At long last, here is my list of Top 15 Films of 2012:

1. A Late Quartet

2. Django Unchained

3. Killer Joe

4. Lincoln

5. Silver Linings Playbook

6. Flight

7. Life of Pi

8. Moonrise Kingdom

9. Zero Dark Thirty

10. Argo

11. To Rome with Love

12. 2 Days in New York

13. Savages

14. Looper

15. Rampart

Notes on the Top Four:

1. A Late Quartet

“A Late Quartet,” starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, and Christopher Walken as world-famous classical musicians, is a magnificent film, the best of 2012.It is completely mystifying why it was not on anyone’s top 10 list. I don’t believe it has received a single nomination for any award either. Completely, completely baffling. Watching America ignore great films is always bizarre, but in this case it may be the most astonishing instance I have ever seen.

When I first saw “A Late Quartet,” I was reminded of “In the Bedroom” (2001). From out of nowhere, an unknown filmmaker explodes onto the world-cinema stage with a quiet, elegant, highly intelligent near-masterpiece. This is only the second film for Israeli-born writer/director Yaron Zilberman, and his first non-documentary. He is a major new talent.

How could this film be ignored in America? My only explanation is that America is in a very strange cultural period where favoritism is shown to big-budget studio pictures, with some willingness to pay attention to the art-house only if a big-name distributer is involved, such as The Weinstein Company. There has to be a fairly large corporation involved with the film, or Americans will ignore it. “A Late Quartet” was distributed in the US by Entertainment One (eOne), a small outfit that I’ve never heard of, with little to no advertising budget.

Another possibility is due to the fact that Zilberman is Israeli-born. One of the signature characteristics of Americans is their discomfort with “foreigners.” But certain nationalities feel more foreign than others. No Israeli film has ever become a mainstream hit in America, thus any Israeli associations will make a film feel esoteric and marginal. Even though “Quartet” was filmed in New York and had an almost completely American cast, the film still had an international aura that may have contributed to its failure to break through.

Finally, and this may be the decisive issue, the subject of the film is classical music, a topic that has long intimidated Americans, especially today in this philistine era.

***********************************

“A Late Quartet” focuses on four individuals who make up a string quartet that is approaching its 20th anniversary. The stresses and strains of, in a sense, being married to each other for 20 years are starting to show.

One of the many things I love about the film is that its characters go through the same kind of struggles that you and I go through. Adultery, lust, career advancement, jealousy, cross-generational relationships, juggling career and family, youth, aging, illness, death, cruelty toward those you love the most.

These are just some of the themes explored in “A Late Quartet,” and yet it doesn’t seem over-stuffed. The film breathes, flowing with the normal rhythms of everyday life. Zilberman is such a master filmmaker (writer, director, editor) that he doesn’t waste a second. Every move the film makes has meaning. Every turn of a corner involves a gentle revelation of what this quasi-family is going through, secrets revealed in the quiet, understated way of great chamber music.

As a backdrop to the musicians’ life struggles, there are numerous reflections on Beethoven’s difficult life. (The quartet specializes “late Beethoven,” the challenging, dense music the composer wrote in his last few years of life.) This provides beautiful resonance with other time periods, expanding the reach of the film.

2. Django Unchained

What Quentin Tarantino did (gloriously) for Jews with his last film, “Inglourious Basterds,” he now does for blacks with the brilliant, innovative, and explosively entertaining “Django Unchained,” the second-best film of 2012. The film’s Oscar nomination for Best Picture was well deserved — ditto for its Screenwriting, Cinematography, and Acting nominations.

Whereas “Inglourious” was a Jewish revenge fantasy that ended with a massacre of Nazis, “Django” depicts a slave turning the tables on one of the sickest plantation owners in 1858 Mississippi. Let’s just say that a lot of bad people are killed in the end, and it’s done magnificently. No one does a kill scene with more gusto and meaning than Tarantino.

Jamie Foxx stars as Django, a slave who is purchased and then freed by a German bounty hunter named King Schultz. Christoph Waltz plays Schultz with delicious panache. (Waltz, an Austrian character actor, won an Oscar for his eerie, remarkable performance in “Inglourious” and is now nominated for his work in “Django.”)

Tarantino brilliantly uses music to punctuate the many adventures that Django and Schultz have. I honestly can’t remember ever enjoying music in a non-musical movie as much as I did in “Django.” Tarantino is known for his use of little-known 1960s soul songs, and he uses those here quite a bit. But he also uses rap and a few other genres to great effect.

The cinematography is also breathtaking. In the first half of the film, there are many scenes filmed outdoors (in Wyoming). It’s not exactly innovative. It’s fairly traditional Western photography, but the best example of it that I’ve seen since “Brokeback Mountain.” It may be the first time an African-American character has been shown against a classic Western backdrop. I loved that. In so many ways, black history is being made by this film.

The overall art direction, including sets and costumes, is also top-notch. Tarantino has become an overall movie craftsman of the highest order. He’s always been known as a snarky screenwriter, but he’s become much more than this. His overall command of the cinematic medium is now rivalling that of Hitchcock.

