Roger Ebert's S & S list...which would you choose?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
purpleoscar

purpleoscar

Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
7,613
Location
In right wing paranoia
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/04/the_greatest_films_of_all_time.html

Aguirre, Wrath of God (Herzog)
Apocalypse Now (Coppola)
Citizen Kane (Welles)
La Dolce Vita (Fellini)
The General (Keaton)
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
The Tree of Life (Malick)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)

Now if you could narrow down the ten most transformative movie experiences you've had what would they be?
 
I've said this elsewhere, but as someone who's been a devoted Ebert reader for over 25 years, I think his inclusion of Tree of Life is absolutely boneheaded.

People are free to submit what they want, but including such a new film less than a year after its release is beyond jumping the gun. And I consider it a masterwork. But until one has the perspective that time provides, putting it up among the greatest films ever committed to celluloid is an insult to all of those masters.

And Purpleoscar, I'm not sure I'm onboard with the way you've phrased that question, if your intent was to pose the same question Sight & Sound is asking its panel. "Transformative" does not necessarily equal "greatest". The poll is for the Greatest Films Of All Time. Not favorite, not most moving, personal, transformative, etc. It's meant to request an objective survey as possible.

From Ebert's list, I believe that Kane and Vertigo are no-brainers. 2001 isn't something I have a problem with being on their either. I haven't totally warmed to Tokyo Story yet after one viewing, for some reason preferring some of the ones in my Late Ozu set (though I thought they were all great in one way or another).

The General is certainly important and influential, but there's no way I'd put Keaton on the list ahead of Chaplin, who was a superior filmmaker.

Apocalypse Now is likely a divisive choice, but I do agree with Ebert's reasoning why he chose that over either Godfather film, and as it's my #1 of all time it would certainly be on my ballot, perhaps just behind Kane.

I'm not sure if La Dolce Vita is Fellini's best, or if I'd put any of his work on the ballot. Tough call. And I love the Herzog, but Ebert is one of his fanboys and is a little biased here. Plus, I think Fitzcarraldo is better anyway.
 
lazarus said:
And Purpleoscar, I'm not sure I'm onboard with the way you've phrased that question, if your intent was to pose the same question Sight & Sound is asking its panel. "Transformative" does not necessarily equal "greatest". The poll is for the Greatest Films Of All Time. Not favorite, not most moving, personal, transformative, etc. It's meant to request an objective survey as possible.
Click to expand...

Yes that's what I mean. If you were asked to vote in the Sight and Sound poll what 10 titles would you choose as the greatest 10 films? Transformative is a hint on the criteria I'll use along with re-watchability for my selections. I like it when my psychology and awareness improves from a movie. What criteria others use for "the best" will be part of the fun on who chooses what and why as I expect a variety of choices.

I definitely would like to know WHY people choose these films. It doesn't have to be a long write up but I'm sure everyone will benefit if they've seen a movie before and can view another person's angle or just confirm why they don't like the film. If titles appear that people haven't seen it will spike curiosity on a title. I'll use spoilers for my descriptions if people just want to see a list.

I do agree that it is probably premature to include Tree of life but with sites like this I can see why some are tempted:

http://reviewingtreeoflife.blogspot...-max=2012-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=10

I probably will avoid putting it in because 10 slots will have HUGE competition.
 
I think the boneheaded thing about these lists and discussions is the pretense of objectivity in ranking or prioritizing art. There is none, or at least one has to lay out a pretty clear criteria with which the individual making such a list is using to place any given film above another... which still isn't objective, but it helps narrow the infinite possible qualities with which any given person could define something as the "best" or "better" than others, as those words mean literally nothing in this realm of conversation. Ebert's journal entry is interesting at least because he explains his thought process and it's not merely "Here are the ten greatest films of all time" because that would be asinine, as would suggesting a film from last year shouldn't count because it hadn't stood the test of time. Because that shouldn't necessarily be a criterion of "greatness." Though it could be important for a list like this, or not. I'm rambling a little, but this has always been an issue that's bugged me. I'm not saying anything like this is necessarily a list of someone's personal favorites or should be, but lets not be deluded enough to believe an arbitrary criteria for a film being "best" is anything close to objective. Really I think it's just poor semantics anyway, so I should shut up.

