I was hoping Night of the Hunter had a chance after they remembered it in the 100 Thrills special.

Should have stayed: The Third Man (placing it at #57 in 1998 was bad enough), The Manchurian Candidate, Amadeus, Close Encounters, My Fair Lady and All Quiet on the Western Front.

The Sixth Sense/Titanic/Lord of the Rings may not be deserving, but on the bright side, I'm glad they left no room for Gladiator.

And then there's Kubrick: I like Spartacus better than A Clockwork Orange, but why not just replace them both with Paths of Glory?

The biggest injustice of all is that "The Third Man" was left off the list this time. But we all know "Toy Story" and "Titanic" are better, right?

Jim, I didn't know you felt that way about Schindler's List. For that, and many of the other mini-opinions expressed in this post, you are even more awesome than you were yesterday.

Isn't Mulholland Dr eligible? It came out the same year as The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), I think.

Also: Raiders and Butch Cassidy are still on the list.

My first reaction is that "Apocalypse Now" is criminally underrated on the list. I could understand if they were rating the unfortunate "Redux" edit.

I would agree that two of Lynch's films would rank above "Blue Velvet" - but I'd swap "Lost Highway" for "Mulholland Dr." Still, "Inland Empire" was insanely good. Wish I could see it again.

Jim, I know (as Roger points out) that these lists are made to be argued with, but that doesn't keep me from wondering what the hell they were thinking. At least "The General" made it this time (although still too low, it should at least be at #10), as did "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Shawshank Redemption", but the choices they made of movies that shifted positions are unthinkable. "Raging Bull" deserves to be in the top 10 (it's in mine) but I wouldn't have put it at #4. To see "Vertigo" deservedly take its spot in the top 10 was nice, but to see "Lawrence of Arabia" still taking its overrated spot there is mind boggling (visually it's one of the greats, but storytelling wise it's a collosal failure). There are a lot of movies that are overrated on the list and I could go on and on about their placement ("Grapes of Wrath" at 23, "Dr. Strangelove" at 39, "Streetcar Named Desire" at 47, "A Clockwork Orange" at 70, "Sixth Sense" at 89), and there are movies that are underrated I could go on about ("2001" at 15, "Taxi Driver" at 52, "Unforgiven at 68", "Goodfellas" at 92, "Pulp Fiction" at 94, "Do the Right Thing" at 96). But the real question is where are the great movies not on the list? "Close Encounters" is in my top ten, as is "Dark City" (more deserving than "Blade Runner"), and no "Notorius"? How does that happen? "Empire Strikes Back" is the best in the Star Wars series and everyone knows it, so why not put it on the list instead? Also, only 2 animated movies? Where's "Beauty and the Beast" or "The Little Mermaid? I'm not as enamored with "Fargo" or any David Lynch as most people, so that didn't bother me. But I have to tell you Jim, I think you're completely wrong about "Wizard of Oz", and "Schindler's List", granted it doesn't deserve to be in the top 10, and it isn't even in Spielberg's top 3 with "Close Encounters" "Munich" and "E.T." ("Jaws" might even be at 4) but it is great.

Blade Runner and Do the Right Thing should be much higher. I'm not going to cry over Fargo. It's a solid film, but I think it was probably a tad overrated.

Birth of a Nation shouldn't belong on a top 100 films list. Its endorsement of the Klan vastly outweighs any possible technical or narrative innovations the film might offer.

The biggest injustice: not one single film in the top 100 by a woman. Yes, I know that there were few female directors working in Hollywood for a long time, but none in the top 100?

Random thoughts:

Gone With The Wind is still on the list? Sheesh.

Where's the Mel Brooks love? I'm flummoxed that Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles aren't on the list.

I go back and forth on Ben-Hur, but it's a near miss for me. And I don't get Tootsie being on there; I know I'm in a minority, but I think it's a singularly humorless movie.

Departed, btw, was not eligible as I remember, since it came out after the end date of the newly-eligible movies.

I would have left Raiders on, but that's just me.

Interesting lack of comedies on the list, but I was very happy to see Night at the Opera get in ("Oh, that's a sanity clause." "You can't fool me; there is no Sanity Claus!")

There's a lack of horror films (how a tauat masterpiece like Halloween isn't tehre is incomprehensible), but I was happy to see Sixth Sense.

Titanic? Really? If you had to get a Cameron in there, go with Terminator 2.

Also, I'm going to stick my neck out and say 2001 should be lower on the list.

Still, it's a improved list from 1998; less fat and more love for silent movies.

