Considering the number of people who let fly at me for not liking Avatar, that’s clearly the best movie ever.

On the other hand, as I’ve said, there seems to be an objective status that you’re after, that I simply deny exists. I’m sure that there are a great many in the industry (whether film very broadly, or film criticism) who are real sticklers for “technical flaws” in much the way that I might put a great deal of focus on dialog and/or the overall story when coming to my own opinion.

I am not such a person, and I daresay that the vast majority of film critics aren’t either, including those frequently mentioned as the best in the business, but you seem to suggest that you could show me the flaws in LOTR and thus prove that they aren’t good films, or at least that I obviously ought to be convinced of same.

I don’t find this to be the case, just as I don’t think it makes sense to propose that Citizen Kane simply is a great film in some objective sense, and it can be proven, and if someone doesn’t agree, they are wrong.

I would hope that if we took the films that always wind up at the top of the lists of best movies ever, everyone would have at least a few that they didn’t really like all that much. Otherwise, most people are just unnecessary, and while that may or may not be true in any case, it isn’t as a result of their film preferences.

Just as an aside, I suppose I realize, in some sense, that LOTR is three films, but I don’t really consider it three films. If I film a six-hour movie and hand it over, and am told that it is going to be cut in half and released at two different times, have I made two movies? If I have one story and decide to film it in distinct pieces, because it won’t sell well if a six-hour movie hits theaters, have I made more than one movie? I don’t really think so.

It was written as, and intended to be, one book, and it’s clearly one story, and just because the business end of things decides that it is going to be released as three entities doesn’t make it, to me, three books. They aren’t three books in any sense other than that at a certain point they stop.

At any rate, I appreciate the kind words, and I’m glad you find that I have good taste in film. I rather imagine you do as well. We all have our oddities in such a realm as this, just look at the article I wrote about Roger Ebert, and his odd tastes – http://www.areyouscreening.com/2009/07/09/defending-transformers-from-roger-ebert-again-sort-of

Anyway, I certainly appreciate Citizen Kane, and even like it. I don’t exactly love it, but more importantly, it’s just sort of meaningless on a list at this point.

I see so many technical flaws in the Lord Of The Rings films (you seem not to realise there are 3 of them, all of vastly different quality to each other, even though they were made in one hit) I would love to sit you down in front of them and show them to you.

Finally, I have very much enjoyed the passion that you have displayed in replying to these comments. You have a great taste in film. I am (honestly) mostly just having you on. I also really enjoy reading your insights on the films you choose. Your top films of the 00′s is especially excellent (even 3 or 4 I haven’t seen yet. Oh yeah other than LOTR )

And remember, Citizen Kane :
“IT’S TERRIFIC”

I didn’t say it was a bad movie, and you can believe what you like about my knowledge. The idea that you simply jump from someone not loving Citizen Kane to a belief that they don’t have much knowledge of the techniques of film making is all I really need to know for purposes of the discussion.

By the way, you are wrong about The Lord of the Rings. It won all manner of awards, including the Oscar for Best Picture, and all sorts of technical goodies. Thus, lots of people think it was really fantastic, and if you don’t agree, then you’re wrong.

Take a look at your top movies of the 00′s (if that is your list? I apologise in advance if it is not). The Lord Of the Rings is a literary masterpiece. They are ordinary films (the final one being pretty good)

Take your reaction as a prime example. You speak as though there were an objective truth that you are appealing to, and obviously isn’t. The film is beyond any true discourse of its merits by now. A new film must gain its status by weighing the points and counterpoints of those who like and dislike it, but Citizen Kane is now such that we can simply skip to the idea that if someone doesn’t agree that it is an absolute masterpiece, then we can discount their opinion. Which is nonsense.

To point out again, everyone involved with the production of Casablanca thought it was awful. Now, it is also among the untouchable films. Were they all wrong? Why?

At any rate, the main point really was more that putting together a list which included Citizen Kane is somewhat irrelevant at this point. That I don’t love the film is only another reason not to include it. Just as I wouldn’t include the Mona Lisa on my list of best paintings. Frankly, it’s not all that great.

I appreciate your comment, and your taking the time to leave it, and even understand your position… this just isn’t the sort of list that perhaps you thought it was. Besides which, I consider it rather a defensible position that I take in this case, thus the fairly famous quote, “The thing about Shakespeare is that he’s really quite good, even despite all the people who say he’s good.”

Citizen Kane is an absolute masterpiece of film making, and if you don’t realise this I seriously question your ability to rate or critique the art form. Your comment that the film is “actually just a child of so many people calling it great for so long that people now call it great just because people have been calling it great forever” is one that angers me. I believe Citizen Kane is actually just a child of a 25 year old man with a team of extremely talented craftsmen creating a film with superb cinematic artistry.

Do you think the countless “great” directors that have spoken of the film’s “greatness” are also just getting caught up in your theory of it being “great” just because it has been called “great” for so long?

On the note of all lists being the same, I actually laughed because last month They Shoot Pictures Don't They “updated” their hilariously pointless “Top 1000 Movies” list, and virtually nothing moved. It's sad, really, that there are so many people mired in one method of thinking about that there's no flexibility or room for argument.

On the subject of Citizen Kane, one of the things that made me appreciate it so much more was listening to the Roger Ebert DVD commentary. He's just so damn excited about the film, it's hard not to get swept up. I don't think I'd put it in my top 10, but I appreciate that it's “the greatest movie ever made” simply because if it's not Kane, what else would it be, y'know?

One more point I thought was kinda funny about your list: Because it's alphabetical, I had to laugh that after the list of fantastic films that aren't on the list, the first one you see is… About a Boy. A cute film, sure, but wow, that's kind of jarring. Sort of an unfortunate side effect of the alphabet, I guess.

