First off, if you’re interested in film analysis, I’m the creator of the foremost analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, which you can read all about here: eyescream237. wordpress. com

-

“A guy can change anything. His face, his home, his family, his girlfriend, his religion, his God. But there’s one thing he can’t change. He can’t change his passion…” ~The Secret in Their Eyes

Some years ago now I decided (and I still feel this way) that you can’t really compare films from what I call the Movie House era (1894-1948) to films from the Home Movie era (1948-1998) to films from the Post-Film era (1998+)—there’ve been too many seismic shifts across these phases in terms of technological norms (just try to compare the camerawork in Sunrise to The Revenant), stylistic norms (compare Max Schrek’s Count Orlok to Willem Dafoe’s Max Schrek), and societal norms (compare Jules et Jim to Moonlight…or imagine the difference between attending the premiere of The Jazz Singer at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in 1927, and watching an episode of Game of Thrones on your cell phone in a sleeping bag suspended off the side of the mountain you’re climbing). We’ve changed everything about film, besides the most essential part: light still dances in the box.

So I split up all my faves into their corresponding lists, and it felt right. But I could never quite hit the big 1000 in any of those lists without feeling like some titles were squeaking in on technicalities. 

And then I watched about 2000 new movies.

So I decided it was time to see if I finally had enough five star feature films and documentaries in my collection from across all time and space to make a big 1000 where I’d be sad to see even the bottom ten get shoved down the river, and I’m happy to say, this is it. 

That said, I still wanted to avoid Straight White American Religious Men (SWARM) directors from utterly dominating out of hand, so I decided it would be fun to weave a few guidelines in. They’re simple: one non-white director for every four titles, one female director for every ten, one pre-millennial (pre-1982) film for every four, and one documentary for every twenty. As a result, there’s for sure a few titles around the bottom that are, truth be told, more like four-star for me. But not a lot, and I imagine they’ll get bumped within a year or two. 

Interestingly, I’ve received some criticism for this approach already. Doesn’t this weaving make the list inauthentic?, they ask. And yeah, I will admit that those four-stars (which begin around the 800s) did feel weird to add, but I kept having the same thought as I was doing it: “Oh no! I’m being too inclusive!” So I mean, if you’re gonna do it, just do it. Doing it is the point of doing it, so if y’all don’t like it, then this, simply, isn’t the list for you.

But I did begin to wonder if this could possibly be a living list. As in, can I work from this list to continue my general qualification of personal faves? (Such an excruciating problem, I know.) And it occurred to me that since the majority of films (I’m apt to see, without concentrated effort) are SWARM films, I’m definitely going to see more to dilute the effect of my weaving, unless I make a concerted effort to see anti-SWARM titles, which becomes more difficult the further back in time you go. And I’m really trying to restrict this list to gems of the highest order. So does this effort become a bauble? Or could this be my new standard for understanding my taste?

The image that finally came to mind was that of a garden grown wild. New plants budding up and dominating and pushing apart the other, manicured life; I’ve done my best to be true and inclusive and now I think we just see where it goes. But I think what this list will help me to do is to better hunt those anti-SWARM titles, and give them the consideration they deserve (once you’ve seen 5000+ films, who are you really competing with?). I’ve actually seen three since starting this project, and despite all of them being Criterion releases, only Jane Campion’s Sweetie came close. But that’s what I find so heartening about the list: the challenge of getting on it is very real, for all contenders concerned.

And that brings me to my method of rating and ranking films. I call it the WATCHIT spectrum, and it’s made up of seven virtues that correspond to the various major artists at play in film: Watchability (how much do I want to revisit the film, or how enthralled was I? – cinematography/sound), Authenticity (did the film feel like The Truth The Truth The Truth, or did its style serve its purpose – costuming, sets, makeup, etc.), Triumph (how well did all the moving parts and differing talents come together – production), Creativeness (how original was the film/how well did the director make the serial/adaptation/remake their own – direction), Humanity (how willing was the film was to be itself, and not kowtow to public expectations – performance/general human element), Inspiration (did it make me want to be a better man, or, failing that, was it at least a blast – writing), and Tightness (was I one with the movie – editing/post). I should also note that, as series and remakes are concerned, my favourite film stands for the entire series (Fellowship of the Ring stands for Jackson’s entire Middle Earth saga), with the rare exception where I simply like one film (Star Wars, Alien) too much to allow its lesser kinfolk to drag it down into utter obscurity. As for cinematic universes, I’ve tried to make a little more room, but it does seem kinda pointless to list every Marvel movie that gets the job done.