To be fair to Speilberg, I think 1941 is one of the most (probably THE most) underrated of his films. It has a reputation for being an over budget, bloated, mess, but it deserves a second look, especially as an interesting juxtaposition to Saving Private Ryan on WWII nostalgia.

That being said, the Fargo exclusion is rather bizarre, considering that Titanic and Ben-Hur are on the list. (Really, Ben-Hur?)

There are also many Cagney pictures better than Yankee Doodle Dandy that deserve to be here and aren't

And I still don't understand why movies like Lawrence of Arabia are onlists for the top AMERICAN films. I guess because it was probably financed by an American studio. But, seriously, come on.

There's really only two titles on the list that I feel don't deserve to be on there:

Forrest Gump and The Sixth Sense. I like both movies, but on the AFI Top 100 of all time? I don't even consider either film the best of their directors. For Zemeckis, it would be Back to the Future and for Shyamalan, it would be Signs.

How is it that The Third Man goes from 49 to not being on the list? If they considered it too British, I could understand that, but it was on the nominees ballot!

I think that The Shawshank Redemption and Saving Private Ryan are too low on the list. So are several others IMO, but those two stood out for me.

I love that the Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring made the cut, but if I had to choose, I would put Return of the King in its' place. 7 1/2 years into the decade and I still haven't seen a film that tops that one.

I'm a little confused about your category "Not Much Missed," which includes films both on (Raiders, Butch Cassidy) and off (everything else) the list.
And my favorite thing about the last list, Fargo, is gone. We need Gene Siskel more than ever.
Also, I'm sure this is a dumb question, but I thought Sunrise was a German film. Could someone clear this up for me?
Last, but not least, Jim, you once again fall into your old trap of thinking that people just need time and "perspective" to come around to your opinion. Sorry, but ALOT of people think Schindler's List is one of the great movies, and no "perspective" is going to change that. I've re-viewed it recently and it was even more powerful than I remembered. And there are PLENTY of people who love Star Wars who weren't kids when it came out.
This list is still just a collection of opinions. I cannot stand Bringing Up Baby, but a lot of people love it so there it is. And how the hell has a movie like Cabaret GAINED traction in the past ten years? What could have possibly changed in the last decade that would lead the voters to simultaneously rediscover Cabaret and fall out of love with Fargo? I'll never understand, but my favorite thing about these types of lists is pondering questions such as these.

Overall, I agree that the list is better than the previous one. However, I remain puzzled at the continuing hold "Forrest Gump" has on audiences-- I would've thought we could leave that behind in the nineties, along with the Ginflowers and Newt Gingrich. And while I like it, "The Shawshank Redemption" is vastly overrated (and so is "The Deer Hunter"). And where's "Only Angels Have Wings"? "The Band Wagon"? "Shadows"? "Something Wild"? "Anatomy of a Murder"? Wow, maybe this list bothers me more than I thought...(:

Actually, some of the "Not much missed..." films you listed are still on the list, such as "Raiders" and "Butch Cassidy."

For me, most missed from previous list: All Quiet on the Western Front, The Third Man, Fargo, Close Encounters, Rebel Without a Cause. I adore many of the others (Amadeus, My Fair Lady, The Manchurian Candidate, Patton etc.) but in a list of 100 films I think they're expendable.

I liked the reordering; Chaplin and Keaton and Kubrick and "The Searchers" in the top 20; "Singin' in the Rain" in the top 10. Although--"Dr. Strangelove" down to 39 from 26? (Personal favourite. Hoping for top 10 status. Move on.) And many of the new additions to the list are very good. (Now there are two Marx Brothers movies, and a Preston Sturges movie, and "Blade Runner" and so on.)

I disagree with most of the recent movie choices; I am a fan of both "Toy Story" (technically eligible for the previous list) and "Lord of the Rings" but don't really think that either deserves on the list. (Great technical achievements, almost-great storytelling.) And neither "Titanic" and "The Sixth Sense" were great movies; the latter was thrilling enough but too twist-heavy and the former had good performances on a poor script.

Anyway, my own personal additions are kinda thin. "The Big Sleep," "The Empire Strikes Back," "Fight Club," personal fave "The Sweet Smell of Success," and my hopelessly beloved "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."

Jim,

In 1998 I said this was an "establishment list," heavy with films that won or were nominated for Best Picture Oscars, with anything else (e.g., THE SEARCHERS at #96) having to fight its way on. While the voters this time woke up to Buster Keaton and rocketed THE SEARCHERS to #12. They also let a few bland Oscar winners (PATTON, MY FAIR LADY) fall off the list.