Mainly I'd like to see what anyone contributing to this tread would believe makes a film worthy of such a discussion (another personal judgement) then maybe see reasoning for each pick.
 
I'm not making this thread too serious. I don't believe we have to convince others that our lists are scientific. I agree with Ebert that it's propaganda in that you would pick 10 movies you think are the best and the fun in it is seeing how people are affected by these choices. It's nice to know that La Dolce Vita has such an affect on Ebert and reading that review in 2002 helped me enjoy the movie when I first watched it.
 
Lancemc said:
I think the boneheaded thing about these lists and discussions is the pretense of objectivity in ranking or prioritizing art. There is none, or at least one has to lay out a pretty clear criteria with which the individual making such a list is using to place any given film above another... which still isn't objective, but it helps narrow the infinite possible qualities with which any given person could define something as the "best" or "better" than others, as those words mean literally nothing in this realm of conversation. Ebert's journal entry is interesting at least because he explains his thought process and it's not merely "Here are the ten greatest films of all time" because that would be asinine, as would suggesting a film from last year shouldn't count because it hadn't stood the test of time. Because that shouldn't necessarily be a criterion of "greatness." Though it could be important for a list like this, or not. I'm rambling a little, but this has always been an issue that's bugged me. I'm not saying anything like this is necessarily a list of someone's personal favorites or should be, but lets not be deluded enough to believe an arbitrary criteria for a film being "best" is anything close to objective. Really I think it's just poor semantics anyway, so I should shut up.

Mainly I'd like to see what anyone contributing to this tread would believe makes a film worthy of such a discussion (another personal judgement) then maybe see reasoning for each pick.
Click to expand...


Well, one can "respect" a film more than one likes it, no? There's no pure objectivity but there is the potential for recognition of ones own tastes and biases.

Over half the films in my personal Top 10 aren't ones that I feel are the best examples of cinematic art that deserve placement in some kind of pantheon. And Citizen Kane, which I do feel is the best film ever made, is nowhere near that list.

And I'm not backing down on the time thing. There's no fair way to judge something that one's only been familiar with for such a short period. So many things can play into how we experience something at a certain point in our lives. To suddenly proclaim a film one of your favorites is one thing, but the supposed "best" films are the ones that continue to display their merits with such intensity for years and years afterwards.
 
Well of course one can "respect" a film more in such a way. But then we have to ask ourselves questions like, why exactly do we respect this film, and why does that answer qualify it for this abstract notion of "greatness?" Also worth asking if that itself is more important, or at least relevant, than ones own personal taste.

I just think there's such a degree of subjectivity in any of this, not only in suggesting that a film's "greatness" should in part be defined by its historic influence, complexity of themes, technical ambition or aptitude, etc, but also what marks significance in any of those individual traits, as every single person is going to have something slightly different they value in what marks historic influence or formal accomplishment, and so on. Anyway, it's good you're so adamant about the time thing, as that's a good clear barometer for feting these sorts of things. Then again it's not something I find terribly important so it makes for a good discussion. Of course I place almost complete importance on personal taste and subjective analysis. I think if I were to make a top 10 list based completely on my own feelings it would consist almost entirely of films from the past 20 years, maybe with one of two exceptions, and that's if I'm limiting myself to one per artist.

I'd like to try and make one along the lines of Ebert's here though, taking similar things into consideration, though I'm not sure I'd ever land on something I'm completely happy with.
 
I think Aguirre is Herzog's best film. And I've seen all but three of them (seen all of the other docs, short films, etc.), so it's not a ridiculous choice from his oeuvre. And on an objective level, hardly a "fanboy" thing to have it in a Top Ten. Frankly, his list isn't all that suprising.

As for 'Tree of Life', my girlfriend and I both agreed that it wasn't the best film of 2011 for either of us, but it's certainly the one that film scholars will look back at the most from that year. Just for completing a production that takes on so much and achieves mostly incredible results should have earned that team the Best Picture Oscar last year...and Mallick not winning for Best Director was criminal. Hell, I'd even argue that it has Brad Pitt's finest performance. That film will carve a deep place in cinematic history. Trust me.
 
This list may not vary from too many other lists but it's hard to replace these titles with others at the moment.