So, only the top fifty or so would I say are perfect WATCHIT films, and from there things get quibble-worthy, but it’s a very, very narrow thing. Some pictures are imperfected by one miscast actor, one dud moment, or, these days, one retroactive nightmare story about production and/or revelation about someone on production being a human monster. On that note, I have to say it’s gonna be a serious challenge returning to a Kevin Spacey film anytime soon. Though, many of you will surely note the glut of Woody Allen titles that appear here. 

Just a note about the current Crucible-ification of the modern movie world: the world is full of monsters: always has been, maybe always will be. That’s the premise that imbues most films with the excitement that we feel watching them. Doesn’t mean we have to line the pockets of said monsters, but it does strike me as the height of irony that we turn to film and television for this vicarious thrill only to demand that those behind the magic be essentially inhuman. That is to say, utterly saintly. Or, failing sainthood, perhaps we imagine them to have the meaningless flaws of a romcom starlet. Do I have to explain why that’s naive at best, toweringly arrogant at worst?

The garden is dark, and full of terrors.

-

One last thing: having perused more than a couple dozen MUBI lists, I realize the trend is to sort the films chronologically, or to slap them together with no qualitative measure. This would present the illusion that qualitative reasoning is not at hand. But if you’re the sort of person to construct a top 1000, I doubt very much that you’ll avoid ever seeing a film again that might edge out one of your golden grand. So, when this happens, what do you remove? And why? 

I tried a chronological approach for a while, and I noticed something curious: it prompted me to bump first films from the most over-represented year, which for me was an alternating 2011 and 2012. This, I thought, would give a more even and fair cross-section of my taste. But not all years are created equal; I have my faves (like ‘59, ’71, ’99, ’11), and you have yours. It’s one of the neat joys of this practice, to discover years where your mind and the general culture’s were in some kind of harmony.