But look at the post-1996 films they chose--newer versions of the stodgy stalwarts (TITANIC, FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING) that rotated off. Where are the truly innovative instant classics of the last ten years? Ebert points out the absence of FARGO, but also BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (Surely Charlie Kaufman has earned a spot on here already), AMERICAN SPLENDOR, MOULIN ROUGE, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, SIDEWAYS? Maybe in another nine years.

Also, while I wholeheartedly agree with you about SCHINDLER'S LIST, probably the most overrated film of the past twenty-five years, your remarks about Scorsese (RAGING BULL below AFTER HOURS and NEW YORK, NEW YORK?! You're being facetious, right?) have me totally flummoxed, even though I've always thought KING OF COMEDY is every bit as good as RAGING BULL. But the La Motta biopic is one of those films that seems to have grown everytime I see it. It would seem that it must be overrated--until I look at it again!

I may not agree with you on "Schindler's List", but I must say you got guts saying "Always" and "Amistad" are better films. I agree with you about "Fargo", it is an outrage, and if Pixar was going to have a film on the list, I would pick "A Bug's Life", or "Finding Nemo", or "Toy Story 2" for that matter. Like you I was happy to see "Nashville" on there also "Do the Right Thing" which has become one my favorites, I saw it for the first time last year and since then I have watched it three more times. I actually showed it to my friends who had not seen it and even though they did not have the same enthusiasm about the film as I do, we still had a great discussion about it. It was also nice seeing "The Searchers", "Vertigo", and "City Lights" make giant leaps ahead.

I'm going to admit this upfront- I'm not a movie expert and I am biased. I STILL love the Trilogy and my kids (1 and 2 years old) love to watch it, too. But, I have to disagree with your statement regarding Star Wars to some degree. I think Star Wars deserves a spot as one of the all time best movies, not just because of the nostalgic appeal but because of the technology that was invented just to make the movie. Granted, it didn't have the most well written script nor was the acting all that good, but it still survives to this day because of the chord it struck with the audience. And that may be due to the fact that we loved it as kids, but we still love it now. If wasn't a good movie, do you think people would still be watching it?

HERE IT GOES – MY TOP 10: 1) The Godfather; 2) Citizen Kane; 3) Gone with the Wind; 4) Casablanca; 5) To Kill a Mockingbird; 6) The Wizard of Oz; 7) On the Waterfront; 8) Singin’ in the Rain; 9) It’s a Wonderful Life; and 10) Schindler’s List. No apologies – each is ground breaking and has lasted the test of time. Lots of bullets and blood, some dancing, and all have enormous energy generated by great acting and this thing called pace or rhythm (seamlessly structured by the director) that once you get caught in the stream, it doesn’t let you go and you’re swept into this plane that forces you to look at life or the human condition in a different way. That’s a great movie.

The ’97 list was not perfect, but better than the ’07 list. Twenty-three films were dismissed from the original top 100, and though some from the lower 50 were on shaky ground from the start (Fargo, The Third Man, Dances with Wolves, etc.), I can’t grasp the rationale of dismissing Doctor Zhivago, Birth of a Nation, From Here to Eternity, Fantasia, Stagecoach, Mutiny on the Bounty or Patton. I can accept the trade-off between Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner for In the Heat of the Night, or My Fair Lady for Cabaret. But as much as I like Toy Story, there’s no trade-off with Fantasia – this movie is a standard for all animation movies. I understand that ballots decide the list, but I hope the list doesn’t become a carousel for the flavor of the day. Also, how does The Searchers move up 84 spots (good movie, but not #12 or better than Stagecoach). The love affair with James Dean is gone with the exist of both Rebel Without a Cause and Giant. Only one film remains of teenage angst: American Graffiti (and I hope Saturday Night Fever joins the list). Some films in the current list will not last the test of time, but I guess I’ll have to wait 10 years to find out. On a side note: I have always thought that Deliverance should be on the top 100 – the struggle between right and wrong, man and nature; intellect versus brawn; and that music! Some of the best lines in movie history. Check it out for yourself – the movie holds up.

Will M: Just to clear up a misunderstanding: I'd hoped it was clear I was being facetious in my comments about "Schindler's List" (and "Nashville" and "The General"...). Just kind of having fun with the silliness of these lists-by-committee. Yes, I do indeed think "Always" is a better, more cinematically poetic and sophisitcated movie than "Schindler's List," and I hope one day it will be recognized for what it is. I don't seriously expect everyone to eventually come around to my opinion. But I can dream, can't I?

P.S. About "Raiders" and "Butch Cassidy": I don't know how I screwed those up, but I fixed the mistake. I visually scanned the list on my screen and then I did a "find in this page" search for them, but I think I may have still had a previous page highlighted in another browser window. You know how it goes...

