Yeah another list , but I bet this one will surprise you and perhaps have you shaking your head. No Citizen Cane Times article. Take your seats for the top 100 films Another film list? The same old Citizen Kane? No � this one�s different, says The Times�s chief film critic James Christopher You may be suffering from list exhaustion. There are so many about, and especially on film. But this one is different. Yes, of course we�d say that. But having read endless Top 100 film lists, we felt short-changed. Sure, they�re definitive in their way, but they don�t have many surprises. This one aims to be all-encompassing, certainly, and authoritative. But it is also intended to cause debate and maybe consternation. None of us � myself, my fellow critics at The Times and my editor Tim Teeman � realised how contentious this list would be to compile. We didn�t want simply to rearrange the furniture as other lists do. Nor to kow-tow to monolithic critical masterpieces routinely crowned year on year. There are some spectacular casualties. Citizen Kane (1941) failed to cut the mustard. The genius of Orson Welles was not to be denied. But it was felt that his sour and seedy thriller Touch of Evil (1958) was not only equally audacious in terms of pure film-making, but also had greater resonance than Kane. Some omissions are too painful to talk about: Groundhog Day, The Servant, The Lives of Others, Psycho, The English Patient. (All my choices naturally.) Tastes vary dramatically, and you would be amazed how few critics will fall on their swords when it comes to such a fraught subject. That said, the list looks far fresher and younger than any of us dared hope. The number of recent releases vying for places near the summit is a surprise. I shall be horrified if anyone agrees with every one of our choices. The point of The Times Top 100 Films of All Time is to stimulate argument, and sharpen your own thoughts about the ingredients that make great movies. Now, if you�d like to take your seats for the main presentation . . .