"
Sci-fi
Where are Star Wars Episodes IV and V and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, both are much better films than E.T.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.124.228   

Which had the biggest budget?  Which spent the most on advertising?  Which generated the most box office receipts?  Of course, all of these variables are interrelated, and there is no practical way of isolating one variable without compromising the others.   If we ignored technological differences, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, Fantastic Planet, Forbidden Planet, The Time Machine (1960 film), and When Worlds Collide are all up in the running.     

King Kong?
Why was King Kong remove on the list? It had a sorce and everything! 71.178.250.89  
I removed it because it did not have a citation specifically mentioning it as being ""the best"" of the genre.  Being one of 100 films on Time's list is only a citation for being ""one of the the 100 best films according to Time"", nothing more.  It seems unreasonable to imply that because there is only one film of a particular genre on a ""best film"" list, the mention equals a citation for being the best of the genre.  That would be original research because the film may have been selected for reasons that have nothing to do with being the best of the genre.  ☑ uelWantman 

Request to delete this page.
While I don't disagree with the fact that you can at least narrow down several films which many consider great, this page is misleading. What purpose does it serve? The movies it lists are extremely inconsistent, and this page changes all the time. People will like what they like, and I think it is unfair that wikipedia, a generally factual resource, includes such a subjective topic as this and other polls. I also think that we should delete links to reviews for films and music. What other refutable encyclopedia does this? You cannot systematically grade personal taste.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.181.59   

The point of the page is to list those films that have been previously recognized by a variety of critics and organization.  The opinions of these films are not of Wikipedia users, but of a variety of organizations.   

Regardless of the notoriety of the sources, they don't constitute an article.  The citations are to sources of opinion which should, in my opinion, be added to the articles of their respective films. 'Talktome 

I believe that the page should be deleted, Its very opinionated (yes i know its all sourced from other people) but still who has the deciding line on what the greatest film, there are many variants. This sort of page is suited to someones' blog, not a Wikipedia article. Its a fine line to what should be on Wikipedia but this i think should be deleted.   

Although this page somewhat irks me, I believe it would most likely make it through a deletion proposal with a Keep decision.  The article is technically 100% factual in that it is stating, ""so and so thinks this movie is the greatest.""  Personally, I think that this sort of information on critic and audience opinions should be reserved for the individual entries for the films, and that an attempt to build a list such as this is inherently flawed.  Specifically, my problem is that the personal opinions of Wikipedians are bound to show up in this article in that, in many cases, I believe that with enough searching you could find somebody's'' list that has your favorite movie on top.  Of course, the failsafe against this is that editors must decide whether or not that ""somebody"" is a notable c