Your Top Ten of the 2000's

[Ezee E]

The decade is coming to a close.

While there is plenty of 2009 to come, and lots of 2000's movies to see, go ahead and start posting your top ten. At the very least, we could get some recommendations from others lists.

Consider this the "preview" thread, like the Top 10 of 2009 thread.

Also, go ahead and post any noteworthy performances, award considerations, etc.

[Mysterious Dude]

1. City of God
2. Waking Life
3. Requiem for a Dream
4. Children of Men
5. Bully
6. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
7. Shaun of the Dead
8. Better Luck Tomorrow
9. Mysterious Skin
10. The Assassination of Jesse James

I can't believe I bumped off Traffic. Apologies to Eternal Sunshine and Lilja 4-Ever, also.

[Ezee E]

1. Children of Men
2. Amelie
3. No Country For Old Men
4. Requiem for a Dream
5. There Will Be Blood
6. Kill Bill
7. Assassinaton of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
8. Irreversible
9. Catch Me If You Can
10. The Departed

Very tough.

[BuffaloWilder]

1. Happy Feet
2. Children of Men
3. There Will Be Blood
4. The Fall
5. No Country For Old Men
6. Zodiac
7. Before The Devil Knows You're Dead
8. The Dark Knight
9. Ratatouille (which is also actually the only Pixar film you'll find in any ranking I'd write up)
10. Collateral


11. Oldboy
12. Pan's Labyrinth
13. Iron Man - which would be higher if they'd toned down the weird sort of kitch that kind of pervaded the dialogue in the confrontational scene at the end.
14. Kill Bill 1/2


That's really all I can think of, right now. And, even these were a struggle, past four. Not to say this decade was lacking or anything, but I just can't recall anything, right now.

[StanleyK]

My ****'s for the decade (in alphabetical order because I can't bring myself to rank them):

Before Sunset
Children of Men
Dogville
Elephant
The Fountain
The Incredibles
Inland Empire
In the Bedroom
In the Mood for Love
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Manderlay
The New World
No Country for Old Men
Pan's Labyrinth
Requiem for a Dream
Mulholland Dr.
Punch-Drunk Love
The Son
Spirited Away
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring
There Will be Blood
WALL·E
Y tu Mamá También

[chrisnu]

Requiem For a Dream
Mulholland Dr.
The Man Who Wasn't There
Solaris
Spider
The Shape of Things
Before Sunset
Tropical Malady
Pan's Labyrinth
No Country for Old Men

[Dead & Messed Up]

01. Requiem for a Dream
02. Unbreakable
03. High Fidelity
04. Pulse
05. Almost Famous
06. Collateral
07. Finding Nemo
08. Waking Life
09. United 93
10. Batman Begins / The Dark Knight

11. Children of Men
12. Shaun of the Dead
13. Before Sunset
14. In Bruges
15. Spider-Man 2
16. Good Night and Good Luck
17. The Mist
18. Minority Report
19. No Country for Old Men
20. Monsieur Ibrahim

[The Mike]

1. Big Fish
2. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
3. Moonlight Mile
4. Spider-Man
5. Lantana
6. Moon
7. Iron Man
8. Serenity
9. Spartan
10. City of God

11. In America/Wonder Boys
12. A History of Violence
13. King Kong
14. Stranger than Fiction
15. Lost in Translation
16. The Mist
17. Watchmen
18. Dog Soldiers
19. Collateral
20. Zodiac
21. The Fall
22. Children of Men
23. Sin City
24. Brick
25. Juno
26. Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
27. Gosford Park
28. The 40-Year Old Virgin
29. Drag Me to Hell
30. Nacho Libre
31. The Italian Job

At least that's what it'd look like off the top of my head.

[transmogrifier]

1. Mulholland Dr. (95)
2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (94)
3. Oldboy (92)
4. Battle Royale (92)
5. In the Mood for Love (91)
6. The Emperor's New Groove (90)
7. Spirited Away (87)
8. Before Sunset (86)
9. Yi Yi: A One and a Two (86)
10. Oasis (85)


Top 10 Worst Films:

1. Tomcats (0)
2. Saving My Hubby (2)
3. 100 Days with Mr. Arrogant (3)
4. River Queen (3)
5. The Coast Guard (4)
6. A View from the Top (4)
7. A Guy Thing (4)
8. Crash (5)
9. Envy (6)
10. Scary Movie 2 (8)

[Raiders]

1 Werckmeister Harmonies
2 Pulse
3 George Washington
4 Tropical Malady
5 The Tracker
6 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
7 WALL-E
8 The House of Mirth
9 There Will Be Blood
10 The Truth About Charlie

Best performance: Paddy Considine, Dead Man's Shoes

[Spinal]

1. Dogville
2. Mulholland Dr.
3. Dancer in the Dark
4. Inland Empire
5. Hedwig and the Angry Inch
6. Y tu mama tambien
7. Once
8. Me and You and Everyone We Know
9. City of God
10. Manderlay

Honorable Mention:
The Piano Teacher
The Isle
Together
Fat Girl
Palindromes
Shaun of the Dead
The Heart of the World
The Lives of Others

[Spinal]

10 Worst Films of the Decade (that I saw):

Battle in Heaven
A Comedy of Power
Crash
Evolution
For Your Consideration
Hamlet 2
Hard Candy
High Tension
Last Days
Twentynine Palms

[Sycophant]

I expect this will undergo heavy revisions as I remember, reconsider, and see new stuff:

1. The Royal Tenenbaums
2. Mind Game
3. No Country for Old Men
4. Citizen Dog
5. Dead or Alive 2: Birds
6. Doppelganger
7. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
8. The Fall
9. Takeshis'
10. Millennium Actress

And I couldn't really help myself:

11. Hot Fuzz
12. The Twilight Samurai
13. The Host
14. Men Suddenly in Black
15. All About Lily Chou-Chou
16. The Taste of Tea
17. 3-Iron
18. Funky Forest: the First Contact
19. Election 1 & 2
20. Kill Bill 1 & 2

21. Shaolin Soccer
22. Memories of Matsuko
23. Bad Santa

[Sycophant]

10 Worst Films of the Decade (that I saw):

Oh, fun!

1. Black Sheep
2. Mamma Mia!
3. Pearl Harbor
4. Enchanted
5. Ming Ming
6. 300
7. Elektra
8. The Chumscrubber
9. Ghost Rider
10. Wanted

I watched a lot of bad movies in 2007.

[chrisnu]

10 Worst Films:

Smokin' Aces
Ghost Rider
300
Bobby
The Wicker Man
High Tension
Alien vs. Predator
The Punisher
Crash
Ken Park

[trotchky]

1. There Will Be Blood
2. Synecdoche, New York
3. Caché
4. The Royal Tenenbaums
5. The Piano Teacher
6. Lost In Translation
7. I'm Not There
8. Punch-Drunk Love
9. Dogville
10. In The Mood For Love

[Grouchy]

1. Mulholland Dr.
2. In the Mood for Love
3. Oldboy
4. Caché
5. Children of Men
6. The Dark Knight
7. I'm Not There
8. Talk to Her
9. Femme Fatale
10. Zodiac

10 Worst Films:

1. Pay it Forward
2. Meet the Spartans
3. Cinderella Man
4. The Spirit
5. The Happening
6. Crash
7. The Legend of Bagger Vance
8. The Invasion
9. Righteous Kill
10. Margot at the Wedding

[eternity]

Top 10 of the Decade

1. Brick
2. Elephant
3. Almost Famous
4. Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind
5. All the Real Girls
6. Cloverfield
7. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
8. Lost in Translation
9. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
10. Ghost World

11-20 Cause I'm A Cheater
11. Juno
12. Orange County
13. In the Land of Women
14. No Country for Old Men
15. I'm Not There
16. Ken Park
17. The Brothers Bloom
18. Adventureland
19. Mysterious Skin
20. Control

Worst Movies of the Decade:
1. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
2. Click
3. Pearl Harbor
4. Alien vs. Predator Requiem
5. The Grudge
6. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
7. War of the Worlds
8. Twilight
9. He's Just Not That Into You
10. Manderlay

[Chac Mool]

Off the top of my reclining stone head, in no particular order, and with likely egregious omissions:

Dogville
Before Sunset
Talk to Her
Spirited Away
In The Mood for Love
The Dark Knight
Love Exposure
Gerry
There Will Be Blood
One Missed Call (original)

[soitgoes...]

