Let me compare the top 1000 of AM to "They Shoot Pictures Don't They".

2000s:
Highest rated on AM: #62
Number in top 1000: 118

Highest rated in TSPDT: #344
Number in top 1000: 14

1990s:
Highest rated on AM: #3
Number in top 1000: 185

Highest rated in TSPDT: #99
Number in top 1000: 95

Why do you suppose this is? Is it just that the quality of films has declined? Or is there something about films relative to albums that makes it take longer for it to gestate in your brain and take root as an all time classic? Maybe it's because we watch our favorite films less often than we listen to our favorite albums, so when critics make all time lists they're going more by memories of emotions than a direct side by side comparison?

(Or is it just that TSPDT weights according to age and Henrik doesn't?)

I don't get it either. While I give credit to the early directors who paved the way and took risks and actors who formed what acting on film was all about, I find the best of modern film benefits from better screenplays (for the most part).

There is a method difference between TSPDT and AM. TSPDT doesn't adjust for that new films weren't released at the time of many source polls. I adjust for this since I use pairwise comparisons between albums rather than a points system.

However, I don't think this explains the whole difference. I still think the question is relevant. Or at least, the question could be "Why do critics rate new music higher new film?" Look at metacritic - while most of the album metascores are in the 60-85 range, a lot of films have a metascore far below 60.

I have a little insight as to why music critics rate albums higher than film critics rate films. When I worked as a music critic, the editor would assign albums to individual critics based on that critic's musical interests (sometimes you could request to review certain albums, especially for less famous acts, space permitted of course). So, for instance, the editor will have the electronica critic (a rare breed) reviewing the new Chemical Brothers album instead of assigning him/her the new Mastodon or Brad Paisly release. This way rock critics generally review the releases that they have the highest chance of liking, as opposed to reviewing albums that they are almost sure to hate. Thus, they tend to be more generous with their ratings.

Most film critics work for newspapers where they are usually the only one of their type employed. So they are expected to review everything (since there are fewer films released than albums), regardless of their interest in a particular genre. And I'm sure that being forced to watch films that you hate can make you a little bitter. Hence the lower ratings.

I don't necessarily think the disparity on metacritic is a good example. I'm sure there was plenty of utter dreck released in 1939 alongside the classics. But there are more albums released than films. So just about all the films that appear in mainstream, arthouse, or second run theaters get reviewed, whereas mostly albums that already have positive buzz get reviewed.

Having just seen Casablanca for the first time, I have trouble agreeing with the statement that the quality of screenplays has improved, as I don't think I've ever seen a movie with a better screenplay than Casablanca.

Casablanca also gave me two more theories.

1) Technology has made it so you don't need to put as much creative hard work into your filmmaking to be financially successful. People always complain that the Oscar nominees are too obscure -- maybe that's because before CGI it took a better script to get your butt in the seat.

2) World War II. It brought out the best and worst in humanity, and people wrote stories about it. Nowhere else in world history are there such stark moral absolutes. It wreaked havoc on our psyches and made us reimagine the limits of human cruelty. A lot of the great movies in the decades following WWII tell psychological stories based on the ensuing state of fear, paranoia, and vulnerability that lasted through the sixties.

That fear sort of dwindled between Vietnam and 9/11 and when it came back it was more in the form of apathy, alienation, and general cynicism about human nature. Those themes tend to dominate the great pictures of the 00's, and they're just not as potent emotional lenses as 'Holy crap the nuclear holocaust will be tomorrow'.

I tend to feel the opposite way. If you look at the history of cinema, the '20's onward, their's a fair amount of films spread from all over the place. At the top of a typical all-time list, you'll see maybe Citizen Kane ('41) to The Godfather ('72) to our Pulp Fiction ('94). The films are spread out, not from any particular "era" of cinema. (I'm no art-school film professor, so I don't know the obscure critical hits, but for most relatively popular lists). But look at music. If you looked at AM, or most critics list (not NME!), you'd think rock music peaked 1965-72, with few exceptions in that league. Music critics like new music and tend to rate it highly in reviews, but I think newer albums would have a harder time making it to the top of a critic's all-time favorite list than films.

It's always been my belief that rock critics today are more of big picture people; 20-30 years ago there were still a lot of undiscovered or underappreciated classics. Today with the internet, that doesn't seem possible.

I think it's worth noting that critics today are MUCH MORE likely to give something a 4 1/2 or 5 star than critics in say the 70s. Rolling Stone and other publications gave legit classics like Ziggy Stardust and After The Gold Rush 3-4 stars in the 70s, and now both are viewed as top 50 albums of all time (top 20 in Ziggy's case!)

I think it comes down to critics trying to not have yoke in their face in 25 years. No one wants to be the one that people say "Hey remember when that idiot gave Yankee Hotel Foxtrot a 3 star?" or "Remember that guy who called The Arcade Fire boring?" so they lay on the praise big time.