The Filmsnobs' Approach to the Art of Film Criticism
     One of the most annoying traits of film critics is to chastise a film for being broad and vague by themselves being broad and vague in their analysis.  Too often, the Filmsnobs included, critics rely on our default banter like "the narrative falters," or "not great cinema but a good popcorn flick," or declaring a "tour-de-force performance," which always confuses me into thinking that Lance Armstrong has decided to take up a career in the movies.  (We try to avoid this as much as possible. JimmyO gives a good example in the first paragraph of his Rat Race review in which he describes the difference between Old Zucker and New Zucker comedy.) Sometimes you'll even get a critic to pronounce from upon high that the stone-tableted "show-not-tell" rule has been breached, which all of us learned is a no-no from our middle school English textbooks.  So here at Filmsnobs we've decided to practice what we preach:  Instead of babbling some convoluted manifesto on how we "judge" films, we're going to annotate lists of our personal top one-hundred most influential movies.  We figure this will paint a finer portrait of our approach to the art of film criticism, and by exposing our movie souls, perhaps earn a little trust from our readers, who we ask to trust us every Monday when we post a new review.

     Like Robin Williams asking Robert Sean Leonard and Ethan Hawke to rip the pages from their text books, let's just dismiss with the Poetics and get to it.  Our approach is more organic than Dr. J. Evan Pritchard's sliding measure of understanding poetry, so rip out the introduction and head to the candlelit cave to read the Filmsnobs' personal, annotated lists of our top one-hundred most influential movies.

Shimes' List           JimmyO's List