Top 10
1. Mulholland Dr.
2. Gosford Park
3. Elephant
4. Punch-Drunk Love
5. Dancer in the Dark
6. Mind Game
7. Oldboy
8. The Heart of the World
9. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
10. The Royal Tenebaums

Bottom 10
1. The Master of Disguise
2. Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000
3. Bad Boys II
4. Corky Romano
5. Rollerball
6. Black Sheep
7. Die Another Day
8. The Core
9. The Spirit
10.Van Helsing

Best Performance
So-ri Moon (Oasis)

[Derek]

10 Worst Films:

1. Pay it Forward

Nice pick. The candlelight vigil at the end is one of the most vomit-inducing scenes of the decade.

[Mysterious Dude]

My bottom ten:

1. How the Grinch Stole Christmas
2. Freddy Got Fingered
3. America's Sweethearts
4. Dude, Where's My Car?
5. War of the Worlds
6. Borat
7. Finding Neverland
8. Inland Empire
9. I am Sam
10. Left Behind

For some reason, at the beginning of the decade I felt some obligation to see the worst films of the year. Nowadays, I don't often see bad films deliberately.

[EyesWideOpen]

Top Ten Most Hated:
1. Transformers
2. Catwoman
3. Joshua
4. The Brown Bunny
5. The Hills Have Eyes
6. Farce of the Penguins
7. Film Geek
8. The Puffy Chair
9. Idlewild
10. Ultraviolet

Other 00's Hated (F ranking movies):

13 Seconds
Boondock Saints
Boss'n Up
Bubble Boy
Cabin Fever
Crazy Lips
Dreamcatcher
Hostel
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Nacho Libre
The Perfect Score
Pizza
Sonny
The Stepford Wives
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

[Yxklyx]

1. The Lord of the Rings
2. Amelie
3. Mulholland Dr.
4. Planet Terror
5. Songs from the Second Floor
6. Donnie Darko
7. Ghost World
8. Hukkle
9. 3-Iron
10. The Heart of the World

[StanleyK]

I understand that most people hate Crash, but what makes it so bad that it's considered one of the worst movies of the decade?

[Milky Joe]

1. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
3. Synecdoche, New York
4. Vicky Cristina Barcelona
5. WALL-E
6. Punch Drunk Love
7. The Bourne Ultimatum
8. I Heart Huckabees
9. The Savages
10. World Trade Center

Difficult, to say the least. Too many honorable mentions to name.

[Derek]

I understand that most people hate Crash, but what makes it so bad that it's considered one of the worst movies of the decade?

It's condescending, blunt and offensive, its central thesis is insipid and poorly developed and the performances range from mediocre to frighteningly awful.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Okay, my ten worst:

01. Gutterballs
02. Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever
03. Sweet Home Alabama
04. Alien vs. Predator: Requiem
05. Pearl Harbor
06. Scary Movie 2
07. The Village
08. The Country Bears
09. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
10. Grandma's Boy

[StanleyK]

It's condescending, blunt and offensive

Who is it condescending to or offending?


its central thesis is insipid and poorly developed

I think the objective of the film is to present a problem and analize people's motivations and reactions to it. In that, I feel it succeeds.


and the performances range from mediocre to frighteningly awful.

This is largely a subjective matter, but I thought Cheadle, Dillon and Howard in particular were great.

[Pop Trash]

I understand that most people hate Crash, but what makes it so bad that it's considered one of the worst movies of the decade?

I didn't think much of it either, but I'm 100% positive that this would get on 0% of the "worst" lists if it didn't win Best Picture. Quote me on that.

[Spinal]

I hated Crash before it was nominated for Best Picture. Proof. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2005/12/crash-haggis-2004.html)

The film is relentless in its stupidity, its contrivances and its sanctimonious tone. It may be well-intentioned, but it contains no insight and no honesty. Just an oppressive stench of self-importance.

[Pop Trash]

I hated Crash before it was nominated for Best Picture. Proof. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2005/12/crash-haggis-2004.html)


"December 30, 2005" The Oscar/Oprah campaign were in full swing when you watched it. Not good enough.

[Spinal]

"December 30, 2005" The Oscar/Oprah campaign were in full swing when you watched it. Not good enough.

:rolleyes:

[Winston*]

I like how Pop Trash says "Quote me on that", like some time in the future we're going to find out the 2009 reaction to Crash when it hasn't won Best Picture and all these anonymous internet posters will be eating crow.

[Pop Trash]

I like how Pop Trash says "Quote me on that", like some time in the future we're going to find out the 2009 reaction to Crash when it hasn't won Best Picture and all these anonymous internet posters will be eating crow.

Yeah that was pretty good. :D

[Derek]

Who is it condescending to or offending?

Mostly white liberals like myself, but I also found it offensive in the way it sets up suspenseful moments (in particular, Ludakris pulling the Virgin Mary out of his pocket and where the camera slowly pans into the bedroom to make you think Michael Pena's up to no good) and then pulls the rug out from beneath the viewer. They create the perception that something bad is going to happen then reveal that each character is only doing something innocent and harmful. It's actually a pretty racist way of playing with expectations, which is rather ironic given the films central message.


I think the objective of the film is to present a problem and analize people's motivations and reactions to it. In that, I feel it succeeds.

And I think it fails miserably.

[Derek]

"December 30, 2005" The Oscar/Oprah campaign were in full swing when you watched it. Not good enough.

How does November 17, 2005 (http://www.cinematicreflections.com/screeninglog-nov2005.html) work for you?

[Pop Trash]

1. Donnie Darko
2. Adaptation.
3. You Can Count on Me
4. Ghost World
5. About Schmidt
6. A.I.
7. Memento
8. Requiem for a Dream
9. Capturing the Friedmans
10. Talk to Her
11. George Washington/All the Real Girls
12. Lost in Translation
13. Together/Lilja 4-Ever
14. In the Bedroom
15. High Fidelity
16. Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair
17. Bowling for Columbine
18. Before Sunset
19. The Squid and the Whale
20. The Assassination of Jesse James...

[Llopin]

1. Before Sunset

The rest, I must think about them.

[trotchky]

It's condescending to anyone who knows about or is interested in actual race relations in the US (so yeah, mainly white liberals) and it's offensive because it pretends to know what the fuck it's talking about. Also, yes, the way it uses suspense. The part where the little girl gets shot but oh wait--NOT REALLY is the most snide thing I've seen from a director trying to make an authoritative statement on a social issue since the ending of I Stand Alone.

[Pop Trash]

How does November 17, 2005 (http://www.cinematicreflections.com/screeninglog-nov2005.html) work for you?

Getting warmer...

I'll seriously rep anyone who can prove to me they wrote a negative review in the Spring or Summer of 2005. My memory of Crash was that people either really liked it or were mildly indifferent towards it until the Oscar/Oprah campaign started happening circa like October of 2005 or so (don't quote me on that one), then all hell broke lose on the interwebs and it was the WORST...MOVIE...EVEEEEERRR!!!

[trotchky]

I wasn't on match-cut at that time but I know a lot of RottenTomatoes posters called the movie out as pure shit shortly after its release.

[Raiders]

Worst:

1 K-PAX
2 Eight Crazy Nights
3 Pay it Forward
4 Apocalypto
5 Eagle Eye
6 Rent
7 Ken Park
8 300
9 Bad Boys II
10 Snakes on a Plane

[Ezee E]

While it wasn't considered worst movie evah, Crash never had many supporters here. I was one of the few.

