Okay, with you backing the movie listed at #6, I'll check it out. All of the others are either freaking brilliant, or I've been unable to see them yet. I especially like the props being given to #4, which I hope gets seen more in the near future.

I got right the ones I've seen 7, 6, 4, 3, 1 and two I haven't, 9 and 2. 9 from remembering the trailer. 2 from, well, it has the faces of the stars.

Tee hee. That tickled my fancy. Who woulda thought a shot from Superbad could seem so ominous?

I love it! Because I was getting sick of the rest of them, thank you for coming-up with an exciting, unpredictable top-ten list.

I'm glad you used the liquor store from Superbad, since it was the most pitch-perfect location they chose for that film.

It's always nice to see a surprise on someone's list like "Breach", even if I don't agree with the opinion.

But now I have to add "The Eclipse" (yes I've seen the other two) to my movie list and there's enough to see right now as it is. Cripes I wish I had the opportunity to see every movie before there release dates. And I'm in LA. L friggin' A. Where's the Hollywood love?

That was great. I love the way the editing gives the shots from Superbad the same reserved, dramatic quality as the more "serious" films on the list.

And what a great last shot to choose from #1.

Breach? Really?

Haven't seen it; didn't know you liked it. The dialogue in the trailer sounded bad enough to avoid.

Cheers for fitting 12:08 East to Budapest in there! The lighting/dimming of that Christmas tree is such a great image.

There's moments in that neglected film that are just as funny as the best in Superbad. When the old man starts stealing sheets of paper form the television host, I just about lost it.

Thanks, all. I'm getting sick of the lists, too (and I still haven't done my own print version!), so I was trying to come up with a different way of presenting one.

Phillip, Phil: "Breach" made a big impression on me -- especially as a character study of a deeply religious man (and I'm not religious at all anymore). I think it would have made my list even if it hadn't vanished almost without a trace.

Jeff: YES! I feel the same about the liquor store. It has stayed with me as one of the most vivid places I've seen on screen all year. (And the old Fotomat booth in the parking lot... perfect!)

Andrew, rob: I think "12:08" and "Superbad" are the funniest films of the year -- and (as I mentioned in my Exploding Head Awards), the former is also the wisest political film, along with "Persepolis." "No End in Sight" (winner of lots of the big year-end doc awards) is also essential to detailing world politics in the 00's and setting the record straight. The others work better for me as films, though.

As Phil said, the trailer for Breach was pretty bad, making it look like a ripped-from-the-headlines TV movie.

Anyway, it seems as worthy as any other movie I've seen. Cooper is so good that he makes you forget where the movie is heading during its first third. The music, particularly the piano theme for Hansen, lingered in my head like the score for Eyes Wide Shut.

I'm a little surprised that Into the Wild isn't on your list. I know you had some reservations, but you seemed very enthusiastic when you first wrote about it.

Bravo, Jim. Beautifully executed. Hats off.

Yeah, "No End in Sight" is vital watching for everyone, I think, in terms of its informative qualities. As a film, though, I think it's only moderately successful; more fluid docs like "Operation Homecoming" are better at detailing the wartime experience in an artistic, emotional way.

Also, thanks to your list, I Netflixed "Helvetica," which I'd previously heard of but hadn't given much thought to watching. In the past 24 hours I've watching it twice and have already shown it to two friends, who both enjoyed it as well. Great stuff, and really demanding of new outlooks on, well, everything.

So glad to see "Juno" NOT in your list.

I saw it last night, and the character of Juno comes off as one of the most fake in recent years, and I can't for the life of me understand how so many people fell for her. Michael Cera is the heart of that movie and he's barely even in it. (Though, Jason Bateman is fabulous when he's not in a scene containing only his character and Juno)

This is an excellent way to do a top 10, great list!

Ah, got six out of the ten. Thought 9 was Into the Wild and 8 was Sweeney Todd. Didn't have guesses for 10 and 4.

The top 3 were gimmees and if you didn't get them you are a moron.

