For me, the most frustrating thing about this list, and about almost all consensus lists, is the ridiculous prejudice against non-fiction filmmaking. "No End in Sight" was the top -ranked doc at #29??!! I've been submitting my own Top 10 lists for five years now, and never had a year with less than 3 docs in the Top 10, and plenty more that would follow shortly after. I can't conceive the possibility of a year in film in which 28 fiction films were better than any non-fiction film, but maybe that's just me.

Good to see "Redacted" get some "love" for Worst Film. It needs more. It is truly, truly awful/

Jim, I'm glad to see you at work again. Welcome back.

Like you said about "[regretting] impulsively citing 'Southland Tales' as the 'worst' movie I saw in 2007," this is the exact problem with these lists based on consensus: the responses are too knee-jerk or "impulsive." It's possible these contributors really believed in their lists (I'm sure you believe in yours), but it seems that the consensus is always so predictable. I agree that it's more enjoyable to read individual selections and understand why particular movies were chosen because you "get" why someone would pick Southland Tales as the best movie of the year of No Country for Old Men as the worst. Even though I may not agree with a certain degree of love that you, Roger Ebert, A.O. Scott, David Bordwell, and others may have for certain movies, I tend to find your arguments valid. So, I agree with with both you and Airsdale: it really should be not only about lists but also about why those choices were made and not a "capsule" review for each selection (as most top ten lists are done).

Glad to hear your remark about "Sweeney Todd" being one of the worst of the year...after hearing all of the raves, I was expecting a great musical. Not only was the music second-rate, but Burton found absolutely no way to present the murders in a way that was inventive and conveyed any genuine horror. Instead, we just got scene after scene of blood spurting.

Speaking of which, I can't wait to see "There Will Be Blood". It's heartening to see Anderson, Coen and Fincher at the top of the Voice consensus poll...it demonstrates that 2007 was a prime year for a (relatively) younger generation of American filmmakers.

Kudos, Jim. I agree generally that there is a toxic quality to critical consensus.

I think you've struck upon one of the fundamental questions regarding pop culture criticism. Is it appropriate for members of the critical community to influence one another, either in individual reviews or in the assemblage of lists? Would it preferable if critics were sealed off from one another in isolation booths after screenings and forced to write their reviews in a vacuum, without reading one other review? There's an appealing purity to this notion, but I'm not sure the results would be entirely desirable. Such a practice would undoubtedly expose a couple of intellectual frauds, and could very well create a more textured critical landscape. Yet there's something to be said for how critics educate and enlighten one another.

I try to write my amateur reviews after reading only a couple of professional reviews, or even none. Yet over the longer term, I often find that I can articulate my responses better to a film--especially one I truly admire or truly loathe--if I absorb the well-written thoughts of others. Ratatouille made my Top Five of 2007 thanks in large part to some intensely appreciative reviews that convinced me to go back and watch it two more times. Was I unduly influenced by those reviews? I would like to think not. However, it's difficult to say where another person's (admittedly valuable) insights end and my own reactions begin.

Two of the most widely admired films of 2007--No Country and Zodiac--were also among my favorites. I'm fairly confident that these don't represent merely my absorption of consensus picks because I had such strong reactions to these films the moment the credits rolled. I'm also willing to defend Juno against the contempt that has been heaped upon it in the alternative film press. I'm also willing to say that a film most people were modestly entertained by or outright hated--Death Proof--is one of the best films this year. I also think that the best acting debut this year was a little girl in a film almost no one saw--Nina Kervel-Bey in Blame It on Fidel. Now, which of these views makes me a bold truth-teller, and which one make me a sheep?

The top 10 list is perhaps the ultimate cancer on contemporary film, a backslapping orgy of hype that prizes propriety and capsule-sized cleverness over any sort of art, revelation, or insight.

Pardon the language, but what a crock of shit. Van Airsdale may -- may -- have a point if the critics doing these lists had not already seen and discussed these movies at length, and indeed were blurbing with no context. Here's the thing, though: They are and they have. So there goes his argument.

