If one film (LotR) is more true than the other (SM2) its not because of settings or even premise, but on the relationships and motivations of the characters.

I enjoy Inception quite a bit for its creativity, if not its overall coherence.  I'm not too miffed he missed Best Director, but I'm happy with the Best Picture Nom.  It won't win a whole lot Oscar night, but it was certainly a movie I enjoy. 

As for Kev, Chasing Amy was a hugely influential movie on me, in terms of how to balance tone and nail a not-so-happy ending that's still satisfying.  These days, Smith is so insular in his echo chamber of fanboys its just depressing to watch.  I saw him speak at the DGA in 2000 and he was so warm and affable it was refreshing.  But the success of his speaking engagements created this cult of personality that he's never quite been able to escape from.

My personal favorite Hitchcock is Shadow of a Doubt, with JoeCotton.  But if we're doing a Film School month, Vertigo, Psycho, or NxNW would be a better choice.

He looks much more like his mom.  But his hands always default to a boxing stance.  More like Tyson's or Mickey Ward's than say, a Klitschko or Tua.  This tells me he will throw short hooks and uppercuts while inside the pocket than using his jab to maintain distance.

...or it just means he likes to scratch his face.

I was always partial to On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  George Lazenby is way better than people remember, and the ending was shocking for the time.  Solid forgotten film.

I certainly agree that RLM articulated a lot of points that were on the tips of many angry tongues, and did so in a fresh way.  But just like I think that Lucas could have made all three Prequels into one tighter movie, I think Plinkett could have made his point about all three movies in one large review.

I do in fact prefer Magnificent Ambersons as well, but I don't sleep on Kane at all.  I don't think you can deny it's influence, but Ambersons has a more interesting story to tell, and all things being equal, I gravitate to story.  Apocalypse Now is one of my all time favorites and I have no idea how we would comment on it or Kane. 

What I would say is that often our best commentaries are not ones where we unleash never before heard trade secrets, but give our own unique perspectives on films in a context of our places in the industry, as film lovers, and at this moment in time.  In short, I think people respond to how these movies are personalized by the cast.  I think when it comes to so-called classics, we shouldn't try to parrot the dialogue of film critics past, but add a contemparay take on why these films are still relevant (or not) to the DiF crew, and why they should be relevant (or not) to you, the audience.