1. Citizen Kane
I remember watching this on videotape with my family when I was a kid. I found it to be boring for the most part but I remember the imagery and it stayed with me until I could view it again as an adult. Roger Ebert’s commentary also added layers of technical knowledge that increased my appreciation even more. The lighting, editing, news montages, deep focus photography, dialogue and acting are great. The greatest magic trick of the movie for me was seeing a character go through his entire life and seeing how certain decisions lead to paths he regretted. Much like the often quoted Robert Frost poem, the regretful childhood remembrance of happiness with the Rosebud sled shows how one can view a choice made can “make all the difference” (good or bad). This is especially true when the choice was not your own. I also enjoy how a character (based on Hearst) that the screenwriter hated in real life could be given a full dimension so one could sympathize with him instead of heavy handedly demonizing him. This is such a full movie. The only mark against this movie is how depressing it can be and how it can be hard to be in the mood for repeat viewings.

William Friedkin on CITIZEN KANE - YouTube

2. Casablanca
This film reminds me how few movies have great quotable dialogue. It has the iconic actor and actress in lead roles. Throughout the runtime interesting characters and their trapped situations provide despair and comic relief making it so entertaining from beginning to the end. Greenstreet and Lorre steal scenes along the way. The ending develops that sense of loss and sacrifice for a higher ideal that releases the tension of the romantic relationship at the end. For those who don’t like the ending they can go watch The English Patient instead where the main characters selfishly pursue their love at the expense thousands of others. :D The updated blu-ray has a more film-like transfer than the previous one that averaged out the grain.

Casablanca La Marseillaise - YouTube

3. Vertigo
I love the symbolism of the green dress and the green aura when Novak is kissed by Stewart after he perversely treats her like a dress up doll. It symbolizes for me the danger of idealism in relationships and how you can be in love with your idea of a person as opposed to who they really are. When I first watched it the ending felt a little rushed because of how much information was conveyed but after more viewings I feel it’s a great ending now. By the end the audience buys into Novak actually being in love with Stewart.

Here's some hilarious grotesque added details from Hitch himself talking to Truffaut:

Shocking Secrets of VERTIGO! - YouTube

Martin Scorsese on VERTIGO - YouTube

4. Sunrise
This film for me is very moving every time I watch it. The simple real emotions along with great sets and lighting make this my favorite silent film. It's a great reminder of what temptation can do to derail your life. Fabulous acting!

A Song of Two Humans Video Essay 1/2 - YouTube
A Song of Two Humans Video Essay 2/2 - YouTube

5. Lawrence of Arabia
For me this is the ultimate epic. I watched this first at the theatre with the 1989 restoration when I was young. I didn’t quite understand the politics of it then but the score and cinematography blew my mind especially When Omar Sharif came out of the mirage filled desert. Later on I got to appreciate the development of Lawrence as an ego-maniac and a man with an almost pathological thirst for adventure, constantly trying to prove himself. In the end trying to survive the desert was actually easier than surviving the politics. The script is intelligent enough to show both the benefits and disasters of pride.

Martin Scorsese on LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - YouTube
Lawrence of Arabia - Conversation with Stephen Spielberg.VOB - YouTube

6. The Godfather part II
This is probably the best sequel ever. I love the setup of the Mafia boss at the beginning and the payoff when he meets his end to DeNiro. I love the challenges that immigrants face and the double standard that they are greeted with. The chiaroscuro cinematography lends an even darker atmosphere than the first film. The main score is there but more nuanced. I love that rooftop assassination scene. The time jumps between the Corleone’s adds that rags to riches feel and shows the many moral lines you have to cross to achieve more and more success. The ending is so quiet and hollow it's like Al Pacino turns into a bitter shell.

William Friedkin on THE GODFATHER, PART II - YouTube

7. 2001: A space odyssey
A movie that upped the quality of space special effects and allowed a huge time jump cut intimated how far we’ve come and how far we could go as humans. The optimistic sc-fi movie had the U.S. and Russians working together and predicted both technology that has either been surpassed by 2001 or is woefully behind. What I liked about this story is how it showed some of the challenges we have to face with our improved knowledge and technical expertise (Artificial Intelligence) and the optimism to keep evolving ourselves. The final image of an evolving fetus with Also sprach Zarathustra in the background adds Nietzschean “Superman” qualities that I didn’t understand at first. The alien involvement in human evolution was also something I didn’t understand until reading the book. Because the alien intelligence clues are only hinted at in the movie it allows other interpretations of the ending. The movie has so little dialog it's almost a silent movie. The use of well known classical compositions was perfect.

