The Best Films of the Decade

Some of the ones I really agree with are not in bold:

In Bruges
Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
Artificial Intelligence
Gangs of New York

Could you explain your rationale?

Then you liked Solaris so much that you made it bold? Honestly?

I turned off A History of Violence in the middle, and I don't usually do that. It seems unlikely that I missed out on anything. Why did you list it? Same with Synecdoche, New York.

Other ones that were pretty decent but not bold-worthy are:

No Country for Old Men
Jarhead
Babel
Primer
Capote
Little Children
Mulholland Drive
The Royal Tenenbaums

Assuming we're starting at 2000, I would add all of the following in bold:

Quills
Requiem for a Dream
Donnie Darko
Brick
Wristcutters: A Love Story
Crash
Hero
Night Watch
District 9
The Prestige
The Illusionist
Lord of War
the remakes of The Time Machine and The Count of Monte Cristo
and call me crazy, but I really liked The Last Samurai

I'm surprised you didn't add:

Rendition
Traitor
Body of Lies

I liked those more than Jarhead, though it could just be that covert ops are more fun. I didn't like Syriana though, even though one might wanna lump that in there.

By the way, it is funny that you should add There Will Be Blood up at the top and in bold. I thought you've stopped worrying and learned to love corporate elites? I wouldn't even put that one in bold.

To end on points of agreement, I very much liked these choices:

The Lives of Others
The Pianist
Munich
The Aviator
Adaptation
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Amazingly, I have yet to see the Hurt Locker, but I expect it to be good... and a bunch of others I also haven't seen yet.

Some of the ones I really agree with are not in bold:

In Bruges
Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
Artificial Intelligence
Gangs of New York

Could you explain your rationale?

Then you liked Solaris so much that you made it bold? Honestly?

I turned off A History of Violence in the middle, and I don't usually do that. It seems unlikely that I missed out on anything. Why did you list it? Same with Synecdoche, New York.

Other ones that were pretty decent but not bold-worthy are:

No Country for Old Men
Jarhead
Babel
Primer
Capote
Little Children
Mulholland Drive
The Royal Tenenbaums

Assuming we're starting at 2000, I would add all of the following in bold:

Quills
Requiem for a Dream
Donnie Darko
Brick
Wristcutters: A Love Story
Crash
Hero
Night Watch
District 9
The Prestige
The Illusionist
Lord of War
the remakes of The Time Machine and The Count of Monte Cristo
and call me crazy, but I really liked The Last Samurai

I'm surprised you didn't add:

Rendition
Traitor
Body of Lies

I liked those more than Jarhead, though it could just be that covert ops are more fun. I didn't like Syriana though, even though one might wanna lump that in there.

By the way, it is funny that you should add There Will Be Blood up at the top and in bold. I thought you've stopped worrying and learned to love corporate elites? I wouldn't even put that one in bold.

To end on points of agreement, I very much liked these choices:

The Lives of Others
The Pianist
Munich
The Aviator
Adaptation
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Amazingly, I have yet to see the Hurt Locker, but I expect it to be good... and a bunch of others I also haven't seen yet.

How infuriating! I composed a lengthy reply, and left my console for 30 minutes, only to be left with the following:
[;235467U|
C54R gtfvr`` bn,= `A1Q\ `


So understandably, I have little incentive to return to your comments for a while.

Some of the ones I really agree with are not in bold:

In Bruges
Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
Artificial Intelligence
Gangs of New York

Could you explain your rationale?

Then you liked Solaris so much that you made it bold? Honestly?

I turned off A History of Violence in the middle, and I don't usually do that. It seems unlikely that I missed out on anything. Why did you list it? Same with Synecdoche, New York.