I felt bad 'cause I only got 3 of them, but then when I got the end, I found out that was because I have only seen 3 of the movies in your top 10.

According to my notes, I have seen 105 new releases (from 2007) this year, yet I still haven't seen 7 of these 10. Man, they make a lot of movies.

No matter how many people tell me "Zodiac" is good, I just can't make myself watch another David Fincher movie. It's like someone telling me a new Sam Mendes movie is good - it just ain't possible, it can't be. It'd violate the rules of time and space or something.

merry christmas jim... thanks for all the great insight

That was a TERRIBLE list, except for No Country For Old Men

Jim: I just saw "No End in Sight" today, and I agree that it is an excellent, meticulous piece of documentary filmmaking. (It's sort of a condensed film version of "Fiasco," the best book I read this year on the Iraq war.)

But I gotta go with "God Grew Tired of Us" as my favorite documentary this year. It's a film of just stunning humanity.

- Christopher Long

What are you saying about David Fincher? And Sam Mendes? I don't understand. Are you saying that you like them or don't like them?

Are you saying they made a movie so perfect, you would never want to see another movie by them to tarnish it. Or are you saying you saw a movie by them that you hated so much that it is incapable for someone who directed that movie you hate to ever make a good movie again? Please explain your above comment.

Christopher: Maybe this could help you come around to Zodiac, but don't forget that Ebert even gave it a **** rating (well, along with half of 2007's releases), even after being a notorious skeptic of Fight Club. I'm not sure of your relationship with Fincher (aside from it being negative), but maybe this will be the film to change it. I've adored Fight Club since day one and also Seven (Panic Room felt like a rush job - the kind of movie one does after being exhausted by Fight Club), but I think Zodiac is a masterpiece of ridiculous proportions. I'm still trying to get around the fact that a genuine director's cut is coming out; the theatrical already seems perfect in my mind.

I try to not have automatic aversions to filmmakers as I find such an attitude to be constrictive. That does not mean I am free of pet hates, for what is a self-professed film nerd if not a shell of "pet feelings." Nonetheless, I try not to let such emotions dictate my viewing habits.

Which is why I can detest "Fight Club," or get numbed to the bones even thinking about "Panic Room," and yet appreciate the glory that is "Zodiac."

Aren't I the complex little pirate...

That was a very cool way to do this. Very well executed, too. I've only seen two of them, and I've seen over 20 films in theatres this year. Thank god for DVD, lots to look forward to.

I love the way the opening shot of Zodiac is eerily reminiscent of that of Blade Runner. I can stretch my philopsohising to find a link, but there's no need: it's great even in a superficial level.

Brilliant montage, Jim.

I like critics' "ten best" lists because they give folks like me, who can't go out to a lot of movies, a good idea which ones are worth burning a rare free evening to see. A list that requires you to have seen the movie before you know it's on the list may be a terrific way for movie people to speak to each other, but it does not suit my purpose. Worse, I think it fails as a method of mass communication, which I thought was a major part of a critic's job.

Not to say this isn't a clever idea. It is. I'm just suggesting it doesn't take the place of the text list, which I look forward to seeing.

First a disclaimer. This is not meant to be a criticism but only a reflection. This is certainly NOT a call for something like "affirmative action" or "equal representation" in the usual sense.

Having just seen No Country for Old Men, a question that's been floating around in my mind again surfaces: Do men and women make fundamentally different movies? Do men and women look at movies and like movies in fundamentally different ways? Do men and women have fundamentally different concerns? Finally, does the sense of urgency on people's mind today (war, mayhem, fear of violence, a sense of being directly threatened) affect men and women differently in the way they see movies?

I used to believe that I can think like a man and see the logic of the male perspective with as much clarity as men, but the older I get the more I doubt it.

Several acclaimed movies this year, including No Country for Old Men, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, even Michael Clayton (which I love), seem to represent an overwhelming tide that represent a distinctly and deliberately male point of view. I would suspect that it is true that the male point of view dominates film-making every year, but somehow I have an impression that concerns about the male identity seems particularly being debated by male filmmakers this year.

