I've decided to post a link to a bit of film criticism concerning this little S&S list that I found particularly stimulating, in that it stimulated a feeling of great disgust in me when I read it.  Perhaps someone else can give it a once-over and tell me whether he or she finds it as vexing as I do.  

Is this a bad idea, posting links to web-based film criticism?  Actually, it seems like a fairly good idea to me, although I haven't seen others doing it on here.  You know, we could create a little community of common concern here.  Yes, that's probably pushing it a little, but I suppose you get the gist of what I'm saying.  (And why has this site been so inactive of late?  Let's have a little action here, people.)

Ok, here's the link:  http://www.cinebizarre.com/essay_sight1.htm

The article goes on over several separate pages.  They're all fairly short, however, so it may not be too much to ask.  

Anyway, to give you a little taste of what you're in for, here's a bit that I found especially infuriating.  This is our commentator's response to the inclusion of Sunrise on the 2002 list.

"This 1927 American film directed by F. W. Murnau is an interesting choice. It has never been on this list before, then 75 years later it appears, because it became available, or was restored, or someone wrote something about it.  [I'm quite certain that this didn't happen--unless there was a restoration of the film or a Murnau retrospective of which I'm wholly unaware for some reason.]  For all practical purposes, this is a NEW film, in that most of these critics have had only a few years to think about it. [Note:  Sunrise was a runner-up in both 1962 and 1972 polls, and the folks at Cahiers named it the single most beautiful film of all time at some point in there too.  Could somebody help me with a date on that one?] Okay by me! I'm fascinated by the grandeur international film achieved in the late 1920s. Technical directors always get more credit than "actor's directors," which is probably why Murnau did much better throughout the ballots than Pabst.  [Yeah, don't you just hate those directors that actually, you know, direct the movie?]  It should be obvious that George Cukor was a better director than Fritz Lang or that Sidney Lumet was better than Ridley Scott, but in Cukor and Lumet's films the actors seem to be doing all the work. Technical directors are seldom slighted with the observation 'the cinematographer and editor seem to be doing all the work.'"
    
Honestly, the second-to-last sentence there is one of the most preposterous things I've ever read on the internet.  I've seen some Cukor (although admittedly probably not quite enough to make an absolutely definitive judgment here), and his work is pleasant enough, but who the hell does this guy think he's kidding?