Slant Magazine

Great top three. Especially nice to see the love for Mysteries of Lisbon.

Some lovely stuff there. I lot of these slipped through the cracks—almost.

Much as though there are some excellent films in this list, the isolationist attitude of American critics to only counting a film when it shows cinematically there rears its uglt head. I wonder does da Vinci's Mona Lisa not exist because it's never left the Louvre (expect in robbery attempts)?

A Brighter Summer Day is a 1991 film. It has always been so. Just because it never showed cinemnatically in the US until then is immaterial. Battleship Potemkin wasn't shown publicly in the UK until 1961, does that mean it was counted it as a 1961 film? Er, no.

Likewise, while one can perhaps forgive a one year delay on seeing films to include 2010 films as this is common practice, anything more than this is pure laziness on the part of the critic. Part of a critics' job should be being aware of films long before they come to the US, seeking them out at film festivals and promoting them, not when they come to their own doorstep. In many ways, good word of mouth is the only way in our garbage saturated film market they will ever get attention. Many European critics list films seen at Film Festivals nut not given full releases, maybe one day the US will grow up and recognise there are cinemas elsewhere.

Extraordinary Stories for example is a great film, anout this you are right. But it was 2008, for gawd's sake. It's yesterday's news. If we film fans who aren't paid to have opinions can seek these films out in our spare time around 9-5 job, you—and it's obviously even more aimed at so-called professional film critics in the big cities like New York who never even cross the Hudson let alone the Atlantic to catch a film—should be able to.

It's sad, because a generally fine list is fatally compromised. As the previous commenter put, it's great to see Mysteries of Lisbon there, even if only the cinema version. Great to see a couple of others on there, too. But make the list better by having real 2011 entries not yet seen on there and make people salivate to see them when they DO come to the US.

I'm currently weeping semen tears over the exclusion of "House of Pleasures". Otherwise, great list!

What Ed said—

I understand what acf171072 is trying to say but if you are serious about lists you have to allow that different criteria apply under different sets of circumstances: two sets, to be precise.

If you were to take the "year of US release" to its logical conclusion, you'd have to say THE RULES OF THE GAME is a 1950 film. Okay then, so don't take "year of US release" to it's logical conclusion. Okay. But if you were a critic back in 1950 and miraculously you had the internet back then and critics (largely freelance, unpaid, etc) were list-crazy and had the opportunity to stump for a movie that didn't get a proper release until that year, well then you hope people will join you in making some noise for THE RULES OF THE GAME.

I have a page that lists all my favorite films, from 2011 all the way back to the 1910s and beyond, and I use the IMDb year as the gold standard. What's really lovely is that, almost every day, the "official" year of at least one of those movies is altered by IMDb contributors who find evidence that such-and-such was actually released in 1959, or 1961, etc. If anyone wants to be the watchdog for that, be my guest. Why even now someone got it into their head that BLOOD OF A POET is a 1932 film, because that's when it had its Paris world premiere. To give you an idea of how *insane* this can get.

When awards/list season gets too heavy, you see writers standing back and saying things like "Well, all these lists are worthless, anyway, there's no objective value, etc." Well, ha ha, okay, sure. Except not quite—it's true that it isn't science, but (a) consider who made the list, not everyone's opinion is created equally, and (b) if the list circus is a form of play, it's play within a certain set of guidelines, not free-for-all, run-screaming-across-the-blacktop play. And hey, the rules let you stump for ARMY OF SHADOWS in 2006—sweet!

Finally, a US release isn't nothing. It makes a title the film critic version of news, so that it can be reported as an event. A paper like the New York Times will run a piece on it even if they have to send out a 14-year-old copy boy to catch a 2 AM showing in order to do so. While a few of us are very much aware that A BRIGHTER SUMMER DAY is a landmark film, US release or not, it's simply not possible to rally the US critical mass around any movie until it passes a certain threshold.

A lovely list! Only thing I would point out is that you list Sean Penn in TREE OF LIFE as Sean Pitt. Just a heads up on the slight slip.

Though this is among the better lists I've seen, where's Fast Five? Even within its genre limitations, the quality and variety of sensations it manages to provide as well the superb execution of its narrative keep it well in the upper ranks of films released during the year. I fail to see how anyone who watches film for the kinds of experiences the medium can uniquely provide could consistently overlook it in favor of delusively-intellectual movies lacking the most rudimentary craftsmanship and ordering, as if a film's value derives not from what it is, but how facilely it serves as a platform for obscure blathering on thematics, anything but a broad aesthetic appreciation that implicitly considers formalistic and other concerns in its purview. Hence anything with perceived gravitas (be it via theme, mood, tone, pace or lack thereof) is automatically deemed good cinema, no matter how ineptly formed per film logic as opposed to through these desperately discursive goggles. I see so many people willing to pardon a filmmaker's utter failure to maintain a thoroughgoing authorial control over a film's structure, coherences, meanings, sensations, to the point of excusing harebrained philosophizing (much of The Tree of Life, which admittedly had incredible cinematography and the best scene of the year - Lacrimosa) and extreme dullness (say, the latter half of Melancholia) if the merest allusions and context exist amenable to initiate the common species of vapid "intellectual" discourse. I say this as someone whose favorite films are Tess, Pulp Fiction, The New World, Blue Velvet, Annie Hall, and Mulholland Dr.

Wow. I can't remember a year of Slant's top 25 where I went "uh, huh?" more. Not that they're bad picks... I just have no idea what they are.

Incredible list. I'm really glad Poetry made the cut. My love for that movie surprised me. Certified Copy is a masterpiece. I can't wait to see Mysteries of Lisbon.

Re. Last sentence in the "Take Shelter" blurb — "...and the devastating scene where she and Shannon argue about whether or not they should open their cellar's storm doors is devastating." Double devastating, eh? No wonder the film made the list.

Kinda sad not to see "Hearbeats" and "Le Quattro Volte" mentioned, movies I loved. Especially Heartbeats, as House Next Door has hosted some enthusiastic writing about the movie around its premiere. Well, among the voters, looks like no one was that enthusiastic.

Cool. I could watch the movie every day, it has such simple but refreshing way of showing. I can't wait till I get a chance to see "Mysteries of Lisbon", "In the Family" and "Margaret", so far they remain unreleased in my country. I hope they are released on American or English DVD.

no love for "weekend"? yikes.

I'm really not sure why someone is bothered by a 1991 film making the list. Part of the job of every critic is to turn people onto films they would normally never have heard of. Often that includes older films. And so if an older film finally gets a release in the US twenty years after the fact then it IS eligible to make a list. A film like A Brighter Summer Day can actually make two lists. Best of 1991 and best of 2011. It depends on what criteria is used. I prefer release - and thus available to see - dates rather than 'first seen in the world' dates. Let me quote words of wisdom from Lauren Bacall, 'It's not an old movie if you haven't seen it."

I am surprised that "The Turin Horse" hasn't made it, I would have thought it would be a favorite. Is there a reason it isn't here?

glegs

"The Turin Horse" doesn't get an official release until 2012. In the comment by Ed Gonzales he notes they only consider films that get a one week release in the US in a calendar year. Which is standard for most critic lists. I'm sure it will make the next year-end list.

Excellent list! Two other films I would like to include are Mike Leigh's *another year* and Pablo Larrain's *post mortem*.