My Top 10 Films of 2007

*Note: The following is part of the continuing "10 FOR 10" series in celebration of ten years of "Jeremy The Critic," in which my choices for the top 10 films of each year from 2006-2015 are revealed. 2006 can be viewed here. This installment will be focusing on 2007.  

                                                                            2007

How great a year was this? It was so great that, for change, I actually did compile a belated Top 10 List for it in 2008. But we'll just have to throw that out the window because a lot can change. The biggest leap of faith in tackling this project was trusting that enough time has passed that I'd "just know" what my top 10 films of each year are. That understanding is seriously tested with '07, the strongest movie year of the entire decade and the cinematic fuel that kept me going to the point we've arrived at now.

Surprisingly, when it came down to the much anticipated Zodiac vs. Southland Tales vs. Into The Wild vs. There Will Be Blood showdown, I knew. You try out a couple of films in that top spot and it just feels wrong. It's a testament to the staying power of David Fincher's Zodiac that this is the closest this obsessive procedural has come to getting that spot and when Paul Thomas Anderson's masterpiece, There Will Be Blood is coming in at number four, you know it's a formidable field like no other. He'll have another shot later, as will Fincher.

Given the current events, Southland Tales seems more prescient than ever, and remains one of my favorites regardless of contrary popular opinion, which seems to have shifted toward my side of late. It's so unusual that honoring it with a best of the year honor feels almost like an insult as it defies labels of any sort. It's simply something else entirely. After an initially lukewarm reaction, I've come around on No Country, which in hindsight stands as one of the strongest Best Picture winners of the modern era, despite its controversially wide open ending. Michael Clayton is such a well-oiled machine, the idea of seeing it in the number one spot is far from absurd, as it boasts what's easily the best performance of Clooney's career.

To the likely delight of anyone who's seen it, The King of Kong becomes not only the first documentary to place, but my first unreviewed pick, forcing me to come up with a quote that somehow, at least partially, does it justice. I'm Not There, The Assassination of Jesse James and Atonement all held strong, whereas inclusions from the last list like the poorly aging Juno, Ratatouille and Bridge to Terabithia got knocked off, with only Terabithia earning runner-up status alongside Superbad, The Lookout, Alpha Dog, Once, American Gangster, The Mist and Gone Baby Gone.

This leaves us with Sean Penn's Into The Wild, an experience that only seems to grow richer with each passing year and rewatch. Techically undervalued and emotionally transcendent (who can forget that scene on the street with William Hurt or any featuring Hal Holbrook?), it's still the film from that year I get the most out of and best connect with. But the real winners were moviegoers and critics spoiled by all these quality titles in a loaded 2007.  


10. Atonement

"I’d call it a 'twist ending' but that would be inaccurate since the beauty of it is in how it follows the narrative course set from the beginning. We just never bothered to notice. It causes you to go back to reevaluate every scene and word spoken in the film and view it in a completely different context. At the beginning I nearly giggled at how much the script expected me to care about these young lovers and the seemingly contrived situation they found themselves in. By the end, it's no laughing matter." - 3/30/08


9. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

"(Ford's) obsession with James also causes him great embarrassment and humiliation at the expense of his brother and his peers who view him as nothing more than a pathetic, whiny little boy who would do anything for his hero. They're right, and Ford's resentment over the situation builds slowly , leading him down a moral path he didn't think himself ever capable of traveling." - 2/14/08


8. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

"When creepy, mullet-haired Donkey Kong champion Billy Mitchell appears to be physically stalking earnest challenger and potential successor to his throne, Steve Wiebe, at the arcade, we realize that within the framework of a non-fiction documentary, director Seth Gordon has managed to create a good vs. evil dynamic surpassing any superhero movie. And it all actually happened. The phrase, 'You can't make this stuff up' has never seemed more applicable."


7. I'm Not There

"...while most films have only one method of entry, this has seven, with a new way to get in each time. Any way you approach it, you end up knowing no more about Bob Dylan the person than you did before, and that’s okay. He remains exactly as he should be: An enigma. And in telling us nothing about him, Haynes somehow reveals so much more than we could have hoped." - 5/9/08


6. No Country For Old Men

"The film, set in 1980, finds a way to remain very much of that time period while still telling a story that’s just as relevant now. The Vietnam wounds are still fresh in these characters’ minds and there’s a new kind of evil emerging. It’s an evil Sheriff Bell and even his father’s generation before him couldn’t have possibly prepared for. It’s encapsulated in Anton Chigurh and Bell wants no part of it. With time passing him by and retirement on the horizon, he’s just going through the motions and would likely prefer not to come face-to-face with this monster. If he does, he’s through." - 5/13/08


5. Michael Clayton

"There isn't a single twist or turn in the film that's revelatory and the plot is one we've seen before. It moves methodically toward its predestined conclusion. And yet, it succeeds by executing its premise with laser-like precision and uncommon intelligence. Gilroy knows what he has to do and does it expertly, not getting bogged down in silly sub-plots or unrealistic situations. It also features the best performance of George Clooney's career, as well as two more supporting performances of nearly equal value." - 2/20/08


4. There Will Be Blood

"Some have criticized Day-Lewis' performance as being hammy and over-the-top and it sort of is, but what's so remarkable is how he turns those qualities into attributes that deepen the story's psychology. On a first viewing it may not be entirely noticeable, but on repeated ones it comes clearly into focus. And surprisingly, that only makes Plainview's downfall scarier and that much more desperate. Even while hating him with a passion, we still care deeply about his fate." - 4/11/08


3. Southland Tales

" It helps that Kelly is an equal opportunity offender, hilariously taking swipes at both sides. It works as a hysterical spoof of everything from YouTube to cable news channels to celebrity culture. Maybe it’s just my weird sense of humor, but I laughed harder during this than any mainstream comedy in years. Labeling this a masterpiece is false advertising if only because it’s just such a beautifully flawed mess. Perfect in its imperfection."- 3/24/08


2. Zodiac

"Of the many cryptic notes sent from the Zodiac, one left the most lasting impression. It reads: 'I am waiting for a good movie about me.' He gets a great one. But you can't fight the uneasy feeling that maybe he's still out there and knows it. If that's not enough to send chills down anyone's spine, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, by making such a brilliant film about one of our country's greatest unsolved cases, Fincher may have also given this deranged killer exactly what he wished for all along." - 7/30/07


1. Into The Wild

"You’re not sure whether to be angry at or feel sorry for this admittedly selfish protagonist and Penn wisely doesn’t force us to make such a determination. He’s not asking us to like McCandliss or condone his decision to abandon his life and family, but only to understand what he was doing made sense to him. Foolish as it may seem to us and those he encountered in his travels, he left this Earth on his terms. The degree of empathy you feel for him or his family may vary, but your heart will break for the people whose lives he touched along the way." - 3/7/08

Top 10 Films of 2007
1. Into The Wild (dir. Sean Penn)
2. Zodiac (dir. David Fincher)
3. Southland Tales (dir. Richard Kelly)
4. There Will Be Blood (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)
5. Michael Clayton (dir. Tony Gilroy) 
6. No Country For Old Men (dir. Joel and Ethan Coen)
7. I'm Not There (dir., Todd Haynes)
8.  The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (dir. Seth Gordon)
9.  The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (dir., Andrew Dominik)
10. Atonement (dir. Joe Wright)

My Top 10 Films of the Decade (Part Two: 5-1)

Click Here for Part One


5. Donnie Darko (2001, dir. Richard Kelly)

"I'm voting for Dukakis." Those are the first words dryly spoken at the Darko dinner table in October 1988, in the cult classic of the decade, Donnie Darko. Writer/director Richard Kelly's debut film, a time travel quagmire that's Back to the Future meets The Catcher in the Rye on acid is one of the many films on this list with an ill-timed release, far enough ahead of audiences that they had to catch up with it. It's understandable that on the week of September 11, 2001 the public wouldn't feel like warmly embracing a sci-fi mood piece that features a jet engine crashing through troubled teen Donnie Darko's (Jake Gyllenhaal) bedroom, nor favorably respond to his hallucinatory visions of giant rabbit anointing him savior of the world.

In the months and years following it would deservedly earn its cult status, yet it still feels somehow under-appreciated both as an ingenious genre bender and an angsty coming-of-age drama. At first, I didn't "get it," not realizing that full enjoyment of the experience has nothing to do with that at all. You could see the film as many times as you wish, immerse yourself in the details of the fictional "Philosophy of Time Travel" book, defer to the director's cut for more concrete answers (I've opted not to), but while the plot remains a brilliant, mulit-layered construct, it's actually the characters and performances that stay with you and demand revisiting. Donnie's relationship with Gretchen (Jena Malone) and the hypocrisy of the adults in the movie vividly brought to life by Beth Grant as the school's religious zealot and Patrick Swayze (in the edgiest role of his career) as motivational speaker Jim Cunningham. And of all the closing shots this decade, I have trouble coming up with anything more memorable than the one that ends this film. It's just perfect.