Top 10 lists are a reflection of personal taste in the critic, not objective "reality" (insofar as that term has any meaning in criticism) and (hopefully) serve as a reminder to readers of what they may have missed, or as a chance to reflect on what they have seen but haven't thought about in awhile. And while critics may have some notion of national trends, smaller audiences (to whom each critic targets) may not. So I don't see the sin in consensus.

They are also, as he states, a launching point for discussion, which (until now) I was not aware was a sin as well. And only the sloppiest critics forget the first of the year; among my listees are The Namesake, The Hoax, and Breach, and I wanted to put God Grew Tired of Us except I found out it technically came out in 2006. And I'm not exactly at the forefront of the avant garde over here.

Jesus Christ, Jim - a bit snarky today, are we?

Did one of these critics kick your dog or something?

John: Well, I've been sick. But, honestly, snark wasn't what I intended. I'd hoped it read a little more playful than that. I LIKE critics' polls (especially the individual lists), and they often spur me to check out movies I might otherwise have overlooked. But this whole idea of pretending a consensus list needs to be condemned for reflecting a consensus seems kind of silly to me. As I tried to show, you can read all kinds of meanings into these selections -- and that's fine, too -- but the evidence to support them is sketchy at best. (Like the way pundits try to make election results appear as if they reflect a single conscious decision made by a mass of voters to choose one candidate over another.)

BTW, I may use this in a future piece, but I did a Google search for "Juno" + "snark" and got "about 28,000" results. "Juno" + "snarky" yields "about 16,200" results. What do such statistics mean? Do they have meaning? I don't believe I have any way of knowing for sure....

I don't understand how some people (like Van Airsdale above) continue to blast away at other critics for their supposed knee-jerk reaction to films released at the end of the year. I won't say that such a bias doesn't exist, and no one will deny that the release dates are calculated by the studio for a reason. But the release date hardly guarantees critical fawning, the studios' choice to release at the film at the end of the year is hardly arbitrary (by which I mean films by the likes of Scorsese, Eastwood, the Coens, P.T. Anderson, etc. are going to be given the benefit of the doubt release date-wise, and are often worthy of it), and, most importantly, the critics' reactions to those films are often (not always, but a fair portion of the time) formed well before said release dates.

First of all, every year there are promising-looking films carefully positioned at the end of the year that end up getting middling reviews from critics and get overlooked in the awards race and top-10 lists. I'm sorry, say what you will about bias, but there were damn good reasons why "There Will Be Blood" got better reviews than, say, "The Kite Runner" or "Margot at the Wedding." Just as there were damn good reasons "Children of Men" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" got better reviews than "The Good Shepherd" or "Dreamgirls" (which I still felt got much better reviews than I felt it should have, but that's another story) last year.

But even aside from those examples, have these people even LOOKED at the year-end lists they're supposedly basing their opinions on?

"Zodiac" (#2 on indieWIRE's list, #3 on Village Voice's) came out THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH.

"Once" was first seen by countless critics at Sundance at the BEGINNING of the year (which, to those keeping score, is the opposite of the END of the year) and was released in the spring.

"Ratatouille" was a summer movie.

"Black Book" (shallow and simple-minded and transparently manipulative even by action-movie standards) came out in April.

"Away from Her" (another Sundance movie) was released in May.

Most importantly in my mind, many of the films that are supposedly only praised because of their release dates were actually first seen by hundreds or thousands of critics at film festivals earlier in the year, or in some cases even the PREVIOUS year - many of those hundreds or thousands of critics have already written about those films or otherwise made their thoughts known.

"4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days," for example, was widely praised by critics when it premiered at Cannes - when no one knew what the hell the release date was going to be, or even if there was going to be a U.S. release date at all.

"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" - regardless of whether you love it or hate it - also garnered tons of critical praise at Cannes. In May.

Did anyone see the indieWIRE poll from last year? The top two movies were "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu" and "L'Enfant" - two movies with spring release dates, and which were first screened for critics THE YEAR BEFORE at Cannes.

This is not to say that the process is without fault - I think there ARE those who sometimes give too much credit to year-end movies. Just as there are those who overlook great comedies. Just as there are those who overlook blockbusters or "popular" movies. Just as there are those who automatically give more credit to small or independent movies than bigger films. Just as there are those who, as Christopher Long mentioned, overlook documentaries - or animated films for that matter.

