When I read that last sentence of your blurb, the words of the wounded deputy rang in my ears: "You can't stop what's comin'." So true about the movie. The second time I saw it I was struck by the biblical quality of it. It's very Old Testament, elemental.

There's so much to love and notice about the movie that it's hard to begin. One scene just floored me. The two sheriffs are leaving the restaurant in El Paso. They're talking about Chigurh, face-to-face in silhouette, both as black as Chigurh himself, figuratively absent. Bell says (approximately), "He's almost like a ghost." Death, menace, the lack of knowledge of the soul ("I thought that God was going to come into my life"), it's all there in that simple shot.

I may have overlooked it, but I haven't noticed anyone comment on the use of baby blue in the movie. It seems to be the color of sky, angels, redemption. Bell's wife's eyes are bright blue, and she wears a light blue shirt in the closing scene. She's a redeemer of sorts, the way she treats Bell. Also, Woody Harrelson's character wears glaring baby blue and is shot against a pure blue sky in one scene. You could see him as a spurned guardian angel (note also the flowers at the bedside). Contrast those uses of blue with the consistent use of tan – earth, clay, sand, dust to dust – and you get a simple heaven-earth dichotomy. I don't know whether it's deliberate, but it seemed like more than a coincidence that Llewellyn started at the Desert Aire trailer park and ended at the Desert Sands motel.

I'm going to go see it a third time. I haven't been this excited about a movie since I was seven and "Star Wars" came out.

It's not that I have a problem with the individual lists per se, but I had to look things over twice because I was wondering if this was an "English-language only" vote. But, no, there was a tiny smattering of foreign films creeping onto a few lists.

Were 80-90% of the best films made this year really made in English?

I know the answer to that question. Many critics (esp. those who don't get to Toronto) get to see most of the English-language films, and don't get to see many of the foreign language films. But that becomes a real problem when you then vote for a "best of." Is there a better solution to this? A separate poll for English and non-English films? Or just more of a conscious effort to indicate the selection bias that goes into these lists?

Chris: I know what you mean, but I think the selection bias is built into the "system":

1) This particular poll was limited to 2007 theatrical releases (not festival screenings) -- as are most of these "year-end" affairs. Maybe that's somewhat arbitrary, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If you don't live in NYC, your chances of seeing a theatrical engagement of films like "Colossal Youth" (as you mentioned in an earlier comment) or "Syndromes and a Century" are slim to none. Forty percent of Dave Fear's list is non-English -- but he lives in NYC. Some years most of my favorites have been not-in-English (I feel silly even putting it in those terms); this year, I had three on my MSN list.

2) It's a committee vote, not a statistical sampling. (I meant for the headline to reflect my own passionate bias!)

3) I suppose anybody could make separate lists for English and non-English films if they wanted to, but I have considerable ambivalence about the idea of ghettoizing films into categories based on language, or "indie" financing -- or even "documentary" or "animation." I'm one of those people whose music collection is organized alphabetically by artist/composer rather than by genre. (When my music collection is organized at all, that is.) Unless it's built into the "rules," I'd rather put all movies together on one list. I don't want to imply that "foreign" films should be given "special consideration" just because they're not in English. That subtly diminishes them, I think.

4) On the other hand, I am an English-speaking American, and there's no getting around that. I often wonder how much I'm missing when I don't understand the language. And even though I barely notice that I'm reading when I watch a subtitled film, I can't help but wonder what I may have seen, or where my eyes would have wandered in the frame, if I hadn't been focusing, however momentarily, on the words across the bottom of the screen. (Still, I'll take subtitles over dubbing anytime.)

4) This poll was for MSN Movies, a mainstream site with millions (and millions!) of visitors. To a good part of the audience, films like "NCFOM" or "I'm Not There" or "Zodiac" represent pretty exotic, challenging fare! I hope we encourage more people to see 'em (even though many will have to wait for a limited release like "I'm Not There" to appear on DVD)!