What's most shocking about Donnie Darko for me is that after a six year wait that was well worth it, Kelly would go on to write and direct a movie I believe is even better (see below). And although many would probably disagree with me on this next point, all the promise he showed in his debut feature would be fulfilled in the next two, creating a wholly original sci-fi trilogy and in the process making this film play even better in retrospect. It's just a shame even many of Darko's supporters don't see it that way, seemingly unaware of the risk-taking weirdness they signed up for nine years ago.



4. Southland Tales (2007, dir. Richard Kelly)

Defending Richard Kelly's messy, apocalyptic pop culture disasterpiece Southland Tales on the basis of creative perfection would be foolish (though it's perfect to me), but rallying behind its creative genius and far-reaching ambition isn't. Sure, there may have never been a Southland Tales without Dr. Strangelove, Brazil, The Book of Revelation, reality television, Fox News, Phillip K. Dick, T.S. Eliot, Robert Frost, Pulp Fiction, Mulholland Drive, Donnie Darko, Kurt Vonnegut, The Big Lebowski, MTV, Kiss Me Deadly, Saturday Night Live, Repo Man and Andy Warhol but where I differ with dissenters of the film is that this somehow makes it unoriginal or lacking an original voice. To me, the fact that a filmmaker incorporated so many influences that he obviously loves into a movie in such a unique way makes it MORE ORIGINAL to the point that the filmmaker's DNA is spread all over the entire picture, challenging whether the term "self-indulgent" should carry the negative baggage it does. It just doesn't work in a way we're accustomed to movies "working" and it couldn't possibly when the filmmaker has so much to say. Should Kelly have been reined in? Is it too sloppy? Maybe, but if that happened there's no way this would have been as much fun.

There's more going on in a single scene in this movie than many contain in their entire running times, and no matter what you think of what's going on, it's tough to turn away. Yet, it breaks every rule in the book. There isn't a single character you can actually relate to as a human being. The person who should be the main character isn't. It's jammed with sub-plots that seem to go nowhere and everywhere at the same time. And it's filled with enough voice-over narration to fill an entirely separate film. And I don't even know how to explain away the cruel irony that my favorite scene of the decade is a musical number. The thrilling scene in question (Justin Timberlake's hallucinatory lip synch to The Killers' "All These Things That I've Done" surrounded by Marilyn Monroe looking women in scantily clad nurses uniforms) does little from a narrative perspective to advance the actual story in any way, yet somehow the film feels like it couldn't exist without out. The plot isn't complicated there's just A LOT going on and things are moving so fast and bursting with all this energy that at times it's tough to keep up. What's really required is an open mind and repeated viewings. Story-wise all the pieces fit together perfectly, it's the underlying meanings and symbolism that require extrapolation.

We're so used to actors being chosen on the basis of whether they "fit the part" but here the game completely changes as everyone is cast ironically. The parts seems to be tailored to who's playing them in an intentional attempt to go against type in a way that spoofs their celebrity and pushes them as actors to go places we never thought they would. Justin Timberlake as a Robert Frost-quoting scarred war veteran and Old Testament prophet. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as an amnesiac movie star with ties to the Republican Party who co-wrote a screenplay foretelling the end of the world. Mandy Moore as his wife. Sarah Michelle Gellar as a porn star and aspiring reality TV hostess. American Pie's Seann William Scott as, um, I can't even begin to describe it. Kelly's decision to basically throw a party on screen and invite all of his favorite actors and celebrities (a who's who of former Saturday Night Live players like Sheri O'Teri, Jon Lovitz, Norah Dunn, Amy Poehler and '80's cult favorites like Wallace Shawn, Zelda Rubenstein and Christopher Lambert) inexpicably drew really strong criticism. He wanted to give comic actors he's a fan of a chance to show audiences that they're capable of more, which they all did. It's just about the best reason there is to cast someone.

There are plenty of movies to return to repeatedly but this feels like a completely different one each time out. A dark political satire, A science fiction romp, a laugh-out-loud comedy, an action adventure, a social commentary, a film noir, a thriller, a musical and a mystery. I don't need ten films this decade when they're all in here. And each time it ends I just want to go back to the beginning and start all over again, hoping I'll understand everything, but knowing that I don't really want to. That's where most of the fun lies. It would be nice if eventually the movie gets the respect it deserves but that's inconsequential. Just that it was made and somehow released is proof that even the craziest ideas deserve a canvas for expression.



3. Almost Famous-Untitled: The Bootleg Cut (2000, dir. Cameron Crowe)

I remember reading an online article a few years back criticizing Almost Famous for essentially being over 2 hours of Cameron Crowe declaring himself the greatest music journalist in Rolling Stone history. Of course, the real irony of that criticism is that the film works so well because he did just the opposite in declaring himself the LUCKIEST journalist in Rolling Stone history and the film he made reads as a thank you note. It would be fun to imagine Kate Hudson retired from acting after being nominated then robbed of a Supporting Actress Oscar for her transcendent role as "band-aid" groupie, Penny Lane, and also pretend her career hasn't been an ice pick slowly chipping away at the film, but I can't. Any more than I can pretend that being a journalist for Rolling Stone magazine would mean much of anything these days. So the reasons the film didn't play quite as powerfully for me as it had in the past (and admittedly felt a little more scripted and fantasy feeling) are the very same reasons we still need it. Watching the FAR SUPERIOR 165 minute untitled directors cut again recently it was surprising just how little of its power was lost considering the circumstances. Despite its surprising third place finish here, this is still a mostly perfect film.

It's difficult to find anyone who can't in some way relate to the protagonist or doesn't love the music. Or anyone who didn't feel as if they already knew (or desperately wanted to know) Penny the second she appeared on screen. We're as beguiled by her as Crowe's onscreen alter-ego William Miller (a pitch-perfect Patrick Fugit), the 15-year-old aspiring rock journalist covering the fictional band Stillwater in 1973 and discovering himself in the process, much to his overprotective mother's (Frances McDormand) horror. Billy Crudup's performance as guitarist Russell Hammond is an underrated turn if there ever was one, still sold short to this day. It's not easy playing the guy that crushes this kid's (and the audience's) dreams while somehow managing to escape as a pretty cool guy. That Philip Seymour Hoffman is most associated with his turn as rock critic Lester Bangs amidst a career of more substantial leading and supporting roles says everything about how memorably he played it. Bangs' advice to William on writing and criticism is hysterical, but made more hysterical by the fact that most of it's true.

It shouldn't come as a surprise the biggest worry revisiting this is Hudson, who's spent the better part of the decade attempting to completely erase this iconic role from our memories. Nice try, but not a chance. If you could win an Oscar for delivering a single line, she'd deserve it for the way she asks "What kind of beer?" showing a vulnerability and depth in this part we'd never glimpse from her again. She wasn't just "playing herself," as the results of her later work would unfortunately confirm. Unlike some other films on this list, I can't say this is a film where you necessarily discover something new on each viewing, but it does provide music and memories that don't easily fade away.



2. Wonder Boys (2000, dir. Curtis Hanson)

I realize the selection of Curtis Hanson's Wonder Boys as the second best film of the decade will seem perplexing to many. That maybe the dramedy, based on Michael Chabon's 1995 novel, appears on the surface too small or insignificant to be occupying such an exclusive spot. But to me it looms larger than anything and might be the only movie on the list that feels as if it's completely mine. When it was released ten years ago I was excited that my favorite actors were all appearing together in a single film and revisiting recently it shocked me to discover that enthusiasm has not only grown, but I was far enough removed to grasp subtle nuances I couldn't have possibly appreciated then. When it opened I may have related to the situation and setting, but it's really the theme of failure that plays the most important role in shaping the decade's deepest, most insightful comedy. And in exploring this heavy issue with such a deft, light touch it does something rare by actually choosing to celebrate the good in people rather than bask in the dreary, hopeless depression that's sabotaged so many other promising films in this genre. Every single moment of this movie succeeds in capturing LIFE in all its sloppiness and absurdity.

