>*makes the greatest film of all time
>>212714558 (OP)It inexplicably jumping up so far up the list in one cycle suggests a coordinated effort from a bunch of critics to stick a female produced film at the top of the list rather than an organic and progressed appreciation over a period of time.
>>212715064>Her mother, Natalia (Nelly), survived for years at Auschwitz, where her own parents were murdered.It's funny how they go from absolute poor to trading diamonds and winning "best movie of all time" in one generation.
It's not even her best film (that would be her documentary about Easter Europe).
>>212715450experts disagree with you
>>212715821Post the top 10 from the directors' list.
>>212716149still a top 5 kino of all time, she just keeps winning
>>212716204Post the top 10 from the 160+IQ's list.
>>212714558 (OP)She was so cute. Why did she have to be such a horrible person and then kill herself.
>>212716204Out of curiosity how many more women were there in the selection panel compared to the previous time?
>So, Anon...did you like my movie?
>>212716571>killing yourself from depression at 65I'm surprised a person like that didn't do it earlier.
>>212716571jewish and lesbian self-loathing
>>212716592i prefer your first movie where you showed your cute dumpy hairy body
>>212714748sight and sound literally doubled the voting pool for the 2022 list and filled it with social justice activists who all exclusively voted for movies by blacks, women and faggots to "correct the canon"
they admit doing this
>>212718974Makes sense. Great way to destroy your credibility.
>>212719814>I took two hours of someone's liferookie numbers. This site has taken countless hours from me over an 18 year period.
>>212716204>>2127158212001 being so high is gay. it's not that good. ENOUGH!
>>212718974the NYT list that just came out did the same thing
it's all so tiresome
>>212720126More hits then misses desu. mogs the 120 iq list
The GC-driven campaign coordinated to put this at the top of various Best Films lists should be regarded as a form of psychological warfare, the essence of which is to bait you into wasting hours of your life watching the film; you will then predictably seek out answers as to why on Earth anyone would have such high regard for it and encounter gaslighting queermos who will waste even more of your time making bad-faith arguments that boil down to "it was directed by a woman professor" and "if it's so bad why are we talking about it?"
Almost every positive reviewer of this film gushes about what effective use it makes of time because of how long it is. While true this is done in an extremely dishonest manner, and it's easy to explain how: three hours and twenty-one minutes is very long time to sit watching a film but it is not a very long time to be awake over the course of the 60 hours or so that the film covers. Three and a half minutes is an agonizingly long time to watch a woman knead an egg into some ground meat but not a very long time to actually prepare dinner. Ditto with riding an elevator for thirty seconds. (A true artwork would have two women riding an elevator for 60 seconds.)
As an example of a specific type of film, "feminist slow cinema" or whatever, this may be of some technical interest and might be worth including in a list of should-watch films. But then again, so is Star Wars, which does not appear on the Sight & Sound polls. And certainly not above similar but obviously superior films like Tokyo Story.
I will give the director credit for not showing anyone on the toilet.
>>212719814and then 40 years after she took her own life lmao