[Derek]

(don't quote me on that one)

Trust me Pop Trash, the chances of me ever quoting you on anything are diminishing with each additional post you make.

[Pop Trash]

Worst:

1. Moulin Rouge
2. Transformers
3. Speed Racer

I guess I could put Ghost Rider up there as well. That was quite the suckiness. The Wicker Man remake and Snakes on a Plane are way too much fun to ever be on a "worst" list. I'd put Dogville on there too but there is a small possibility I will rewatch that in a few years and see whatever supposed brilliance others see in that film (since I love most of Von Trier's 90s output) ,but I've seen it twice and my memory is that it was far more didactic than Crash and had an insufferable voice-over that drove me to this: :frustrated: It was also far too predictable to be that long.

[Pop Trash]

Trust me Pop Trash, the chances of me ever quoting you on anything are diminishing with each additional post you make.

Feel free to quote my Hello Mary Lou review anytime you feel like it. Just remember to always cite your source!

[StanleyK]

Mostly white liberals like myself, but I also found it offensive in the way it sets up suspenseful moments (in particular, Ludakris pulling the Virgin Mary out of his pocket and where the camera slowly pans into the bedroom to make you think Michael Pena's up to no good) and then pulls the rug out from beneath the viewer. They create the perception that something bad is going to happen then reveal that each character is only doing something innocent and harmful. It's actually a pretty racist way of playing with expectations, which is rather ironic given the films central message.

I wasn't expecting anything bad to happen in either occasion; The scene with Michael Peña I don't remember, but with Larenze Tate (not Ludacris), I believe that by that point in the movie we already knew that he has a Virgin Mary, so when he saw one in the dashboard, I think the viewer is supposed to be expecting him to pull it out.

[BuffaloWilder]

Worst:

1 K-PAX
2 Eight Crazy Nights
3 Pay it Forward
4 Apocalypto
5 Eagle Eye
6 Rent
7 Ken Park
8 300
9 Bad Boys II
10 Snakes on a Plane

I wouldn't call K-PAX anywhere near one of the worst - it does work, if only because you've got Jeff Bridges on one side of the screen and Kevin Spacey on the other. Sure, it's relatively conventional as far as it's narrative goes - which even the director acknowledges - but there are a couple of really beautifully shot scenes in there, I think.

It's certainly better than it's source material. Gene Brewer needs to stay far away from writing, for a long time.

[Chac Mool]

Worst:

1. Moulin Rouge
2. Transformers
3. Speed Racer

One is good, two are great.

[lovejuice]

extremely tentatively

1. moulin rouge
2. hedwig and the angry inch
3. citizen dog
4. chicago
5. hairspray
6. the saddest music in the world
7. opera jawa
8. sweeney todd
9. once
10. before sunset
11. i don't want to sleep alone
12. godford park
13. syndrome and a century
14. the matador
15. the company

hmmm....do i forget any other musicals from the period? come to think of it, i should just make two separated lists. (haven't watched repo. that'll be amended soon.)

[trotchky]

Worst:

Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star
Twentynine Palms
Fur
Sin City
Crash
Ghost World
X-Men: The Last Stand
Mean Girls
V For Vendetta

I'm sure I've seen movies worse than some of these, but these are the atrocious ones that really stand out for whatever reason.

[transmogrifier]

The part where the little girl gets shot but oh wait--NOT REALLY is the most snide thing I've seen from a director trying to make an authoritative statement on a social issue since the ending of I Stand Alone.

This is very close to the worst scene of the decade.

EDIT: Actually, I would be much more interested in seeing a consensus thread for Scenes of the Decade than for mere films.

[B-side]

This is embarrassing, but alright:

1. Mulholland Drive (Lynch)
2. Dream Work (Tscherkassky)
3. The Wayward Cloud (Tsai)
4. I'm Not There (Haynes)
5. Mind Game (Yuasa)
6. Twentynine Palms (Dumont)
7. Inland Empire (Lynch)
8. Dogville (Trier)
9. There Will Be Blood (P.T. Anderson)
10. Dancer in the Dark (Trier)

Obviously very much subject to change.

[Pop Trash]

Worst:
Ghost World


Oh no you didn't.

[BuffaloWilder]

Worst:

Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star
Twentynine Palms
Fur
Sin City
Crash
Ghost World
X-Men: The Last Stand
Mean Girls
V For Vendetta

I'm sure I've seen movies worse than some of these, but these are the atrocious ones that really stand out for whatever reason.

I don't really see anything that really necessitates calling V For Vendetta, Sin City, or Fur some of the worst of the decade.

[trotchky]

I don't really see anything that really necessitates calling V For Vendetta, Sin City, or Fur some of the worst of the decade.

V For Vendetta is offensive in its political aspirations the same way Crash is offensive in its racial aspirations. Fur is a condescending, objectifying, simplistic, one-note portrayal of one of the greatest photographers of the 20th Century and a disgrace to Diane Arbus' legacy. Sin City is one of the most lifeless movies I've ever seen.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm actually not choosing anything from 2009 yet, just because I tend to be a bit too impulsive with what I see in theatres, so I like a bit of distance. It's a bit silly as I saw several 2008 films in 09' anyway, but ... yea. THis is definetely not set in stone, it seems to change every other day. The New World is a lock for first though, at least so far.


1. The New World
2. No Country for Old Men
3. The Fog of War
4. Trouble Every Day
5. In the Mood for Love
6. Let the Right One In
7. Zodiac
8. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
9. Memories of Murder
10. Spirited Away

[Philosophe_rouge]

I mostly avoid bad movies and I rarely hate what I see, so only a top five for worst

5. Les Mots Bleus
4. Rambo
3. Bangkok Dangerous
2. Brothers
1. Arsene Lupin

[BuffaloWilder]

V For Vendetta is offensive in its political aspirations the same way Crash is offensive in its racial aspirations.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'offensive.' Sure, they took a lot of the punch out of Alan Moore's work, you won't find any argument there, but that really only damages it to the extent of the development of its characters - in the character of Adam Susan, most especially. It became a Bush-era parable, which doesn't necessarily work with the given material - but, that's about it.


Fur is a condescending, objectifying, simplistic, one-note portrayal of one of the greatest photographers of the 20th Century and a disgrace to Diane Arbus' legacy.

It's also fictional, and - while it wasn't one of the greatest of that year - it hardly says anything damaging about her.



Sin City is one of the most lifeless movies I've ever seen.

I'd probably agree, if not for so many of the minor character actors, throughout the film, and Mickey Rourke.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I have to say Sin City is pretty terrible, definetely one of the worst.

[ContinentalOp]

I feel like my list would change a lot if I rewatched a few of these. Been a while since School of Rock, Before Sunset and Brokeback Mountain.

1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2. The Man Without a Past
3. Batman Begins
4. You Can Count on Me
5. Before Sunset
6. Brokeback Mountain
7. Punch-Drunk Love
8. Talk to Her
9. Black Book
10. Wall-E


11. School of Rock
12. Ratatouille
13. The Twilight Samurai
14. Memento
15. Sin City
16. Minority Report
17. Anchorman
18. The Dark Knight
19. Badaaaasss!
20. Hustle & Flow

[BuffaloWilder]

I have to say Sin City is pretty terrible, definetely one of the worst.

I'm not sure how anyone could say that, when you have stuff like Epic Movie, or Death Race, or this recent Transformers film. Don't get me wrong, it's not a film that's pulling any miracles, but come on.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm not sure how anyone could say that, when you have stuff like Epic Movie, or Death Race, or this recent Transformers film. Don't get me wrong, it's not a film that's pulling any miracles, but come on.
I don't watch those movies though? Except Death Race, which I really enjoyed.

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't watch those movies though? Except Death Race, which I really enjoyed.