Michael Douglas isn't usually a performer associated with projecting warmth and humanity, but as Grady Tripp, a pot-smoking, bathroom robe-wearing, creative writing professor in the midst of a mid-life meltdown, he reveals a hidden dimension to himself as an actor, stretching far out of what we've perceived is his comfort zone. During a chaotic rainy weekend at a Pittsburgh university he's clearing page 2,000 on the follow-up to his first hugely successful novel, "The Arsonist's Daughter" while dealing with his loony editor (Robert Downey, Jr.), an eccentric student (Tobey Maguire), another star student (Katie Holmes) with a crush staying under his roof and his frustrated mistress (Frances McDormand). Who knew Douglas could be so funny? Watching his exasperated, deadpan reactions to all the craziness surrounding him is priceless. Almost as priceless as the actual craziness. "Wordfest," Vernon, Marilyn Monroe's jacket, the Hollywood suicide list, the tranvestite, Rip Torn's silly lecture, the red cowboy boots, the Chancellor's dog. Every scene. Every joke. It all clicks. Comedy is hard but the actors (working from Steve Kloves' Oscar nominated script) make it look effortless and each hilarious moment is peppered with with small treasures and chestnuts intended for re-discovery. It's almost indescribable to anyone who hasn't seen the film how Hanson creates such a warmly inviting atmosphere you want to live inside and the city of Pittsburgh becomes as much a character as anyone else in the story.

While most movies about inspiring mentors almost always ring false and contrived, but when Maguire's James Leer is being hauled away by the cops and tells Professor Tripp he's the best teacher he ever had, considering the events that put him in that car to say it, you realize this is only film to actually earn the line. It's difficult to even pinpoint exactly what James, Grady or anyone else was going through but we still completely relate to them and understand, which is the mark of truly exceptional writing...in a story that's all about unexceptional writing. The trajectories Maguire and Holmes' careers have since taken should taint the picture, but it instead seems perfectly fitting for a story all about failing to meet expectations. That neither went on to the kind of success we anticipated adds a poignancy to the performances that weren't there a decade ago, making it almost impossible for me to be too disappointed in them. And that Robert Downey, Jr. did go on to that success, allows us to see one of his most enjoyable, underrated performances in a whole new light, while wondering how much of his personal demons he summoned up at the time to deliver it. It goes without saying Douglas was robbed at the Oscars but it's hard to get upset when the one statue the film did win belongs to Bob Dylan, whose music is so fully ingrained into the fabric of the picture he feels more like an honorary member of the cast than a soundtrack contributor. And by invoking the same mood and spirit his songs do it captures his music better than any story actually focused on the singer could.

Released in the shadow of my other favorite film about writing, Almost Famous, neither cleaned up at the box office, but it was Wonder Boys that actually flopped TWICE when re-released for awards consideration. Ironically now, this is the film that feels to me the more authentic and lived-in of the two, ten years aging it in ways I couldn't expect. You'd have to assume director Curtis Hanson was drawn to the material because he also felt the pressure of having to follow up on the enormous success he had with 1997's L.A. Confidential, a movie that has nothing on this. It knows that writers' are unusually in touch with quirky details and the humor does in a strange way seem directly aimed at them, which would explain its failure to strike a universal chord. Just more proof that great films can bring you close to a certain time, situation, characters or state of mind, but it's only the really great ones like this that actually bring you closer to you.



1. Into the Wild (2007, dir. Sean Penn)

For me, the defining moment in Sean Penn's criminally overlooked and underrated masterpiece Into the Wild occurs toward the end. It's when Walt McCandliss (played by William Hurt) wanders the streets in a daze, suddenly overcome with the enormity of everything that's happened---what his son did and what he has to bare the burden for partially causing. With everything hitting him all at once, he collapses to the ground in exactly the same position we saw him in during the earlier home movie footage, only years later and under very different circumstances. The moment doesn't last long, but tells us everything we need to know and serves as a reminder of how a single, powerful image can carry more impact than any line of dialogue could.

Detractors claiming that the film glorified its protagonist or didn't truly explore the negative consequences of Chris McCandliss' (Emile Hirsch) actions when in 1990 the Emory University grad burned all his cash and credit cards, donated his entire savings, and rechristened as "Alexander Supertramp," embarked on the journey of his life that that would eventually lead to his death. It's there on the street where we as viewers are forced to admit that no matter what his parents did or didn't do, he went too far, and regardless of how tempting it is to support his anti-materialistic philosophy, crossed the point of no return. His sister, Carine (Jena Malone) is now a victim and the people whose lives he impacted on the way to his final destination are officially casualties.

If there was ever a film destined to strike the critical and commercial jackpot it was Into The Wild but somehow it flew under the radar of audiences when it was released in 2007 with many unfairly accusing Penn of pushing some kind of an agenda. As if an endorsement of the picture would mean an endorsement of the actions or a left-leaning view in line with the director's politics. But the evidence points the opposite direction, with every character attempting to break through McCandliss' self-imposed emotional wall (you know it's a bad idea when Vince Vaughn is the voice of reason). From hippies Jan (Catherine Keener) and Rainey (Brian H. Dierker) to free spirit Tracy Tatro (Kristen Stewart) each chapter provides a chance for redemption that never comes because his trek to the "magic bus" in Alaska is just as much a misguided suicide mission as it is a life-affirming adventure.

Emile Hirsch never shies away from those harsher truths in his performance, which go beyond merely conveying pent up resentment or bitterness, but subtly hinting McCandliss might actually know just how misguided this whole thing is and still can't stop it. And neither can elderly leather maker Ron Franz, who Hal Holbrook justifiably won high praise and an Academy Award nomination for embodying in his brief, but unforgettable appearance. He's the supporting standout but each time I watch can't help but think that the most overlooked performance belongs to Jena Malone, who's our sensitive entrance way to the film at its start while also delivering invaluable voiceover work that acts as our guidepost through the story. It shoots a hole right through the popular theory that any use of voiceover narration is lazy.

Like others, I'm guilty of at first classifying the film as a purely emotional experience that wouldn't likely hold up to close critical scrutiny or repeated viewings. You'd figure a story that ends so tragically couldn't carry an urgent pull beckoning you back for more, but it does because from a technical standpoint it's unmatched. Every shot (lensed by cinematographer Eric Gautier) could be framed and mounted and Eddie Vedder's music is such a part of the journey it's difficult even envisioning the movie without it. How much the film editorializes or exaggerates the content of John Krakauer's book or even the real-life events doesn't interest me. But I do think the movie would have more fans if it were actually released during the early 90's period the events took place, when we would have been less cynical and more grateful Sean Penn even dared to ask the big questions, instead of arguing whether we agree on the answers to them. This film isn't just the most complete moviegoing experience of the decade, but the only one that feels monumentally important.


Recap:
1. Into The Wild
2. Wonder Boys
3. Almost Famous (Untitled: The Bootleg Cut)
4. Southland Tales
5. Donnie Darko
6. Zodiac
7. There Will be Blood
8. Punch-Drunk Love
9. The Squid and the Whale
10. Adaptation


Year-By-Year Breakdown:
2000-2
2001-1
2002-2
2003-0
2004-0
2005-1
2006-0
2007-4
2008-0
2009-0


Actors/Actresses Appearing in Multiple Films:
Brian Cox (2)
Robert Downey, Jr. (2)
Jake Gyllenhaal (2)
Jena Malone (2)
Frances McDormand (2)

Frequently Asked Movie Reviewing Questions

I'm approaching my fourth year reviewing, which is, well, kind of weird, and I'm still not quite sure what to even think about that. But I do know I have my readers to thank for hanging with me for so long. In honor of that I've decided to do something a little different and pull back the curtain. With the decade in movies coming to a close this seemed as good a time as any to take a breather and talk about my approach and feelings on reviewing. I tried to answer the following questions as honestly as I could, which wasn't too hard since I came up with all of them myself, but hopefully you'll be surprised by at least some of the answers.

When and why did you start reviewing movies?
I always loved writing and enjoyed watching movies but it never really occurred to me to combine the two. While on vacation in '06 I was stuck in a hotel room with a cold and while watching a couple of movies got the idea to just scribble down a couple of reviews on a piece of paper out of pure boredom. Then I started posting online. What's so funny is I never had any intention or desire to write reviews. I'm still not exactly sure how it happened and part of me thinks I'm doing it just because I'm addicted. But there's that other part that thinks I'm lucky to have a hobby I actually enjoy.

Ever think about stopping?
I always think every review is my last, and treat it like it is. And after 2008 I really thought I was done because that was just a miserable year for movies that sucked nearly everything out of me. But the great thing is whenever I seem to lose interest some movie always seems to comes along or I read something on movies that completely reignites my passion for doing it.

How do you choose which movies to review?
More selectively than I did in the past that's for sure. Before, I tried to review as much as I could regardless of whether I wanted to see it or not. That was problematic for a number of reasons, chief of which it drained my enthusiasm. Now I realize quality is more important than quantity and I review movies I want to see or I think will make an interesting review. As you can tell though, I try to hit all the major releases releases and stay clear of movies no one's ever heard of (with a few exceptions). I do this primarily for me, but make no mistake about it, I care a lot about whether people and read and enjoy the reviews. If I didn't, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

Does reviewing the movies sometimes hurt your enjoyment as a fan?
Absolutely it can, but that really depends on the film. I like to think there's a "Critic" mode and a "Fan" mode and I can shut either on or off at will, but the reality is they often uncomfortably overlap.