I haven't yet studied the AFI's new list, but it still seems a little too peppered with Oscar winners with little merit ("The Sound of Music"???).

However, I do want to take issue with your "Schindler's List" comment. To my eyes, it would be #1 on the list of all-time films...not only for its subject matter or its emotional power (the things it is most often praised for), but for the complex ways in which Spielberg integrates the minute ethical choices we all face in life into the very fabric of the filmmaking.

However, while I think you grossly underrate "Schindler's List" (and would love to here a more detailed explanation of why...perhaps a "Schindler's List" blog-a-thon?), I'm pleased to here you standing up for "Always", which I think is an extremely underrated film, one that demonstrates Spielberg's brilliance in ways that are more subtle than perhaps many viewers expected.

And for that matter, I also don't mind "1941", which in its own way might be a more mature and adult representation of war than "Saving Private Ryan". Although SPR is more classically "perfect" than 1941, I think it's probably one of Spielberg's most shallow and overrated films. I still think it's a good film, but not the masterpiece many claim.

And back to the AFI list..."Lord of the Rings"? Ugh. No "Fargo?" Double ugh. But we can all criticize the list, the fact is that it's meant to generate discussion and interest in older films, and for that it should be applauded.

What to me is most important about the new list isn't what's placed where, but what moved up and down the list the most. To me, that's a sign of the changing tastes of moviegoers and a good indication of what pictures have risen in stock and what ones have fallen.

Raging Bull moves up 20 slots. Vertigo moves up 52. Searchers moves up 84. Nashvilee goes from zero to 59. Dr. Zhivago goes from 39 to zero.

I think it's fascinating seeing these tastes evolve, and I'll look forward to comparing and contrasting ten years from now.

Jim,

You mention several times about films becoming eligible for the list ... I'm curious -- what are the requirements a film must fullfill before being considered?

Apparently I missed that reading somewhere along the lines.

When the previous list came out one of my friends was inspired to watch two a week. I joined him for most of the films, even ones I had seen before. I was surprised at how awful "The Best Years of Our Lives" or "Mutiny on the Bounty" was. And "Lawrence of Arabia" didn't hit me like I imagine it hit others. Now that I have seen almost all but 7 of the movies on the list I can make a stronger argument for the films there and not there. It seems to me that the most infamous trend has remained, that a movie of scope and breadth will be placed on the list before a smaller film will. "Fellowship of the Ring" was great fun, but of the trilogy it wasn't even the best. The only logical explanation is that they've put it there to represent all three. Jim you say it's a popularity contest, but it also seems to be just as political as the Oscars. And then "Titanic"? Does character development and dialogue mean nothing to the people who vote. Sure there is some amazing imagery and tense moments, but when it comes down to it, the story is kind of thin, and again the dialogue is plain gibberish..."Let me show you how to spit!" "Okay!" "Oops got some on my chin!" Ho, ho! Character development! "The Insider" is a far greater film than either of these two as is "L.A. Confidential". Wait to put a "Rings" film on there that's worth the space at least.

"Empire" not "Star Wars" - Here! Here! Another political move?

Anyway, I have to run...and go rent some movies!

For Jay: The AFI website has a link to the ballot PDF that was sent to the voters, with a core listing of 400 films (including many of those whose absences are lamented in the final 100), and blanks for up to five write-ins per voter. The criteria are, as I recall, that a film be significantly American (creatively or financially supported) and that it be released before Jan 1, 2007 (so, technically, "The Departed" should be eligible, though I don't think it was on the ballot).

In answer to the argument posed by those who'd prefer "The Empire Strikes Back" over "Star Wars," both films were on the ballot, but I can understand how the first is recognized rather than the second, despite "Empire" being the more finely-crafted movie. The considerations asked of the voters include those of "cultural impact," and I think the direct impact of "Star Wars" on the movie business and the mass popular culture probably overwhelms the dramatic improvements between the first and second films so much that if only one can be chosen, it will be the first.

"Also, I'm sure this is a dumb question, but I thought Sunrise was a German film. Could someone clear this up for me?"-Will M.

Will, while "Sunrise" was directed by German FW Murnau, it was made in Hollywood.

While I would prefer "Sherlock Jr." over "The General" (and put it about 17 slots higher), I feel very lucky that it's on the list at all.

Overall, I'd rank this list higher than the 1998 list on my top 100 top 100 movies list.

Sorry, Jim, the sarcasm was lost on me. It's always hard to get it across in the print medium.
Hey, one thing I think we can agree on from reading previous posts is that neither of us would mind so much if Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada was on the list in 2017 (I'm not going to hold my breath). Best movie of the aughts! Although that too could change, 'cause right now I'm in that giddy childlike state of mind where you think the last movie you saw was, like, the greatest movie ever, having seen Knocked Up for the first time last night.