2001 A Space Odyssey - YouTube

8. Star Wars
The quintessential blockbuster. This movie (including the rest of them) will be watched again and again. When I was a kid most of my friends and I wanted to be Luke Skywalker. Watching the series on BetaMax and then VHS happened a few times every year. The story of overcoming your fears to achieve heroism was almost like brainwashing back then. It was an experience that often left older movies in the dust with the kind of fun it had. You would watch the movie and then go outside with your friends and act out the scenes or play with your Star Wars toys. Of course that could lead to a blockbuster-itis disease where you could only like action movies from Lucas and Spielberg and any nuanced dialogue movies would never get a chance. Today I admire how just about every religion can project itself into the idea of the “force”. I love how the entire feel of the movie (despite being futuristic) is that of World War II. I don't think the ancientness of the special effects will deter future generations from finding their way into it. If anything many people will want to see what the original effects were.

Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth with Bill Moyers | Star Wars | PBS - YouTube

9. Singin’ in the rain
My favorite musical (which is coming out in blu-ray this year :drool:), has some of the greatest choreography in a musical and comedy that is still timely in our celebrity obsessed culture. As much as I love “The Artist” this movie captures the changeover from silent to sound just as well with even more entertainment value. As amazing and iconic as A Clockwork Orange was, its use of the title song cannot tarnish the feeling that’s expressed when a man finds “the one” for him. Rain can’t dampen his spirits. Oh I just noticed. Having this movie below Star Wars would probably piss off Debbie Reynolds. :lol:

Debbie Reynolds on SINGIN' IN THE RAIN - YouTube

10. The good, the bad, and the ugly
It’s my favorite western and it still is years after when the DVD was first released. Tuco is the best example of greed for me. The score is one of the best ever and the dreamlike atmosphere hasn’t been surpassed in any other western I’ve seen. Eastwood is so iconic that you want to be him. The man with no name is such a resourceful and resiliant character that he’s up there with Odysseus in awesomeness. I prefer the original cut to the new DVD/Blu-ray cut with extra Tuco scenes but they don't harm the movie badly.

The Good The Bad And The Ugly - The Ecstasy of Gold (1966) - YouTube
 
Casablanca is a crowd-pleaser. It's not great art.

Curtiz is a hack and nothing by him should be in the running among films from the true masters.

And you know, it's telling that in your little capsule you say nothing about the direction, or mention his name.
 
BigMacPhisto said:
As for 'Tree of Life', my girlfriend and I both agreed that it wasn't the best film of 2011 for either of us, but it's certainly the one that film scholars will look back at the most from that year. Just for completing a production that takes on so much and achieves mostly incredible results should have earned that team the Best Picture Oscar last year...and Mallick not winning for Best Director was criminal. Hell, I'd even argue that it has Brad Pitt's finest performance. That film will carve a deep place in cinematic history. Trust me.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with any of this.

But it's still too soon.
 
I'm pretty sure all of mine would be :shrug:...

Though I think that if I were to pick Greatest movies instead of Favorite, my list would be a lot different than normal, and then, perhaps I would have some different inclusions. Probably Rashomon, The Seventh Seal and possibly Spirited Away would be there. I might even end up having Blade Runner on a list of "Greatest", though I think my opinion of that film is pretty well known.
 
lazarus said:
Casablanca is a crowd-pleaser. It's not great art.

Curtiz is a hack and nothing by him should be in the running among films from the true masters.

And you know, it's telling that in your little capsule you say nothing about the direction, or mention his name.
Click to expand...

Who are you fooling? Curtiz is not a hack. He's not an auteur director with a special visual style yet he directed Sea Hawk, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Casablanca and The Adventures of Robin Hood. Even if the rest of his movies aren't near that he still isn't a hack. Renny Harlin, or Paul W.S. Anderson are hacks.:D Casablanca is a movie that's more about the screenplay much like Billy Wilder movies are or Network for example.
 