First off, if you&#8217;re interested in film analysis, I&#8217;m the creator of the foremost analysis of Stanley Kubrick&#8217;s The Shining, which you can read all about here: eyescream237. wordpress. com
-
&#8220;A guy can change anything. His face, his home, his family, his girlfriend, his religion, his God. But there&#8217;s one thing he can&#8217;t change. He can&#8217;t change his passion…&#8221; ~The Secret in Their Eyes
Some years ago now I decided (and I still feel this way) that you can&#8217;t really compare films from what I call the Movie House era (1894-1948) to films from the Home Movie era (1948-1998) to films from the Post-Film era (1998+)&#8212;there&#8217;ve been too many seismic shifts across these phases in terms of technological norms (just try to compare the camerawork in Sunrise to The Revenant), stylistic norms (compare Max Schrek&#8217;s Count Orlok to Willem Dafoe&#8217;s Max Schrek), and societal norms (compare Jules et Jim to Moonlight…or imagine the difference between attending the premiere of The Jazz Singer at Grauman&#8217;s Chinese Theatre in 1927, and watching an episode of Game of Thrones on your cell phone in a sleeping bag suspended off the side of the mountain you&#8217;re climbing). We&#8217;ve changed everything about film, besides the most essential part: light still dances in the box.
So I split up all my faves into their corresponding lists, and it felt right. But I could never quite hit the big 1000 in any of those lists without feeling like some titles were squeaking in on technicalities.
And then I watched about 2000 new movies.
So I decided it was time to see if I finally had enough five star feature films and documentaries in my collection from across all time and space to make a big 1000 where I&#8217;d be sad to see even the bottom ten get shoved down the river, and I&#8217;m happy to say, this is it.
That said, I still wanted to avoid Straight White American Religious Men (SWARM) directors from utterly dominating out of hand, so I decided it would be fun to weave a few guidelines in. They&#8217;re simple: one non-white director for every four titles, one female director for every ten, one pre-millennial (pre-1982) film for every four, and one documentary for every twenty. As a result, there&#8217;s for sure a few titles around the bottom that are, truth be told, more like four-star for me. But not a lot, and I imagine they&#8217;ll get bumped within a year or two.
Interestingly, I&#8217;ve received some criticism for this approach already. Doesn&#8217;t this weaving make the list inauthentic?, they ask. And yeah, I will admit that those four-stars (which begin around the 800s) did feel weird to add, but I kept having the same thought as I was doing it: &#8220;Oh no! I&#8217;m being too inclusive!&#8221; So I mean, if you&#8217;re gonna do it, just do it. Doing it is the point of doing it, so if y&#8217;all don&#8217;t like it, then this, simply, isn&#8217;t the list for you.
But I did begin to wonder if this could possibly be a living list. As in, can I work from this list to continue my general qualification of personal faves? (Such an excruciating problem, I know.) And it occurred to me that since the majority of films (I&#8217;m apt to see, without concentrated effort) are SWARM films, I&#8217;m definitely going to see more to dilute the effect of my weaving, unless I make a concerted effort to see anti-SWARM titles, which becomes more difficult the further back in time you go. And I&#8217;m really trying to restrict this list to gems of the highest order. So does this effort become a bauble? Or could this be my new standard for understanding my taste?
The image that finally came to mind was that of a garden grown wild. New plants budding up and dominating and pushing apart the other, manicured life; I&#8217;ve done my best to be true and inclusive and now I think we just see where it goes. But I think what this list will help me to do is to better hunt those anti-SWARM titles, and give them the consideration they deserve (once you&#8217;ve seen 5000+ films, who are you really competing with?). I&#8217;ve actually seen three since starting this project, and despite all of them being Criterion releases, only Jane Campion&#8217;s Sweetie came close. But that&#8217;s what I find so heartening about the list: the challenge of getting on it is very real, for all contenders concerned.
And that brings me to my method of rating and ranking films. I call it the WATCHIT spectrum, and it&#8217;s made up of seven virtues that correspond to the various major artists at play in film: Watchability (how much do I want to revisit the film, or how enthralled was I? – cinematography/sound), Authenticity (did the film feel like The Truth The Truth The Truth, or did its style serve its purpose – costuming, sets, makeup, etc.), Triumph (how well did all the moving parts and differing talents come together – production), Creativeness (how original was the film/how well did the director make the serial/adaptation/remake their own – direction), Humanity (how willing was the film was to be itself, and not kowtow to public expectations – performance/general human element), Inspiration (did it make me want to be a better man, or, failing that, was it at least a blast – writing), and Tightness (was I one with the movie – editing/post). I should also note that, as series and remakes are concerned, my favourite film stands for the entire series (Fellowship of the Ring stands for Jackson&#8217;s entire Middle Earth saga), with the rare exception where I simply like one film (Star Wars, Alien) too much to allow its lesser kinfolk to drag it down into utter obscurity. As for cinematic universes, I&#8217;ve tried to make a little more room, but it does seem kinda pointless to list every Marvel movie that gets the job done.
So, only the top fifty or so would I say are perfect WATCHIT films, and from there things get quibble-worthy, but it&#8217;s a very, very narrow thing. Some pictures are imperfected by one miscast actor, one dud moment, or, these days, one retroactive nightmare story about production and/or revelation about someone on production being a human monster. On that note, I have to say it&#8217;s gonna be a serious challenge returning to a Kevin Spacey film anytime soon. Though, many of you will surely note the glut of Woody Allen titles that appear here.
Just a note about the current Crucible-ification of the modern movie world: the world is full of monsters: always has been, maybe always will be. That&#8217;s the premise that imbues most films with the excitement that we feel watching them. Doesn&#8217;t mean we have to line the pockets of said monsters, but it does strike me as the height of irony that we turn to film and television for this vicarious thrill only to demand that those behind the magic be essentially inhuman. That is to say, utterly saintly. Or, failing sainthood, perhaps we imagine them to have the meaningless flaws of a romcom starlet. Do I have to explain why that&#8217;s naive at best, toweringly arrogant at worst?
The garden is dark, and full of terrors.
-
One last thing: having perused more than a couple dozen MUBI lists, I realize the trend is to sort the films chronologically, or to slap them together with no qualitative measure. This would present the illusion that qualitative reasoning is not at hand. But if you&#8217;re the sort of person to construct a top 1000, I doubt very much that you&#8217;ll avoid ever seeing a film again that might edge out one of your golden grand. So, when this happens, what do you remove? And why?
I tried a chronological approach for a while, and I noticed something curious: it prompted me to bump first films from the most over-represented year, which for me was an alternating 2011 and 2012. This, I thought, would give a more even and fair cross-section of my taste. But not all years are created equal; I have my faves (like &#8216;59, &#8217;71, &#8217;99, &#8217;11), and you have yours. It&#8217;s one of the neat joys of this practice, to discover years where your mind and the general culture&#8217;s were in some kind of harmony.

The Old Nirvana: 400 five-star pre-millennial faves