“Django Unchained” is a grand epic, nearly three hours, that goes by faster than most 90-minute movies. It contains so much content, presented in such an entertaining way, that it felt like three movies in one. You always get your money’s worth at a Tarantino flick.

3. Killer Joe

“Killer Joe,” from director William Friedkin (“The Exorcist,” “Cruising”), is a tough movie to watch. It more than deserved its NC-17 rating. It is a brutal depiction of human depravity. It is also Friedkin’s best film in decades, an uncompromising and serious work of art, and the third-best film of 2012.

A family of trailer-park trash hires a hitman (Matthew McConaughey) to off one of their members. As part of the deal, they force their 12-year-old daughter (played by Juno Temple in a daring performance) to provide sexual services for the assassin. Yes, it’s stomach turning. But things get even darker when a double cross occurs, and the eponymous assassin has to get to the bottom of it.

Based on a play by Tracy Letts (“August: Osage County”), the script effectively uses comedy to blunt some of the impact of the horror. “Killer Joe” could be described as a black comedy. But Friedkin, as he is wont to do, depicts a good amount of the brutality in a realistic, non-comedic way. So the comedy only lightens the atmosphere to a degree. Friedkin wants you to squirm, as well he should.

The direction is crisp and brilliant almost from start to finish. The actors all know exactly what they’re doing. The cinematography is suitably dank and lurid. Every shot is interestingly composed. The screenplay bristles with creativity and punch. The editing is a tour de force, moving everything along at an exhilarating pace.

Special mention has to be made of Matthew McConaughey and the extraordinary year he had. In 2012, he did Richard Linklater’s “Bernie,” then Steven Soderbergh’s “Magic Mike,” and finally an art-house film with an NC-17 rating. Three very unusual films, and he brought fearlessness and skill to all the performances. In 2012, he essentially turned himself back into a serious actor, after a decade of forgettable work in ultra-mainstream fare. Welcome back to the world of serious acting, Mr. McConaughey. If you keep this up, I expect you’ll have an Oscar within three or four years. You may not have gotten any nominations in 2012, but everyone who’s serious about cinema noticed your work this year.

4. Lincoln

“Lincoln” is a quietly moving, serious film for grown-ups. It has its flaws, chiefly that it’s too worshipful of its subject. Director Steven Spielberg lays on the hagiography thick. But it is a true artistic achievement, packed with content that offers much to think about regarding the path of American history.

The central story line focuses on the extremely difficult campaign to pass the 13th Amendment, which banned slavery. The film looks at this legislative campaign in terrific detail.

I’ve never seen a film sink its teeth into complex legislative machinations, much less do it in an entertaining way. Even though one already knows how it turns out, the House vote is still a nail-biter. Spielberg also effectively conveys the momentousness of the vote. It’s hard to imagine how history would have turned out if the 13th Amendment had not passed, and it easily could have gone the other way. The amendment passed the House by a razor-thin margin.

But what I really appreciate about “Lincoln” is that it operates on several other levels as well. Its principal concern is the 13th Amendment, but it elegantly explores a range of minor themes as well. Sally Field delivers an arresting, unpretty, thought-provoking performance as Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd. She is presented as fiercely intelligent, deeply engaged with the war and the general political issues of the day, and shattered by the tragic death of her 11-year-old son, William.

Other minor female characters are also looked at in an illuminating way. The film seems to say that while American women weren’t voting in the 19th century, they certainly weren’t on the political sidelines. They participated forthrightly in political discussions and had a major role in determining the course of history. Their husbands and sons may have been the ones voting, but to a large degree the family decided together how the men would vote. I love the film’s overall approach to women.

The almost complete absence of African-American characters is a bitter disappointment. The subject is slavery, for goodness sake. No slave characters? Mrs. Lincoln’s black maid does have some weight as a character, but that’s about it. She has one beautiful scene where Lincoln asks her if she is fearful of what’s going to happen to “her people” if freedom comes. In that exchange, one sees how awesomely transformative abolition was. No one knew what life would feel like in the new day. What would black people do? How would white and black people live side by side for the first time? Would black men have to be given the vote? What impact would that have?

The open-endedness of this awed Lincoln, even frightened him from time to time. Early in the film he has a dream, a sequence strikingly presented by Spielberg. Lincoln is alone on the deck of a large ship barreling forward at warp speed, powered by some other-worldly engine. He stands alone in the cold night, struggling to maintain courage as he races into an unknown future.

There seems to be consensus around one thing right now: this awards season is awfully strange.

Typically there are two or three movies that win most of the Best Picture awards. But this year, the awards have been all over the place. “Hugo” won one of the early awards but has failed to win any others. “The Artist” looked like it might turn into an awards darling, but that hasn’t panned out. “The Tree of Life” topped many critics’ lists but has barely won any awards. “The Help” and “War Horse” were on many Top 10 lists, but towards the bottom. And that’s just to name a few of the films.