:sad:

[Pop Trash]

Here's some other dreck that wasted my time over the last decade:

Mission Impossible 2
Charlie's Angels
Erin Brockovich
Hollow Man (had so much potential!)
The Cell
Bring It On
Jason X
Jeepers Creepers
Legally Blonde
American Pie 2
Planet of the Apes
Irreversible
The Rules of Attraction (the trip to Europe montage is great though)
The Matrix Reloaded
Hulk
Old School
Identity
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Stuck on You
Man on Fire
Alien vs. Predator
The Punisher
Domino
House of Wax
The Da Vinci Code
The Black Dahlia
The Fall
Rambo
Step Brothers

[trotchky]

Step Brothers is hilarious.

"Can you imagine if we had these things when we were 12?!"

"Even better--we got 'em when we're 40."

[B-side]

Step Brothers is awful. Domino is good, though. I like The Black Dahlia.

[BuffaloWilder]

Step Brothers is pretty awful. It's funny, but it's still awful. And, so was Land of the Lost.

[trotchky]

I don't think I've disliked a single Apatow-related film I've seen. Well, except The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

[B-side]

I don't think I've disliked a single Apatow-related film I've seen. Well, except The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

That's probably my favorite film he's touched, and it's still not great. I think Funny People will be his best film to date.

[eternity]

Legally Blonde > Your Soul

[trotchky]

That's probably my favorite film he's touched, and it's still not great. I think Funny People will be his best film to date.

Let's hope so. It's certainly one of my most anticipated of the year.

Observe & Report, Role Models, and Knocked Up are all tops for me. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is also great.

[eternity]

That's probably my favorite film he's touched, and it's still not great. I think Funny People will be his best film to date.To keep on with posts with > in them:

40YOV > Sarah Marshall > Funny People's script > The rest of the post-04 Apatow pile

[B-side]

Let's hope so. It's certainly one of my most anticipated of the year.

Observe & Report, Role Models, and Knocked Up are all tops for me. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is also great.

I think Funny People actually looks like it has something on its mind. Not that 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up were devoid of romantic insight. It was there, albeit buried in dick jokes. Funny People will inevitably be more concerned with being funny, but it looks to have something to say regarding comedians in modern America.

[Pop Trash]

I like The Black Dahlia.

Yeah I was torn on putting that in the list because I generally like/respect DePalma. Doesn't change the fact that it was pretty bad. I was reaching for the 2004-2009 years since I didn't seem to watch that many bad movies.

[Pop Trash]

I don't think I've disliked a single Apatow-related film I've seen. Well, except The 40-Year-Old Virgin.
I've liked most of them (well except Step Brothers if he had anything to do with that)

[trotchky]

I think Funny People actually looks like it has something on its mind. Not that 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up were devoid of romantic insight. It was there, albeit buried in dick jokes. Funny People will inevitably be more concerned with being funny, but it looks to have something to say regarding comedians in modern America.

I think every movie we've mentioned here has something to say. Not that they even need to: What's wrong with dick jokes?

[B-side]

I think every movie we've mentioned here has something to say. Not that they even need to: What's wrong with dick jokes?

Nothing, really. I make plenty myself.:P

[Raiders]

I wouldn't call K-PAX anywhere near one of the worst - it does work, if only because you've got Jeff Bridges on one side of the screen and Kevin Spacey on the other. Sure, it's relatively conventional as far as it's narrative goes - which even the director acknowledges - but there are a couple of really beautifully shot scenes in there, I think.

It's certainly better than it's source material. Gene Brewer needs to stay far away from writing, for a long time.

Jeff Bridges is fine I guess, but there's no sympathy love for Spacey from me. He's insufferable here (as he is in about half his roles), and the film is certainly in-line with his insufferability what with its absolutely lame and cutesy view of mental instability and every aspect its plot, themes and style are the epitome of reductive idiocy.

[B-side]

Perceval (1978) ****

Would you suggest a Rohmer noob avoid this for now?

[Eleven]

Top 10 from 00-08, chrono order:
In the Mood for Love
Millennium Actress
Mulholland Dr.
Le Fils
Memories of Murder
Kung-Fu Hustle
Primer
There Will Be Blood
Zodiac
WALL-E

Some bad movies:
Battlefield Earth
Pay it Forward
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
The DaVinci Code
300
Epic Movie

[Ezee E]

Spacey has stated that he'd like to host the Oscars. I think that'd be cool.

[baby doll]

Would you suggest a Rohmer noob avoid this for now?Only if you want to avoid his most interesting film.

[baby doll]

Spacey has stated that he'd like to host the Oscars. I think that'd be cool.Yeah, he probably needs the work.

[soitgoes...]

I forgot Mind Game on my best list. It's been updated.

[Spinal]

Yeah, he probably needs the work.

Kevin Spacey has been artistic director of the Old Vic Theatre Company since 2003. It's one of London's most prestigious theatres. He's doing fine.

[Ivan Drago]

1. Grindhouse
2. A.I. Artificial Intelligence
3. Memento
4. In The Mood For Love
5. Irreversible
6. Donnie Darko
7. The Dark Knight
8. Punch-Drunk Love
9. Superbad
10. There Will Be Blood


11. Synecdoche, New York
12. Mulholland Dr.
13. Crank
14. Match Point
15. Unbreakable
16. Timecode
17. Requiem For a Dream
18. The Phantom of the Opera
19. Batman Begins
20. Lost in Translation

[Ivan Drago]

And the worst of the decade, in no order:

Rollerball
Corky Romano
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever
Elizabethtown
Snakes on a Plane
The Guru
Not Another Teen Movie
Jason X
Shrek 2
Domino
Alien vs. Predator
Halloween: Ressurection
Pathfinder
The Spirit
Eagle Eye

[Ezee E]

Kevin Spacey has been artistic director of the Old Vic Theatre Company since 2003. It's one of London's most prestigious theatres. He's doing fine.
There's quite a few actors that sometimes disappear for a long time, only for me to find out that they were doing plays on Broadway. Makes me really want to see those plays.

[baby doll]

Kevin Spacey has been artistic director of the Old Vic Theatre Company since 2003. It's one of London's most prestigious theatres. He's doing fine.You sound a bit defensive.

Is Spinal Kevin Spacey?

[baby doll]

Oh yeah, and some movies I like...

Films I've seen at least three times:

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg, 2001)
Les Amants réguliers (Philippe Garrel, 2005)
demonlover (Olivier Assayas, 2002)
Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)
L'Enfant (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 2005)
Femme Fatale (Brian De Palma, 2002)
Gosford Park (Robert Altman, 2001)
I'm Not There. (Todd Haynes, 2007)
In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-wai, 2000)
Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola, 2006)
La Pianiste (Michael Haneke, 2001)
Platform (Jia Zhang-ke, 2000)
Still Life (Jia Zhang-ke, 2006)
Three Times (Hou Hsiao-hsien, 2005)
Werckmeister Harmonies (Béla Tarr, 2000)
The World (Jia Zhang-ke, 2004)
Yi Yi (Edward Yang, 2000)

Fewer than three times but more than zero:

Adoration (Atom Egoyan, 2008)
L'Anglaise et le duc (Eric Rohmer, 2001)
Black Book (Paul Verhoeven, 2006)
Code inconnu: Récit incomplet de divers voyages (Michael Haneke, 2000)
Entre les murs (Laurent Cantet, 2008)
Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood, 2008)
The Holy Girl (Lucrecia Martel, 2004)
In the City of Sylvia (José Luis GuerÃ*n, 2007)
The Man Without a Past (Aki Kaurismäki, 2002)
Manderlay (Lars von Trier, 2005)
Persepolis (Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud, 2007)
Le Science des rêves (Michel Gondry, 2006)
Stevie (Steve James, 2002)
Les Témoins (André Téchiné, 2007)
Tony Manero (Pablo LarraÃ*n, 2008)

[trotchky]

1. Grindhouse
2. A.I. Artificial Intelligence
3. Memento
4. In The Mood For Love
5. Irreversible
6. Donnie Darko
7. The Dark Knight
8. Punch-Drunk Love
9. Superbad
10. There Will Be Blood


11. Synecdoche, New York
12. Mulholland Dr.
13. Crank
14. Match Point
15. Unbreakable
16. Timecode
17. Requiem For a Dream
18. The Phantom of the Opera
19. Batman Begins
20. Lost in Translation


Ivan Drago, I like your taste in film.