It may be unfair to compare No Country for Old Men with King Lear, but it occurred to me that the central concerns are rather similar and the way each piece handles the subject of death and decay and an indifferent universe reveals interesting differences in the creators' attitude.

I hope I do not sound like a feminist academic because I am not and generally do not like academic approaches to movies.

After sending the previous comment, I'm worried that it might be misleading and probably needs clarification -- yet I don't want to be long-winded as my intention was more raising questions than finding answers. I do not mean that male viewers and filmmakers have entirely different taste from female ones. Certainly all female viewers and critics do not agree on what they like and dislike, just like male viewers and critics disagree. I sometimes, perhaps often, agree more with certain male critics than female ones. It is impossible to generalize about these things. Yet, yet ... there is something about different perspectives, perhaps stemming from different life and cultural experience, that influence how we tell stories and hear stories. A flawed analogy would be that, although an enlightened white or Chinese person is able to learn and understand and empathize with the struggles of a black man living in America, he can't actually feel it to the same extent that a black man does, and that he might look at, say, Spike Lee's movies differently from a black male viewer.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense... 8-)

So Breach is really that good, huh? All right, I'll watch it tonight.

And for someone who didn't want to see Zodiac cause he honestly thought David Fincher's best film to date was Alien 3, I'll swallow my skepticism and give it a shot.

Jim,

I liked that aspect of "Breach", a lot. I thought it was a much smarter film than I imagined it being at first. It plumbed some subject matters in an intriguing and enlightening way. It just didn't tickle that part of me that says great movie. Maybe I'll have to see it again on your inferred recommendation.

I just saw "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days". Not on your list, but wow. "Persepolis" just opened in LA. I've got a busy week ahead of me. Most of it at the cineplex.

I believe I understand what you're getting at. Movies can show us the world through new eyes, but we can't help but be products of our own culture, upbringing and experience.

In her first-rate review of "There Will Be Blood" today, Manohla Dargis wrote: "(Like most of the finest American directors working now, Mr. Anderson makes little on-screen time for women." It's true, and I don't know why. Women don't figure into "TWBB" at all. On the other hand, I've argued that Carla Jean Moss is probably the strongest character in "NCFOM" -- the only one who really challenges Chigurh.

Yes, indeed, that was my thought too, that Mrs. Moss is the only person who stood up to Death and kept her dignity in the race from the inevitable.

I'm by no means an academic feminist, and I don't wish or expect women in movies or fiction to be heroic or good or profound or outnumber male characters. One example in mind is "Old Joy". The main characters are men, but the concerns and the curiosity about human interaction and psychology are very different from the typical male point of view. I don't think either point of view is superior than the other, but just deeply different. Two other examples, neither of which focus exclusively on female characters, are "You Me and Everyone We Know" and "American Splendor." One can sense the difference of these stories and the storytelling style from typical movies that dominate the market. It has something to do with how filmmakers observe characters, a way of gazing at people and never being totally indifferent or misanthropic (not that I don't like misanthropic work as long as it's well made). And such a point of view does bring resonance to both male and female audience, if it's done well; meanwhile, a male point of view can be appreciated by female audience too. I am thoroughly impressed by movies like NCFOM and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, but am also feeling an emotional distance from both.

Perhaps a rather more extreme example of a male point of view is Ridley Scott. I recently saw American Gangster and Kingdom of Heaven and the coldness in both almost repulsed me. But such stoicism is probably fine or even moving to other viewers (including some women, I'm sure) who are more sensitive to the male point of view. The male point of view seems more idealistic and heroic, or more concerned about lofty and grand thoughts.

I'm sad that the female point of view is far less represented in movies than it is in other areas of art and culture, because it is an alternative approach to exploring and expressing the human concern -- a smaller and more intimate approach that might be closer to ordinary people and daily life. And small, intimate, ordinary, sympathetic, un-lofty, imperfect, unambitious, temporary (versus "the Ultimate") concerns (about both the good and the bad in humanity) can be valuable. As a general principle, diversity of perspectives is good for the long-term health of an art medium.