But the "year-end release date" criticism - while valid to some small extent - too often doesn't hold up all that well to scrutiny. And if anything, IT sounds like the knee-jerk reaction, rather than the other way around.

Whenever I hear it, it often just sounds like sour grapes because someone didn't like something(s) as much as everyone else did. Well, get over it.

Saying everyone else liked it just because of when it was released (which, as I said previously, is often DIFFERENT from when everyone else first SAW the film) is merely a crutch - an easy substitute for any actual argument or discussion.

Ken: Hear Hear. I think top 10 lists are great in pointing out lesser known films a viewer may have missed during the year. And if you like a critic's writing, you want to read their year end summation's to hear why they loved their list films so much, regardless of whether or not you agree (e.g. I'd love to read Jim's detailed year end list, even though I think No Country for Old Men is overrated and "soulless").

Re: critics influencing each other...It shouldn't happen, but it does to an extent. It's human nature. For example, I saw Sweeney Todd and was underwhelmed by it - didn't think it was awful, just blah...forgettable songs and a storyline that only had me intermittently involved with the film. Then I read review after review praising the film, with many people putting it on their best lists and I began to doubt, ever so slightly, my own opinion, thinking I may have missed something. Then I ended up being relieved reading this and the comments to find out that Jim and a few others here share my opinions about Sweeney Todd.

In theory, I should be secure enough in my own opinions to not doubt myself when I see Sweeney Todd on best list after best list and not feel an automatic uplift when I read that people here share my views on it...but, the fact is...the opinions of others do have at least a little bit of impact on us.

The presence of films like Colossal Youth and Syndromes and a Century in these polls has little to do with DVD screeners. Both were at Cannes and Toronto, and Joe's also played the NYFF; most participating critics attending at least two of these festivals, if not all three.

Last night the Kansas City Film Critic's Society (of which I am a member) held our 2007 awards/poll and "Blood" topped our list. (Here is the entire list of winners.) For a movie as divisive and non-feelgood as that to win in the Midwest wasn't easy (and I'm not allowed to divulge what the actual vote was, but let's just say it was close). "Blood" connects with some and soars right over the heads of others. But the ones who appreciate it are very passionate about it, and I don't think there was any sort of pressure of consensus, just an excitement from those who loved it. I was as surprised and pleased as anybody that it won here in KC.

Jim,

Our minds seem to be wandering around the same territories, though mine has been with awards ceremonies, critical consensus and ability to see films.

I also found it strange that "There Will Be Blood" had been nominated for Golden Globes before it was even released in its limited run! And Zodiac, a film that is just as good as Blood has received no award attention. Is it because Zodiac got very little box office attention? There are other movies that have been looked over because they made no money.

If we switch Zodiac's and Blood's release dates around would we see Blood eating up all of these awards? I thought the film was brilliant to a point, but I thought Zodiac was brilliant until the end.

But nominating and voting committees that don't always take the time to watch the films themselves thrive off of what does well at the box office or what is already most talked about. They won't even watch the other movies. Most often they want to look in the "know". So the Oscars will have very few surprises. And these are people that do get all the screeners!

And I come from a view of not minding if NCFOM or TWBB wins. They're both exceptional films. But there place in the award stratosphere would have been different if they hadn't been released in the hype of awards season.