Are you against reading other reviews before you watch or review a film?
No, not at all. The only reason I'd ever stay clear from a review before I see a film is if it gives away key plot details I don't want to know about or for some reason I want to go in fresh. Most of the time though I find it just further informs my review to read others' takes on it and think it's a joke that anyone would think I'm just reacting to others' reactions of the movie.

I think the public's response to a movie is INCREDIBLY RELEVANT, especially if it forces you to look closer at certain aspects of the film. How could I possibly talk about Juno without bringing up the backlash against it? Or review Knowing without analyzing how Roger Ebert could have given it four stars? I could, but there would be a giant pink elephant in the room and the reviews wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I'm of the belief that reading and considering other viewpoints, whether to agree or shoot them down, can only make the piece more interesting.

Which critics (if any) do you read?
Roger Ebert is a big one and while many have accused him of slipping in recent years I still think his passion and insight is unmatched. Kim Morgan, who's actually more of an essayist, which isn't to say she's not an awesome critic and probably one of the most knowledgeable and passionate writers out there. I also read James Berardinelli, whose opinions I almost always disagree with and name I always misspell, but I appreciate his no-nonsense, analytical approach. I read too many bloggers to name without forgetting anyone, many of whom are better than the "professionals." Those are my favorites but usually I try to read as many reviews on a film as I can if I'm interested in it.

How do you feel about print criticism being essentially left for dead?
I feel bad for people who work at magazines and newspapers losing their jobs. The bottom line is that times have changed and film criticism in general just isn't as relevant to the public as it once was, which is a shame. Anyone can go online and write something, which sucks for people who made their living doing that. Then again, on the bright side...anyone can go online and write something.

How do you feel about Facebook, MySpace and Twitter?
I started reviewing movies on MySpace in 2006 and then when all the action moved to Facebook I followed it because it was the smart thing to do. It's still growing on me but I'm at least grateful it's brought (slightly) more traffic to the site. I actually like the concept of Twitter much more because it enables you to follow things, people and topics that interest you at a relatively quick pace.

What are your favorite movie genres?
Longtime readers and probably even more newer ones already know the answer to this one. My favorites are sci-fi, coming-of-age films, mystery/suspense, bio-pics, romantic comedies (surprisingly) and even though it's more of a sub-genre, dysfunctional suburban dramas (like The Ice Storm or American Beauty) People tend to think I'm a huge fan of horror but that's not completely true as I can usually only take it in small doses and find that the genre is full of too much junk to be ranked as a favorite of mine. I probably like analyzing those films more than actually watching them, which could be said of the superhero genre as well. That said, both have really grown on me since I've started doing this.

Least Favorite Genres?
Genres I'm less inclined to like are mob/gangster pictures, war/espionage films, musicals, fantasy films (with wizards, goblins, elves and such) and sports movies. That's not saying it's impossible for me to like any of those films or I intentionally avoid them, just that they have a much rougher road to travel to gain my favor. I find when reviewing it's better to honestly embrace my predisposed bias or personal preference and just work with it. We all have them. I like to think that I'm very fair and if a movie's good enough it should have no problem overcoming the odds. Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Karate Kid and more recently, but to lesser extent, The Hurt Locker, We Are Marshall and Across The Universe were all able to. I couldn't have been any less interested in seeing Atonement but was surprised just how much I liked it.

Which movie(s) did you most enjoy reviewing?
Southland Tales would really have to be up there. A perfect storm converged with that one. My favorite genre, a dream cast and an opportunity to passionately defend a movie I thought was unfairly maligned. It's rare when the experience of watching a film and reviewing it become one in the same but that's what happened there. I also enjoyed reviewing The Dark Knight probably more than I enjoyed watching it. I'm Not There was a blast to write on as well since it was a biopic (if you could even call it that) on a subject I was actually deeply interested in. Not to mention it was completely insane so it was even more up my alley. And even though it's a TV series, I loved writing about Veronica Mars. It's unusual that I dip into TV for a review so that I did for that (and all three seasons to boot) should give you an idea how much I enjoyed it. I'd put it up there in quality with the best in any medium, be it film or television. With all of these I felt as if the review was finished in my mind before I even touched the keyboard.

Which movie(s) did you hate reviewing?
The Good Shepherd While I did find it a chore to sit through, I didn't despise the movie and even gave it a near-miss score of two and a half stars. The real torture was when I had to sit down and write a review of a three hour movie I had nothing to say about. I stared at a blank screen for so long I thought my eyes would start bleeding.

Which movie disappointed you most?
As strange as this sounds, probably The Dark Knight. I do think it's more a testament to all the hype than the movie's actual quality, but the fact remains that it fell short of expectations, as out of control as they may have been. And it was still the best film of '08 and maybe one of the best of the decade so it's frightening to think how good it COULD HAVE BEEN.

How do you feel about star ratings?
I hate them. I wish I were confident enough in my own writing to abandon it and believe people would still read the reviews but I'm not. My concern is always that the number of stars will inform the review when it should always be the other way around. But as someone who reads a lot of reviews I have to admit most of the time I like seeing some kind of a quantitative assessment attached. But many reviewers don't use it, nor do they need them. It really all depends on personal preference I guess. There was only one case where I refused to assign one. The whole idea of it is damaging, but I can never bring myself to abandon it.

In retrospect, ever feel like you've given any movies the wrong star ratings?
When haven't I? Not to keep beating the same drum on 2008, but I felt I gave many, many movies released that year the wrong star rating. When this happens I usually have to force myself not to adjust it later by remembering:

a) The star rating MEANS nothing in the broad scheme of things.
b) It reflected my thoughts AT THE TIME.
c) It's the actual review that counts
d) It takes two viewings to really SEE a movie.

Usually when I do my year-end list all my thoughts get ironed out and the problem takes care of itself. The good news is that I never felt I gave something the WRONG REVIEW entirely. I can barely recall more than three instances I underrated a movie but can name dozens of times where I felt I overpraised one. I like to think the star rating problem keeps lessens over time because the more movies I watch the more sure I seem to become of my opinions.

How much does a theater experience effect your opinion of the film?
Greatly, as The Dark Knight proved. That was one of the worst theater experiences I've ever had where an unpleasant environment magnified that movie's weaknesses while hiding its strengths. Repeated DVD viewings have been much, much kinder to it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Australia was really a complete mess of a movie but the theater experience was so memorably bizarre and the crowd so insane that it probably made the movie play better than it actually was. It was fun watching their energy level slowly drain as the movie just kept going...and going...and going. I'm convinced those people are still in there right now watching it. I know I'm committing a film critic sin by saying this but I actually far prefer watching movies on DVD at home than in a theater. It's cheaper, more comfortable, I can go to the bathroom or get a snack without missing anything. There are just less distractions.

How long does a review take?
I've never actually timed it but I can tell you I never do it in one sit-in. I'm the kind of person who always has to be moving around and have difficulties staying in front of the computer too long. So I might write part of it and then go back to it later or the next day depending on my mood. Unfortunately most of it is written really late at night though so sleep is lost and I sometimes wake up the next morning having not recognized what I wrote (which might be a good thing).

What's your least favorite part of writing a review?
Recapping the plot...by far. It's a pain. I wish I could just skip it and get right to what I liked and didn't.

How much do you weigh blogs views in choosing what films or topics you choose to write about?
I look at them that's for sure. I do primarily write for me but if I come up with a piece that's just not connecting with readers at all and I put a lot into it I can pretty much guarantee you won't see anything like it again. The best (worst) example of this was when I did the "Fantasy Casting" pieces. I thought it was a great idea and loved doing it. But it was like a tree falling in the forest as far as its reception and blog views. One of the worst ever. So I can't justify doing it again.The same thing tends to happen when I review older films. Those do very poorly, but when they're are incorporated into a list of some sort it always does well. I tend not to solicit too much feedback on this issue because I find people to be understandably reluctant to tell me that an idea sucks. Blog views can't lie.

Which review of yours got the harshest response?
I remember everyone unanimously, and rather passionately, disagreed with my take on Death Sentence. I couldn't believe how worked up everyone got over it and was so thrilled that no one held back in letting me know it. Sometimes it can be boring when everyone agrees with you all the time. That's a movie that will have strong reactions either way but I just thought it was two hours of gratuitous violence masquerading as grief exploration with Kevin Bacon killing everyone in sight. And this coming from someone whose all-time favorite films include A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club.

Any movie(s) you think you may have gone too hard on?
Miami Vice, Superman Returns and Birth. Especially that last one. This rarely happens so it's a big compliment to those three that, despite what I considered to be their failings, they still stuck with me enough that I'd be open to going back and giving them another look.