I realize this diminishes my movie-lover cred around here (wouldn't be the first time) - but Jim, you hit right on in point No. 4 (the first one - you had two No. 4s) - why I have a hard time with foreign films.

I sometimes think cinephiles who thumb their nose at those who share my opinion, just defend foreign films out of a need to live up to the elitist cred.

When I watch a film -- or listen to a great CD, for that matter -- I want to just soak it in. Or, better put, I want the piece to absorb me. That's why it's often so hard for me to express the love of certain films or CDs -- and it's not because I'm inarticulate. It's just that, I think, movies and music ARE the words. i.e. the piece of work is its own definition. So defining it via essay form doesn't do it justice.

Point is that, having to read subtitles takes me "out of the movie." I am no longer absorbing it and it's no longer absorbing me. It's not in its natural state, and therefore, it's very hard to appreciate.

Ask yourself this Jim ... could you possibly have been as enthralled with No Country For Old Men (as I was) if you had to be looking down at subtitles the whole time? You'd have missed the "jazz" of the movie.

Adam,

I'm not going to thumb my nose at you. Everyone watches movies for their own reasons.

Watching a film with subtitles is obviously a different experience, but it's not what that I find more distancing.

I definitely react to words in films differently whether I hear them or read them, and I believe I tend to be much more forgiving of subtitled words than spoken words. That's a little unclear; let me give an example.

Kent Jones recently wrote about the reception of "We Own the Night" at Cannes (or maybe another festival, but I think it was Cannes.) Many French critics loved it; few American critics felt as enthusiastic. Jones suggested this difference might be explained by the fact that some dialog that sounds clunky or even goofy to American ears doesn't come off the same to someone who is reading subtitles. I know what he's saying; I suspect I am much more "forgiving" of awkward dialog when it only comes to be in translated, written form.

I also believe (in a completely amateur, unsubstantiated fashion) that reading words on a screen vs. hearing them in an understood language puts the viewer into a different reception mode. For me, it can actually be more hypnotic at times, pulling me more "into the movie" if you will because even the words now have become a visual element along with the rest of the mise-en-scene. And I'll be honest, I almost always turn on the subtitles on DVDs even for English films; sometimes it's better than being distracted by having to make out all the dialog.

Having said that, there is no reason to champion foreign films simply because they are foreign films. Just last week, I led a discussion group on Abbas Kiarostami's "Ten". I was concerned about how the group would receive the movie. I spoke to a woman on the way out who said she liked it. I told her I was pleasantly surprised. She responded, "But I like all foreign movies."

Grodd bless her, she's entitled to think whatever she wants. But what the hell does that mean? Other than that she hasn't seen a Gaspar Noe film yet, that is.

Christopher, I agree about subtitles. There was a time when they were almost impossible to read on a lot of video tapes in the pre-wide-screen days and, yes, that was a distraction. Now, though, I barely notice that I'm reading them and, like you, I also use them for movies in English. It's a lot better than rewinding. That may be my age showing, I don't know, but it works. I don't think I read every word but particularly in long shots of, say, two characters talking while crossing a busy street their voices are often drowned out by traffic. I loved the movie "Once" but I really wish they had had subtitles at the theater because it took me 10 or 15 minutes to get in tune with the rhythms of the Irish brogues. That said, I'm more of a word guy than image guy and can understand if the two things don't mesh for some people.

Indeed, to each their own. It's just that - I consider myself a movie snob when compared the mass populace :) .... but compared to most people here, I'd be considered the dolt because it's hard to get into foreign films. My reasoning is not because I'm looking down on foreign films - but precisely because I like to "get into" the movie so much, that I can't do so with them.

You guys brought up "Once" - a fantastically great movie. And it's true, that it took a while to get into because of the accents, and maybe I missed stuff. But I'd rather have that, and then have to see it again (which I will as soon as the DVD is released on Dec. 18), than read subtitles in that movie.

