Hugo angers me partly because it's longer than it needs to be and partly because it perpetuates that pure myth about The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat causing the audience to panic.

I thought you'd never ask!

Flickchart's lists tend to be very bro-y but fun: http://www.flickchart.com/C…

Looking good for my #1 pick, but looking more likely that my sleeper pick won't make the cut at all.

People pointed that out about Argo's structure and content as well, and The Artist goes without saying. Sort of a wave of stuff lately that would have done respectable box office decades ago without getting a sniff at the Oscars.

Do you really think that movie is particularly good? I love the retro look of it, and Oldman does a great Alec Guinness, but the plot is pretty old-hat and the whole trajectory of the movie quite predictable.

Performance-wise I was impressed by David Strathairn. Day-Lewis and the visual ethic of the film were indeed going for something particular and achieved it, it's just not what I'd want in a Lincoln biopic in either case.

This is the first I've heard of people loving it, and it just surprises me. It looks like a Best Exotic Marigold Hotel caliber movie. I enjoyed the first one of those in the same way you enjoyed Beginners, probably, and also certainly wouldn't put it in any best-of list.

Then why did you reply to my post? To accuse me of things that you do too and then things that I didn't say? That's really odd behavior.

Did I ever say I was going to "follow through" by refusing to see Beginners?

No. But do you never have gut instincts about movies you haven't seen, based on what you know about them?

I'm positive that my top film of the decade will have a place of prominence in the upper half of the list. But I suspect my sleeper pick won't appear. Want to hear them?

I haven't seen Beginners, but… I mean… really?

Lincoln was not even a little bit good, and Tinker Tailer was fun but also not what I'd call good.

I don't think so, because I'm in both of those camps.

It's sad but true. I'm guilty of writing such headlines for my own articles because, sue me, I want readers.

It may be a truthful statement, but it would be an insane and diabolical thing to do. First they came for the plastic surgeons, and I said nothing because I was not a plastic surgeon.

It certainly doesn't.

There's an interesting split here between the majority, which feels that the moral quality of one's life should determine the level of mourning, and a minority which feels that the pained death of a person who did some bad things is still a sad moment.

I believe I'm explaining myself rather than fighting. That's my intent, anyway.