[Boner M]

Is Spinal Kevin Spacey?
The greatest trick Spinal ever pulled was convincing the world he exists.

[Boner M]

I can't be bothered making a finalised list at this point (will likely do a proper countdown thread later in the year), but here's an unranked list of films from this decade that I have nothing but love for:

Mulholland Drive
A.I.
Blissfully Yours
The Son
Punch-Drunk Love
Oasis
Memories of Murder
Zodiac
All or Nothing
Eureka
Tokyo Sonata
Last Days
The New World
I Don't Want to Sleep Alone
Lost in Translation

[Spinal]

The greatest trick Spinal ever pulled was convincing the world he exists.

Spoiler text, asshole!

[dreamdead]

My list looks a little too similar to Boner's. Where has my individuality gone? :|

1. Before Sunset
2. Mulholland Dr.
3. The New World
4. In The Mood for Love
5. Werckmeister Harmonies
6. Pulse
7. Still-Life
8. Oasis
9. Punch Drunk Love
10. The Son

[Dukefrukem]

Off the top of my head;

1. the Departed
2. the Matrix Reloaded
3. the Dark Knight
4. WALL-E
5. Million Dollar Baby
6. Killbill Vol. 1
7. Oldboy
8. Kung Fu Hustle
9. Gladiator
10. Gran Torino
11. Mystic River

[Yxklyx]

My Least Liked Films of the 2000s (from worst to lesser worst).

1. House of Wax (Jaume Collet-Serra)
2. 2 Days in Paris (Julie Delpy)
3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (David Fincher)
4. Little Man (Keenen Ivory Wayans)
5. How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Ron Howard)
6. Serenity (Joss Whedon)
7. Star Trek: Nemesis (Stuart Baird)
8. Crash (Paul Haggis)
9. Dawn of the Dead (Zack Snyder)
10. Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis)

[Melville]

In no particular order:

The Son
In the Mood for Love
Mulholland Drive
The Aviator
Punch-Drunk Love
Requiem for a Dream
There will be Blood
The New World
The Royal Tenenbaums
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The Good Girl
Capturing the Friedmans
A Time for Drunken Horses
Lost in Translation
Winged Migration
Werckmeister Harmonies
The Forsaken Land
Synecdoche, NY

[Bosco B Thug]

Okay, pretty impossible to make this, but here's the early prototype:

1. Death Proof
2. Dogville
3. Doppelganger
4. The Piano Teacher
5. Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind
6. Fat Girl
7. George Washington
8. Manderlay
9. Zodiac
10. Birth

[Ivan Drago]

Ivan Drago, I like your taste in film.

:rubs eyes:

Is this for real or sarcasm? No one's ever told me that before...

:pritch:

[Lazlo]

Something like this:

1. The Lord of the Rings
2. No Country For Old Men
3. All the Real Girls
4. The Royal Tenenbaums
5. Children of Men
6. City of God
7. The Dark Knight
8. Up
9. Punch-Drunk Love
10. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

[Dukefrukem]

10. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

Ah great choice!

[Pop Trash]

Ivan Drago, I like your taste in film.

Me too.

[B-side]

My Least Liked Films of the 2000s (from worst to lesser worst).

6. Serenity (Joss Whedon)
9. Dawn of the Dead (Zack Snyder)


:crazy:

[Sxottlan]

1. The Lord of the Rings


I was starting to think I'd be the only one, which I found incredibly surprising.

[B-side]

:crazy:

Wait. I can understand hating Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. It's the hatred of Serenity that bugs me.

[eternity]

I can only understand disliking both of them. That said, I did dislike DotD and thought Serenity was inferior to the show.

[transmogrifier]

My Least Liked Films of the 2000s (from worst to lesser worst).

2. 2 Days in Paris (Julie Delpy)
3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (David Fincher)
9. Dawn of the Dead (Zack Snyder)
10. Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis)

:crazy:

Even The House of Wax is an inoffensive teen horror wisp of nothing much.

[Dukefrukem]

and thought Serenity was inferior to the show.

Really?? Wow. The fact that we finally get to see the Reavers was good enough to make it at least equal to the show.

[B-side]

:crazy:

Even The House of Wax is an inoffensive teen horror wisp of nothing much.

I liked Beowulf, too.

[Boner M]

The idea of 2 Days in Paris being the 2nd WORST FILM OF THE DECADE is pretty weird too, and I didn't even care much for it.

[transmogrifier]

The idea of 2 Days in Paris being the 2nd WORST FILM OF THE DECADE is pretty weird too, and I didn't even care much for it.

I suspect it is more of a "My Ten Most Hated Movies that Are Likely to Raise Eyebrows if I Put Them on a Ten Most Hated List" ;)

I am almost close to saying it is objectively impossible for 2 Days in Paris to be the second-worst film of the decade for anyone who has seen more than, say, 50 films from the decade.

[Pop Trash]

I was starting to think I'd be the only one, which I found incredibly surprising.

Yeah, I'm surprised by the lack of LotRs, The New World, and Memento on some of these lists. I thought those were pretty beloved films.

[Chac Mool]

Yeah, I'm surprised by the lack of LotRs, The New World, and Memento on some of these lists. I thought those were pretty beloved films.

I think it may have to do with the eternal question between "most beloved" and "best". There are many films that I love that don't belong on a best-of list.

[transmogrifier]

I think it may have to do with the eternal question between "most beloved" and "best". There are many films that I love that don't belong on a best-of list.

This way of thinking bugs me. Basically, what it means is that you really like a certain film but are worried other people are going to question it, so you decide not to put it on the list for fear of your social status.

[Pop Trash]

This way of thinking bugs me. Basically, what it means is that you really like a certain film but are worried other people are going to question it, so you decide not to put it on the list for fear of your social status.

Agreed. It's the age old best vs. favorite debate. Personally, I think if you really love something, put it on your list. Don't set it free despite what Sting thinks.

[B-side]

This way of thinking bugs me. Basically, what it means is that you really like a certain film but are worried other people are going to question it, so you decide not to put it on the list for fear of your social status.

Yup. I've never understood how so many people can distinguish so easily between "favorite" and "best". The latter implies a certain level of objectivity, which I think is silly, and I've said this. I've heard a lot of people say stuff like, "That movie was great, but I never wanna watch it again." Sounds to me like you didn't like it very much. The films that bring about the most emotion in me, I tend to wanna see again and again.

[BuffaloWilder]

I'll never understand the impulse in assigning any measure of skill to Zack Snyder.

[Winston*]

I've heard a lot of people say stuff like, "That movie was great, but I never wanna watch it again." Sounds to me like you didn't like it very much. The films that bring about the most emotion in me, I tend to wanna see again and again.
I don't agree with this. I think there are great films that only really warrant the one viewing. Say something like The Seventh Continent. What reason is there to view that a second time other than masochism?

[trotchky]

I don't agree with this. I think there are great films that only really warrant the one viewing. Say something like The Seventh Continent. What reason is there to view that a second time other than masochism?

Yeah, this.

Although, the absolute best movies of all time (ie. the films of Stanley Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson) warrant any number of repeat viewings; not because they are just that much fun to watch, but because they are endlessly rewarding.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't agree with this. I think there are great films that only really warrant the one viewing. Say something like The Seventh Continent. What reason is there to view that a second time other than masochism?

There are times when I can step back and admire the craft of a film designed to "hurt" or leave the viewer otherwise drained. Requiem for a Dream is probably the best example. I watched it once in 2002, never wanted to watch it again, then watched it a dozen more times that year. For a brief time, I became its disciple.

[B-side]

Yeah, this.

Although, the absolute best movies of all time (ie. the films of Stanley Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson) warrant any number of repeat viewings; not because they are just that much fun to watch, but because they are endlessly rewarding.

You more or less just agreed with me.

