Well, do you think it's the best film? Certainly nobody would deny that the cinematography was amazing and groundbreaking.
I think it's a fantastic film, and way, way ahead of its time in many ways. Not to be hipsterish, but I don't really like the idea of "best" in things like this. I really don't know how to compare Citizen Kane, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Evil Dead 2 - not saying those are my top films, just films I like very much.
Hm... have to ask: where is Lawrence of Arabia in your list? Or Wall-E? ;-) I like everything else on the list, except Evil Dead 2 which I have not seen.
While "best" or "greatest" is a fluid definition, one might contest a given film not being on the list of "best" and "greatest".
While Raiders is very charming indeed, I don't think it can be compared with Lawrence, just for the gravity of the story, and the depth of characters - the fact of Peter O'Toole not receiving an Oscar for his performance is unjust, or shall we say "malign".
Where Indiana is easy to play, Lawrence is not.
The latter is passing from a little clownish, insubordinate, ill-fitting junior officer into a shiny, unconventional, larger than life military strategist-hero into a violated man into an egomaniacal war criminal into a sidelined and disillusioned political encumbrance into a legend that ignores the complexity of the man.
Indiana is and remains whatever he is in the beginning of Raiders, however attractive this may be.
Also, the stars of Lawrence were made to ride camels in hot desert of Jordan in long shot pictures, to build on the reality of the story. This I cannot imagine today.
I love Orson Welles, but I also think his "victim" status has granted him retroactive glory beyond the actual facts in Hollywood sentimental style, wistful of what might have been had this great director not been sidelined after his debut.