Also, Jim, I can't get behind the idea that "Inland Empire" belongs on any lists other than the 20 best three-hour Lynch-wannabe student films, and would watch "Raging Bull" 50 times consecutively before sitting through an hour of it.

JE: To each his own! Actually, I'm glad I don't have to watch either of them 50 times consecutively.

My thoughts here.

I myself was glad to see "Fargo" go (I consider myself a Coen fan on the whole, but I quite hate the film), giddy with excitement at the inclusion of "Nashville", "The General", "Sunshine", "12 Angry Men" and "Do the Right Thing". Also liked the presence of "The Lord of the Rings" and "Titanic" -- not deserving movies, for sure, but more so than lots of others that could have made it, which is how I try to gauge these silly lists in the first place.

Where the eff did "The Third Man" go?

And really, what is an American film to these people? They only stretch the rules a bit because if they didn't have "2001" somewhere they wouldn't be able to show their face in broad daylight (p.s. "Star Wars" - your reign will soon be over).

Oh, also wanted to mention that I'm kind of pissed that "Birth of a Nation" got swapped for "Intolerance". "Crash"-syndrome, methinks. I've always found the latter to be a slog - narratively ambitious, but overwrought and preachy (yes, by silent film standards). "Birth" might be ideologically reprehensible, but as an aesthetic work I think it's a near-masterpiece. But that's me.

Alex: I really should take notes on "Schindler's List" again -- but I've tried to watch it many times since 1993 and just can't get through it. It's tough to portray an opaque person who does things for reasons that perhaps even he doesn't understand, but I don't think the movie even captures that well. (I'm still intrigued by the scene with the girl in the tinted pink dress, though.) The film seems strangely inert to me -- and then there's the sudden "I didn't do enough!" breakdown that seems (to me) to come out of nowhere. I will give it another try. A "Schindler's List" blog-a-thon might be very interesting. (I liked what Spielberg said about it on the AFI 100 TV special, about how it was just a little pinpoint vision of the Holocaust -- which, I think, was what Kubrick was getting at when he said it was about a few who survived, not the millions who were exterminated.) But I think somebody else would have to host that one! Meanwhile, I think "The Pianist" and the recent "Fateless" are better, more complex and morally challenging Holocaust movies -- and just better movies in general.

Thanks for clearing me up on Sunrise, Jeremy, but wouldn't that in turn make Clockwork Orange a British film? Or is it the location of the studio that finances it (Warner Bros)? I'm confused.

If you want some perspective you can look at theyshootpictures.com for their list of the 100 best American movies. With this in mind, I've omitted "Lawrence of Arabia," and "The Third Man." Kubrick's movies from "Dr. Strangelove" to "Barry Lyndon" are considered British movies by theyshootpictures, but I've called all of them "A Clockwork Orange" American for the purpose of this list. "Clockwork" after all is filmed in Britian, takes place in Britain, is based on a British novel, and has an all-British cast. The numbers are their posting on the new AFI list.

1. Citizen Kane (1)
2. Vertigo (9)
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey (15)
4. The Godfather (2)
5. The Searchers (12)
6. Singin' in the Rain (5)
7. Sunrise (82)
8. The Godfather, Part II (32)
9.. Raging Bull (4)
10. City Lights (76)
11. Touch of Evil
12. Casablanca (3)
13. The General (18)
14. Sunset Blvd. (16)
15. Psycho (14)
16. Some Like it Hot (22)
17. Dr. Strangelove, or How I learned to stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (39)
18. The Gold Rush (58)
19. Taxi Driver (52)
20. Chinatown (21)
21. It's a Wonderful Life (20)
22. Apocalypse Now (30)
23. Rear Window (48)
24. Intolerance (49)
25. The Magnificent Ambersons
26. The Night of the Hunter
27. The Wild Bunch (79)
28. Modern Times (78)
29. The Wizard of Oz (10)
30. Nashville (59)
31. North by Northwest (55)
32. Greed
32. Blade Runner (97)
33. Rio Bravo
34. Sherlock, Jr.
35. All About Eve (28)
36. The Apartment (80)
37. Barry Lyndon
38. On the Waterfront (19)
39. Blue Velvet
40. Notorious
41. Once upon a Time in the West (Italian/American production)
42. Gone with the Wind (6)
43. His Girl Friday
44. My Darling Clementine
45. Letter from an Unknown Woman
46. King Kong (41)
47. Duck Soup (60)
48. Stagecoach
49. The Man who shot Liberty Vallance
50. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (38)
51. Star Wars (13)
52. Bringing up Baby (88)
53. Double Indemnity (29)
54. Birth of a Nation
55. Goodfellas (92)
56. The Best Years of our Lives (37)
57. The Lady Eve
58. McCabe and Mrs. Miller
59. Broken Blossoms
60. Red River
61. Annie Hall (35)
62. Jaws (56)
63. Mean Streets
64. The Grapes of Wrath (23)
65. Bonnie and Clyde (42)
66. Sweet Smell of Success
67. E.T: the Extra-terrestial (24)
68. Pulp Fiction (94)
69. To be or not to Be
70. Manhattan
71. Out of the Past
72. The Maltese Falcon (31)
73. One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (33)
74. A Woman Under the Influence
75. Sullivan's Travels (61)
76. Days of Heaven
77. Paths of Glory
78. Once upon a Time in America
79, The Philadelphia Story (44)
80. Trouble in Paradise
81. Meet me in Saint Louis
82. Monsieur Verdoux
83. The Palm Beach Story
84. The Conversation
85. Badlands
86. The Crowd
87. Nanook of the North
88. The Exorcist
89. A Star is Born
90. Bride of Frankenstein
91. It Happened One Night
92. The Shining
93. Schindler's List (8)
94. Crimes and Misdemeanors
95. The Shop Around the Corner
96. The Band Wagon
97. Do the Right Thing (96)
98. The Graduate (17)
99. Written on the Wind
100. A Night at the Opera (85)

