Poll: Lists that should be official: nominations due April 29

Films mentioned in Los Angeles Plays Itself, 2003,https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/films+mentioned+in+los+angeles+plays+itself+2003/bal3x/, 204, chronological or random, Films mentioned in Los Angeles Plays Itself compiled, relevant because it’s la.

The First Century of Film, ongoing project, https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/the+first+century+of+film/fungus/, 395+, as selected, a review of the 20th century from a Cineast perspective, organized by Filmpodium.

J. Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum’s Midnight Movies, 1991, https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/j.+hoberman+and+jonathan+rosenbaums+midnight+movies/baalman/, 252, comprehensive and in-depth look at the subculture movies of three decades.

1 Like

Is it what about https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/masters+of+cinema/ another company with mostly random (my choice of word ignore it if you like) drama and arthouse movies just like Criterion, and when it comes to quality it is of course subjective but in my book a company who releases not one but several movies of one of the most overrated directors of all time Wes Anderson well you get my point.

And if it isn’t even allowed to nominate a company like Vinegar Syndrome (which anyway most likely wouldn’t get many points or voters, because of the nudity and the political correctness that reigns today) which by the way I own way more movies of then both Criterion and MoC, simply because I find the overall quality higher.

How can one try to make things better, interesting and more diverse?

By nominating lists with movies that are selected for their quality. I wouldn’t vote for Masters of Cinema if it was in the poll.

1 Like

Are these your nominations, Gorro? If so, please provide the info as explained in the OP.

Here’s a Variety article where the director of the Cannes festival talks about the process:

The problem here is the word quality again. Would you vote for Criterion?

Academy Award Best Songs https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/academy+award+music+song+awards/moviedearest/

Sin in Soft Focus (Pre-Code)

I totally second that. These lists have been around for years, books on these lists exist in English and German, and they are well curated. In case someone doesn’t know which lists we are talking about:


Let me know if I’ve missed any info.

The Complete Video Nasties List (Section 1,2 and 3)
152 films
Alphabetical by section
Films that were successfully prosecuted (section 1), added to the “Video Nasty list” of potential obscene material (section 2), or liable to seizure /confiscation under a “less obscene charge” in the UK in the 1980s.
List created by the British Director of Public Prosecutions.

This list needs just a little help (the last two films on the list are not in the correct placement) And we can also debate whether a few other films, not technically classed as Video Nasties, but still seized/banned during this mania - like Mother’s Day / The New York Ripper / etc should be added.

This list will create 99 new official checks. While there is some basic overlap with The Deuce and TSZDT? - this list is rather steeped in legend, and has many documentaries, books and trailer collections to accompany it. ICM currently lacks any recognition of censorship in its lists, and here is probably the most famous list of moral panic / censorship. There’s also two German censored lists (the Nazi films and the continuining list of banned films) - which can probably be addressed later - but those are extremely obscure by comparison.

Keeping the British End Up: Four Decades of Saucy Cinema
156 films
A list to serve as a viewer’s guide to the films discussed in the book by Simon Sheridan, a guide to British sex comedies from 1958-1983.

Three films are not presently on IMDB

This list will add 153 new official checks. This is a different examination of exploitation films - being the British sex comedy. As opposed to other exploitation lists, this one has the benefit of a book companion to help guide you through the period and the theme.

Mystery Science Theater 3000 Feature Films
1988 - X (ongoing)
202 films (needs to add the new season though)
Chronological by airdate
List of films and shorts riffed by Mystery Science Theater 3000

The new season needs to be added to the list.

I suppose this is about as close to having a television show list as possible. Its an eclectic + fun selection of films. It will add 179 new official checks! There is a little overlap with Badmovies.org - but they differ enough, as MST3k focused more on “terrible” whereas Badmovies.org tries to salvage some of the better films. So, there is enough to separate the two. For those who might not enjoy MST3K - they can easily watch all of these films in non-MST3K form, and have about the same effect. For those who look down upon watching “the MST3K versions of the film” - as they do tend to edit films for time / content. I’d say this is no different than watching any film on television - which is so often bastardized for content / time / aspect ratio. So there’s no argument against MST3K that couldnt also be used against AMC / IFC / Sundance / every other tv channel’s presentation.

As to the whole Vinegar Syndrome debate above: I think Criterion and MoC work somewhat due to their spine numbers, but again - I don’t think either of these would be as defended if they weren’t made official before any of the current vetting systems were in place. There are just too many prestigious film distributors out there, and if you keep voting for one, you can’t really stop - why not add Second Run / Kino / BFI / Carlotta / Indicator /etc /etc Then we’ll get to the point where hundreds of new titles are created every month as these companies make their announcements. Plus throw in different territories - and the same films will be recognized as a company in France / UK / US / Germany / South Korea announce the same films. Its madness!

Perhaps Criterion can be cut some slack, as they’ve been doing this since the early 80s, and created the precdent every other company uses (along with creating things like letterboxing / commentary track / special edition /etc) - but its still a bit of a silly list - as its grows by about 5+ every month, and is dependent on the whims of a company who is still trying to make a profit. I think if any distributor was going to be recognized with an official list, it would always be Criterion. Although the Criterion list seems to have its share of issues - with the degree of which it excludes films or how it treats certain films as boxsets, yet doesn’t apply the same criteria to other sets (but thats a whole other issue).