Do you have a review or reviews you're most proud of?
This is going to sound awful but it would be tough to name something specifically. I might have a fleeting moment where I'm really proud of something I've written but then I'm quickly brought back down to Earth after I go to reread it and find about 50 things I didn't like about it. Then I might go and read other reviews and that just about kills it for me right there. Plus I'm usually so focused on the next review that I don't like to look back. But the best answer to this question is to look above at the ones I enjoyed reviewing the most. Those are the ones I feel best about.

What bad reviewing habits do you think you have or try to avoid?
Trying to say more in fewer words than with many. Whenever I edit a review it's always to take things out and never add, which is a good sign I guess. The key to good editing is to change enough so it's more readable but not so much that it changes the message. I try to stay away from using the same adjectives or phrases over and over again, not only in a single review, but throughout all of them. I also try to steer clear of comparing the movie I'm reviewing to other other ones unless it's completely relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Ever get writer's bl0ck?
No, never. Kidding. All the time. What I usually do is just leave the computer. If I'm not feeling it, I'm not feeling it. There's no sense just sitting there frustrated when most writing is done in your head when you're away from the keyboard anyway. When I'm stuck I do find it helpful to remind myself of Ebert's advice:

"Did you like the movie? Why or why not?"

It sounds so dumb and simple but you'd be surprised how well it works. Most of the time writers block stems from just thinking too hard or over-analyzing. I find that question helps with the problem.

Ever think of doing more with the site or more to get your reviews out there?
I have but I'm not exactly the most web savvy person in the world and am far more consumed with focusing on the actual work. Believe me I'm under no illusion that I'm anything other than a needle in a haystack online. That said, I should be doing much more in that area and plan to. Of course, I've said that before and haven't done anything.

How many movies do you see a week?
Usually only one or two. No more than your average, everyday moviegoer with the difference being I've written reviews on them. I think the max I've ever seen in a week was three or four, but that rarely happens. I only REALLY started getting into movies when I started doing this and am willing to bet a lot of my readers probably have me beat on classic film knowledge still feel like I'm learning as I go along.

What's your DVD collection look like?
Embarrassingly small. I never counted but it's barely two shelves worth. I think that's a testament to just how few movies hold up on repeated viewings or are worth owning for me. Most of the movies I have bought have been used and a lot of the time I resell or exchange them. As far as what I review, aside from theatrical releases, this whole time I've basically just been renting them for a dollar from a Redbox or DVD Xpress kiosk system in the supermarket. The amount of money I've saved on buying DVDs in the past few years is probably more than five times the salary of any paid reviewer.

Do you use NetFlix?
Not right now. About a year ago I tried it briefly and didn't like it. I found the wait for new releases to be unbearably long and by the time it came I practically lost interest in watching them. I also found updating and keeping track of movies in the queue to be a thankless task. I'm giving it another chance soon (probably by the time you read this) since the titles in the dollar machines are now pretty much exclusively Direct-to-DVD junk due to legal trouble with the studios who are losing money on it. There also tons of of older movie titles I want to see as well as seasons of TV series' I can't get because I lost HBO and Showtime. There's really no choice at this point.

Have a Blu-Ray Player?
Nope. I realize I must be coming off as the cheapest movie critic on Earth right now but I just don't see the point in investing in something that could disappear in a couple of years. I learned my lesson with laserdisc years ago and considering I don't purchase many DVDs it just isn't worth it for me when my player suits me just fine for my purposes. The only thing that really bothers me is that the Blu-Ray discs contain special features the regular DVDs don't. Knowing me I'll probably cave eventually but for right now I'm fine.

How long do you let a movie sit in your head before reviewing it?
It depends on the film. Obviously some require more time for thought and reflection than others. I usually write the first couple of paragraphs right after though, while it's still fresh in my mind. The other details take a little longer to come into focus and with some it can really take a while. You don't want to jump the gun, yet you can't wait so long that you don't care anymore.

What do you think it takes to review movies?
1. A genuine passion for movies
2. The ability to express that in writing
3. Being sure of your opinion, but admitting when you're not.
4. Having a knowledge of a wide variety of topics and reading and keeping up with what's going on in the world so you can incorporate that insight into the reviews (my weakest area but I'm improving).

Have any desire to write or direct?
I know no one's gonna believe me when I say this, but no. I did take a screenwriting course years ago and found I was more interested in analyzing the study films and talking about what goes into writing a good screenplay than actually writing one. When it came to sit down at the keyboard, I discovered I had no ear when it came to dialogue. I didn't enjoy the experience and wanted to just keep analyzing the study films instead. As far as directing, no way. The technical aspects that go into making a film doesn't play to my strengths and there are too many elements that could spiral out of control. And I can't stand not being in control. It looks like a big headache that could potentially kill me from stress. Of course this should be taken with a grain of salt since I've never tried it, but I can't envision that I ever would.

While I feel writing and directing are out of my grasp, I do think I'd make a better producer, casting director or agent than many of these studio executives being paid to tell us what we want. You may have noticed during my reviews I often pause and examine how a movie was (mis) marketed or what steps could have been taken in the production stages to make it better. But I'm certainly not "paying my dues" in an industry where I feel most of the decision makers are clueless or hold views that clash entirely with mine. I love movies and want to keep it that way.

How much does personal experience effect how you view a movie?
It's everything. I think we all see a different movie because of the experiences we bring into it. I recently re-watched a film for consideration on my decade-end list and it personally spoke to me like it never did before. It couldn't have carried the impact it did now even just a few years ago just because of where I was at in my life. Sounds silly, but it's totally true.

Would you ever judge someone by which movies they like or don't like (be honest)?
No. They're still just movies. Having said that, I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think a person's list of their all-time favorite films told me at least something about them. And if it didn't, it's likely not a list I'd be interested in reading.

Greatest director of all-time?
Kubrick. There's no other name I would mention as even coming close even though I know some would say Hitchcock, but he only worked in one genre. I don't think for a second he could do what Kubrick did whereas I have no doubt that Kubrick could not only step in and direct one of Hitch's films, but probably make it even more interesting. Spielberg is great, but I don't think he belongs in the discussion.

Favorite Director(s) working now?
No surprises here. My three favorites are David Fincher, Richard Kelly and Paul Thomas Anderson. Right now, they're making the types of movies I enjoy watching most.

Most overrated director?
Spike Lee. Never got with him at all.

Favorite Actors/Actresses
Too many to list but here are the big ones. As far as actors I'm a fan of Michael Douglas, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey Jr., Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ben Foster, Emile Hirsch, Sean Penn, DiCaprio, Bill Murray, Jeff Bridges, Brad Pitt, Ed Norton, Josh Brolin and Patrick Wilson. Surprisingly, also Tom Cruise, who I think has always been underrated as an acting talent. As far as actresses, you can sign me up anytime Jennifer Connelly, Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman (possibly my favorite), Naomi Watts, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Kristen Bell or Zooey Deschanel are in anything. Clooney and Jolie are two actors I was previously never a fan of but lately they've really been earning their stripes and I've come around.

Least Favorite Actors/Actresses?
Almost Famous notwithstanding, Kate Hudson has given one awful performance after another in some dreadful films. But I only complain about her so much because I know she's capable of better. Don't care for Dane Cooke or Jessica Alba as actors, but that almost seems too easy. I've completely given up on Kate Beckinsale who would be the blandest, most wooden actress working today if Jennifer Aniston weren't around. Everyone else would just fit into the "overrated" category for me. Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson have surprisingly little to show for themselves despite being surrounded by a ton of hype and I never understood all the praise for Johnny Depp, who hasn't proven to me yet he can effectively play anything other than misfits and freaks.

Actors/Actresses you're most disappointed in?
Hudson obviously tops the list, followed closely by Nicolas Cage. I'd say Sandra Bullock also but after The Blind Side I guess the joke's on me. She's probably busy rolling around in a giant pile of cash right now.

What famous classic or famous movies would people be surprised you haven't seen?
I still haven't made it all the way through Gone With the Wind (not a knock on the film, just time constraints always got in the way). Haven't seen the Godfather Parts II and III, although I hear I'm not missing much with that last one. Never saw Terminator 2: Judgment Day either, or the Harry Potter films and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, both of which I have very little interest in (see "least favorite genres"). I've also never seen any of the Bourne films.

Any movies you refuse to see?
The Blind Side. Just kidding (kind of). "Refuse" is a little strong but...the Twilight "saga." This is actually a much bigger insult than it seems because, despite preferring certain types of movies, I'm usually willing to see ANYTHING.

What trends in the movie industry today do you hate?
Every movie released these days being aimed at the tween demographic (see above). Inflated ticket prices. Double and triple dipping on DVD releases. Movies being advertised as something they're not [i.e. Slumdog Millionaire as a Bollywood Musical, (500) Days of Summer as a whimsical "date movie"]. Certain films being shoved down my throat by the media. Movies with political agendas. Only movies released in the last month of the year getting Academy Award consideration. That last one pisses me off the most. Besides being criminally unfair, I actually think that's the major reason no one bothers watching the Oscars.