What is going on? Were the English-language films of 2011 so bad that none of them has been able to generate much enthusiasm? My answer to that question is a resounding No. One thing is for sure: 2011 was a good year for English-language cinema. Not a great year but definitely a good one.

The problem, as I see it, has not been with the films. It has been with the nominating committees. The nominations have almost exclusively gone to middle-tier films.

In my view, the top tier of 2011 has been almost completely ignored in this awards season. I’m sensing a strange fear on the part of awards-granting bodies to nominate trenchant, deep works of art. With a few exceptions, these groups have overwhelmingly turned their attention to works of entertainment. Instead of “Best Film of 2011,” these awards should be renamed “Most Entertaining Movie of 2011.”

Am I really the only person who thinks “Drive” (the hypnotic, heart-breaking, spectacularly original neo-noir near-masterpiece starring Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan) was one of the best films of the year?

When “Drive” was released in the early fall, it was greeted with almost universal acclaim. It also packed in audiences. It must have had some of the best per-screen averages of the year, nearly selling out wherever it played. I saw it in a theater with about 1,000 seats, and it was nearly sold out.

Ditto for “Martha, Marcy May, Marlene.” When it was released about a month after “Drive,” it triggered almost as much enthusiasm. Here were two phenomenally original works of art that really got under your skin and haunted almost everyone who saw them. Was anyone haunted by “The Descendants”? I was moderately entertained by “The Descendants.”

Elizabeth Olsen’s performance in “Martha,” furthermore, was spoken about as the best screen debut in years. Then awards time comes around and no one nominates her! Was her performance considered too scary? Her depiction of mental illness too much like our state of mind? Do we want our screen performances and our films only to be entertaining nowadays? That’s all we want from cinema?

Critics, who have a responsibility for reminding nominators about the major artistic achievements of the year, made nary a peep when Olsen appeared on no nominating lists. I did not see one article expressing disgust over this.

That’s just the beginning. What happened to “Beginners,” the film starring Ewan McGregor and Christopher Plummer that warmed (and froze) so many hearts during the summer? Sure, Plummer’s great, artistically rich performance has been remembered, but what of the film itself? The nominating committees didn’t think “Beginners” was at least as good as “The Descendants”?

In my book, “The Descendants” was not much more than a good pilot for a TV show – a show that would run on NBC, not HBO. Move over “Parenthood.” “Beginners” penetrated far deeper into the soul of its characters and had about 1,000 times more originality, I would say. Would many serious cinephiles really disagree with me there?

Maybe that’s the issue. Who’s getting put on these nominating committees? People who only enjoy popcorn movies? Or are they cinephiles who have become frightened to nominate major works of art? Has someone convinced them that the nominations should be dumbed down?

That’s what I am starting to sense. And what saddens me most is that there are so many American moviegoers who rely on the awards season to draw their attention to worthy films. Most intelligent moviegoers will not go see 150 movies a year, like I do. They will see some films throughout the year, but they will wait for awards season and then go see a bunch of films. They go to see the films that win a lot of nominations.

This mechanism has worked quite well for the past 40 or so years. But if awards-granting bodies lose their nerve, what will we end up with? We’ll have the bulk of our smartest moviegoers getting sent to see mediocre films, which will lead to bitterness. This will also lead them to think that smart movies don’t exist anymore, which is completely untrue!

This is the mistaken notion that I think has started to circulate. Talk to most smart Americans, and they demonstrate more enthusiasm for premium-cable TV shows (such as the awesomely good “Breaking Bad”) than for cinema. What a terribly disturbing development.

Quite delighted by first episode of "Once Upon a Time" (ABC). I was beginning to forget that broadcast networks could do good drama series. It's been a long time. The show is imaginative, surprising, original, and emotionally engaging, and the direction, acting, and production values are top-notch.  The show could also appeal to various age groups. Bravo, ABC.

http://www.hulu.com/once-upon-a-time

1. Winter's Bone

2. Blue Valentine

3. Agora

4. Please Give

5. The Kids Are All Right

6. Kick-Ass

7. Brotherhood (from Denmark)

8. Inception

9. Fair Game

10. The King’s Speech (from England)

11. Mother and Child

12. Daybreakers

13. Rabbit Hole

14. White Material (from France)

15. The Ghost Writer (from England)

Honorable Mentions:

A Prophet (from France)

Somewhere

Jack Goes Boating

City Island

The Town

Solitary Man

Mademoiselle Chambon (from France)

Exit Through the Gift Shop (from England)

Prince of Broadway

Black Swan

Worst Movie of the Year: “I’m Still Here” (candidate for Worst of the Decade)

I am immensely pleased (and a bit proud) that my no.1 film of 2010, "Winter's Bone," won Best Picture at the Gotham Film Awards.  It beat nominees "Black Swan," "The Kids are All Right," "Blue Valentine," and "Let Me In."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/winters-bone-tops-gotham-awards-49990