xhonzi said:

I get all of that too... but I think context should be carefully handled when rating a film.

Best for its time? Or best ever? I think, perhaps, we should have a list of most influential or most historically relevant, or best in its time movies apart from the "best ever" list. Yes, Kane was groundbreaking in its day and dared to take on Hearst in such a way that everyone involved in the project should have been committed. That's great. But also, at the end of the day, a film is a film and not the people who made it or the way or reasons that they did.

Good points. The big problem is that stupid AFI list that they keep doing variants of. They're just done to increase recognition and get people to donate money. You can't rank films in such a way. That said, the only list as such of any real merit is the Sight & Sound poll done every 10 years. It's the best place to start to find a good list of some of the great masterworks.

In those terms, I think the notion that no one has made a better film than Citizen Kane in the past 70 years to be ridiculous.

No one has made a more energetic or more complete film. That's it's staying power. Probably the most "complete" film ever shot. The cinematic kitchen sink.