Before the film "Sideways" was released in 2004, merlot was, by far, the most popular red wine varietal sold in America. That all changed with one little line of dialogue from the pinot-loving protaganist Miles: "No F***ing merlot!" Suddenly, shipments of merlot plummeted and pinot, previously the 5th or 6th most popular American red, catapulted into stardom. Why did this happen? Did Miles's preference for niche reds inspire an aesthetic sea change in wine appreciation? Or, was he a convenient taste maker for the great swathe of casual oeniphiles? Well...a little of both, actually. Appreciation of wine, like that of art, is an arduous business that few of us have the time, budget, or intellectual white space with which to dedicate. To even experience a purely aesthetic response, we need to appreciate all of the textures, colors, scents, back-palettes, mid-palettes, front-palettes, and horticultural processes that make up a particular vintage. Typically, we must supplement our experiential yearnings with the rather superficial aim of falling in league with the tastemakers. However, as Jim alludes to, even taste makers (in this case, film critics) are guilty of falling in league with each other. Whether a preponderance of top 10 films fall within the realm of historical drama or receive year-end release dates is irrelevant. The films that dominate these lists represent a miniscule percentage of worldwide cinematic output by any measure of the calendar. Yes, there's always a sizable amount of disposable genre material, but we must also suspect that the festival circuit is littered with forgotten gems that fail to achieve distribution. Of course, even full time critics can barely begin to take in every film out there, especially when their livelihood requires them to weigh-in on so much inconsequential popcorn fare. Thus, peer-to-peer influence becomes the most convenient net for approximating each year's cinematic pantheon. Short of keeping critics in perpetual isolation, the best way around this may be to establish obstructions. For example, critics at indieWIRE rank both their top 10 distributed and non-distributed films. The latter requirement forces them to explore deeper, and judge films that, by nature of their status, are free of critical buzz.

Hey Jim, could you explain why you did not like Sweeny Todd and maybe elaborate on how it was "neutered."

I hate musicals and horror movies and Tim Burton movies. So needless to say there was little prospect for me seeing this movie let alone liking it. But I got talked into seeing Todd the other night and I have to admit I really enjoyed it. In fact I can't really think of a movie that I enjoyed more this year. Very few films can seamlessly weave beauty and art, dark humor, and rousing entertainment but I thought it succeeded and I was really moved by the ending. I think it would be really interesting to hear your case against it. A.O. Scott, as I am sure you have read, called it a masterpiece.

but, the fact is...the opinions of others do have at least a little bit of impact on us.

Too true, Fritz. If it weren't, this whole enterprise would be pointless.

JD Johnson-

what a great post. Very interesting.

Here is a quote from Roger Ebert's review of "There Will Be Blood:"

[But "There Will Be Blood" is not perfect, and in its imperfections (its unbending characters, its lack of women or any reflection of ordinary society, its ending, its relentlessness)...]

Hey. I just saw "12 Angry Men" the other day. It was nearly flawless, but there weren't any women in it.

Hey. I just saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" the other day. It was almost a masterpiece, but there was this alarming lack of women.

Hey. I just saw "The Bridge on the River Kwai." I always hear people saying it's "a classic" and "brilliant" but I can't see how that's possible. There's no women in it!!

I saw this Samuel Beckett play called "Waiting for Godot." Overrated if you ask me. No women to be found anywhere.

Harry:

Actually, if I were going to point out imperfections in There Will Be Blood, I'd point to Daniel Day Lewis' shameless overacting in key scenes (I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!!!) as opposed to a lack of female characters. I fail to see how Day-Lewis acting in key moments was any less hilariously overwrought than Nicolas Cage in The Wicker Man.

Fritz:

What happened wtih you and Sweeney Todd is happening with me and There Will Be Blood.

I was really disappointed because I'm a huge fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, and this one really let me down. But I'm really starting to second guess myself after seeing all it's been winning at critics circles and reading all the reviews praising it highly. I should stick to my guns, but I feel like I must have missed something and have to see the movie again.

Also, even though critics and AMPAS members get all these screeners, isn't it true they're not obliged to see these movies when they're nominated? I can understand if they don't during the nomination process (it's a lot of movies to watch), but they can still pick a winner after not watching any of the movies nominated for an award?

Harry,

I've not seen There Will Be Blood, but the films you mention are all closed societies, where it would be completely possible that there are no women. My understanding is that Blood takes place in the old west, where there certainly were women. I think Ebert might have meant that by not having any major characters in his film, Anderson chose a very stylized look at that culture and I guess considers this a flaw.

Jim, et al,

I'm with those who say 10 Best Lists are good for picking up titles of (potentially) good films that might otherwise have escaped my attention.

Sure, they're subjective and done at the whims of editors and because they sell papers and are limited by (or expanded by)their definition of release dates for films. And maybe the critic has fun rethinking the year and whittling down their choices--but I don't know any who take them as anything other than a publicity project. And I don't think they're written for the viewing audience that seems to make up the majority of the readership here.