Fucking iphone.

lazarus said:
Also, Purpleoscar, good to know that all 10 of your picks are either Hollywood films or at least in the English language.

:down:
Click to expand...

There are only 10 slots. I love Antonioni, but hate Fellini. Will I watch Antonioni more than Kubrick? No. I love Herzog, but hate Fassbender. Just as many foreign films are pretentious as great. Last year at Marienbad is worse than going to the dentist. Earrings of madame de... has lovely direction and sets but do I remember what happened in that movie? What about Children of Paradise? Do I really care about the characters in that? Hiroshima mon amour is great but is it better than Casablanca? No. Herzog has epics but better than Lawrence of Arabia? No. I love The Leopard but is it better than The Godfather part II? No. Could I squeeze Seven Samurai in there beyond The good, the bad and the ugly? No, but it was close.

Then there's the problem of English language movies I still left out. What about John Ford, John Huston, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, or Billy Wilder? I was really thinking about Giant, Some like it hot, The apartment. What about foreign films I love but aren't critically acclaimed like The Brotherhood of the Wolf, Moliere, Danton, or Crimson Rivers? I could have trouble filling top 100 movies.

It's time for your lists guys. I don't care if they are adventurous or have all foreign films. It's easy to criticize but to narrow it down to 10 is hard.
 
Not in the slightest. W.S. makes modern day B-movies, with a focus on video game culture that's worked its way down to the very foundations of his technique. As a result, of course, there's a particular degree of crassness to his films, and they definitely reflect the sort of cathartic easily-digestible violence and kineticism video games of a particular ilk afford their players. His films work in much the same way. Which isn't to say they're all good, but most of them are incredibly enjoyable and the man has a remarkable hold over cinematic space, movement, and overall structure in his work. His two self-directed Resident Evil films (and probably also Death Race as a stand-out) are seriously masterclass in blocking, cutting and shooting cheap thrilling action pictures.

He's certainly not the artist with a capital 'A' that people like Paul T. Anderson or Wes Anderson are, to round out the bunch, but he's easily made more films I find myself eager to revisit with more regularity. He makes filmic play-pens for himself, his wife and his collaborators to let loose in, and for my money creates some of the most continually enjoyable genre films in Hollywood right now.
 
P WS Anderson is too much of a hack to have a top ten film in any release day, month, year, or ever. This is the context I'm writing in. I like Cliffhanger but Harlin is nowhere near Curtiz. In fact I think he would agree with me.

Casablanca (back on topic now) has one of the handful best screenplays ever and that is plenty to allow it to qualify it to the top ten ever. Being a crowd pleaser is not something that should disqualify it. If someone's list doesn't include it because of 10 other great movies were chosen instead that would make more sense in an argument than trying to defend one of the most worst directors as not being a hack.
 
bono_212 said:
I'm pretty sure all of mine would be :shrug:...
Click to expand...

Well you also didn't request a poll here.

purpleoscar said:
Who are you fooling? Curtiz is not a hack. He's not an auteur director with a special visual style yet he directed Sea Hawk, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Casablanca and The Adventures of Robin Hood. Even if the rest of his movies aren't near that he still isn't a hack. Renny Harlin, or Paul W.S. Anderson are hacks.:D Casablanca is a movie that's more about the screenplay much like Billy Wilder movies are or Network for example.
Click to expand...

LOL, google "Michael Curtiz auteur" and you tell me what you come up with. Just because he made a good number of standout films doesn't make him an auteur. Christ, people still argue about John Huston and Howard Hawks being considered one, and they're far more talented than Curtiz.

And you just said that Casablanca is more about the screenplay. Which proves my point?
 
purpleoscar said:
There are only 10 slots. I love Antonioni, but hate Fellini. Will I watch Antonioni more than Kubrick? No. I love Herzog, but hate Fassbender. Just as many foreign films are pretentious as great. Last year at Marienbad is worse than going to the dentist. Earrings of madame de... has lovely direction and sets but do I remember what happened in that movie? What about Children of Paradise? Do I really care about the characters in that? Hiroshima mon amour is great but is it better than Casablanca? No. Herzog has epics but better than Lawrence of Arabia? No. I love The Leopard but is it better than The Godfather part II? No. Could I squeeze Seven Samurai in there beyond The good, the bad and the ugly? No, but it was close.
Click to expand...