Worst Oscar snub in history?
It's impossible to pick just one and this will seem completely random but for some reason two that really stick out for me are A Christmas Story (1984) and Back to the Future (1985) being overlooked for Best Picture nominations. If I could give any two "correction" Oscars out it would be to those two films which, over time, have proven just how worthy they are. There just so few pictures released that families can enjoy together through the decades regardless of age and also be effective as perfect mainstream entertainment. When I think of the template for the perfect nominee or winner I immediately get an image of those two movies in my head. The Academy has gotten it wrong many times, but that they snubbed those two make me sick to my stomach.

Do you read the novel before seeing the film?
No. Never. Shamefully, I don't read as much as I'd like in general. I really do feel guilty about that because I know it would make me a better writer but between watching and reviewing movies and other stuff I just don't have the time. But I don't like to read a novel before watching the movie it's based on (especially if it's something I know I'll be reviewing) because I find it taints the experience and don't want to turn into one of those people whining about how "the book was better." And usually, if I've seen the movie first and like it enough to read the novel, I tend not to because I felt the movie got the job done for me.

The Ten Best Films of 2007

I’m not among the many who believe 2007 was an “INCREDIBLE YEAR” for movies. Still, it was pretty damn good and a definite step up from the past couple of years (especially the dreadful 2005), I found the big problem though was that it filled with films that were brilliant technically but failed to make that extra connection. And those that did make that extra connection tended to fall just short technically. I actually think there’s a HUGE GAP between the first couple of films on my list and the rest. It’s always a blurry line between “BEST” and “FAVORITE” but I’ve always had a theory that once you get to the top of any list like this that line starts to fade.

When compiling what I felt were the best films of the year I look for movies that excite me as a fan AND a critic, which is more difficult than you might imagine. When I could only find one that was able to do both equally my top choice became crystal clear. I should want to go running down the streets screaming to the world how much I love my top film and be able re-watch it multiple times, discovering something new with each viewing. It should be able to stand the test of time, with me being unable to look back and ask, “What the hell was I thinking?” when I made the choice. There’s no foolproof guard against that other than going with your gut, yet it must work because somehow I’ve yet to make a selection in any past year that I’ve regretted later.

It’s funny the tricks that time plays on your perception of certain films. I was certain that movies from earlier in the year like Grindhouse and The Lookout would make the list. They didn’t. Going in I was 100 percent sure that The Mist, which I loved and actually re-watched in preparation to do this, had a spot locked up. It didn’t. I’m still not sure what happened there but it can't speak too well for the horror genre when the best executed horror movie in years can’t even crack my top 10. Looking back, of the two Westerns released this year, I can’t believe I actually thought at one time 3:10 To Yuma was a superior to The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford. Jesse James ended up staying with me long after the final credits rolled. Yuma did not. And what was I thinking giving 4 stars to Shoot Em’ Up? Talk about over-praising a film.

I guess it’s to the Academy’s credit that four out of the five Best Picture nominees made my list, but unfortunately the one that didn’t ended up winning. Oh well. If anyone had told me a year ago that a period costume drama, 2 (!) family films and vehicles starring George Clooney and Justin Timberlake would make my list I’d tell them they were crazy. As much as I tried to avoid it happening, a film I didn’t review made it, but given the sheer glut of movies released within a calendar year that possibility was almost inevitable. I also didn’t want to declare any ties, but that happened too. When I asked myself whether I could sleep the next night without both of them making it and the answer was “no” the decision became a no-brainer.

Only two out of the ten films ended up going the distance from very early in the year to hold on and make cut. Two of our greatest living directors, David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson, both contributed very strong efforts but neither was able grab the top spot. It was a strange year…at least for me. As I waited until I saw everything to do this it was my secret hope that my list wouldn’t look exactly like everyone else’s, but if it did I’d be fine with it so long as the right choices were made. For the most part it does look like everyone else’s, with one very glaring exception. The list counts down from the bottom up and following it is an "honorable mention" category. Enjoy.

10. (TIE) Bridge To Terabithia (Director- Gabor Csupo)
I saw this one very early in the year and regrettably didn’t block out the time in advance to review it. That I didn’t should tell you how bias I am against most “family” films and that I put it on here should let you know how special I think it is. The most mismarketed film of 2007 was pitched to audiences as a Chronicles of Narnia rip-off with fancy CGI and wondrous creatures. That's such a small part of this. In truth, it’s a touching story of friendship and loss that echoes My Girl and Little Manhattan with a touch of Pan’s Labyrinth, except maybe better than all those. Had they advertised it as it was, however, it’s possible no one would have gone to see it, which would have been beyond a shame.

In conveying the importance of tolerance, creativity, hard work, loyalty and imagination without ever once piling on the clichés or preaching, it features two of the best children’s performances I’ve ever seen from Josh Hutcherson and AnnaSophia Robb. The smaller adult roles are treated with just as much care as Robert Patrick is for once in his career given an unlikable character to play with real depth and it’s the rare film that actually seems to know the gift it’s been given with the presence of Zooey Deschanel and doesn’t squander it.

Those reasons above would be enough for it to make this list even if everything else in the picture were garbage, but it’s far from it. It could have coasted along, smiling and skipping its way to the finish line ignoring Kathleen Paterson’s 1977 Newberry Award winning source material and still have been a very good film. But credit Disney and Walden Media for realizing that by staying true to the absolutely horrifying third act there was a chance to do something GREATER. At first I was angry at the dark twist the story took, but it wore off quickly when I saw the intelligence and dignity with which Csupo and screenwriter David Paterson (the author’s son, whose childhood experience influenced the novel) handled it. Assuming they’re of the appropriate age (and not being a parent I wouldn’t dare speculate on what that is) I’m willing to bet children will leave this picture feeling more inspired than traumatized. I’d even go so far as to say it could invoke a positive change in their lives.

I’ve yet to meet anyone of any age or gender who saw it and wasn’t fighting back the tears as it reached its conclusion. Only one other movie moved me more this year and that one’s near the top of this list. A great film is a great film regardless of whether it’s considered a “kid’s movie.” If you ask me, adults probably have more to learn from it since kids can often be smarter than we give them credit for. There’s so much more to talk about but I can’t at the risk of giving too much away. Everyone underestimated the difficulty of what this movie had to pull off. It’s the best family film in decades and and recalls an era when seeing the Disney logo on a project actually meant something.

10. (TIE) Ratatouille (Director-Brad Bird)
Is there any movie this year (other than Juno) that had a worse premise on paper? A rat travels to Paris to become a gourmet chef. The idea of rats in the kitchen isn’t exactly appetizing nor is it likely to have small kids begging their parents to see a film tackling the subject. I saw this when it was first released in theaters and an interesting thing happened. The adults were laughing and transfixed by what was happening on screen while most of the children were restless and bored. Despite the film being rated “G” a lot of the humor is for adults and I think some of it may have flown over young audience’s heads. But like the other Disney film that shares its spot on this list, assuming they’re the right age, they’ll love it and find a lot to extract from its message of tolerance and cooperation without being hit over the head with it.

It’s a huge step up to the highest level for director Brad Bird (who previously helmed The Incredibles and the criminally underrated The Iron Giant) and a landmark release for Pixar. You’ve never seen animation look this beautiful and crisp and if you visited Paris yourself I’m guessing it probably wouldn’t look half as good as it does here. It boasts peerless voice work from Patton Oswalt, Ian Holm and Peter O’ Toole and is also one of the few animated films to deservedly earn a Best Original Screenplay Oscar nomination. There’s a speech toward the end of the film (delivered by O’Toole’s evil food critic) that’s among the best dialogue written for any film this year, animated or otherwise. It was so deep and multi-faceted it’s almost impossible to believe an animated character is delivering it.

At the beginning of the film we’re told that “Anyone Can Cook” and Bird takes that relatively simple notion and expands it to mean so much more than that and in the process give us a family classic that can be revisited time and time again. There were a lot of technical achievements in film this year and this could be grouped among them but where it breaks from the pack is in taking that extra step to reach out and do more. One of the year’s most magical filmgoing experiences.

9. The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (Director-Andrew Dominick)

“Yes, the title's too long. And yes, so is the film. And it isn't even the best Western released in 2007.”

That ridiculous statement was written by none other than myself when I reviewed The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford back in February. There was a lot of shifting and feeling out as to what deserves to make this list and what doesn’t, especially at the bottom. It was amazing how films I hadn’t previously given the time of day to held up really well and those I loved months aged poorly on second viewing. A “so what” feeling even accompanied many of them I re-watched. I still found them somewhat great, but so what? They were just great and entertaining. There was nothing else there and I couldn’t justify including them.