Other ones that were pretty decent but not bold-worthy are:

No Country for Old Men
Jarhead
Babel
Primer
Capote
Little Children
Mulholland Drive
The Royal Tenenbaums

Assuming we're starting at 2000, I would add all of the following in bold:

Quills
Requiem for a Dream
Donnie Darko
Brick
Wristcutters: A Love Story
Crash
Hero
Night Watch
District 9
The Prestige
The Illusionist
Lord of War
the remakes of The Time Machine and The Count of Monte Cristo
and call me crazy, but I really liked The Last Samurai

I'm surprised you didn't add:

Rendition
Traitor
Body of Lies

I liked those more than Jarhead, though it could just be that covert ops are more fun. I didn't like Syriana though, even though one might wanna lump that in there.

By the way, it is funny that you should add There Will Be Blood up at the top and in bold. I thought you've stopped worrying and learned to love corporate elites? I wouldn't even put that one in bold.

To end on points of agreement, I very much liked these choices:

The Lives of Others
The Pianist
Munich
The Aviator
Adaptation
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Amazingly, I have yet to see the Hurt Locker, but I expect it to be good... and a bunch of others I also haven't seen yet.

How infuriating! I composed a lengthy reply, and left my console for 30 minutes, only to be left with the following:
[;235467U|
C54R gtfvr`` bn,= `A1Q\ `

So understandably, I have little incentive to return to your comments for a while.

I discovered that my girlfriend took it upon herself to neurotically clean my keyboard, which might've led to the error. Either that or a software error, but the former seems more likely. This isn't the first time this has happened, and I installed a form recovery plug-in for this contingency, but unfortunately, its functionality is limited for the Chrome browser. In any case, it's just an inconvenience, and I'll probably return to the comments within the next two days at my leisure.

Might want to look into this extension:

Firefox version: https://addons.mozil...fox/addon/6984/

Chrome version: https://chrome.googl...fmgopdkppkifgno

unless that is the one you already use

unless that is the one you already use

Yeah, I use Lazarus, but it's still in the Beta phase, and works much better for Firefox. But I prefer Chrome as a browser, so I don't know.

Firefox 4 will be out soon, and you can already download the betas. It is very much like Chrome but with better plugins.

1962 the creation of the humanoids

...
District 9
...

For real ?

I can't agree here at all. I've seen it a while back so it's a little blurry now, but I remember it started sort of promising, but somewhere along the way just turned into simple driving & shooting, and the noble message seemed just a little to thick to swallow for my taste.
Plus one little irritating thing, the kind that that I hate to see in movies - they didn't bother to come up with an idea of any kind of translating device - people just speak english and aliens speak alienish, and everything that's being said is clear to each other. The concept of strictly bio - accesible weapons was pretty neat though.



I would add American History X. In comparison with this movie, I have no idea what the fuss over The Believer was about. In depicting racist counterculture, the former does 5 times better IMO, the violence and hate don't feel any theatrical ( like to me they did in The Believer ), but with two or three scenes subtly poetic you could say ( but not crossing over to kitch ), and given what the story is about, this all plays out suprisingly good. Also Ed Norton did a truly job there.

...
District 9
...

For real ?

I can't agree here at all. I've seen it a while back so it's a little blurry now, but I remember it started sort of promising, but somewhere along the way just turned into simple driving & shooting, and the noble message seemed just a little to thick to swallow for my taste.
Plus one little irritating thing, the kind that that I hate to see in movies - they didn't bother to come up with an idea of any kind of translating device - people just speak english and aliens speak alienish, and everything that's being said is clear to each other. The concept of strictly bio - accesible weapons was pretty neat though.



I would add American History X. In comparison with this movie, I have no idea what the fuss over The Believer was about. In depicting racist counterculture, the former does 5 times better IMO, the violence and hate don't feel any theatrical ( like to me they did in The Believer ), but with two or three scenes subtly poetic you could say ( but not crossing over to kitch ), and given what the story is about, this all plays out suprisingly good. Also Ed Norton did a truly job there.