Your reverse snobbery is kind of lame. Resnais, Ophüls, Fassbender, Visconti, etc. These guys are removed to make way for Lucas, Curtiz?

Your list looks like it was practically copied from AFI, minus Gone With The Wind.

Ugh.
 
You are a real ass sometimes man. I'm waaaaay out of my depth here and shouldn't really comment but if this was a B&C thread... it's no wonder I hate posting in this forum.
 
Wouldn't have Laz any other way.

Well maybe some other way, but he has a significant if abrasively made point in this case. To so easily disregard the whole of world cinema, or at least subscribe to a fairly narrow view of it is to disregard like... nearly all of cinema's many varied forms, aesthetics, cultural and historical notional sources, and so on. If the point of this discussion is to supposedly come up with some kind of conclusive or meaningful representation of cinema's achievements, that's an extraordinarily homogeneous list, and likely more in line with what I was originally talking about regarding ones mere personal preferences and so on, which is perfectly fine, but otherwise...
 
Anyway, like I said before I doubt I could come up with anything specific for this thread putting aside my strong personal biases to enough a degree in the pretense of "objectivity," but if I were to... likely have to include something from Ozu, Murnau, Antonioni, Resnais, Bresson, Hou, Tarkovsky or Sokurov, Bunuel, Kiarostami, maybe Welles, Fassbinder, Brakhage, Mizoguchi, Godard, Malick, Davies... fuck who knows.
 
lazarus said:
Your reverse snobbery is kind of lame. Resnais, Ophüls, Fassbender, Visconti, etc. These guys are removed to make way for Lucas, Curtiz?

Your list looks like it was practically copied from AFI, minus Gone With The Wind.

Ugh.
Click to expand...

At least I attempted a list. :wave:

BTW Gone with the wind is better than any Fassbender movie. :shifty:

bieber-shot-to-death-o.gif
 
Lancemc said:
Anyway, like I said before I doubt I could come up with anything specific for this thread putting aside my strong personal biases to enough a degree in the pretense of "objectivity," but if I were to... likely have to include something from Ozu, Murnau, Antonioni, Resnais, Bresson, Hou, Tarkovsky or Sokurov, Bunuel, Kiarostami, maybe Welles, Fassbinder, Brakhage, Mizoguchi, Godard, Malick, Davies... fuck who knows.
Click to expand...

Some of those guys I would include in a top 100 list but even then I would still love to include more Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Stevens, Lumet, Coens. It's not a shock that english language films dominate when the U.S. dominate film from the beginning. I like Solaris but is it better than 2001: A space odyssey? No. The discrete charm of the bourgeosie was hilarious but is it better than many Billy Wilder movies? Not a chance. I like Floating Weeds but is it better than Ikiru? Not in my opinion...yes opinion. Is my opinion more important than anyone elses? No.

To pick only 10 films is challenging. No matter what you choose 98% of great films are left out.
 
purpleoscar said:
Some of those guys I would include in a top 100 list but even then I would still love to include more Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Stevens, Lumet, Coens. It's not a shock that english language films dominate when the U.S. dominate film from the beginning. I like Solaris but is it better than 2001: A space odyssey? No. The discrete charm of the bourgeosie was hilarious but is it better than many Billy Wilder movies? Not a chance. I like Floating Weeds but is it better than Ikiru? Not in my opinion...yes opinion. Is my opinion more important than anyone elses? No.

To pick only 10 films is challenging. No matter what you choose 98% of great films are left out.
Click to expand...

That's perfectly fine, but not exactly my point. Anyway to suggest the U.S. dominates world cinema is extremely short-sighted, unless you're talking about strictly quantity (though even then Bollywood has something to say). If you think about the true masters of the form, and if you actually dig deeply enough America has no more significance than any of a dozen other national cinemas around the globe. My previous point being, if one wants to make some stand on the "great films of cinema history" it's simply foolish to to exclude non-English language cinema because of individual preferences. Which again, can be fine if that's the point of this, but that's not what Ebert was really doing, nor what we were really debating the whole first page of this thread, so I dunno.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom