Jesus Son is NOT a 2000 film simply because it SUCKS!

ok, that had nothing to do with reality, just throwing the curveball. Yea, I'm saying we default to Academy standards and must be careful about the IMDb years. I know there are different sides to the debate and I'm not looking to
win, I just want to have some standard cut-off point. Somewhere between the first draft of the script and the DVD release.
So Jesus Son is pretty good, huh? Guess I have another film to consider for my list. This thread is a bit like the AFI thread in that it gives a good, solid "to see" list for the year. I may not love all the contenders, but going through the top list makers here has helped me get more out of my theater going dollar.
I'm going to go back and retabulate as soon as I watch Wonder Boys (membership has it's privledges so to speak

). Dancer in the Dark next week on DVD, hurray.
I'll also get some final tab done right before the Oscars, just so we can see how our top 10 fare in the awards.
And, btw, if anybody notices films that are being thrown about as 2000 films when by AA standards they aren't, please let us know. I haven't made sure on each film or anything, I've been trusting the list makers to do that, although I have taken a few out of consideration that I knew were wrong for sure.
BTW, I have yet to see a 2001 film. Seems weird that I have somehow managed to avoid them all. Hopefully, Mood for Love will break that streak.