That is truly, truly brilliant. Great way to run a top 10 list!

Chris, what is your problem?

Alien 3. His Best Film. You are a cretin.

Jun,

You make very good points. Certainly a story with esoteric situations and concerns will seem more involving and poignant to people who've experienced them. Certain war films will be more disturbing and upsetting to a veteran than to a jaded young slacker who works at 7-11 or something. While watching "Saving Private Ryan" in a History class in high school, I actually witnessed classmates of mine laughing out loud at the moment on Omaha Beach where the maimed man was looking for his severed arm and then picked it up and carried it away with him.

So I guess what I'm saying is I understand your perspective and am a little dismayed at the lack of important womens' roles in the great films of 2007. Though I hear that "Away From Her" is an extraordinary film. And Laura Linney's character in "The Savages" is in there. I would mention Cate Blanchette for playing Bob Dylan, but...

A director who is consistently concerned with combing the (often damaged) psyches of complex female characters is David Lynch. Dorothy Vallens in "Blue Velvet." Laura Palmer in "Twin Peaks: FWWM." Diane Selwyn in "Mulholland Dr." are characters who are obviously loved deeply by their creator. Naomi Watts gives the performance of a lifetime in "Mulholland Dr." and David Lynch is heart-broken and devastated for her. His films often make me realize that there is
(often) a vast inequality between the stress levels put on women and men.

That is why I think shows like "Sex & the City" do a disservice to women, stereotyping them as obsessed with superficiality and less inclined to be suffering from the kind of noble ennui we often see great iconic male film characters consumed by.

Great idea, Jim! Antonioni would be smiling.

Got only the ones I saw. Kudos to Breach being picked. Absolutlely brilliant, underrated movie. My personal favorite this year was "Zodiac".

Great video.

think I got 1,2,3,5 at least.

Ortsac, what is your problem?

Seven or Fight Club are good movies somehow?

To each his own. I don't actually think you have a problem, nor will I bother calling you names. You are, however, incorrect.

Mr. Emerson: Let me also say that this was a great way to do this! (I didn't guess any; even the ones I saw.) Most interesting Top 10 list of the year, by far, because it also ties into your Opening Shots Project, which I thought you'd abandoned or neglected.

Are you familiar with the Middle Frames project another website is doing?

um. where is There Will Be Blood? where is Atonement? i hated breach, but i'm so glad you don't have Juno listed. where's diving bell & the butterfly? what about sweeney todd? can't wait to see persepolis...

this was really great, and i'm very happy that assassination of jesse james made it on the list, but....no there will be blood? i am saddened by it's exclusion. as for why it contained little to no women, i think it's all due to the character chosen, and how he views women, or rather, doesn't. he has no use for them. and i think anderson has written some great female characters in the past, at least.

Well, this blog entry inspired a dream I had last night. I dreamt that I was watching the 2008 Academy Awards and all the winners were shown in a montage like this. And in my dream Samuel L. Jackson was the host, and he said "Sorry, but it's the best we can do. " And then he walks over to the middle of the stage and tries to adjust a slanted Christmas tree. And then I woke up.

Pardon me, I forgot to say Happy New Year!
At least I hope you're feeling better.

Chris,

You contradict yourself. You say "To each his own" and then say that I "am incorrect" as if your opinion is objective and mine is merely my opinion. How can I be "incorrect" if "to each his own"?

Seven, in my opinion, is a masterpiece. Fight Club I'm not a huge fan of, but Seven??!!!

You don't like Seven. Explain this to me. Because I don't see how it is possible. I'm not trying to pick a fight. It's just what possible flaws or shortcomings could you find in Seven? I've seen it countless times, and believe it to be better than "Silence of the Lambs" and every other movie centered around the pursuit of a serial killer. In fact, I would go so far to say that it is the "Citizen Kane" of serial killer movies.

This is just in my humble opinion. I'd like to hear yours.