[baby doll]

Say something like The Seventh Continent. What reason is there to view that a second time other than masochism?Duh, because it's fun.

[trotchky]

You more or less just agreed with me.

Yeah, you're right. I most have misunderstood your post somehow. My b.

[baby doll]

Although, the absolute best movies of all time (ie. the films of Stanley Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson) warrant any number of repeat viewings; not because they are just that much fun to watch, but because they are endlessly rewarding.Not to be wildly condescending or anything, but any one who thinks Paul Thomas Anderson's movies represent the zenith of cinema as an art form, but aren't fun, must have a ridiculously limited view of both cinema and fun. Granted, the guy's got talent, but it seems to me at least that his talent is all razzle-dazzle--the self-consciously epic steadicam shot that opens Boogie Nights, which is pure flash, being only the most obvious example. He keeps his camera moving and employs music in almost every scene as if he's afraid we'll get bored. I mean, don't get me wrong: Punch-Drunk Love is a humdinger of a Hollywood romantic comedy, but endlessly rewarding is a bit much.

Of course, I'm pretty dubious of the machismo of both Anderson and Kubrick, which I think has a lot to do with why they're perceived by the mainstream as great artists (the same goes for Eastwood and Scorsese). In A Clockwork Orange and There Will Be Blood, both filmmakers are plainly in awe of their alpha-male sociopaths, which has a lot to do with why Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for his role in the latter. Not to sound too much like Jonathan Rosenbaum, but it's hardly surprising that a filmmaker like Nicholas Ray, who dealt with violence more perceptively than either Kubrick or Anderson, is virtually unknown today since we're supposed to be horrified by the protagonists in In a Lonely Place, On Dangerous Ground, and Bigger Than Life, instead of cheering for them.

[B-side]

Of course, I'm pretty dubious of the machismo of both Anderson and Kubrick, which I think has a lot to do with why they're perceived by the mainstream as great artists (the same goes for Eastwood and Scorsese). In A Clockwork Orange and There Will Be Blood, both filmmakers are plainly in awe of their alpha-male sociopaths, which has a lot to do with why Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for his role in the latter. Not to sound too much like Jonathan Rosenbaum, but it's hardly surprising that a filmmaker like Nicholas Ray, who dealt with violence more perceptively than either Kubrick or Anderson, is virtually unknown today since we're supposed to be horrified by the protagonists in In a Lonely Place, On Dangerous Ground, and Bigger Than Life, instead of cheering for them.

:confused:

[trotchky]

Not to be wildly condescending or anything, but any one who thinks Paul Thomas Anderson's movies represent the zenith of cinema as an art form, but aren't fun, must have a ridiculously limited view of both cinema and fun. Granted, the guy's got talent, but it seems to me at least that his talent is all razzle-dazzle--the self-consciously epic steadicam shot that opens Boogie Nights, which is pure flash, being only the most obvious example. He keeps his camera moving and employs music in almost every scene as if he's afraid we'll get bored. I mean, don't get me wrong: Punch-Drunk Love is a humdinger of a Hollywood romantic comedy, but endlessly rewarding is a bit much.

Boogie Nights is a fun movie to watch, I'm with you there. As for the opening shot being "pure flash"--no, it isn't. It reveals something about viewpoint, a major theme in the movie: in the way it cuts immediately from a funeral dirge to The Emotions' "Best of My Love" blaring over a perfectly gaudy "BOOGIE NIGHTS" logo. Then the camera turns on its side and moves down to street level, to meet the humans, whom, in spite of "the self-consciously epic tracking shot" manage to reveal themselves as goofy, awkward, and for the most part deeply fucked, in some way. Anderson knows he's in the business of spectacle, and he wants us to know it, because once we come to terms with the over-the-top, almost exploitative (if not of the characters, then of Goodfellas) camerawork and presentation, we can recognize, and empathize deeply with, real, pure, human anguish.



Of course, I'm pretty dubious of the machismo of both Anderson and Kubrick, which I think has a lot to do with why they're perceived by the mainstream as great artists (the same goes for Eastwood and Scorsese). In A Clockwork Orange and There Will Be Blood, both filmmakers are plainly in awe of their alpha-male sociopaths, which has a lot to do with why Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for his role in the latter. Not to sound too much like Jonathan Rosenbaum, but it's hardly surprising that a filmmaker like Nicholas Ray, who dealt with violence more perceptively than either Kubrick or Anderson, is virtually unknown today since we're supposed to be horrified by the protagonists in In a Lonely Place, On Dangerous Ground, and Bigger Than Life, instead of cheering for them.

Fascinating. I don't give a damn about "why they're perceived by the mainstream as great artists," why Daniel Day-Lewis has an Oscar, or what Jonathan Rosenbaum thinks about Nicholas Ray (by the way, I think it's fairly naive to assume the most effective way to communicate horrible things to viewers is to dictate that "we're supposed to be horrified."). But yeah, call me when you can formulate an argument that doesn't prop up strawmen on a sentencely rate.

[BuffaloWilder]

Jonathan Rosenbaum is a terrible critic. Let us never speak of him again.

[baby doll]

Boogie Nights is a fun movie to watch, I'm with you there. As for the opening shot being "pure flash"--no, it isn't. It reveals something about viewpoint, a major theme in the movie: in the way it cuts immediately from a funeral dirge to The Emotions' "Best of My Love" blaring over a perfectly gaudy "BOOGIE NIGHTS" logo. Then the camera turns on its side and moves down to street level, to meet the humans, whom, in spite of "the self-consciously epic tracking shot" manage to reveal themselves as goofy, awkward, and for the most part deeply fucked, in some way. Anderson knows he's in the business of spectacle, and he wants us to know it, because once we come to terms with the over-the-top, almost exploitative (if not of the characters, then of Goodfellas) camerawork and presentation, we can recognize, and empathize deeply with, real, pure, human anguish.How does it reveal "something" (what, exactly?) about viewpoint? We have a black screen and sad music, which makes the gaudy sign and disco beat that much more of a surprise. This seems to me the essence of flash.

Furthermore, the opening shot doesn't reveal them as goofy or awkward, let alone fucked, since at this point we're supposed to think they're hot shit, which is how they seem to Mark Whalberg's character. The sadness doesn't creep in till much later. As for it being done in an unbroken take, as in Brian De Palma's work, it's like the director's whispering in our ears, "Look how long this shot is. What a technical feat! Aren't I amazing?"


Fascinating. I don't give a damn about "why they're perceived by the mainstream as great artists," why Daniel Day-Lewis has an Oscar, or what Jonathan Rosenbaum thinks about Nicholas Ray (by the way, I think it's fairly naive to assume the most effective way to communicate horrible things to viewers is to dictate that "we're supposed to be horrified."). But yeah, call me when you can formulate an argument that doesn't prop up strawmen on a sentencely rate.Maybe you're not, but I am interested in why people like certain movies. You've never wondered why nerdy teenage boys flock to technical wizards like Kubrick, Anderson, David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky in droves? It's not a strawman argument to say that a lot of middle-class white teenagers really love A Clockwork Orange, There Will Be Blood, Fight Club, and Requiem for a Dream, and I think there are specific reasons for that--one obviously being their dark content. But then, why isn't a film like In a Lonely Place, and Ray's work as a whole, which I prefer to all of the above (regardless of anyone else's opinion, just as I'm sure you admire Anderson's films regardless of his frat boy cult), not as nearly as well known?