It sounds vaguely like you don't understand what criteria for a list means.

I have several film classes under my belt, and I've read pretty much every relevant book on the subject during the last decade that I've been writing film reviews. I've written several 50+ page papers examining the work of some of the better directors, and the brilliance of their craft. I'm really quite well versed in the techniques of filmmaking.

Frankly, any best of list that includes Casablanca doesn't merit much attention in my book. The people who made the film wanted to wash their hands of it the moment it was finished, and they were right to want to.

I know exactly why the lists are the same, and it is mostly for the same reason that the Mona Lisa is considered one of the best, if not the best, works of art ever. It was the most popular painting in the world, and people were calling it the greatest painting in the world before it was even finished.

Citizen Kane, as an example, is not a bad movie by any stretch, it's quite good. But it is actually just a child of so many people calling it great for so long that people now call it great just because people have been calling it great forever.

All that aside, this is clearly not a generic, no explanation or qualification needed list of best movies ever. It is a very specifically developed list working from a very specific list of criteria (a fact you reference). To remark about the exclusion of films from a list that specifically points out criteria by which they were excluded is rather nonsensical.

Appreciate the comment though.

That being said, my lists of favorite anything is rarely the same as “The Best Ever” and I think we're all better off for that. Keep up the good work, but maybe for a future update, take a film appreciate class to get a different perspective.

On the note of all lists being the same, I actually laughed because last month They Shoot Pictures Don't They “updated” their hilariously pointless “Top 1000 Movies” list, and virtually nothing moved. It's sad, really, that there are so many people mired in one method of thinking about that there's no flexibility or room for argument.

On the subject of Citizen Kane, one of the things that made me appreciate it so much more was listening to the Roger Ebert DVD commentary. He's just so damn excited about the film, it's hard not to get swept up. I don't think I'd put it in my top 10, but I appreciate that it's “the greatest movie ever made” simply because if it's not Kane, what else would it be, y'know?

One more point I thought was kinda funny about your list: Because it's alphabetical, I had to laugh that after the list of fantastic films that aren't on the list, the first one you see is… About a Boy. A cute film, sure, but wow, that's kind of jarring. Sort of an unfortunate side effect of the alphabet, I guess.

On the note of all lists being the same, I actually laughed because last month They Shoot Pictures Don't They “updated” their hilariously pointless “Top 1000 Movies” list, and virtually nothing moved. It's sad, really, that there are so many people mired in one method of thinking about that there's no flexibility or room for argument.

On the subject of Citizen Kane, one of the things that made me appreciate it so much more was listening to the Roger Ebert DVD commentary. He's just so damn excited about the film, it's hard not to get swept up. I don't think I'd put it in my top 10, but I appreciate that it's “the greatest movie ever made” simply because if it's not Kane, what else would it be, y'know?

One more point I thought was kinda funny about your list: Because it's alphabetical, I had to laugh that after the list of fantastic films that aren't on the list, the first one you see is… About a Boy. A cute film, sure, but wow, that's kind of jarring. Sort of an unfortunate side effect of the alphabet, I guess.

It sounds vaguely like you don't understand what criteria for a list means.

I have several film classes under my belt, and I've read pretty much every relevant book on the subject during the last decade that I've been writing film reviews. I've written several 50+ page papers examining the work of some of the better directors, and the brilliance of their craft. I'm really quite well versed in the techniques of filmmaking.

Frankly, any best of list that includes Casablanca doesn't merit much attention in my book. The people who made the film wanted to wash their hands of it the moment it was finished, and they were right to want to.

I know exactly why the lists are the same, and it is mostly for the same reason that the Mona Lisa is considered one of the best, if not the best, works of art ever. It was the most popular painting in the world, and people were calling it the greatest painting in the world before it was even finished.

Citizen Kane, as an example, is not a bad movie by any stretch, it's quite good. But it is actually just a child of so many people calling it great for so long that people now call it great just because people have been calling it great forever.

All that aside, this is clearly not a generic, no explanation or qualification needed list of best movies ever. It is a very specifically developed list working from a very specific list of criteria (a fact you reference). To remark about the exclusion of films from a list that specifically points out criteria by which they were excluded is rather nonsensical.

Appreciate the comment though.

That being said, my lists of favorite anything is rarely the same as “The Best Ever” and I think we're all better off for that. Keep up the good work, but maybe for a future update, take a film appreciate class to get a different perspective.

It sounds vaguely like you don't understand what criteria for a list means.

I have several film classes under my belt, and I've read pretty much every relevant book on the subject during the last decade that I've been writing film reviews. I've written several 50+ page papers examining the work of some of the better directors, and the brilliance of their craft. I'm really quite well versed in the techniques of filmmaking.

Frankly, any best of list that includes Casablanca doesn't merit much attention in my book. The people who made the film wanted to wash their hands of it the moment it was finished, and they were right to want to.

I know exactly why the lists are the same, and it is mostly for the same reason that the Mona Lisa is considered one of the best, if not the best, works of art ever. It was the most popular painting in the world, and people were calling it the greatest painting in the world before it was even finished.

Citizen Kane, as an example, is not a bad movie by any stretch, it's quite good. But it is actually just a child of so many people calling it great for so long that people now call it great just because people have been calling it great forever.

All that aside, this is clearly not a generic, no explanation or qualification needed list of best movies ever. It is a very specifically developed list working from a very specific list of criteria (a fact you reference). To remark about the exclusion of films from a list that specifically points out criteria by which they were excluded is rather nonsensical.

Appreciate the comment though.

That being said, my lists of favorite anything is rarely the same as “The Best Ever” and I think we're all better off for that. Keep up the good work, but maybe for a future update, take a film appreciate class to get a different perspective.