And MoC used to be held up as a “UK Criterion” -although they’ve been surpassed by many other UK companies since then (+Criterion now sells films in the UK), and don’t really have nearly the cadre they once had. I think both lists work, to some extent, but we really do not need anymore of these things - otherwise it will never end. Maybe the companies should do the marketing, not ICM (although maybe some are willing to be financial benefactors?).

I do like the idea of a Vinegar Syndrome list - just because of the number of new official lists it would create. But you can’t really make that argument exclusively to VS. Plus at a certain point - these lists are no longer about “curation” but instead “whatever they can get the rights to” - which isn’t exactly much of a thing to celebrate. As VS would assuredly wish to
distribute thousands of films which are otherwise locked away with some other company.
So, rather than harping on about VS or trying to compare it to the three official lists that have been around for like 10 years (Eclipse is the third) - why not find some decent lists that cover the same basic territory, and aren’t dependent on the whims / financial solubility of a company? Plus AGFA is basically doing exactly the same thing, so why pick favorites?

All said, I see that somebody has chosen to add Artificial Eye to the nomination list - which
doesn’t make any sense for the above reasons and more. First being, isn’t it called Curzon now? + how do you address all of Curzon’s sublabels? Or it seems to be missing hundreds of films that is has distributed in the past / new announcements. I don’t think you can exclude Vinegar Syndrome or any of the other companies, yet include AE in the running.

1 Like

Thanks for your thorough reply on the “company-catalogue” discussion, Minkin. Enough said about that.

I missed the auto-nomination for Artificial Eye. It was a leftover of the previous poll where it did fairly well. In my opinion it should be gone as well. I’ll ask the other mods about it.

Do I even need to explain this to a fellow mod? Post the required info as well.

MovieMeter Top 1000 (2017)
1000 film (ranked)
2-yearly website community list, where 61 members sent in ranked lists ranging between 250-500 films.

Good balance of genre, author and commercial cinema, tilting towards modern cinema compared to similar lists. 70+ new checks.


Since we’re already having enough problems even getting mods to write down all the requested info! …

Might we add an additional thing from users nominating lists: How many new official checks will be created if that list is chosen? Its easy to figure out + useful for helping us eventually decide which lists to select out of the nominated lists. I suppose we can just do this anyway after the fact, but its a nice thing to know whether a list, if adopted, will create 50 new checks or zero.

Excellent idea Minkin, in my cases depending of whether VS in the end (because of the already “exceptions” adopted, Criterion, Eclipse and MoC) will get accepted or not.

Vinegar Syndrome 310 new official checks or 97% of the list.

Swedish Sensationsfilms 178 new official checks or 89% of the list

XRCO Hall of Fame 77 new official checks or 99% of the list

AVN’s The 101 Greatest Adult Tapes Of All Time 125 new official checks or 98% of the list

I think the numbers says enough, and besides the numbers It would be on a personal level nice to be able to give at least one official list on ICM an overall thumbs up.

It’s not relevant whether Wes Anderson is overrated. The point is he’s an acclaimed director broadly recognized as an important and influential director by most critics, which just makes him more relevant than any random Vinegar Syndrome director. The same goes for the Criterion vs. VS lists.

The numbers make precisely clear why these lists are in most ways extremely niche and not apt for adoption. The films on it have absolutely no critical acclaim.

Being on zero lists / in obscurity is by no means a judgement of quality. Critical consensus, availability / lack of distribution is the reason why so many films languish in obscurity. There’s thousands of quality 0 list films out there that never get any attention - because you have to go out of your way to seek them out - which means most critics haven’t touched them.

List should cover the entire spectrum of film: good or not. If all we’re going to do is keep giving recognition to 2001 (100 official lists or bust) / Vertigo / Citizen Kane - then we might as well just close up shop and stop checking movies. “Trash” can be just as important - as they often have unusual histories or have run afoul of obscenity laws, etc. I find reading about shops / theaters being raided far more interesting than a run-of-the-mill Judy Garland pic.

VS is largely porn (which used to be reviewed in the New York Times, btw) and some exploitation - but they have some very well received films as well (Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song was released by Criterion on Laserdisc). Just as Criterion has films that seem universally hated, like Border Radio / Armageddon (probably because Criterion wants to represent all cinema, warts and all).

So, the number of new official lists is important to know - as we need to represent and get people to watch more films. Being on another 10 lists isn’t going to make anyone more likely to watch Lawrence of Arabia; but giving one list to some obscure horror / porn / musical / etc - will at least give people the chance (any maybe start talking about it + bringing others on board). The more films as official, the better.

Couldn’t said it better myself except it’s tens or hundred of thousands, if I would compile a personal top 100 of all time today the majority would be 0 offical lists film, but what do I know I have only seen 30000+ movies (not counting tv-episodes) the last 40+ years.

Well, we firmly differ about that. I think they should be a guide through the enormous shitload of films that we could potentially watch, and they should point us ways to quality films.

And I strongly disagree with this statement as well. So I guess we might as well agree to disagree.

But of course it’s fine when a list adds some official checks, maybe even 50% or something like that. But if it is 90% or more, it means there’s practically no overlap with critical consensus at all, and that implies the quality is dubious at least.

No it doesn’t mean that at all it only means that some movies have always been sadly excluded from the conservative canon such as porn, even though the decent or better ones are the same quality as the decent or better classics, drama or arthouse movies.

If you on the other hand look at lists that accept porn such as these two then you will find that the overlap is there, it takes one to know one.