Interesting list. Part of me wants to put him into the same playpen as the guy who chose CACHÉ as number one (the guy who sparked my whole snobbery post)...but I'm not as sure with this writer.For starters, the rest of his ten seems more honest than the other dude's.What to do, what to do...
What is the other list you're speaking of (I missed that post; I'll have to check it out)? This list is actually a conglomeration of all the different critics' top-ten and all-time lists (the site also has a 1000 All-Time list based on the same criterion). "By committee" doesn't necessarily mean "better" but it does give you a sense of which films are most acclaimed at a given point, which I find pretty interesting.
Damn - I coulda swore you got your two cents in, but now that I look through the comments again, I realize you're right! Sorry 'bout that.Here's the original article:http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6902642.eceAnd here's the post I wrote in reaction to it:http://mcneilmatinee.blogspot.com/2009/11/somewhere-only-we-know.html
Well Joel, I haven't even officially embarked on this venture yet, as we have the silent film coming up at WitD that will preceed the 2000's so that some people will have afew months to catch up with films they haven't seen. I do know that FAR FROM HEAVEN and THE FOUNTAIN will most likely head up my own list, though many here on the Examiner's list will certainly rank high up on mine....i.e. TALK TO HER, ETERNAL SUNSHINE, WALL-E, etc. Of course, as you note Joel, we wtill have six weeks left to 2009, and a few chestnuts may still place. I will certainly take a look at Hatter's post today, and I do look forward to sharing lists very soon.
Hmm, that's quite an interesting look on the general consensus (and a good starting point on what I need to get to watching to put together my own list).However, I'm a tad confused on the criteria TSPDT uses to put these in this particular order. They say that these are culled from individual year end lists and yet they show them ranked as a conglomerate. That seems to be equating each year's crop of films as being equal, which is obviously never the case (say I think the 10 best films of the decade all come from 2007, how would that be reflected here?). Does any of this make sense?
Yes. As mitigation, they also rank films according to their listing on all-time best lists, though obviously that's still a pretty limited quantity at this point.