Same goes for Trainspotting - which was practically impossible to fully understand on first viewing. I then actually watched it with the subtitles to see what I missed - then went back and watched it again without the subtitles and thoroughly enjoyed it the most. Anyway ...

Sometimes it's fun to watch a movie with audio description for the visually impaired. I rewatched Saving Private Ryan that way, and it was interesting to pick up on some of the proper nouns, as well as details of motion and distance.

I understand some of the trepidations when it comes to praising foreign films when you don't understand the language (and I don't understand any other language than English, although I understand the way most Romance languages work). It's hard to say if you're judging performances and dialogue. And it is possible that meanings and moods can subtly change.

I wonder if some of the people above have really "trained" themselves to watch foreign films, though. If subtitles are distracting you from what's going on above, something's wrong. Even in a movie theater, I have little problem seeing both picture and words. You really do have to practice at it before you can watch foreign films the same as anybody else watches an English language film.

btw, which foreign films do people think should be included in the final assessment of 2007? I pretty much read about every film that opens in the U.S., and there really didn't seem to be that many that did. I can only think of two major ones, The Lives of Others and Black Book. Both are getting some attention. Black Book would currently be the only foreign language film on my top 10 list (and it won't fall off anytime soon). I think a lot of people may be thinking of The Lives of Others as a 2006 film, but it didn't open in NY until a couple of weeks before the Oscars. Also The Host, which will probably get some attention, too. I've also seen I Don't Want to Sleep Alone, Offside, Paprika, and 12:08 East of Bucharest, all of which I've seen on lists, too, but I doubt many would include any of these ones.

Adam, zetes: The subtitles themselves don't really distract me (I've made the mistake of thinking films were in English after I'd seen them because I didn't remember any subtitles). But I'm not fooling myself that I'm seeing the "whole picture," either. One's eyes can only be focusing on one spot at a time, and what you may see in your peripheral vision while looking at an actor's eyes or mouth is not the same when you're looking at words running across his/her chest. That's just an unavoidable trade-off. (I have missed things -- say, a glimpse of something in the upper left-hand corner -- and, if I'm watching a DVD, I'll stop and go back to see what it was.)

I don't think this should put anyone off subtitles, though (that didn't occur to me). As with any work in translation, you know you're going to be missing some of the author's nuances. The best subtitles in the world can only be an approximation. You can get a sense of how lines are delivered, but you can't necessarily catch the nuances in the pronunciation of every word. (That said, the second time I watched "The Host" it had Swedish subtitles and, once I trained my eyes not to look at them, I didn't feel distanced from the movie at all!)

There's also the matter of the translation, and the necessary condensation of language required for subtitles. My first impulse would be to say that "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" was in English, because I know the director is from Brooklyn and I don't remember it as a a foreign language film -- although it is about as French as you can get. I've seen the movie -- I know better, but I didn't think about it being in another language while I was watching it, although now that I think about it, the main character would spell out words letter by letter in French, but the subtitles would show the letters to make the equivalent English word. The interesting thing about that film is that the book was written -- or blinked -- in French, the screenplay in English, which was translated back to French for the shooting, and then subtitled in English for US release!

The point I wanted to make was just that I know I'm not getting the same experience (even catching the subtleties of the language, or the cultural references) that someone born and raised in the same country in which the film was made would get.

Zetes,

You're right on the mark. We surely miss quite a bit when watching a film in another language that a native speaker would get, but I don't really think of that as a problem, or at least not a problem that prevents appreciation. I've loved "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul" for years, but it wasn't until recently I learned that the shopkeeper who won't serve Ali because of his "bad German" is himself a Bavarian speaker who many Germans would accuse of speaking "bad German" himself. So now I know, but I would never have picked that up on my own. I loved Ali before I knew that; I love it more after.

Non-English films on my list for '07(based on US release dates)?

Probably some of:

Colossal Youth
Offside
(I consider those two masterpieces)
Syndromes and a Century
Coeurs (AKA Private Fears in Public Places)
12:08 East of Bucharest
The Boss of it All
Black Book
Angel-A

Naturally, I missed more than I caught. It's pretty tough to make your "Best of" list for any year until a few years later.

