A lot of people think that the American Film Institute should shut up already with the lists, and they have a point: an ordered list of the "100 greatest" anything is bound to be so subjective as not to be worth much, especially when it's not clear why the people compiling the list should be seen as authorities. (The AFI's lists are compiled by "juries" of several hundred filmmakers, critics and historians.) But the lists (and accompanying TV specials) keep coming. The latest is the ungrammatical "AFI's 10 Top 10," a list of the 100 greatest American genre films organized by genre: animation, romantic comedy, western, sports (not really a genre, especially if you include Raging Bull in it, but whatever), mystery, fantasy, science-fiction, gangster, courtroom drama, and epic. The complete selections can be found here.

The lists are sometimes obvious (Alfred Hitchcock makes a 4 for 10 showing in "mystery," and if you can't guess their top three picks for "gangster" in order, you probably shouldn't be reading this blog), sometimes admirable (kudos for Terminator 2: Judgment Day in "sci-fi"), sometimes irritating (The Wizard of Oz as the greatest fantasy film of all time is rubbish), but the more relevant question is: what are they worth? The original "top 100" was a good conversation piece and a useful checklist. What are the rest of them supposed to be good for?

Also: they include "sports" as genre, but not horror. Screw you, AFI.

This week Entertainment Weekly is "Counting Down the New Movie Classics," listing the best films made in the past 25 years. The magazine claims that all 100 are good enough to be considered alongside the usual classics (you know, like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, etc.), but I guess that's relative. I wouldn't consider #99, The Blair Witch Project, to be equated with Poltergeist III, let alone Psycho. But isn't that the fun of these lists? They fuel our excitement about cinema while also angering us that our favorites aren't higher up, or more commonly, that the films we hate most are included on any list, ever.

On the first day of the countdown, EW shows us the bottom 25, which includes such masterpieces as Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Breaking the Waves, In the Mood for Love and Full Metal Jacket. When I saw that the last of these was only at #94, I got really excited, wondering what 93 films could possibly be better. And then I was shocked to see that so-so comedies like Swingers and Waiting for Guffman and the fine but poorly aged Moonstruck placed higher. I almost didn't even see those titles, though, because I almost threw my computer when I saw that Napoleon Dynamite was just ahead of Back to the Future. Just another reason to hate Napoleon Dynamite, I guess. Even the Back to the Future sequels are better than ND, but I'm going to now assume they don't even make it on this list.

#s 75-51 will be revealed tomorrow. I wonder what kind of delights and blasphemies will meet us then.

Make-up, animatronics and effects legend Stan Winston passed away on Sunday at the too-young age of 62. In memoriam, Cinematical humbly presents this list of the man's most enduring achievements.

Some of my most treasured movie memories -- childhood and otherwise -- are courtesy of Stan Winston. What impressed me about this list as I was making it was that Winston specialized in realizing the imaginations of our greatest filmmakers -- directors like Burton, Spielberg, Cameron. Winston was a genius himself, of course, but he also facilitated genius, and that's just as important. Those guys owe him so much.

He had many accomplishments beyond the ones I've listed. That's what the comment thread is for.


1. Jurassic Park's Dinosaurs.

It's hard to describe the impression Jurassic Park made back in 1993. I was 9 years old, which was just old enough to be properly amazed. This was the new generation of popular cinema: perfect, lifelike wonders on the screen as if it were the most natural thing on the planet. Earlier technicians did a lot with simple puppetry, stop-motion and miniatures, but now all bets were off, and all barriers seemed lifted. Once you accepted the scientific goofiness of the film's premise, no further suspension of disbelief was necessary. Winston opened the gates to a whole new cinematic playground.

I wanted to continue this whole week of Indiana Jones, but we've already given you movies reminiscent of the classic adventure series, and we've already given you retro reviews for each of the three films. So, I started to think about what I like about Jones and my favorite of the three, Raiders of the Lost Ark. One of the best gems of that film is Marion Ravenwood.

So, in celebration of how much Ravenwood rules, I wanted to celebrate women who are more than just damsels in distress. The might find themselves captured. They might get beaten down. But they don't wallow -- they fight back. And even better -- they're both old-school. One comes from the '90s, and the other first kicked butt on the big screen 31 years ago. I give you: Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor in Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Carrie Fisher's Princess Leia in Star Wars.

Screw this; I'm going home. On the first day of production, the people footing the bill for Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins have announced that the future is actually ending prematurely, as the violent, perennially R-rated franchise is going PG-13 for its fourth installment. The reason? I'll bet you can guess. In addition to "broadening the audience base," the producers are hoping for (or have already signed; it's not really clear) a merchandising deal with Playmates Toys. Dear God. Clearly, they're trying to bring about a fanboy mass suicide.

Maybe it's not yet time to panic. After all, I still managed to have a blast with last year's PG-13 Live Free or Die Hard, and that franchise, what with John McClane's penchant for the f-bomb, was arguably even more dependent on the freedom of the R than Terminator. And with a few exceptions (that unforgettable shot of the T-1000 disguised as John Connor's mom impaling Xander Berkeley on its pointy metal arm comes to mind), the reasons the Terminator films -- Judgment Day in particular -- are so disturbing have little to do with heavy violence; Robert Patrick rising out of the linoleum floor is scarier than any amount of gore could be. The MPAA is surely tone-deaf enough to censor the blood but let the really scary stuff through. And anyway, as the producers point out in the article, the PG-13 ain't what it used to be.