate to get so far off topic, but I'm too pleased to answer...

Oh come on, Roger. That's what film buffs do, argue about what films are great and which ones aren't.
I agree, it's pointless. Like trying to convince someone steak is better than sushi. But it sure is fun trying.
And 'Night of the Hunter' is the most overrated movie I've ever seen.

RDS wrote on August 1, 2009 11:35 PM - "Marie has a fine collection, but not, 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre'?

Yup! "We don't need no stinking badges!" :)

My entry was prompted however, by someone sharing their top 10 list of favorite B/W movies. And I'd already gone WAY over ten!

I was also trying to think of stuff younger readers might not have stumbled upon yet. As when I was growing-up, that's how I often discovered things; whenever anyone mentioned something I'd never heard of, it always intrigued my curiosity.

Corey wrote on August 2, 2009 10:46 AM -

@Marie Haws

"It isn't sexism that they picked Blade Runner over Alien. Simply put, Blade Runner is better. It says more and asks more about humanity than Alien. But Alien is close behind.

It just bothers me how quickly sexism and racism are blamed when there are often other, more accurate, reasons. But, of course, I do realize that both do exist."

I was speaking in general terms as I like Blade Runner too! And I'm a huge Rutger Hauer fan. He founded this cool Film Festival...

"It’s time to put on your shorts". Rutger Hauer challenges filmmakers around the world to show him "things never seen before".

I'VE SEEN FILMS - INTERNATIONAL SHORT FILM FESTIVAL
September 24 - October 3, 2009 - Milan - Italy

http://www.icfilms.org/

In addition to the main categories, the 2009 Festival has a special section dedicated to Social Awareness. Filmmakers were invited to submit works on issues such as AIDS, racism, unemployment, homelessness, censorship, environmental protection, human rights etc.

Anyhoo, when it comes to movie lists, the point of view is mostly male for being made by them. And just like being Black in America, you have to be on the receiving end of inequality to know the extent of it.

The fact Alien isn't on the list wasn't meant to be taken so literally, but rather as an example to illustrate a point. If you look at what's on the list - where are the women? Where's Agnes Varda? Where's Katherine Hepburn? Bette Davis? Just to name a few.

Men too often hold up a thing and think they hold the entire world with it, when they do. That their definition of what amounts to important film making, is the correct one.

It's not that the films on the Spectator list aren't good.

It's what that list reflects, given there are thousands and thousands of films to chose from. It's what doesn't or rarely seems to rate a mention. The sun and the moon spins around your sex, and you are content. All is well and as it should be. Mine dares to "squeak" a little and you react to that! :)

P.S. For the record, I personally can't stand chic-flicks. So I'm not whining because I want that stuff included on a list; chuckle! God save us all from "The Ugly Truth."

Rather, where are these films?

The Little Foxes (1941) William Wyler - starring Bette Davis

Anne of the Thousand Days (1969) Geneviève Bujold as Anne Boleyn

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969) Maggie Smith rules.

Summertime (1955) David Lean and Katherine Hepburn!

The Women (1939) George Cukor - ALL female cast.

The Night of the Iguana (1964) Deborah Kerr plays a painter :)

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Elizabeth Taylor's best work

Beyond the Forest (1949) Bette Davis again and "WHAT a dump!" :)

And so I say again: squeak, squeak, squeak!

P.S. I think we should start a guilty pleasures list! I'll go first -

Goodbye Again (1961) Ingrid Bergman breaks her own heart in Paris; sniff. Anthony Perkin's is somewhat miscast but I love this film anyway. I always cry in the car with Ingrid, when she turns on the wipers thinking that's "rain" she can see on the glass.

Ebert: That's where it was. The spam folder. And no wonder. Marie! What were you thinking! It contains these words...

You know I'm laughing now, right? Chuckle!

I quoted RON BARTH JR! It's all HIS freakin' fault! And more to the point, why didn't his post end up in the Spam folder? But when "I" do it and in total context I might add - oh nooooooooo! Then the Spam filter takes issues with it - as we wouldn't want to OFFEND anyone!

Well I've had enough - do you hear me software?! I've been pushed too far! I'm heading off now to draw a cartoon about you, Spam Filer, and I shall be merciless.

I have to second those who cite the absence of Casablanca. I realize no such list is definitive, and that things change regularly when based on opinion, but no classic movie has ever stunned me like Casablanca. One of the risks of coming late to the party, so to speak, is that artworks that are groundbreaking and influential tend to be copied and imitated so much that the original suffers from overexposure and the eventual further development of the form in later works. To someone raised on Star Wars, 2001 is slow and dreary, even though the latter would not have existed without the former. Citizen Kane revolutionized filmmaking, but in ways that are so commonplace today we don't always see them in the original.

But Casablanca was a totally different experience for me. I'd seen almost every critical scene in that movie in some other form, be it homage or parody or outright theft, and I didn't expect originality when I finally saw it in my 30's. I saw the exact opposite, though - it transcended every one of the imitators over 60+ years. The performances were so much more powerful, and the story it told so much more compelling than I'd expected, and it was a revelatory experience. That's greatness, to me.