Thanks for you response Jim. I'd love to be "better" at watching subtitled films - but I'm not, I guess. Thing is, I have two kids, a full-time job and side jobs, all having nothing to do with film. That means I get to see maybe 5 movies a month - sometimes more. At that rate, I have so much catching up to do on American films, that if I'm prioritizing, then foreign films get the boot. I do feel as though I'm probably missing some great movies that I see everyone here discussing - but I'm also missing so many English-speaking movies, that I can't really feel guilty about it :)

On another note, I just saw No Country For Old Men again tonight - for the second time. And here's a related point to subtitles as far as not being able to pick up on nuances ... Each time I've seen the movie, I was forced to sit way too close to the screen, because the theater was so packed. So while I loved the movie, I wonder how much I was unable to be completely absorbed because my field of vision couldn't see the whole screen at once.

Can't wait to get the DVD and see it again in the comfort of my own living room with the new 42-inch plasma I just ordered -- but my Led Zeppelin live DVD comes first :)

I was surprised to see "Breach" on your list, I hadn't seen you mention it on the site much. I really liked it too and it's too bad Chris Cooper probably won't be getting the awards recognition he really deserves for that role.

Mr. Emerson -

In your blurb you pointed out that Llewlyn Moss is "a man chasing a dream," which is something I didn't even think about. With all the significance the story puts on dreams, this observation makes the film even richer (as does Nicholas Dronen's comment about the use of baby blue and earth tones). I will most definitely be seeing it a third time and I have a suspicion that when I get the DVD next year, I will notice something new in every subsequent screening. I am reminded of when I saw The Big Lebowski (it probably wasn't until my fourth or fifth time watching it that I fully grasped all of the nuances and subtleties that make it so great) and had that "aha!" moment, like "now I get it!" It made me want to watch the movie again right away.

On the subject of foreign-language films: I remember seeing The City of Lost Children when it was released on VHS (after seeing one of the most hypnotic film trailers ever on the Living In Oblivion tape) and loving it visually, but not fully grasping what it was all about. I bought the movie when it was released on DVD and probably watched it at least five times (always with the subtitles) and somewhere in there I had that "aha!" moment. Then one day I wanted to show the film to a friend of mine who did not want to watch the subtitled version, so I turned on the English dubbing.

Horrible! The funny thing about dubbing, I've always found, is that if you listen to the voices, it sounds like the actors are trying really hard to put as much emotion into the words they speak. But it always comes out sounding clunky because the dialogue doesn't match the actors' body language (and obviously, the actors' mouths). Anyway, as I watched The City of Lost Children without subtitles (mind you, I'd probably seen it about eight times at this point) it was a completely different experience. It didn't even feel like the same movie. Then, later, I rewatched it without any subtitles or dubbing and, again, it was like watching a different movie. Then again, this particular film is extremely lush, visually- but I agree with the point about subtitles becoming part of the mise-en-scene and how they're impossible to ignore.

One thing about people who exclusively love foreign films, I believe it's the subtitles that engage them more than the film. They don't necessarily have to understand the performances to get the subtitles. The subtitles take on a life of their own, and who knows if they're even accurate? The words, in translation, sometimes have a poetic quality that I think these so-called "elitists" (I picture a man with thick, black rimmed glasses, a brown corduroy jacket with patches on the elbows, wearing a turtleneck and loudly eating an apple or an organic granola bar) tend to think it automatically makes the film superior to a Transformers or The Bourne Ultimatum. I am reminded of a line from a Jay-Z song (he's talking about another hip-hop artist): "Just because you don't understand him doesn't mean that he's nice/It just means you don't understand all the bulls*** he writes."

Anyway, my apologies for the diatribe.