Since American History X was released in 1998, it would be disqualified from consideration, but likely included in the forthcoming list for the next decade---even though it did suffer from moments of cheaply using shocking and distracting instances of violence, and Tony Kaye's somewhat over-the-top treatment of the subject had a Paul Haggis like effect of diminishing its intended affecting qualities. As for District 9, I didn't bother seeing the movie, because as a director, Peter Jackson has the exceptional power of compelling me to foam at the mouth. Heavenly Creatures was the climactic moment of his career, and then he started making nauseating melodramatic fantasy themed epics. So I no longer bother to view his films, no matter the popular acclaim.

I have, however, recently seen two films that I would highly recommend, but I'm still somewhat undecided if they're worthy of inclusion on my list. The titles are The King, and last year's Apartheid drama, Endgame. I think the former is much more worthy of inclusion, since it's propelled by a brilliant script and powerful thematic material, and has the rare quality of compelling the viewer to re-watch it immediately after its conclusion. One of the film's screenwriters, Milo Addica, is perhaps one of the most under-celebrated talents in the industry, and although his work has created considerable polarity in some cases, I think he'll eventually find himself on a path toward unquestionable and far reaching prestige. The other piece, Endgame, was surprisingly balanced. Especially considering that its predecessors have never dared touch the ambiguities surrounding the struggle to end apartheid---which is a sentiment that shouldn't be mistaken for anything approaching sympathy for such a abhorrent system, but merely part of a reflection on the endemic pressures, the difficult choices of domestic actors, and the less than exemplary means that were in some cases used to resolve the conflict. Overall, though, the tempo of the film is unsettlingly uneven, which is of no fault of the filmmakers, who decided to deliver a decidedly historically accurate portrayal of the events.

Since the year has yet to reach a conclusion, there are likely to be other amendments and substitutions, and although first impressions can be deceptive, I predict the following films will likely be in contention: White Material, The King's Speech, Black Swan, All Good Things, Night Catches Us, The Tempest, True Grit, Biutiful, Another Year, Meskada, Helen from the Wedding, and maybe The Company Men (even though it looks like another predictably unimpressive John Wells project). Since the awards season is looming, this is indeed the most exciting time to be an amateur film buff.

1962 the creation of the humanoids

Wrong decade, and although I can appreciate the Ed Wood like appeal of the film, I want this to be more of a serious endeavor.

There are many exceptional films on this list, but I believe one of the most deeply affecting would be Steve McQueen's Hunger, which is a piece I intend to explore much more extensively in a future entry. On my profile page, I provided a link to a particularly captivating scene, but for its power to become fully appreciable, you must see the film in its entirety. And I'll begin a first of what is likely to be several future entries on my favorite director, Terrence Malick. His films are unforgettable, multifaceted, highly cerebral, visually mesmerizing, nearly perfectly constructed, and unquestionable pieces of cinematic art. I eagerly anticipate his next installment, and would highly suggest a review of his filmography---starting with Badlands, and concluding with his last released, The New World. In my opinion, his richest piece was The Thin Red Line, which has the rare quality of becoming considerably more enchanting with each additional viewing.

...
District 9
...

For real ?

Of course. It had a pretty profound message which was simultaneously anti-apartheid and kafkaesque without being simplistic, and provided a powerful illustration of how it is circumstances which can shape our reality tunnels and bring out our inner hero or inner villain. The fact that it had fun action sequences should not preclude it from being higher cinema.

If it were up to me I'd add the new Star Trek up there in the list of "higher cinema," but that probably wouldn't conform well to the snobbish definition of "higher cinema" being employed. :P

Not all my selections are snobbish, and for the record, I enjoyed Star Trek to some extent, which is probably owing to my closet existence as a Trekkie. But Star Trek would be an example of escapist cinema, which I still enjoy sometimes, and don't always disparage. I mean, could you honestly say that Abrams' Star Trek has an ambition beyond being an escapist popcorn flick? Perhaps a separate list should be made for these types of films, that are enjoyable in spite of their modest ambitions.

