Thanks for the kind words, R6dw6C

No, its not pretentious to note what you did, but those more different and original, experimental and unusual, daring and artful films were not always considered as such. In most cases, time has made them what they are right now. And the same applies to the films of today. A few decades from now, Im sure well come across individuals wholl look back at this time-period and admire all the great films it contains, and rightfully so, but well know that for every one of those films, there were countless others, lesser ones, which existed but they don't any more. And those same films were present back in the decades we currently admire so much. It could be argued however that they didnt garner as much attention as they do now. I believe films like Blow-Up and Daisies are out there right now, but theyll only blossom into their full potential with time. We can of course predict which films will make it and which wont but one can never know for certain. (You mentioned Climates, which is good enough, great enough, to belong somewhere in Antonionis oeuvre. On the other hand, I think Reygadas film is self-important [it pretends to be high art] and reductive.)

Im not quite sure what you mean by, The diversity of film languages has increased in a tragic way. However, it does conjure up a few thoughts regarding the language we employ to discuss film. I think its fairly limited, especially when compared to our discourse pertaining to other art forms. Perhaps the reason why we have such a tendency to resort to facts. Its a work of art, someone says, and all hell breaks loose. Of course, some still believe that film isnt an art form, or at least not one which exists on the same level as others. They try to demean it by pitting it against others, one on one, even though its a synthesis of music, literature, painting, architecture, etc., and shouldnt be compared as such, I think.

"but I want to be surprised and challenged by cinema, always, over and over again. the most horrible thing is a film that comes up as exactly what you expected it to beCinema has to force the viewer to reflect on different points of view, about his understanding of art and his openness for that new ways of expression. From this perspective, commercial cinema is even more interesting than the work of an auteur..." 

Im no longer interested in films that are worth watching or worth my time or belong to any of those other absurd tags. Id rather see something which ultimately falls flat on its face as long as it takes a stab at something. 

I believe it was Sarris who once wrote that we are far too close to the popular cinema of today to read it correctly. And I think that applies just as much, if not more so, right now as it did back in the 60s and 70s. I admire your regard for that kind of cinema. You are what Id call a true cinephile. Simply quoting from Truffaut and Hitchcock and watching Keaton on a constant loop isnt cinephilia, which is what the three stooges from The Dreamers thought they were indulging in. And instead of taking a detour to wallow in cine-nostalgia (for commercial reason, Im sure), Bertolucci shouldve gone much, much further in unpacking them and their counterparts in the moviegoing audience. 

"The last film which deserved that award was imo Van Sants amazing "Elephant" while the choice of "The Wind that shakes the Barley" last year was almost... well... at bit disproportional."

I agree.