avclub-19cb7f74bb683e7d0b4fe06a9cb69336--disqus
paulha
avclub-19cb7f74bb683e7d0b4fe06a9cb69336--disqus

Not sure why I drew the connection as there really isn't one but your reference to Oz got me to realizing that Terry Gilliam should have at least been a G runner-up, if only for Brazil, 12 Monkeys and The Fisher King, as well as some other pretty damn good ones. It's like at first I thought this list was pretty damn

Yeah, I should have said edited by as opposed to by Copjec. As far as it being an actual genre, it sounds like your class had the same debates as mine. In a sense it can pretty much be considered one of those "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" type of art forms. In the end I can't help but feel how

Yeah, I may have overstated that a little bit although there are a few film historians who do consider it the first film noir (check out a book titled Shades of Noir by Joan Copjec if your into the history of the genre (and you seem to be). Great stuff and a lot of fun to read.) As a matter of fact, as great as

Been reading this site for a few years now but this is my first foray into the comment section so I'll keep it short and sweet and hope I'm not repeating someone else. Anyway, while I can't argue the choices here, couldn't you folks at least have mentioned John Huston as an H runner-up? The Maltese Falcon, The