I've had the argument MANY, MANY times about good/geek film, and a lot my friends don't understand how I can go from something like 'The Barbarian Invasions' to total, loveable fluff like 'Little Big League' in one day (and I will champion 'Little Big Leage' till the day I die!!). If a film can move you to the limits of your senses, be it tears, laughter, fright, or FUCKMERUNNINTHATWASAWESOME!!, then it's good filmmaking. So while 'There Will be Blood' and 'No Country' will definitely be on my list, guess what? So will 'Shoot 'Em Up'. . . and I dare ANYONE to say they are a film lover and DIDN'T have fun with that one.

And to the guy who thought 'Grindhouse' was actually bad and that people just got caught up in the event aspect of it, well . . . can't that still be a valid attribute of a film? If it can move an entire audience to cheer, scream, laugh, and applaud in unison, or even just SHOW UP at midnight on the same night, then I say that flick has got somethin goin for it!! I didn't like 'Deathproof' as much on it's own when I saw it later, but that screening of 'Grindhouse' at midnight at Grauman's Chinese for the first time? Sweet zombie JESUS that was a good film experience!!

Mori, I look forward the rest of the list, and while I certainly HOPE to see 'Once', 'King of Kong', and what I consider a very important release this year, 'Bender's Big Score', I'd still rather see YOUR list than see mine reflected . . . that'll give me somethin to argue about!!

What isn't merely opinion though is that having multiple films tie for a single position is a cop out bullshit way to do any list of this sort, and undermines the whole concept of what a top ten/twenty/fifty/whatever list is supposed to be, in turn making it that much easier on the writer to compile, which again goes against the very nature of what these lists are supposed to represent. They are supposed to be difficult and agonizing and frustrating to create, and you should be forced to cut films off your list that you genuinely liked, but when all is said and done and you honestly evaluate everything you've seen, they just don't quite make the cut, much as it might pain you to admit. Still, when all is said and done and you have your list and you want 23 films represented then do a top 23, don't do a top 20 with 23 films jammed into it and have certain films tieing for a single position. Don't do a top 20 with three "honorable mentions". That's just a bullshit copout way of fitting everything in under the illusion of a proper "best of" list without having the balls to make the hard choices. So I call giant fucking shenanigans on that, and I call it right here, right now.

Man, I have just lost about two levels of respect for you!

I really wanted my money back after watching Grindhouse. I forgot about the film within hours (except for my disgust with myself for actually paying to watch it).

ATONEMENT, on the other hand, molested my thoughts for several days. It was a beautifully created tragic masterpiece (if that can make sense). My wife and my friends couldn't stop talking about the plot during the drive home and over dinner. It was well worth the $8.50 admission fee.

They say that you can tell a lot about a person by their interests in music, art and film. What does this say about you, Moriarty? I love your reviews -- but I cannot fathom your preference of a simple and forgettable film like Grindhouse over one of the year's best and most thought provoking. * sigh *

I can still recount how I snuck into an 18+ (Canada) screening of FIGHT CLUB alone afterschool in a packed theatre and not knowing what-the-fuck just happened to me or my life.

I had the good chance of meeting Chuck Palahniuk last summer and telling him that I saw FIGHT CLUB when I was 15 and he was just sort of shocked. *evil laughter*

But uh, 300 sucked. I expect more than 20 minutes of action out of a 2 hour action movie instead of an hour of speeches and a dumb sub-plot about the King's wife. Jeez.

Newsflash from reality-ville: I assure you your apology is not accepted. The WGA fucked up royally. The strike is splintering (we're on strike ... unless you work for someone that we made an agreement with ... so they're getting paid, but if you work for Leno, too bad). The DGA made the WGA look like asshats. Countless good people aren't working because of the strike, and that's the best you can do? Say you're sorry while still toeing the fucking corporate line?

As for Atonement, I thought everything in the beginning, in the house, was BRILLIANT, but then we changed perspective from the character we've been seeing the story through, which drives the ENTIRE film, and as someone else said, we just wandered around the rest of the time without point . . . we lost personal connection to the story. I liked it, but overall it left me kinda cold.

The story was about a young girl who makes up the "rape" allegation because she is jealous of her sister's boyfriend. This happens all of the time! The story is called "Atonement" because the little girl grows up wanting to atone for the terrible circumstances brought about by her lies.

The "twist" was quite tragic. It shows that, for some, a true attonement might never be reached. Think about all of the lives that have been destroyed by such lies! Those people can NEVER fully get their lives back -- even if they are proven to be honest in court. This movie is about the everlasting damage that can be done over childish jealousy, and how such damage can often never be undone.

Compared with GRINDHOUSE, this film (ATONEMENT) was a masterpiece! If it gets snubbed, it will go down as one of the all-time great snubs by Hollywood (up there with EMPIRE OF THE SUN, THE COLOR PURPLE and LEGENDS OF THE FALL.

As aforementioned, the stories come from what is sent to people like Harry, Mori, Quint, etc. The writers and editors on this site get bombarded with movie info, and I can guarantee you that their inbox is flooded with info on Superman, Transformers, Indiana Jones to an almost terrible ratio over something like Atonement, The Kite Runner, There Will Be Blood, Michael Clayton, and so on and so on. The general public just doesn't seem to clamor for the indie film scene, and to blame AICN for that is, to me, ridiculous.

AICN has been wonderful about supporting art house films, don't get me wrong, but they can only post what they have, and what they have is people chronicling every single nook and cranny and news item from the big guns. To say otherwise seems foolish to me. From somebody who, in Capone's list of the Top 50, said he had only seen three (or was it four?) and doesn't feel the need for digital cable, I would say that you are part of this machine, whether or not you know it. This is not meant as an insult, but to try to contextualize what it is Mori said and against what you railed.

Fuck those who say anyone HAS to follow some made up rules. Why should they be difficult and agonizing and frustrating, as you say? Is that because that's the way you do it? Shouldn't he make a list out of joy for film, not agony? Once again, I'm baffled. His honest evaluation is that those three movies are equal. To do anything else would be dishonest. If we had to follow the "rules" all the time, we wouldn't have good art in the first place to rank.

And we are never meant to believe Robbie was the rapist. That's my personal view and I'm sticking to it.

Whatever you're paid is what you "deserve". If the writers strike ends up with writers getting more money, then they "deserve" it. If the writers strike is a failure, then they "deserve" whatever comes of that too.

You, my friend, are going to lose this because you clearly have no sense of the equality of respect.

But seriously, you're trying to impose rules that YOU believe should be followed in a field where those rules don't have to be followed. Lighten up your idea of what should and shouldn't be in this world and you'll probably end up a much happier person.

Oh Mori,why so serious? XD