American Film Institue Releases their Top 100 Films of All Time

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


Last week, the American Film Institute released their latest top 100 American films of all time. While it is arguable that the list is a marketing ploy since it is accompanied by promotions from AOL, Best Buy and Moviefone, it at least brings attention to some great films that younger generations have yet to see.

All my favorite critics weighed in with their takes on the list with Jim Emerson celebrating the arrival of Nashville on the list, Keith Phillips over at the A.V. Club pointing out that the list “kinda sucked,” and Roger Ebert stating “lists like these cry out to be disagreed with.” So, in the spirit of dissent, let me jump into the fray of film geeks with opinions.

What bothers me most about this list is that the ballot of 400 movies from which to select is predetermined, and although I have combed AFI’s website, I still can’t figure out who gets to decide which movies make it onto the ballot. But, despite making it onto the ballot, even great movies like Fargo and The Third Man were bumped as lesser movies (as far as this film geek is concerned) such as The Sixth Sense arrived on the list.

Notably absent from the list were any movies by David Lynch, The Coen Brothers, Jim Jarmusch, or Terrence Malick, all directors who have made films essential to gaining a complete picture of American cinema. But the list isn’t all bad. This year, the list includes more silent films, which were mostly ignored in the first list AFI put out in 1998. All critique aside, the AFI’s top 100 serves a purpose — it makes me want to go home and watch a movie, but if you are looking for a must-see list to get your cinefile on, I recommend this one. It is far more wide-ranging and (gasp) even has foreign films in the mix which the AFI list lacks as it limits itself to American films. Unlike every other comparable national film institution, the American Film Institute restricts its focus to films of its own nationality.

Go here to check out both the 1998 and 2007 lists and let your inner film geek out and tell us what you think about them!

—Martha Pettit

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate