I think the contemporary entertainment industry is so commercialized and formulaic that for the most part it spoon feeds us sugar and conditions us for obviousness and convenience in movies. I think most products of this system tend to make us lazy filmgoers and when we go back and watch films like 2001, Au hasard Balthazar, or L'avventura, movies that are slower or more talkative we get impatient and just reject them.

Sometimes it's about appreciating things in a tactile way and simply taking in the environment. There is meaning, symbolism and solemnity in 2001's careful posturing and deliberation, like Japanese No theatre or the films of Yasujirō Ozu.

I'd like to go back and view 2001 again to give any kind of commentary, but there is a lot of subtext in it's long drawn out sequences such as when Dave shuts down HAL (A contest between two intelligences, a test almost, just as the placement of the monoliths required specific achievements in order to reach them, as well as the dehuminization of Dave and the sacrifice of his shipmate in order to survive). You can read his actions as well as those of HAL's in different lights.

And I have to completely disagree with you about the ending. The final images of 2001 are some of the most enduring in film and represent the symbolic apex of what the film was representing. How did you feel it was weak?

2001 is not simply a personal choice for the list, though. It's largely regarded as one of the greatest and has been included on numerous best of lists including the British Film Institute's prestigious Sight and Sound Top Ten list.

To me the artistry, the consumate craftsmanship and literary depth of 2001 is what makes it such an interesting and important film.

Then again, I do not like Kubrick.

I'm not sure that a lot of people, save for cinephiles like myself, really check out the old stuff. To me appreciating film is like acquiring a taste for anything. It's like fine art, food, wine, or music. We tend to be drawn to the contemporary and popular and some of the high-class stuff isn't all that appealing at first but something you gradually develop a taste for.

To me though I would look at a film like Citizen Kane, largely regarded as the greatest ever made, and be curious to find out why. If I'm going to experience something, I wanted to experience the best, and, love it or hate it, do so on my own judgement. It's not that you have to agree with someone's opinion, just be assured in the rationale of your own. Regardless of whether you consider something good or bad you should be able to explain why. Unlike food or wine, film is far more accessible when it comes to the very best so I've enjoyed exploring it and have developed a great love and appreciation for great film in all it's forms. It's extremely rewarding.

Don't get me wrong, I love any movie that's good and that includes newer ones. Like you say, I'm also drawn to newer films and would definitely confess a weakness for action and cool CGI. I love blockbusters and summer popcorn flicks.

There are a lot of great, more recent flicks available for streaming (Die Hard, The Shawshank Redemption, Good Night and Good Luck, Persepolis, Braveheart, Serenity, Superman II, Sling Blade etc.) It isn't that they don't make good movies anymore but in over 100 years of movies, there is naturally a lot less of what we consider to be recent or contemporary. I was thrilled to be able to put No Country for Old Men as well as Pan's Labrynth on the list though.

The reason there are so many older films is because in the history of cinema most all of them are in some way or another fundamental or iconic works that really deserve to be here more so than others.

When making a list like this it has to come down to the desert island scenario. If I was stuck with only a few, which films would I want to watch. There are a lot of films that are fun but at the end of the day these are the ones I'd have to choose (as far as the instant que goes anyway.)