So Orson Welles, Howard Hawks, Stanley Kubrick, Sergio Leone, John Ford, D.W. Griffith, Woody Allen, Ernst Lubitsch, Vincente Minnelli and Terrence Malick can all claim to be short-changed, with at least two films not selected by the AFI.

Will: Good question about "Clockwork." Since "Sunrise" was made by an American studio (Fox) with American actors, it's pretty cut and dry. "Clockwork Orange," however, was made in England with English actors and directed by an American ex-patriot. The imdb lists it as a UK film, not a UK/USA co-production. But it did have money from Warner Bros. so there's that. Go figure.

As for the "Birth of a Nation" snub, it's not like the film wasn't controversial back in the 1990s, when everyone loved the klan for reclaiming our "Arian birthright," to quote one of the inter-titles. As Jim pointed out, "BoaN" isn't a film that most filmgoers keep coming back to like "Sherlock Jr.," or—to give a contemporary example that everyone seems to watch repeatedly—"The Big Lebowski." It's something we look at for technique, laugh at in horror for its ignorant stereotypes and move past. While it would surely go on the top 10 list of important landmarks in film history, I'm not sure that it earns a place amongst the 100 Greatest American Films slot, especially when so few silent films made the cut.

I'm glad Sean C. mentioned the "cultural impact" thing because I tend to assume that sort of criterion for these sorts of lists but many people don't. Personally, Star Wars wouldn't be in my top 1000 but it doesn't bother me when it shows up here; I mean I was there in '77 and it was something. But that same logic leads me to think Manchurian Candidate and some others should still be around. Because it was pulled from circulation, it's hard to know what the impact would have been, but in retrospect it seems a decade ahead of its time in the political paranoia category.

Regarding the Searchers ("maybe people are starting to understand it..."), it could, of course, merely be a case of buzz since the last list generating name recognition but that's much too cynical to contemplate.

Re: 1941. Not a favorite of mine, but if people actually dislike it because of the budget I would say: "Why? Did you finance it?" I think ticket prices were the same as for other films. Same reponse I had to Waterworld. I'm not a blockbuster fan, in general, but I don't understand why a few films get so much criticism for outrageous excess while most get a pass. The bottom line is simply: Is it good?

To Chuck: Your post regarding female directors is worth discussing but couldn't you have maybe mentioned a specific director and film? (Sophia Coppola might be on my list)

All in all, I had about as many disagreements with Jim as with the list, and I think he's a pretty bright guy, which just goes to show that our "outrage" should always be rhetorical about these things. I mean if I seriously imagine the whole world coming around to my way of thinking I get very, very scared.

Well, the AFI apparently considers any English language film to be an American film, as long as there's an American involved in it somewhere, hence the Third Man, Lawrence Of Arabia, Bridge On The River Kwai and Fellowship Of The Ring).

It's a good thing for them that it's not the nationality of the director that's important, given how many films on the list were directed by immigrants (Chaplin, Hitchcock, Wilder, Curtiz, etc).

And, one day, "Schindler's List" will be put into perspective, ranking slightly above "1941" (and below "Always" and "Amistad") in Steven Spielberg's body of work.