Will there ever be movies of the 90's and 00's on respectable lists like the sight and sound list? I know that movies of the 30's thorugh the 70's deserve to be on lists compile by actual movie experts. But I wonder if any contemporary films will be acknowleged.

then agan, old great movies deserve to propaganded since they are slowly being more and more forgottened over the decades.

As I recall from your commentary in the Citizen Kane DVD, you mentioned three options for Greatest Film: "Vertigo", "Citizen Kane" and "2001: A Space Odyssey". I agreed when I heard it. I just hope that the film industry, in the future and near future, becomes more concerned with making great movies, rather than trying to make "the next big thing" in sales.

It's clear to see what a "movie" thinks of itself upon watching it. That's very common nowadays... since many filmmakers are too self-conscious to concentrate on what they're doing, and get lost on what they'd like to do (not that self-consciousness doesn't help in certain cases).

Straightforward and unpretentious movies are hard to come by these days.

I've always enjoyed a movie countdown in any shape or form, they’re pointless but I think they're an important part of film criticism and study. If there had never been an American film Institute Countdown of the 100 greatest movies I would never had looked up at a young age and discovered all those important films.

But while I like this list, and Sight and Sound, I've also always been discouraged by the exclusion of my favorite film, and the one I consider the best ever - It's a Wonderful Life. As a technical achievement it’s certainly not the greatest but as an example of the emotional power of film, no movie is superior. In our age of less patience and lesser real emotional power translated to film, I think it’s important and a duty of these lists to keep classics like that alive. In my opinion no film demonstrates how powerful an experience simply watching a movie can be.

But also congrats to The Night of the Hunter

Ms Haws,
I love movies where some aging hero gets the girl, as with To Catch a Thief, Grant and Grace Kelly. It could happen -- and does.
'Marie Antionette' was wonderful, though I felt it a bit odd Ms.Coppola included certain modern music- she was miscast in the last 'Godfather', though she did respectable work, but she'll shine as a director, and cast Kirsten Dunst perfectly.
Leni [Rufinstal?] was a great artist and film maker even if she failed to choose the right side.
Modonna is sometimes a great film presence, I hope she persists and finds her 'role' as May West did with such audacious relish.
Lena Wertmuller was genius with '7 Beauties' or 'Swept Away --Modonna's worst effort.
'A League of Their Own' ... 'No crying!' with Tom Hanks -- all outstanding.
'High Art' was of a special quality with the actresses selected; Ally Sheedy was so right -- who directed that? Who was the actress in Van Gogh's work of Hersi Alli's sad story of Islamic oppression of women -- why is it such Islamic chauvinism and cruelty is off NOW's radar screen?
Some of my favorite actresses:
Bridgit Bardot, Bridgit Fonda, Betty Davis, Mommy Dearest and Fay Dunnaway, Catherine Deneuve in Belle De Jour -- Roger Ebert observed correctly in that review, 'the heart wants what the heart wants'.
Tilda Swinton! In 'the Beach'.
Ingrid Bergman, Sally Field; Angelina Jolie in Beowolf; Oooh.
Marilyn Monroe, whoa!
Sigorney Weaver and Gwyneth Paltrow! yum; Kim Basinger in LA Confidential. Flaunt it indeed!
What's wrong with that? Even women have to love them.

Nothing by Kurosawa? I'm not offended, just a little surprised...

@Marie Haws again.

I hear what you are saying about the lack of female representation. Of those films you listed, I had only heard of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?".

And it's true, men make lists that represent their tastes, just like fanboys and any other group that compiles lists.

My reaction to the Alien thing came from, what to me is just bizarre, criticisms about two other films I like. One, that Fight Club is sexist because women weren't allowed to fight, never mind that the film was meant to be about men and masculinity and thematically women fighting was out of place.

And two, that Dr. Strangelove should not have "Classic" status because of the lack of women in the film, even though women weren't really prominent in the military back then. I really wish I could remember where I heard or read this, but it was about a decade ago that I came across it.

And lastly, I know this really won't be popular, but there is sexism against men, too. Anticipating a "but not to the extent that women suffer" comment, the best I'll say here (as it's quite off-topic) is I recommend reading "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrel, a man who actually sat on the board of directors for NOW. It's quite surprising how unfair things actually are for men that most people don't see.

I read somewhere that making lists like these is a much more popular activity for men than for women. It seems true, because I am a man and I love making lists.
When I came to make my 10 favourite movies list I noticed that half of them come from the 1970s - what a ripper of a decade that was for movies.

Ten Favourite movies:
1. Apocalypse Now
2. Star Wars
3. Jaws
4. The Godfather
5. Goodfellas
6. Aliens
7. Get Carter (1971)
8. Sexy Beast
9. The Wild Bunch
10.The Thing (1982)

I've written a few favorite movie lists, but mainly just for use as a personal reference. Some of them are even just popcorn flicks that I seem to be able to watch over and over again