criterionforum.org

I’m down. I watched a ton of vampire films for the last horror lost project, so I won’t have a problem putting together a list.

It looks like we have enough interest in a vampire films list to proceed. I'll start thinking about logistics and will launch it in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, start sharpening your stakes and polishing your crucifixes! Or sharpen your fangs and iron your cape, whatever.

Well I'm excited! I'm already drawing up a tbw list. This'll give me a chance to get around to Sinners, a Claire Denis, and even a local Quebec film.

up to what year will these mini-lists go? and will they circle back around to 1890s or move backwards from 1960 next? As someone who doesn't (find the time to) contribute, I'm just curious.

denti alligator wrote: Sun Feb 01, 2026 11:35 pm up to what year will these mini-lists go? and will they circle back around to 1890s or move backwards from 1960 next? As someone who doesn't (find the time to) contribute, I'm just curious.

There's a proposed schedule here. Still not exactly sure how the pre-1920s should work though

swo17 wrote: Mon Feb 02, 2026 12:43 am

denti alligator wrote: Sun Feb 01, 2026 11:35 pm up to what year will these mini-lists go? and will they circle back around to 1890s or move backwards from 1960 next? As someone who doesn't (find the time to) contribute, I'm just curious.

There's a proposed schedule here. Still not exactly sure how the pre-1920s should work though

I'm not seeing the mini-lists schedule there, or do they run alongside the decades list? I think mini-lists for 1909 onward would be possible. Earlier than that it might get tricky, though not impossible.

There are generally 12 months for each cinematic decade now, a month for each year's mini-list and then two months for the whole decade

I get it. Sorry for being out of the loop. Right, so doing pre-1920s in a year would not work. My suggestion would be to do separate 12-month projects for 1900-1909 and 1910-1919. There's plenty to watch. Pre-1900 could get a 6-month period?

That schedule is giving the whole pre-1920 period just six months (a month for the years up to 1909 and then five months for the 1910s, with only 1919 getting a full month devoted to it). I'm open to revising, but it's tricky--yes, the volume of films to be considered is, let's say, 4 times greater for the pre-1920s vs. the 1920s, but so many of them are just a few minutes long if that

I think the noughts and teens need a full year, just like any other decade. No less a time commitment. I would consider pre-1900 to be "earliest cinema/pre-cinema" and could include pre-1895 experiments. This would maybe only need a couple-few months.

I think devoting a full year to 1900-1910 and another to 1910-1920 is a great way to completely kill the decade list projects, but that might be amenable?

Point taken, domino. I still think 1910-1919 would be worth it. But I will trust you guys know what you're doing, and I'll try to be more active in submitting lists.

It was several years ago when I came up with that schedule. I can't remember all the thought I put into it but it was something to do with the relative quantity and length of available films, as well as how films from different years performed during our prior pre-1920s lists. Yes, you could spend a whole year watching films from 1900-1910, but you could also spend two years just watching films from 1999. My aim is that the proposed schedule allows everyone to cover each period about as thoroughly as any other for a comparable time commitment.

When I said I wasn't sure how the pre-1920s should work, I was more referring to whether some years should be grouped together, and if so, how? Like, if we devote a month to 1915-1916, should we have one list that covers those two years combined, or a separate list for each year? And then what about the year groupings before that, which are for 5 years or more? I'm open to suggestions

domino harvey wrote: Mon Feb 02, 2026 8:03 pm I think devoting a full year to 1900-1910 and another to 1910-1920 is a great way to completely kill the decade list projects, but that might be amenable?

I do agree on this personally, there's just no realistic way we're going to cover as much ground on those two. I know that there has been a lot less activity in the mini list threads in terms of writeups (going to take my own credit for that too) but the number of people voting remains similar. I ended up really coming around to the mini lists and encourage us to continue it, but doing this for pre 1920s is something I'm not in favor of either, as I do want to get to doing this for the 30s/40s/50s as soon as possible. personally not at all interested in revisiting the 2010s already, but I know that's probably not popular opinion...

swo, as for your questions in the second half, I can kinda support combining the years, but I think it's a bit of a reach for us to find months' worth of films from these years, but maybe I'm a lot less educated on that as others are

I submitted a list for the 90s and will make an effort to be a regular contributor, to the lists and discussion.

Silents are a bit more tricky to track down (and then there's the issue of comparing best scores for individual titles). I am fine with devoting a whole year to the discussion of silents without necessarily having to break titles into years & then updating the Silents list at the end of the year.

Now that I'm committed (or trying to be) to participating regularly, I have a question or two about making our lists. The mini-lists are 25 films and the regular (decades) lists are 50, right? We're supposed to rank our "favorites," right? Do people fill up their lists, even if the lower-ranked films may be ones you "just like"? In letterboxd language, do you include 3-1/2 star films? 3 star films? These are those that I like well enough, but would probably not return to. For the decades lists of 50 this isn't really an issue. There are easily 50 films in any given decade that I love, and I would probably have to drop some that I wish I could include. But for the mini-lists I'm submitting around 14-15 per year. For 2002 I have 23--unusually high for me (so far). According to letterboxd, I've seen 56 films from that year. I could easily "top off" the list with my favorites among the 3-1/2 films.

Obviously I'm overthinking this.

I almost always just submit a top ten for the yearlies (I’ll do more if the year is particularly strong), twenty five is just the max

I could probably fill out a top 50 or whatever with films I like for any given year, but at a certain point it ceases to be that interesting. I think it's best when I have to make at least a couple of mildly tough cuts, which tends to happen for me at around the 20 or 25 mark

I see. Domino, I looked at your letterboxd ratings for 2002 and indeed you have 11 that are 4-5 stars. (Actually, I also looked at all your 5 star films and started adding the ones I haven’t seen to my Watchlist, and then my wrist began to hurt—there were so many!) (Swo, are you on letterboxd?) I guess I’ll continue what I’m doing, which involves limiting the list to a certain tier of “favorite.”

denti alligator wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2026 2:11 am Swo, are you on letterboxd?

Sorry, I'm not, but you can see a bunch of my lists here

I also would vote for or consider as highly as those 11 demonlover, Talk to Her, Russian Ark, and Punch-Drunk Love, there’s still a good portion of older logged films with out star ratings