There’s no “so what” with this. After watching Jesse James again I now more fully understand my initial, less than stellar impression of the film and why I reacted the way I did. It isn’t the kind of movie that provides instant gratification and on a first viewing all you’re doing is concentrating on how long and slow it is. It isn’t “knock your socks off” action/adventure Western like 3:10 To Yuma. But when Yuma ends, it’s over. This film never ends as certain scenes constantly play over again in your mind . It just sits there ingrained in your consciousness just waiting for the opportunity to be viewed again. And when it is a different result emerges. It isn’t too long or too slow. You realize there’s simply no other way for a story like this to be told effectively. It engulfs you in its dream-like atmosphere.

The haunting narration and cinematographer Roger Deakins’ unforgettable visual rendering of the Old West (which should have won the Oscar) make this less a film than a work of art, a novel captured on film. It’s a no-brainer that this is the most beautifully shot film of the year so let me go a step further and say it’s probably the best shot Western ever made. And with apologies to screenwriting guru Robert McKee, isn’t it about time we finally admit that voice-over narration (employed by no less than three other films on this list) can, if executed well, enhance a film tremendously?

Maybe I approached it all wrong in assuming that the film was actually about James and the wussy man-child Ford (brought to wimpy, pathetic life perfectly in an Oscar nominated performance by Casey Affleck) who worships him. It’s less about the legend and more about us, our celebrity obsessed culture. That should make the casting of Brad Pitt as James a stunt but the actor transcends that notion by delivering what’s hands down the best performance of his career. Rarely has an actor manipulated his own image to such successful effect as Pitt does here.

You’re on pins and needles and in a constant state of discomfort wondering what the unpredictable, wildly inconsistent Jesse James will do next. He doesn’t even know what he’ll do next. And when he’s gone we’re forced to reevaluate everything we initially thought of him and the film itself. In the final half hour when we expect the dust to be settling and the film to start crawling, Dominick makes it come alive in the most dazzling way, reversing our expectations and proving just how important it is to finish strong. 2007 was truly the year of the throwback film but classifying it as just that denies how timely (and timeless) it really is. It may not be for everyone, but try naming 10 better films released in the past year.

8. Juno (Director- Jason Reitman)
Rather than talk about the actual film (since we all know the last thing it needs is more exposure) I’ll use this space to go on a rant instead. There was a time not too long ago when a movie like Juno could have actually meant something. Expectations would have been lowered and it would have been worth rooting for. Unfortunately, Fox Searchlight and the media took it upon themselves to shove it so far down our throats that we were choking. The victim of an epidemic that’s reached alarming proportions in recent years: The over-aggressive Oscar campaign. Normally that wouldn’t bother me but it does here because I actually thought the movie was excellent.

If I had one wish though it would be that screenwriter Diablo Cody held back a little in the first 10 pages of the script with all the hipster dialogue (the only minor flaw in an otherwise superb script) so the haters wouldn’t have all that ammunition. Oh, by the way, did you hear that she used to be a stripper? Argue all you want about the quality of her script, but you can’t tell me Jason Reitman and his cast didn’t handle it as well as humanly possible and mine everything they could from it.

I think everyone knew going in Ellen Page would be perfect (and she was), but what about Jason Bateman? Am I crazy or would we have had a far worse movie if another actor were playing that part? Juno is neither as good or as bad as everyone has said it is and at its worst it’s still better than many of the films released in 2007 (what that says about the year is open for interpretation). And whatever you think of it I’m sure we can all universally agree that between the hype, the backlash to the hype and the backlash to the backlash to the hype, the whole thing was a nightmare that hopefully will never be repeated again.

And here’s something you may not have heard about Juno and why I think it works. Reitman and Cody took the most thankless topic imaginable (teen pregnancy) and did something unique and memorable with it. No other film on this list had more problematic material to work with and accomplished so much with it. We’re all about to find out just how talented Reitman, Cody and Page really are because their careers may have been permanently damaged by all the nonsense surrounding this film. It looks like they (and us) have a huge challenge ahead in recovering from all this chronic overexposure.

7. Atonement (Director- Joe Wright)
Hell has officially frozen over. A period piece starring Keira Knightley is on my list of the year’s best. There wasn’t a movie in existence this year I had LESS interest in seeing than this one, but thank God I did. Another film that plays with perceptions. You think it’s going somewhere but then takes a detour into entirely unexpected territory giving the film an added emotional kick. That problem I mentioned about certain films being brilliant technically but missing that extra special something? Not an issue here. Besides being a technical marvel (witness the now infamous 5-minute long Dunkirk tracking shot) it contains a twist ending that would make M. Night Shyamalan turn green with envy.

Nearly all of its emotional power is contained in the final minutes with a sucker punch to the gut that reveals the story was far more powerful than we originally suspected. I prepared myself for a sappy romance, but instead was handed a deep meditation on the power of storytelling that’s impact only increases in repeated viewings. The performances from James McAvoy, Knightley and Oscar-nominated Saoirse Ronan are all flawless, but I though the best one came from the criminally overlooked Romola Garai, who carries the most difficult part of the picture.

I never fully realized until viewing Atonement that, as much as I made fun of them in the past, how important it is to have big sweeping epics during Awards season (like 1996's The English Patient), and how much I’ve missed them. They used to be nominated all the time but it seems lately the Academy has been on this kick of trying to become edgy and cool by going with offbeat, smaller films. The result of which has been the unfortunate near-extinction of nominated movies like this, which make the little movies actually mean more. Without them smaller, supposedly “underdog” films (like you know what) can pick up too much steam and become overrated. That’s why this, despite earning a Best Picture nod, was actually UNDERRATED, if that makes sense at all.

6. Michael Clayton (Director-Tony Gilroy)
Another screw-up on my part. I first found Bourne trilogy screenwriter Tony Gilroy’s directorial debut barely recommendable and spent most of that review mocking star George Clooney and making fun of legal thrillers. While that was fun at the time I happened to see it again (and again after that) and realized something. It isn’t a legal thriller at all. It’s a gripping character study…and it’s perfect. Each time I watch it it just gets better. The movie Michael Clayton can best be described as the girl you meet at the party who doesn’t impress you all that much at first, but then the more time you spend with her, the more you start to discover things about her you really like. I changed my rating for this movie twice and looked like a major tool as a result of it. Except, those changes were justified. I was wrong.

Gilroy’s script is completely airtight, an unheard of achievement in the legal drama genre. There wasn’t a single event that occurred in this script was unbelievable or even stretched credibility in the slightest, which is miraculous given the plot. It starts with the most memorable dialogue-free scene of the year and then returns much later in the film. How we get back to it is a wild trip and the scene means that much more that second time.

Like Jesse James, it's a throwback, but this time to the intelligent, character-driven thrillers of the '70's like The Parallax View and The Conversation and at its center is work from Clooney that qualifies as both a great movie star and great acting performance. If Daniel Day-Lewis wasn’t in the race he would have won and deserved it. The supporting turns from Tom Wilkinson and Oscar winner Tilda Swinton are just as good if not better. The film also features one of the most emotionless, workman-like murders I’ve seen depicted on screen in a long time as well as a climax that will have you jumping out of your seat, pulse racing and cheering.

5. Zodiac (Director- David Fincher)
A David Fincher movie coming in at number 5 almost qualifies as an off year for him. Think about that for second. Even though Zodiac isn’t his best career effort he still made the top 5 with ease. That’s scary. I’d rank this way above Seven and (especially) Panic Room but below The Game and Fight Club. It could almost be considered the anti-Juno of 2007 because I’m convinced had it been released in December and not the Oscar dead zone of March it would have earned nominations for Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, Adapted Screenplay and Supporting Actor (Robert Downey Jr.) Why it wasn’t we’ll never know but its release date does nothing to dilute the power of Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt’s gripping cinematic adaptation of Robert Graysmith’s non-fiction books Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked.

Part police procedural and part character study it manages to keep us at a terrifying arms length from the killer while at the same time bringing us closer to him than we’ve ever been before for nearly 3 gripping hours. Downey is typically amazing as the troubled San Francisco Chronicle reporter who befriends the paper's curious and later obsessively compulsive cartoonist Graysmith (played with reluctant precision by Jake Gyllenhaal).

It’s All The President’s Men for a new generation as Fincher and his cinematographer Harris Savides brilliantly realize late 70’s San Francisco at the height of the Zodiac killing spree. Years pass but we feel his legacy grow along with Graysmith’s obsession. Character actor John Caroll Lynch as Arthur Leigh Allen (the man who may or may not be the killer) in just one heart stopping interrogation scene, brings to frightening life our worst fears of what he may be. Credit him and Fincher for exceeding those wildest expectations. One of the most underrated and overlooked films of 2007.