If you don't like them, don't waste your time reading them. And don't waste your time reading the commentary on them. And don't waste your time, energy, breath or pixels commenting on them. Life's too short!

PS But if we did that, we wouldn't be having all this fun, would we?

Liz: I've always thought that, at the very least, one read (or made) a "top ten list" to discover (or recommend) some movies. Doesn't matter to me if they're year-end releases with the big promotional budgets or some film that didn't even get shown in my part of the world and that may be (or become) available on Netflix. (In fact, it's probably easier to get me to see one of the latter than one of the former. I still haven't been able to get all the way through "Blood Diamond" or "The Last King of Scotland" from last year -- even on DVD. I tried, though.)

How can a poll be anything but a popularity contest if the candidate with the most votes wins? Isn't that the definition of the thing?

Liz,

You make a good point, but in Plainview's small circle of associates and confidantes, it is very likely that he would have only men. He was an oil-baron. I would be surprised to learn if there were many (if any) female oil-workers in Plainview's line of work in turn-of-the-century Texas. Do you know of some historical examples of female oil prospectors?

Now, if Ebert is complaining about Plainview not having a wife, a girlfriend, a mistress, consider this: the man is a miser and a misanthrope. It is highly unlikely he would have any of these sorts of women in his personal life. Ebert's complaint is sort of tantamount to writing a review of "A Christmas Carol" and finding fault with Ebenezer Scrooge's lack of a girlfriend. Maybe Ebert would like some cobbled-on storyline with Plainview's sister coming to town.

This film is dark, cynical, bleak, with no moments of warmth for relief. Ebert has often praised films in the past for being uncompromising. Now he is blaming a film for being so.

These critic lists do more good than harm. I find it frustrating when you say they are too predictable. I don't think Colossal Youth finishing in the top 10 is very predictable. If anything it is the much needed attention a film like Colossal Youth will gain from these lists that justifies them.

I live in Ohio. So I can attest that Syndromes and a Century did play here (in Columbus and Cleveland). It had a distributor (Strand, i believe) which is why Syndromes will receive a U.S. DVD release on January 15th. Colossal Youth on the other hand (and correct me if I'm wrong) is being toured through the U.S. by Pedro Costa himself with no distributor backing him and therefor the is no planned DVD release on the horizon. The film itself will play in Cleveland on the 13th and then in Columbus at the beginning of February. It will play for one night only at both locations.

Hopefully these lists will bring a wider audience to these two showings and hopefully Colossal Youth will get a DVD release. If not, i don't think that is because these lists are too populist.

This is why i disagree with the following statement:

"The top 10 list is perhaps the ultimate cancer on contemporary film, a backslapping orgy of hype that prizes propriety and capsule-sized cleverness over any sort of art, revelation, or insight."

Hype can be good sometimes. Sure its annoying when it come straight out of the hollywood or indiewood machine. But in order for a movie like Colossal Youth to get enough people to come out in cities like Columbus and Cleveland to justify the showing, a certain amount of hype is needed. Critics are going to have to rally behind what they believe. And if they believe it is an injustice that until 2007 Pedro Costa hadn't recieved attention in the U.S. then why shouldn't they passionately praise him.

I'm much more pessimistic about a film culture where Pedro Costa fails in the U.S. than one where critics' lists are similar to one another.

Brian,

With the Pedro Costa tour wending its way slowly across the country, I feel (guardedly) confident that we will have a Costa boxed set winging our way on DVD within a year or two. He's got a "packageable" trilogy as it were with similar characters/locations, huge critical support, and a defining style - these are all the elements that will attract an outfit like Facets or maybe one of the smaller boutiques to release his work.

I'm with you on the benefits of Top 10 lists. I put Helvetica at the top of my Netflix queue because Jim wrote so glowingly about it. And other top 10 lists have generated plenty of ideas for me just in the past few weeks.

In that spirit, I offer my Top 10 list, which has mostly familiar names, and maybe a few not mentioned as often in the top 10 crowd.

Colossal Youth
Helvetica
Offside
Syndromes and a Century
12:08 East of Bucharest
Manufactured Landscapes
Into Great Silence
Ten Canoes
Once
The Boss of it All

Am I the only that thought this was the best von Trier film since Dancer in the Dark?