-M.S.
First I'd like to say that I watch a lot of these "elitist" films that have subtitles. I am 21 years old and do not wear glasses, eat apples or granola bars, or own a corduroy jacket (though I do own a turtleneck). And ANY film is superior to "Transformers." Also Quoting Jay-Z does not give you a whole lot of credibility when you are sharing an opinion. He's a rapper. He wrote a song called "Big Pimpin'." His opinion has as much merit as Snoop Dogg or Dre or any pop musician really. Everything you wrote before Quoting Jay-Z almost got involuntarily dismissed by me upon seeing that.

One other thing, you may not always like abstract, seemingly incomprehensible art but do not pretend something is not being said simply because you are too tired or frustrated too decipher it.

And please, please, PLEASE, do not Quote Jay-Z. If you want to Quote a rapper, make it Immortal TechniQue at the very least. Though I would avoid citing any rappers.

Mr. Lime,

I apologize if you have taken offense to my comments about "elitists" but I do believe you've misconstrued the points that I was trying to make.

Maybe it was my fault in not explaining myself clearly enough. The "so-called elitist" that I described in my previous post was a caricature - a stereotype, and it was intended as a joke. With the Jay-Z quote I was trying to underline the point that there is this divide between supposed "high art" and "low art"and it was actually in response to a previous comment about people defending foreign films almost in an "I don't understand it, so it must be good" kind of way (which I believe I've definitely witnessed).

And I agree, Jay-Z's opinion has as much merit as Snoop Dogg, and Dr. Dre. But I wasn't talking about his opinion, I was simply quoting a line from one of his songs that, for me, rings true and I think was relative to the point I was trying to make. What I do find interesting (and I will admit that I was kind of baiting, there) is that I can liken Immortal Technique to foreign film (seemingly more complex and harder to find) vs. Jay-Z's Transformers (mainstream and ready for mass consumption) yet I don't believe any of these caveats can or should be taken as a measure of the end product's overall quality (be it film or music). Why would you avoid citing rappers? They are men just like you and me and, believe it or not, there is a lot of artistry and reflection involved in what they do.

That being said, I am never too tired or frustrated to decipher abstract, seemingly incomprehensible art (I attended an art college and saw my fair share of incomprehensible crapola). I love some foreign language films and it's not a turn off for me when something is supposedly difficult. At the same time I am not the type to discount films like The Stupids and Demolition Man (which I, honestly, count amongst my favorites) just because they are "low brow." Sure they're not Schindler's List or The Third Man, but I think they're brilliant in their own silly ways. And I am well-aware that most of what I've said comes off as slightly pretentious and "faux-populist" but I'm too tired and frustrated to go back and edit this post.

Also, I don't understand what you being 21 has to do with any of it.

-M.S.

First I'd like to say that in the realm of internet discussions, it is quite tempting to be reprehensibly nasty with one's comments, considering the cloak of anonymity one has in this forum. I may have gotten carried away with my criticism. Thank you for responding to me and doing so in a courteous fashion.

Your description of the man with the glasses and the corduroy jacket made me think of someone middle-aged or "not with it" being out of touch with the youth of our culture, etc. I said I was 21 to remind you that their are people out there who are young and still refuse to be lumped in with the callow, mall-loitering, text-messaging, "300" attending cretins who don't know who David Lynch is, much less Werner Herzog, Fassbinder, Pasolini, Bergman, or Haneke, and countless others. If you head over to the AV Club you will find many just like me who shun many things popular simply because they are embraced by the mouth-breathing masses. I do not wish to sound like a lofty elitist dick, but the truth is I'm a culture snob. Not all rappers are without merit. I like listening to some D-12 and some others, but I would never quote them when discussing foreign film seriously. I would quote someone who is involved in film, who knows about this particular field. Jay-Z I think you will agree is not exactly a scholar of this medium.

Anyway, sorry for the nastiness directed at you. I am also occasionally able to enjoy myself while watching mainstream fluff. I like "Indiana Jones" and "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Fugitive" and can even find good things in "Surviving Christmas" (James Gandolfini).