Not all my selections are snobbish, and for the record, I enjoyed Star Trek to some extent, which is probably owing to my closet existence as a Trekkie. But Star Trek would be an example of escapist cinema, which I still enjoy sometimes, and don't always disparage. I mean, could you honestly say that Abram's Star Trek has an ambition beyond being an escapist popcorn flick? Perhaps a separate list should be made for these types of films, that are enjoyable in spite of their modest ambitions.

If you liked that then you should like District 9, which was way higher brow of a film. With the way it starts out, you'd never expect where it ends up. Watch it and stick through the whole thing. It would be foolish not to watch it simply because it was produced (not directed) by the director of Lord of the Rings. Not that there's anything wrong with Jackson's Lord of the Rings.

...
District 9
...

For real ?

I can't agree here at all. I've seen it a while back so it's a little blurry now, but I remember it started sort of promising, but somewhere along the way just turned into simple driving & shooting, and the noble message seemed just a little to thick to swallow for my taste.
Plus one little irritating thing, the kind that that I hate to see in movies - they didn't bother to come up with an idea of any kind of translating device - people just speak english and aliens speak alienish, and everything that's being said is clear to each other. The concept of strictly bio - accesible weapons was pretty neat though.



I would add American History X. In comparison with this movie, I have no idea what the fuss over The Believer was about. In depicting racist counterculture, the former does 5 times better IMO, the violence and hate don't feel any theatrical ( like to me they did in The Believer ), but with two or three scenes subtly poetic you could say ( but not crossing over to kitch ), and given what the story is about, this all plays out suprisingly good. Also Ed Norton did a truly job there.

Since American History X was released in 1998, it would be disqualified from consideration, but likely included in the forthcoming list for the next decade---

Oh yeah sorry, my bad, I was convinced this was 2001 ( which was actually The Believer's release ) and didn't check this.

Anyway, I don't think the way violence was depicted there was cheaply shocking, but it's impossible to convince anyone in this matter either way, much subjective, kind of like "justified" and "unjustified" nudity.

What I found psychologically inauthentic ( but honestly not so many movie makers deal with this a whole lot better ) was how Norton finally relinquishes his beliefs - basically because "his guys" turn out to be fucks and he meets an ok Black guy ( in the laundry service ), and only then he starts to realise the absurdity of what he had held dear, those scenes felt simplistic, it all seems to happen because of external, inter-personal reasons, not some inside job done in his head. But still, personae psychology was in my opinion much less paper than in The Believer.

Two omissions I note from your list: 'City Of God' which is at least top 5 in mine -- and many critics estimations. Also, Slumdog Millionare also in the top 5.

Two omissions I note from your list: 'City Of God' which is at least top 5 in mine -- and many critics estimations. Also, Slumdog Millionare also in the top 5.

I thought the thematic material of City of God was its strongest property, but the film suffered from both poor acting and somewhat of an amateurish script. The notion of far reaching poverty in the slums of Rio de Janeiro giving rise to a perpetual cycle of crime that tragically robs its child inhabitants of their innocence, is a very powerful and persuasive theme that I would have liked to have seen examined by a more talented filmmaker. But Meirelles is without exceptional qualities as a filmmaker, so I left feeling very unimpressed with the film itself. In David Simon and Edward Burns' The Wire, this theme was tackled with greater care, but the creator's insistence on using local Baltimore talent over professional and seasoned actors diminished the powerfully provocative qualities of a heartfelt, cerebral, and passionate script that convincingly pleads its watchers to rise to action against travesties of justice. As for Slumdog Millionaire, I found the film to be excruciating to watch---for reasons similar to my displeasure for the aforementioned---and emerged from the experience more offended than inspired. While the filmmakers undoubtedly had good intentions, their portrayal of modern India was deeply flawed, and perhaps unintentionally, the presentation struck me as covertly racist---the suggestion that criminal organizations are behind much of the economic progress, the suggestion that liberal reforms have not yielded an appreciable reduction of poverty, the suggestion that torture is pervasive, and employed in even in cases of minor infractions. What we see in Slumdog Millionaire is a caricature of India that conforms with popular prejudices, and has little relationship with reality. And with these problems, there should be no mystery as to why the film did not resonate with Indian audiences, and was rather, most successful abroad.

