When I look at the six lists together (especially the last five), it's like looking at one of those 3D pictures where things come into focus gradually, if at all--they all blur together for me.
The '72 list had a huge effect on me: saw it in the Book of Lists in the late '70s, and it was so mysterious to me, all these films like Persona and L'Avventura that I'd never heard of--pre-internet, pre-video, pre-everything if you lived in a small town--I know it played a part in my decision to enroll in film at university, rather than math. One of the dumbest decisions of my life. Thanks Sight & Sound!
― clemenza, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 14:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
cinephilia is like catholicism; right now I'm lapsed, but I'm never not going to be a cinephile.
― Eric H., Wednesday, 21 March 2012 15:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
The durability of Potemkin amazes me. Even allowing for the fact that it's not my kind of film, it just doesn't strike me as something that would be on every list across six decades (and never lower than seventh).
― clemenza, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 15:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Roger Ebert has picked just one new film to replace one old one on his 2002 Top 10 list http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/04/the_greatest_films_of_all_time.html
― piscesx, Monday, 30 April 2012 12:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
A movie that was only his 3rd best movie of his year-end list for 2011.
― jungleous butterflies strange birds (Eric H.), Monday, 30 April 2012 12:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
I like that he almost went for Synecdoche, New York.
― And I have been called "The Appetite" (DL), Monday, 30 April 2012 12:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
On another blog, he floated the horrifying possibility that JUNO was on the shortlist for that slot.
― jungleous butterflies strange birds (Eric H.), Monday, 30 April 2012 12:56 (1 year ago) Permalink