Not while I live and breathe, bucko!

Actually one of the things that most pleased me about this list was that while Schindler remained in the top 10, it moved up a notch (from #9 to #8). At this rate, it'll break the top 5 (taking its rightful place alongside Citizen Kane, Godfather and Casablanca) in another thirty years.

Jim,

Re: your Schindler's List/Always/Amistad comment, I think one of the other things that's fun about these lists is the discussion it prompts about genuinely great directors like Spielberg, Kubrick, Sturges, etc. and how it causes people to re-examine their entire body of work and how each film relates to the other.

That being said, you're dead wrong about Schindler's List - it's an all-time great that still holds up for me today...While I agree that Always and Amistad are unjustly underrated/overlooked Spielberg, I'm curious to hear about why you think Amistad is better than Schindler. People have talked about why 1941 is underrated - what's the argument for Amistad over Schindler?

The inclusion of "The Sixth Sense" instead of a film such as "Halloween" indicates that the voters are woefully uneducated about horror films. However, I could be giving them too much credit to say they are even aware of the horror movie genre at all. Considering the list, I should just be happy that "Psycho" made an appearance, and go sit in the corner like a good little boy.

100% agree about Lone Star.

Now if only we could get a decent DVD of it.

I'm curious what you think about the addition of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf Jim. I'm not talking about whether or not it deserved to be there, I'm just surprised it's reputation is that strong.

Yes, it's usually called Taylor and Burton's best film together (not as much individually), and topically noted as one of the groundbreaking post-Production Code films, as well as Mike Nichol's debut, but you don't often hear the film itself called great.

The Searches probably made it up there because there is a new DVD out that tells all the voters how great it is.

The best strategy for any movie trying to break into the top 100 is ti release a glowing special edition a few months prior.

I should clarify that I don't remember the movie well enough to judge whether or not it deserves its spot at number 67, or anywhere on the list, I'm just asking for your expertise on the movies and pop culture as to what, if anything, it means that it was that well remembered. From what I've read about the film, I'd assume that it's more liable to be on a runner-up list of films that would include Cool Hand Luke, Inherit the Wind, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. Films considered very good, that most interested filmgoers see sooner or later, but not usually called great.

I love how people get so worked up over these lists, as if they're mathematical proofs being dissected and analyzed and found to be erroneous. As if opinions are facts and any disputed inclusions or exclusions are somehow incorrect. As if the AFI somehow owes us something. As if the lists actually matter.

It's like people want to have it both ways. They mock and dismiss these lists as though they're the creations of naive simpletons, and yet, by the very act of arguing against them so vehemently, they treat them like something of importance, almost like a set of unjust laws that must be rebelled against.

I don't get people. I know these sorts of discussions are all in fun, but really, get over yourselves. Any statement expressing what should or should not have been included is incorrect and pointless, because if the desired inclusions or exclusions had been made, then the list would not represent the opinions of its creators and would therefore be inaccurate. The purpose of these lists is to get people to see classic movies, as well as to let us know what the film historians involved believe to be the greatest American films as a matter of academic interest. So I don't understand why people treat them like a personal affront.

Dan: I don't know, either, but "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" is a personal favorite of mine, and probably one of the best screen adaptations of a play ever. (Though it didn't have to be "opened up" -- but most of it is done subtly.) Albee's play is great, and Ernest Lehman's ("North by Northwest") script makes it work perfectly for the screen. All four performances are note-perfect (Albee's words are like a libretto). But, for me, what brings the whole thing to life (and worthy of being called one of the best American films) is Haskell Wexler's magnificent, subtle, expressive, atmospheric camerawork. One time I studied just the scene in the parking lot outside the roadhouse, the confrontation between George and Martha that's like a Western showdown (I think it's featured in "Visions of Light," too), and I was dazzled by each and every shot. Not that they call attention to themselves, just that there's so much going on in the sequence that contributes to its total effect.

Well, then it's inspiring that people who felt the same way went and voted for WAoVW just because they really loved it, not because it was one of the "right" movies, to borrow from The Screwtape Letters. I'll have to see it again sometime.

I was going to argue for Emprire Strike Back over Star Wars, but Sean C's reasoning for choosing Star Wars was dead on.

To paraphrase a point Ebert made, whatever the order, if this list influences one person to stay at home and see for the first time Citizen Kane or The Godfather or Vertigo or 2001 or virtually any film on the list, rather than overspending to see Hostel 2 or Evan Almighty at the megaplex, then the list was well worth the trouble.

Though there were some I obviously would not have included (like a previous poster, I definitely would swap Halloween for The Sixth Sense), I feel that none of the 100 included are totally without merit (all are at least good films).