I have to agree with all the people wondering about the exclusion of "There Will Be Blood." What's the deal?

Mr. Emerson didn't care for "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" if you read his Exploding Heads Awards.

Dan, that was an interesting dream. Was it also an homage/nudge/spoof of "No Country For Old Men's" last line?

I generally disagree with the understandably passionate but rhetorical questions in the vein of "How can you NOT like xxxx?" and "Everyone should agree xxx is a masterpiece."

Why does a particular person like or dislike a particular movie? It's a very personal and often irrational process that cannot be reasoned and definitely should not be determined by consensus. Individual taste is not democracy. In fact, many are fed up with the obligatory year-end opinion consensus. The agreement among critics implies more a herd mentality (and lack of sensitivity to one's personal reflections) than the flawlessness of a particular work.

Recently I have begun to sense a meaninglessness in the tradition of ten-best lists, especially my own. What is more important to me personally? A flawed movie that touches me deeply or a flawless movie that is distant? Increasingly I am drawn to modest and flawed works that touch me in a soft spot, even if I cannot honestly claim that they are technically or thematically great or grand. Meanwhile I am becoming more indifferent to works that I know rationally are impressive. Such inclinations are by definition idiosyncratic. Validation from critics' societies and academies and scholars is not necessary.

I'm afraid this might sound a bit pretentious or elitist, but that's not my intention. The point is that it is a rare and exhilarating thing to be touched deeply by a movie and to laugh or cry or both that I would rather count the ones that have done so for me rather than the ones that are "best".

My last sentence was, but that really was a dream I had. The funny thing is, they really are having trouble producing the show during the strike. They aren't being allowed to show old clips on the 80th anniversary.

The only one I saw was "12:08," and I saw it last year. Where was "Black Book"?

Jim

You need to calm down. "No Country for Old Men" received so many accolades because it's ultimate a rewriting of that other Oscar winner "Silence of the Lambs": a dull, uninspired serial killer movie with some flashy visuals and an overrated turn by a good actor who's hamming it up, and instead of homophia, we have a film with a racist message (did CNN produce this?): the three monologues by the white men in the movie which are all precious and ramble on about the violence and chaos in the world are essentially in the world of the movies blamed on a Latino sociopath and crazy Mexican drug dealers. It's probably one of the most reprehensible films in the way that white critics fail to critique it in terms of its aesthetics and/or politics.

Jun,

Actually I would say that the elitist crowd generally follow the opposite of your criterion for what is a favorite film.

Heralding a film for "touching" you emotionally and provoking tears, laughter, and heart-warming such and such is actually more of a reaction common among the general public.

Jim,

I just saw Juno and absolutely loved it. I think you are off base with your assessment of the beginning. I saw nothing wrong with it and thought it was a perfect entry point into the movie. I'm going to have to side with Roger on this one.

To the fellow "The Third Man" fan --

Of course, you are right. Silly silly me. How delusional for me to worry that I'd sound elitist? Ha!

The movie that made me laugh and cry -- simultaneously -- this year was The Darjeeling Limited. The one that still haunts me is Michael Clayton. The one that I immediately recall is The Simpsons movie. How would I ever feel like I had a say in technical and thematic perfection in year's best! And no, I would never ask anyone else to agree with me or see my rationale, because I have no rationale, because my preference is based on my own baggage and history and idiosyncracies.

(I promise this is the last post from me about 2007 movies.)

Jun,

What's "The Third Man?"

Breach???? Saw it on a plane back from Europe. Chris Cooper, unsurprisingly, was great... but, man, 2.5 stars at best. When Ryan Phillipe asks Laura Linney if she thinks "it's all worth it" and her response, that whole "the effect the job has on the personal life" subplot... cringe-inducing to me. I'm surprised, I like a lot of what you write, Jim. Maybe I'll have to try it on a screen bigger than 3 inches.

Oh, my apologies if your name is really Harry Lime. 8-)

See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041959/

The character played by the great Orson Wells in one of my all-time favorite movies.