4. There Will Be Blood (Director-Paul Thomas Anderson)
If I were going by which film “technically” was the most impressive of the year this would win hands down. The mitigating factors necessary for this to be considered the absolute best may not be present but everything else is. Anderson is a filmmaker known for taking huge risks but he may have taken his biggest risk yet by reversing all of our expectations in making a period epic and playing it mostly straight. Looking at his other previous work it would appear he’d be way over his head and out of his comfort zone here but you’d never know it watching the film.

Almost Kubrikian in its execution, Anderson uses Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil! as his basis to tell the story of prospector Daniel Plainview whose greed during the turn-of-the-century oil boom destroys everything and everyone around him. Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis is every bit as incredible as you heard he was and of all the Best Picture nominees this year, this is the one that should have won, not No Country For Old Men. You could mention it alongside such classics as Lawrence of Arabia and not be too far off the mark. It really is that good. Of the films on this list, this wins as most likely to enter the American Film Institute's Top 100.

Between Robert Elswit’s sweeping cinematography, Johnny Greenwood’s loud, pulsating score and a final 20 minutes that’s just about the darkest and most depressing thing you could ever imagine seeing on screen, this is a new classic. The American dream is built up, then dragged straight to hell kicking and screaming. Despite what the media tells you, it’s not a film about just milkshakes and catchphrases. It will never go down as my favorite P.T. Anderson picture (see Boogie Nights for that), but it’s probably the one I have the most respect for.

3. I’m Not There (Director-Todd Haynes)
Bob Dylan finally has a movie as bizarre, inaccessible and polarizing as he is. And for fans of his this is a dream come true. Haynes uses six different actors playing seven different versions of the legend at various stages of his career and life. Each one brings something different and special with none of them ruining the enigmatic aura that’s always surrounded him. A big fuss has been made about Cate Blanchett’s Oscar nominated turn as the egotistical jerk Bob Dylan from the Blonde on Blonde era we’re all so familiar with. There’s no doubt it’s impressive and dead-on in its accuracy, but I was more interested in the others. Like Christian Bale’s bizarre and compelling take on Dylan’s religious conversion, Richard Gere’s underrated interpretation of his reclusive later years, and most unsettling of all, Heath Ledger’s troubled movie star with the rocky marriage.

You could ask a dozen different people and probably get a dozen different answers as to what it all means or what it says about Dylan, or if it really even says anything at all. There are so many different things going on at once it’s impossible not to be transfixed (even if you hate it) and while everyone will have certain sections of the film and performances they favor over others, Haynes never stays with one long enough that you’d get antsy. With certain sections filmed in good old black and white it’s also one of the most interestingly shot movies of the year and the only one other than my number one pick that I feel showed me something I've never seen before.

2. Into The Wild (Director- Sean Penn)
When most films reach their conclusion I’m left thinking about the direction, the performances, or maybe the script. Not here. When Into The Wild ended all I was thinking about was THE MEANING OF LIFE. That’s how deep it cuts. In telling the story of Christopher McCandliss, who abandoned his family and worldly possessions to head off into the Alaskan wilderness, many accused Sean Penn of glorifying the journey. Well…what was he supposed to do? Penn told this story exactly how it should have been and he doesn’t, despite popular opinion, ignore the fact that this kid’s actions were misguided and selfish. We’re not supposed to necessarily like him, just come to some kind of understanding why he felt compelled to take the actions he did. Emile Hirsch, quite simply, gives the performance of his life while Eddie Vedder’s music plays just as an important role in telling the story as any line of dialogue in the script.

I’m glad I’m not a voting member of the Academy because it would have been impossible for me to put objectivity aside and cast a vote for Javier Bardem as Best Supporting Actor. With not much more than 10 minutes of screen time acting legend Hal Holbrook gives one of the most heartbreaking supporting turns in years as the aging retiree forever changed by McCandliss' journey. Everyone knows how this one ends, but that doesn’t make it go down any easier. Quite possibly Sean Penn's most important and unselfish contribution to cinema, either as an actor or director.

I should point out that the reason this movie is not in the number one position has nothing to do with any shortcomings on its part. It’s flawless and actually better than many of the films I’ve picked as my top choice in previous years. I even tried this out in the top spot but it just didn't work. And believe me I really, really tried. It just didn’t FEEL RIGHT. I knew what film was the best of 2007...

1. Southland Tales (Director- Richard Kelly)
Maybe the most ambitious and self-indulgent brilliant mess of a movie I've ever seen. With the pressure to follow-up his 2001 cult classic Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly was given (you could argue unjustifiably) the budget and free rein to do whatever he wanted for his sophomore effort. And THIS was his response. If you think about it, that’s pretty funny. When I first heard about this film a couple of years ago and found out who was behind it and the actors attached to star, I couldn’t wait. That enthusiasm started to diminish when the release date started to constantly be pushed back and word leaked of disastrous early screenings (like the infamous one at Cannes). If you had told me a year ago that this film would be sitting at the top of this mountain I would have jumped through the roof, but I started having serious doubts, not only that it could be as good as I hoped, but that it could be any good at all. I also know whenever a filmmaker tackles a project with this ambitious the potential for disaster is enormous. But it ended up not only being as great as I wished it could be, but a million times better than that.

In my review of this a couple of months ago I compared it to Dr. Strangelove and Brazil and that wasn’t hyperbole. I’d put it right up there with those, which is appropriate considering both weren’t received well at all by most critics and audiences upon their release. They later came to be appreciated as cult classics and after that took their place as being genuinely respected as important, groundbreaking films. All I can do is just wait and cross my fingers but if it doesn’t pan out that way it’s okay. The public’s perception can do nothing to diminish my love for this film. There are a lot of fantastic movies on this list but all of them (with the exception of maybe number 3) are great in ways that could be duplicated in the future. This can’t. Even those who think the film failed (and I know there are many) would admit it did so more interestingly than many others succeeded in 2007 and could only have been made by a true visionary.

Every time I watch it (four times and counting by the way) I notice details I never saw before and the second it ends I have this burning desire to just start over and see it again. I think that’s because the story twists in so many different directions that you could come at it from any angle you choose. If you wanted to just watch it as a slapstick comedy you could. It works equally as well as an action/adventure film. You can shut your brain off and choose to not even bother following the plot (which does eventually reveal itself as a brilliant construction that holds together perfectly) or you can attempt to put the pieces together as you go along. Unfortunately, most chose to view it the one way they probably shouldn’t: Literally. As if it were trying to make some deep, important thematic point. IT’S A SATIRE. It knew how to have fun, which is something too many of the year’s films completely forgot how to do.

In creating an alternate 2008 Richard Kelly came closer to depicting the world we live in now than any of the serious dramas released in 2007. It actually comes way closer than people are ever likely to admit and is only cinematic effort this year to incorporate politics and the Iraq War into its story successfully. It can also boasts an awesome score from Moby, mind-boggling visuals and one of the most memorable musical numbers ever committed to celluloid. In short, this is one for the time capsule.

It would be tough for me to claim that it’s filled with our generation’s greatest actors, but I can argue they’re among our most entertaining celebrities and all deliver terrific performances, pushed and challenged like they’ve never been before in roles no one imagined they could play. Kelly was smart enough to know a film this insane warranted casting choices that were equally crazy. Just get a load of this:

-Dwayne Johnson as an amnesiac movie star with ties to the Republican party.

-Mandy Moore as his bitchy, slutty wife

-Sarah Michelle Gellar as a porn star and aspiring reality talk show host

-Justin Timberlake as a wounded Iraq war veteran

-Seann William Scott as kidnapped twins

-Jon Lovitz as a psychotic cop

-Midgets (in S.W.A.T uniforms!)

Special mention should be made of Johnson, Gellar and Scott who deliver performances way beyond what anyone thought they were capable of. Especially Johnson, who I’ll never refer to as “The Rock” again after witnessing what he pulls off here. Most filmmakers would consider themselves lucky if they accidentally made one cult classic in their career. Kelly wrote and directed two…intentionally! As a human drama Darko wins, but as a work of science fiction it’s got nothing on this. I feel with Southland Tales Kelly made the kind of film I always secretly wanted to see, whether I was consciously aware of it or not. And I suspect it's infuriated so many because it challenges the perceptions of what we feel movies are capable of and what they can do. It's a misunderstood masterpiece.

Honorable Mention (in no particular order):
The Lookout (Scott Frank)
The Mist (Frank Darabont)
Superbad (Greg Motttola)
Grindhouse (Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez)
No Country For Old Men (Joel and Ethan Coen)
Gone Baby Gone (Ben Affleck)
American Gangster (Ridley Scott)
3:10 To Yuma (James Mangold)
Margot At The Wedding (Noah Baumbach)
Rescue Dawn (Werner Herzog)
Live Free Or Die Hard (Len Wiseman)
Alpha Dog (Nick Cassavettes)