Of the top of my head, these should have been included:

The Conversation
The Shining (British?)
Night of the Hunter
Fargo
This is Spinal Tap
In Cold Blood
Deliverance
Young Frankenstein

At least one Lynch (Mulholland Drive would be my pick; if not that, Eraserhead, Blue Velvet or the Elephant Man)

Mississippi Burning (just kidding; maybe I made Jim spit out his coffee)

Add me to the chorus that disagrees about Schindler's List. And come on, Blade Runner ALREADY IS a masterpiece. The new cut will just make it that much better.

It takes a long time for a movie to assert itself as a "great." The films of the past 10 years still haven't stood the test of time yet. Some that we consider classics may fall, while unknown gems will assert themselves. Shawshank is one of the benefactors of time. Shcindler's List may fall slightly.

There is a much more important question here. What version of Blade Runner are they counting? Happy Ending with voice over? International cut? Director's Version? Will the upcoming Special Edition change it's ranking next year? For that matter, does Han shoot first on this list? Why are they always reediting Harrison Ford movies? We need to know.

I'm probably woefully uneducated about horror films but I can't quite understand the comparison between Halloween and the Sixth Sense. While Shymalan has horrified me a great deal lately, I wouldn't label Sixth Sense that way. If it compares to a "classic" film I would say it's to the Exorcist, which doesn't appear here, while Halloween is more akin to Psycho, which does and which I doubt many want to bump. Only Psycho and Silence of the Lambs, on this list are horror, in my book, and I think that says more about the general tendency of horror movies to be satisfied to stay comfortably in their genre rather than to lay claim as Sci-Fi and even a lot of latter-day Westerns towards "greater significance". This is not a criticism. If anything it shows a reluctance to pander.

Other comments have reminded me of some movies I have to chime in to support. As well as the omissions I had mentioned ("The Big Sleep," "The Empire Strikes Back," "Fight Club," "The Sweet Smell of Success," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind") I would love to see "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada," "This is Spinal Tap," "Paths of Glory," "Meet Me in St. Louis," "A Star is Born" (1954), "The Shining," "The Awful Truth," "The Big Lebowski," "Boogie Nights," "His Girl Friday," "To Be Or Not to Be" (Lubitsch, not Brooks), "The Producers" (Brooks, not Stroman), "Touch of Evil," and "Sherlock, Jr." on a future list. Among, I'm sure, others, but I can't help but mention those ones....

Anyway, I criticize the list primarily because it's fun to do so, and because lists like these are a good way of sorting out personal preferences. A movie like "All the President's Men" isn't one I usually think of as top 100 material, but once I see it on the list I realize that it fits in well. (Note that 1976 now has "Taxi Driver," "All the President's Men," "Network" and "Rocky"--giving it more on the list than the golden year of 1939!)

I took a glance at your list.

I think it's awesome that you have "Holy Grail" on there, but I'm surprised it's not "Life of Bryan". "Grail" is an exceptional piece of work, but "Bryan" is a cinematic achievement if you ask me.

JE: I agree. That list was what I would consider pop-cultural touchstones. I mean, if you don't know about "Run away! Run away!" or the Knights who say "Nih!" or Brave, Brave Sir Robin, you just can't be living in contemporary Western culture. But "Brian" is an out-and-out masterpiece in my book. And I recently cited it on a list of my 30 FAVORITE movies...

To me the AFI list is fun to watch but they just don't work they have many films that don't belong because they have mostly films that are popular and express hollywood commercialism because they a huge chunk of commercial epics and musicals.I think with the recent list there has been improvement but even some those new entries don't belong like the lord of the rings where it tolkien's novel is being translated into a special effects laden action picture where it puts cartoon characters into a big overlong fantasy and as for saving private ryan I do believe that although it is a monumental achievement in war films but its artistic merits seem flat to me even though the combat scenes are realisticly depicted(personally I like but not quite love spielberg's work, he comes across as more of an entertainer than an artist).However if I did one of these lists I would have less commercial epics and musicals and have more classic disney and monster films and films that exemplify creative independence like the works of tarentino for example.

Note: one more movie that doesn't belong is network,yes it is a social satire that rings true about how networks think but is it a great american film?

Here are films that can still be on an AFI list:

The Empire Strikes Back
Pinnochio
Strangers on a Train
Beauty and the Beast
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Mean Streets
Paths of Glory

Films on an AFI list that still have yet to leave:

Raiders of the Lost Ark
West Side Story
Tootsie
The Graduate
Platoon
The Silence of the lambs
One flew over the cukoo's nest
Ben-Hur
Forrest Gump
Rocky