![]() IMDB had a better design back then and was easier to navigate, less ads, quicker to jump between films, directors, actors etc. This was 2007, I was 13 and had access to a almost everything on the top 250 at the time through rental. When I first started to get really into movies IMDB was an essential tool for me. Obviously it leans more towards Hollywood and has a bit of recency bias but that is mainly because it the most mainstream of lists out there and that also means that its mainstream nature will allow for even more greater visibility to stuff like Tokyo Story or Metropolis It is a genuinely good gateway list having everything from dude bro stuff like Scorsese, Tarantino to silent cinema stuff like Chaplin, Keaton, Lang to European arthouse directors like Bergman, Truffaut. It is probably how so many people started their journey into cinephilea through the IMDB lists and then further got acclimated enough to diverse movies that they started trying out movies from other different lists. then evolving to see more foreign but mainstream movies from Miyazaki, Kurosawa or Bong Joon Ho/ Park Chan Wook and then trying more high brow films on IMDB such as the ones from Bergman. ![]() There are probably countless examples of people who only watched the most mainstream of movies discovering Scorsese, Tarantino, Fincher etc. Yet I think the list has a value since considering how popular IMDB has been as the site to keep track of movies, it has acted as a gateway for a lot of people to genuine cinema. It is undeniably a more populist list (the presence of 3 MCU movies on it makes it persona non grata for a lot of cinephiles). It isn't as diverse as the Letterboxd Top 250 film, nor does it have as many historically or culturally important movies as say the Sight and Sound one. ![]() The IMDB Top 250 films is by no means a perfect list. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |