I don't understand people who criticize lists for their obscurity. For me, the main purpose of a list is not to validate my taste (I believe I have good reasons for liking what I like, and that's enough) - but rather to introduce me to films I might not otherwise have seen. For that reason, Rosenbaum's list is a breath of fresh air - it excludes some popular "canonical" films, and includes a lot of nearly forgotten gems. I've only seen a small percentage of the films on Rosenbaum's list (though a larger percentage than it says on this site, since I'm only checking movies I've watched since I replaced my 19" TV with inaccurate colors and tracking lines a quarter of the way down the screen with a much nicer 42" HDTV,) but most of those I have seen were quite excellent - and I'm very much looking forward to delving deeper into it after I finish off some of the other lists I'm working on.
Rosenbaum is an intelligent and mature critic (even if I sometimes disagree with his reviews) - I don't see any reason to suppose that he's deliberately choosing obscure movies to look "cool" or whatever. The other option is that he h legitimately likes the movies, even if some of them are on the fringes of the canon and have been forgotten by most critics/film buffs. That kind of personal list is the most valuable, rather than one that tries to aggregate the "Greatest Films." As Rosenbaum has talked about extensively, the "canon" isn't the definitive list of the greatest films that we'd like to believe that it is, and it's shaped extensively by politics and availability and so on and so forth.
Which is all to say: I value lists like this and TSPDT, but it seems entirely wrongheaded to condemn a list for being "obscure" - especially when there's absolutely nothing to indicate that those "obscure" films aren't actually the personal favorites of the person making the list.
It's a very random selection of movies. For a 1000 Great Films list, there are way too many mediocre movies. That being said, it also includes some great movies that are not on other lists.
@ Gus_Hammond: How would you know? You've seen 9% of Rosenbaum's list. Do you think that's really enough to judge his selection? Jonathan Rosenbaum is a world renowned film critic with years of experience.
@Seenthemostmovies - Are you being purposefully obtuse, or ...?
For future reference every list that does contain Stalker is lame. This includes The 100 Most Significant German Films, Times' 100 Best French Films, Kinema Jumpo Top 100 Japanese Moviers, as well as the awards for best Spanish, Norwegian and Swedish films. Not to forget the Top 100 Animated Features of All Time. Seriously, that list doesn't have a single Tarkovsky, Bergman or Kubrick film on it. What a disgrace!
Teesa, you've watched 120 so far out of the 1000 + 2 films of this list and you complain it being lame because it's missing Stalker? Watch at least half of its films and THEN state again whether it's lame or not...sheesh, some uneducated people...
I never noticed this list didn't have any silents. That's really strange.
Restricting to NYtimes reviews is no more restrictive than any critic's list which naturally restricts to what they as individuals have seen. The NYtimes reviews an awful lot of non mainstream movies.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 26
Timec
I don't understand people who criticize lists for their obscurity. For me, the main purpose of a list is not to validate my taste (I believe I have good reasons for liking what I like, and that's enough) - but rather to introduce me to films I might not otherwise have seen. For that reason, Rosenbaum's list is a breath of fresh air - it excludes some popular "canonical" films, and includes a lot of nearly forgotten gems. I've only seen a small percentage of the films on Rosenbaum's list (though a larger percentage than it says on this site, since I'm only checking movies I've watched since I replaced my 19" TV with inaccurate colors and tracking lines a quarter of the way down the screen with a much nicer 42" HDTV,) but most of those I have seen were quite excellent - and I'm very much looking forward to delving deeper into it after I finish off some of the other lists I'm working on.Rosenbaum is an intelligent and mature critic (even if I sometimes disagree with his reviews) - I don't see any reason to suppose that he's deliberately choosing obscure movies to look "cool" or whatever. The other option is that he h legitimately likes the movies, even if some of them are on the fringes of the canon and have been forgotten by most critics/film buffs. That kind of personal list is the most valuable, rather than one that tries to aggregate the "Greatest Films." As Rosenbaum has talked about extensively, the "canon" isn't the definitive list of the greatest films that we'd like to believe that it is, and it's shaped extensively by politics and availability and so on and so forth.
Which is all to say: I value lists like this and TSPDT, but it seems entirely wrongheaded to condemn a list for being "obscure" - especially when there's absolutely nothing to indicate that those "obscure" films aren't actually the personal favorites of the person making the list.
St. Gloede
How come theres not a single silent film on this list? And how come the first sound film is on it?Kasparius
It's a very random selection of movies. For a 1000 Great Films list, there are way too many mediocre movies. That being said, it also includes some great movies that are not on other lists.Kasparius
@ Gus_Hammond: How would you know? You've seen 9% of Rosenbaum's list. Do you think that's really enough to judge his selection? Jonathan Rosenbaum is a world renowned film critic with years of experience.Jean-Luc Godard said of him: "I think there is a very good film critic in the United States today, a successor of James Agee, and that is Jonathan Rosenbaum. He's one of the best; we don't have writers like him in France today. He's like André Bazin."
sean.rohead
Mad Mad and Mad Max: Fury Road are in the book, but not Mad Max 2. Can someone please fix this?Seenthemostmovies
@Crinerman I suppose I missed the subtle internet sarcasm. I humbly apologize.St. Gloede
@Seenthemostmovies - Are you being purposefully obtuse, or ...?For future reference every list that does contain Stalker is lame. This includes The 100 Most Significant German Films, Times' 100 Best French Films, Kinema Jumpo Top 100 Japanese Moviers, as well as the awards for best Spanish, Norwegian and Swedish films. Not to forget the Top 100 Animated Features of All Time. Seriously, that list doesn't have a single Tarkovsky, Bergman or Kubrick film on it. What a disgrace!
greshgurt
But this is not AFI list, is it? At least it doesn't say so.St. Gloede
Even the AFI lists should include Stalker, the fact that they do not is lame!Dimitris Psachos Springer
Teesa, you've watched 120 so far out of the 1000 + 2 films of this list and you complain it being lame because it's missing Stalker? Watch at least half of its films and THEN state again whether it's lame or not...sheesh, some uneducated people...Kasparius
Did you look at the rest of the list, Flamingo Kid is actually one of the ones I do agree with.oldfilmsflicker
how in the heck is The Flamingo Kid on here?! that movie is entertaining but definitely not on the best movies ever made.PeacefulAnarchy
I never noticed this list didn't have any silents. That's really strange.Restricting to NYtimes reviews is no more restrictive than any critic's list which naturally restricts to what they as individuals have seen. The NYtimes reviews an awful lot of non mainstream movies.
Paper_Okami
Well known =/= bad. Many of these films are not know by the general public or just glazed over.People on this site really need to stop bitching about the lists and learn what an opinion is.
Kasparius
That being said a lot of the films on this list are absolutely great.Showing items 1 – 15 of 26