The following list was compiled from all of the other lists on the index page where this file presently resides (i.e., Academy Awards, AFI, IMDb, etc.).  Lists were fed into an Excel spreadsheet and were then alphabetized to group the same titles together.  The number of appearances by a given title was noted next to that title and the additional copies of the title were deleted from the remaining cells in the spreadsheet.  The file was then organized by sorting the list in descending order of frequency of appearance (i.e., “acclaim” score), then in alphabetical order.

This list gives you a good idea where to target your search for the best movies.  In effect, this is a quantitative measure of "must see" as opposed to "Oh, I heard this one was good."  Granted, this is still a subjective method since it is all based on opinion, but the results were at least obtained from multiple populations representing professionals in the film industry as well as more populism opinion.  As such, this list could be viewed as a sort of meta-study.

The score

Personally, I have employed this list almost exclusively in renting just about everything other than some newer releases.  My goal is to view as many titles on this list as possible, but the quantitative approach tells me where to best direct my energies.  One could view this list as collection of "points" in a game for film connoisseurs, with the goal being to see the greatest number of the best films.  As of this writing I currently have a "score" of 8671 out of the 11063 points possible.

Note that this is after having seen "only" 1795 films out of the 3479 titles on the list.  This is due to the fact that the majority of the titles appear only once (46.9% of total) or twice (17.6%) on the list.  By contrast, only 40 movies (1.1%) have a score of 20 or greater.  Obviously, those at the upper end of this scale for the most part qualify as "essential viewing."

Those titles with a singular entry should be perceived as anomalous.  That is, they received a nod in, say, the "best supporting actress" category because the daughter of a prominent and successful film director had a bit part in an otherwise forgettable film.  Alternatively, some titles represent "pet" favorites of certain critics and are thus mentioned by way of promoting a particular film.  These should only be pursued if one trusts the recommender (if, indeed, that individual can be identified).

All that being said, my favorite movies, The Empire Strikes Back, Contact, and Fight Club, garnered only 9, 2, and 5 points, respectively.  Note that this list does not adjust for factors such as "snubs" by the Academy or the aforementioned blight of nepotism (yes, I'm talking about you, Sophia Coppola!).

Similarly, hindsight is, as they say, 20/20, so many films that are highly regarded today are under-represented on this list by virtue of their being excluded from earlier-compiled lists (e.g., Academy Award nominations) for reasons wholly other than artistically based.  For example, following the success of the first Star Wars film, George Lucas tangled with a number of insiders (the Directors' Guild, perhaps most famously) resulting in an exclusion from the degree of consideration The Empire Strikes Back deserved.  Today this sequel is widely regarded a better picture than Star Wars itself, yet its score by the measures employed on this list is less than half that of the original film.

Regardless, many of these factors average out and everyone can safely watch movies like Pulp Fiction or The Godfather knowing that they can check them off virtually any of the other "best of" lists on this site.

Time

The "best of" lists from which the titles below were tabulated were compiled in late 2002.  As a result, newer films are not represented.

Also under-reported here for several reasons are foreign films.  For one thing, the American Film Registry and American Film Institute's lists automatically exclude these titles by virtue of the fact that these pictures are not American (duh!).  Additionally, most American organizations tend to regard foreign language titles as "foreign."  Depending on the organization rating the films, the notion of "foreign" also includes English-speaking movies produced overseas.  Obviously, this is a cloudy areas considering many corporations producing films have interests abroad and so might be regarded as multi-national.

Unfortunately, it is a rarity to find that a movie is singled out in other categories for, say, the performance of its lead actor, let alone to be regarded as a "best picture."  (Naturally, the five nominees, American all typically, are of course better than the "best" of any single country.  Ha!)

Another underrepresented category on this list is that of documentaries.  For one thing, these films lack actors, screen writers (in the conventional sense, anyway), and typically even the opportunity to be considered for Best Picture.  Consequently, they receive a nod in only one category.

Given the number of lists derived from this site, some issues with the IMDb lists should be noted as well.  Whereas the majority of "best of" lists tend to be compiled once and are never revised, the lists on the IMDb are continually updated.  As a result, newer films tend to "bump" existing titles from the "best of" lists on that site.  This means that some of the titles on the list below have undoubtedly been supplanted in the interim.

A parallel issue with the IMDb is that new releases frequently find a transient acclaim and their scores are temporarily boosted enough to temporarily place them on "best of" lists where they clearly do not belong.  See, for example, Chicken Run.  No, wait.  Do not see Chicken Run.

The reverse pattern of films finding their way upward from obscurity has been less true in my experience, but that is largely speculation on my part, and I have not examined this pattern closely enough to confirm or disregard this as a legitimate phenomenon.

*Note that there are some peculiarities in the format of this list:

• Some titles appear in CAPS.  This is a consequence of deriving the text of original lists from multiple sources around the web; there is no other significance to this deviation.

• Articles at the start of a title (e.g., "A" or "The") were removed to facilitate more accurate alphabetization.  Please note that no effort was made to re-append these portions of the title.  This may lead to some confusion, particularly with foreign titles which have (for the most part) retained their articles.

• Similarly resulting typographical artifacts may also present themselves.  I apologize in advance.