In terms of my naïvety, maybe I am, but I think one reason the frat boy cult loves Kubrick's film, for instance, is that they identify with the hero (much as they identify with Brad Pitt in Fincher's film and Daniel Day-Lewis in Anderson's). That's not to say that every single frat boy in North America will become a rapist if he watches this film, but that obviously, the guys who really like these movies wish they were more like Alex--that they could walk into a record store and pick up two girls simply by raising their eyebrow; that they could be the alpha-male who dominates his droogs, and can put them down when they get out of hand as comfortably as Marcello Mastroianni puts down the rebelling women in 8 1/2 (the difference being that Fellini's film presents this scene as a fantasy instead of serving as one for viewers). Similarly, rape is all about imposing your will onto another person, so in the film, the mind-control thing is like cutting off his balls. The film may not be pro-rape per se, but it's definitely pro-rapist.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yup. I've never understood how so many people can distinguish so easily between "favorite" and "best". The latter implies a certain level of objectivity, which I think is silly, and I've said this. I've heard a lot of people say stuff like, "That movie was great, but I never wanna watch it again." Sounds to me like you didn't like it very much. The films that bring about the most emotion in me, I tend to wanna see again and again. "'Favorite vs. best'" is hard, but I agree with the notion of feeling some skepticism over the "Great but I never want to watch it again" line, taken in the not-so-literal sense, anyway. To Winston, sure, a movie can upset you so much you may not want to watch it again. But the phrase used in critical mode and in its most figurative sense definitely deserves questioning: if all a film is doing is make you focus on its unpleasantness or simplicity, then it's probably not as great overall as you feel it is in whatever ways.

The Seventh Continent problem is it's so concise in its statement, there's not much to elaborate on. But it does have visual artistry, narrative and philosophic ambiguity, and it certainly provoke emotions, that I can imagine someone greatly enjoying re-watches.

For the record, TSC is good-not-overwhelmingly-great in my book.

[B-side]

The film may not be pro-rape per se, but it's definitely pro-rapist.

I disagree with a lot of the crap you said, but this takes the cake. Wow.

[BuffaloWilder]

As for it being done in an unbroken take, as in Brian De Palma's work, it's like the director's whispering in our ears, "Look how long this shot is. What a technical feat! Aren't I amazing?"



Couldn't you apply that to any type of unique shot, though? That seems a little disingenuous to say, 'oh he's obviously just trying to impress us.'

[trotchky]

It's not a strawman argument to say that a lot of middle-class white teenagers really love A Clockwork Orange, There Will Be Blood, Fight Club, and Requiem for a Dream, and I think there are specific reasons for that--one obviously being their dark content.

Yes it is, because this isn't a discussion about white-middle class teenagers and the movies they love, it's a discussion about the the (de)merits of Paul Thomas Anderson's filmography. At least, that's what my post, the one you chose to respond and condescend to (pro-tip: it's no less condescending if you start things off by saying "Not to be wildly condescending or anything"), was about. I don't think you understand what a straw man fallacy is. If you want a platform to spout off about fratboys, be my guest and take one, but don't pretend it's debate.

[baby doll]

Couldn't you apply that to any type of unique shot, though? That seems a little disingenuous to say, 'oh he's obviously just trying to impress us.'I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't think we should talk about it revealing the characters inner-psyches or it exploring the film's themes or how it resembles Faulkner's long sentences, or whatever else we might want to read into it. It's just a cool shot.

[Milky Joe]

As for it being done in an unbroken take, as in Brian De Palma's work, it's like the director's whispering in our ears, "Look how long this shot is. What a technical feat! Aren't I amazing?"

This is such a lame "criticism," and reveals more about your own egoism than it does about the films themselves. Why can't it just be, "look at how long this shot is, isn't film amazing? isn't life amazing?" Why must a director relishing the form be seen as a personal affront?

[baby doll]

Yes it is, because this isn't a discussion about white-middle class teenagers and the movies they love, it's a discussion about the the (de)merits of Paul Thomas Anderson's filmography. At least, that's what my post, the one you chose to respond and condescend to (pro-tip: it's no less condescending if you start things off by saying "Not to be wildly condescending or anything"), was about. I don't think you understand what a straw man fallacy is. If you want a platform to spout off about fratboys, be my guest and take one, but don't pretend it's debate.My mind doesn't go in just one direction. When I see some one say that Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson represent the height of artistic filmmaking, I think, (a) I disagree, Anderson's just a fun, flashy filmmaker; and (b) boy, his choices are both awfully macho, which leads to (c) frat boys really like both of these directors, so maybe their machismo has something to do with their popularity. As Tracy Jordan would say, my thinking is like jazz--jazz that you bitterly disagree with.

[Bosco B Thug]

In terms of my naïvety, maybe I am, but I think one reason the frat boy cult loves Kubrick's film, for instance, is that they identify with the hero (much as they identify with Brad Pitt in Fincher's film and Daniel Day-Lewis in Anderson's). That's not to say that every single frat boy in North America will become a rapist if he watches this film, but that obviously, the guys who really like these movies wish they were more like Alex--that they could walk into a record store and pick up two girls simply by raising their eyebrow; that they could be the alpha-male who dominates his droogs, and can put them down when they get out of hand as comfortably as Marcello Mastroianni puts down the rebelling women in 8 1/2 (the difference being that Fellini's film presents this scene as a fantasy instead of serving as one for viewers). Similarly, rape is all about imposing your will onto another person, so in the film, the mind-control thing is like cutting off his balls. The film may not be pro-rape per se, but it's definitely pro-rapist. You can feel this way (albeit it's wrongness :) ), but both your groupings - supposed "flashy macho films" and the "nerdy frat boys" that love them - are really weak and not very valid.

These nerdy frat boys may exist, perhaps, but you've thrown Kubrick under the bus in the need to make your point. Do you really group Kubrick with those other filmmakers? In terms of quality and not the people who choose to latch onto his films?

Do you like Kubrick outside of A Clockwork Orange (yes, probably his most problematic film)?

[BuffaloWilder]

I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't think we should talk about it revealing the characters inner-psyches or it exploring the film's themes or how it resembles Faulkner's long sentences, or whatever else we might want to read into it.

Why not?

Is it because it's a cool-looking shot? If so, that's a pretty weird criticism, that it can't be one and the other.


Why must a director relishing the form be seen as a personal affront?

Also, this.

[BuffaloWilder]

My mind doesn't go in just one direction. When I see some one say that Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson represent the height of artistic filmmaking, I think, (a) I disagree, Anderson's just a fun, flashy filmmaker

Wait - what is 'flashy,' to you?

I'm just confused, because I've never heard the low, long and quiet tracking shots of There Will Be Blood described as 'flashy.'

[baby doll]

This is such a lame "criticism," and reveals more about your own egoism than it does about the films themselves. Why can't it just be, "look at how long this shot is, isn't film amazing? isn't life amazing?" Why must a director relishing the form be seen as a personal affront?Like I said, it's a neat shot. (Life is amazing might be a bit much--what's amazing about the shot is that the camera moves so smoothly, that everything is well lit, and all the actors hit their marks.) But obviously this being the first shot of the movie, and Anderson desperately wanting to impress us (not necessarily a bad thing), he starts out with a big, fancy, elaborate crane shot to show us he knows what he's doing.

[B-side]

Like I said, it's a neat shot. (Life is amazing might be a bit much--what's amazing about the shot is that the camera moves so smoothly, that everything is well lit, and all the actors hit their marks.) But obviously this being the first shot of the movie, and Anderson desperately wanting to impress us (not necessarily a bad thing), he starts out with a big, fancy, elaborate crane shot to show us he knows what he's doing.

Narrow-mindedness is something I do not envy.

[BuffaloWilder]

But obviously this being the first shot of the movie, and Anderson desperately wanting to impress us (not necessarily a bad thing)

There's that weird sentiment again.

[baby doll]

Why not?

Is it because it's a cool-looking shot? If so, that's a pretty weird criticism, that it can't be one and the other.Not because the shot is flashy but because what he's talking about (the film revealing this and that about a particular theme) is an interpretation, and with interpretations, you can read whatever you want into the film. When I'm watching a film, I'm just interested in what's actually on screen.

[B-side]

Not because the shot is flashy but because what he's talking about (the film revealing this and that about a particular theme) is an interpretation, and with interpretations, you can read whatever you want into the film. When I'm watching a film, I'm just interested in what's actually on screen.

Uh oh. Next up: "Objectivity totally exists in art, dawg."