Amendments:

The King's Speech

The King

The Woodsman

Winter's Bone

I am Love

White Material

Into The Storm

Inland Empire

Conspiracy

Something the Lord Made

Warm Springs

The Gathering Storm

La Vie En Rose

The Hours

A Single Man

...
District 9
...

For real ?

I can't agree here at all. I've seen it a while back so it's a little blurry now, but I remember it started sort of promising, but somewhere along the way just turned into simple driving & shooting, and the noble message seemed just a little to thick to swallow for my taste.
Plus one little irritating thing, the kind that that I hate to see in movies - they didn't bother to come up with an idea of any kind of translating device - people just speak english and aliens speak alienish, and everything that's being said is clear to each other. The concept of strictly bio - accesible weapons was pretty neat though.



I would add American History X. In comparison with this movie, I have no idea what the fuss over The Believer was about. In depicting racist counterculture, the former does 5 times better IMO, the violence and hate don't feel any theatrical ( like to me they did in The Believer ), but with two or three scenes subtly poetic you could say ( but not crossing over to kitch ), and given what the story is about, this all plays out suprisingly good. Also Ed Norton did a truly job there.

Since American History X was released in 1998, it would be disqualified from consideration, but likely included in the forthcoming list for the next decade---

Oh yeah sorry, my bad, I was convinced this was 2001 ( which was actually The Believer's release ) and didn't check this.

Anyway, I don't think the way violence was depicted there was cheaply shocking, but it's impossible to convince anyone in this matter either way, much subjective, kind of like "justified" and "unjustified" nudity.

What I found psychologically inauthentic ( but honestly not so many movie makers deal with this a whole lot better ) was how Norton finally relinquishes his beliefs - basically because "his guys" turn out to be fucks and he meets an ok Black guy ( in the laundry service ), and only then he starts to realise the absurdity of what he had held dear, those scenes felt simplistic, it all seems to happen because of external, inter-personal reasons, not some inside job done in his head. But still, personae psychology was in my opinion much less paper than in The Believer.

I just noticed your comments, which I regrettably overlooked. Looking in hindsight, I think my adjective use of "cheap" was inapt, but nonetheless, I still remain disturbed by gratuitous acts of violence exhibited in the film. In particular, I'm referring to the curb scene, which I believe was included largely for its shock value, and am not convinced that it added lastingly to the impact of the film, because the savagery of the protagonist is difficult to fathom in the context of the lamentable deviation of an otherwise brilliant product of a fairly typical middle class upbringing. So as a consequence, the audience's perception of the threat of succumbing to extremism is greatly diminished by the extraordinary features of the protagonist's narrative, which I don't think I'm alone in thinking to be difficult to rationalize. As for Derrick's transformation, I believe the conduct of his teacher was more causative, because he was reminded of his exceptional and formative qualities as a teacher and an individual, and of an affinity that preceded the tragic descent that followed the demise of his beloved father. But his realization of the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of the white supremacist movement, which literally and metaphorically violated him during his dreadful prison stretch, was also a betrayal of critical importance during his period of transformation, and shouldn't be underestimated. In truth, deprogramming extremists is a lengthy process that is analogous to the trials involved in combating abusive habits like narcotic use. However, because Derrick wasn't raised in an unequivocally racist and bigoted environment, his change in trajectory is more believable. In contrast, The Believer felt less affecting, because although there is a historical basis for the leading character, I thought that given his ironic Jewish heritage, that his actions were difficult to reconcile in the absence of a severe mental illness---which was a seed that wasn't satisfactorily examined in my opinion. So, I suppose I prefer the former, even though I enjoyed both films.