[Bosco B Thug]

Not because the shot is flashy but because what he's talking about (the film revealing this and that about a particular theme) is an interpretation, and with interpretations, you can read whatever you want into the film. When I'm watching a film, I'm just interested in what's actually on screen. Hey, I'm actually somewhat in agreement with you about PT Anderson, but I recall you making this argument before and I'm still having trouble grasping what you mean (not mentioning the fact it sounds like a really debilitating way to appreciate films).

[BuffaloWilder]

Not because the shot is flashy but because what he's talking about (the film revealing this and that about a particular theme) is an interpretation, and with interpretations, you can read whatever you want into the film. When I'm watching a film, I'm just interested in what's actually on screen.

But, films are interpretive by their very nature. I mean, that's what films are.

[baby doll]

Wait - what is 'flashy,' to you?

I'm just confused, because I've never heard the low, long and quiet tracking shots of There Will Be Blood described as 'flashy.'I think the opening twenty minutes where there isn't any dialogue (another way of wowing us from the start), the blustering performances, the pounding score, and the sudden violence are all flashy, fun things.

[baby doll]

But, films are interpretive by their very nature. I mean, that's what films are.There's a difference between an inference (i.e., he's breathing heavily, so he must be tired), which goes beyond the letter of the text, and an interpretation (he represents exhausted values), and when you talk about a transition from a black screen to a bright neon sign as revealing something about viewpoint (what and whose, I don't know), that strikes me as being an interpretation with very little to do with the film itself and how it impacts on the viewers' emotions.

[baby doll]

Hey, I'm actually somewhat in agreement with you about PT Anderson, but I recall you making this argument before and I'm still having trouble grasping what you mean (not mentioning the fact it sounds like a really debilitating way to appreciate films).I think thematizing stylistic choices is a way of reigning in and normalizing stylistic choices, like the idea that Ozu's low camera angles represent the viewpoint of a seated person (and if you think they do, check out David Bordwell's insanely detailed analysis of Ozu).

[BuffaloWilder]

and when you talk about a transition from a black screen to a bright neon sign as revealing something about viewpoint (what and whose, I don't know), that strikes me as being an interpretation with very little to do with the film itself and how it impacts on the viewers' emotions.

I'm not seeing how it doesn't have to do with the film. If you want to talk about it's emotional relevance, that's another boat entirely, I think.

[Sven]

Not to sound too much like Jonathan Rosenbaum

Sometimes I think you ARE Rosenbaum, posting on acid or some other coherence-inhibiting drug.

You're being unbelievably trivial, bd. Like, it's astonishing, really, that you are willfully refusing to see the simplest things. Your reductive practices are increasingly insufferable when exposed as affectations that you manipulate at your whim. Why not complain about Femme Fatale's opening jewel heist? It's all just there to wow the viewer. Oh, but De Palma is making a film ABOUT the camera. Okay. And Kubrick, Anderson, et al are not exercising those same reflexive muscles?

Your bafflement at Ray's lack of popularity is also annoyingly short-sighted. There aren't ANY movies made from Ray's era that popularly resonate with youth today.

Baby doll, you need to start checking yourself before you be wrecking yourself.

[baby doll]

Uh oh. Next up: "Objectivity totally exists in art, dawg."Just for fun...


ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.3a. Okay, this is where it falls apart, because film as we understand it is supposed to influence your emotions, and no one is without personal prejudices when they go to see a film. For instance, we all have certain subjects we respond to with greater interest than others (I happen to dig the French occupation, especially people who were collaborators and informers).

[Sven]

For the record, though, I do disagree with trotchky's defense of the profundity of the opening shot. I more align with Milky Joe's sentiment, though I would go a little further to contextualize the shot rather than gauging it on its own.

[baby doll]

Sometimes I think you ARE Rosenbaum, posting on acid or some other coherence-inhibiting drug.

You're being unbelievably trivial, bd. Like, it's astonishing, really, that you are willfully refusing to see the simplest things. Your reductive practices are increasingly insufferable when exposed as affectations that you manipulate at your whim. Why not complain about Femme Fatale's opening jewel heist? It's all just there to wow the viewer. Oh, but De Palma is making a film ABOUT the camera. Okay. And Kubrick, Anderson, et al are not exercising those same reflexive muscles?

Your bafflement at Ray's lack of popularity is also annoyingly short-sighted. There aren't ANY movies made from Ray's era that popularly resonate with youth today.

Baby doll, you need to start checking yourself before you be wrecking yourself.Everything in Femme Fatale is done to wow the viewer, not just the jewel heist. I was never complaining that Anderson was flashy, but let's call flash what it is, and not have to read anything into it. I don't think De Palma, or Anderson for that matter, has to be reflexive. If they didn't want to impress us, they probably wouldn't be making films.

And there are lot of 50s movies that are still popular, like Hitchcock's.

[trotchky]

Not because the shot is flashy but because what he's talking about (the film revealing this and that about a particular theme) is an interpretation, and with interpretations, you can read whatever you want into the film. When I'm watching a film, I'm just interested in what's actually on screen.

It's a postmodern movie. As such, it is appropriate to examine the way in which it is postmodern, because that's where meaning comes in. Yeah, the shot sort of does portray the characters as "hot shit," but only for the sake of constantly undermining that portrayal. For example, the first character the camera latches onto is Morris; the "hot shit" factor is going up because he's in the middle of this miraculously constructed tracking shot, but after he practically begs Jack for a porno gig, humorously fails at flirting with a female patron, and sends a complementary order of clams to Jack and Amber's table--leaving them to pay for their own drinks--the "hot shit" factor isn't going up so much anymore. In fact, it would be accurate to say it has been considerably lowered.

What's more: It's cool if you want everything you're supposed to be feeling and thinking to exist on the surface of the narrative, but that's not how a movie like this works. I find your fear of reading into things that don't conform to some bizarrely specific notion of aesthetic value a little frightening.

Nice passive aggression, by the way.

[Sven]

Everything in Femme Fatale is done to wow the viewer, not just the jewel heist. I was never complaining that Anderson was flashy, but let's call flash what it is, and not have to read anything into it. I don't think De Palma, or Anderson for that matter, has to be reflexive. If they didn't want to impress us, they probably wouldn't be making films.

And there are lot of 50s movies that are still popular, like Hitchcock's.

But doesn't the flash operate as a textual tool, too, considering the film's flashy subject?

My interest in film is almost entirely formal, so I am more sympathetic to your point of view than I am letting on. I don't give two figs about postmodernity or meta or whatever. But I AM saying that this formalism IS at the service of a text (this is Hollywood, baby!) and in the symbiosis of text and form comes a meaning that you seem hellbent on delegitimizing for some reason. Yes, Anderson is flashy, but in a completely different way than he is being flashy in TWBB. That change in flashiness is essential to note because it MEANS something.

[baby doll]

It's a postmodern movie. As such, it is appropriate to examine the way in which it is postmodern, because that's where meaning comes in. Yeah, the shot sort of does portray the characters as "hot shit," but only for the sake of constantly undermining that portrayal. For example, the first character the camera latches onto is Morris; the "hot shit" factor is going up because he's in the middle of this miraculously constructed tracking shot, but after he practically begs Jack for a porno gig, humorously fails at flirting with a female patron, and sends a complementary order of clams to Jack and Amber's table--leaving them to pay for their own drinks--the "hot shit" factor isn't going up so much anymore. In fact, it would be accurate to say it has been considerably lowered.

What's more: It's cool if you want everything you're supposed to be feeling and thinking to exist on the surface of the narrative, but that's not how a movie like this works. I find your fear of reading into things that don't conform to some bizarrely specific notion of aesthetic value a little frightening.

Nice passive aggression, by the way.When you started by saying it was a postmodern movie, I thought you were deliberately mocking obtuse academic theory. What does postmodernity have to do with anything that follows in that paragraph? The film sets up an expectation and then undermines it. Why do we need a theory to understand something so obvious?

If we initially read Morris as cool, it's not so much because he's in the middle of the shot as because he's the owner of a popular club and dressed in the fashion of the times. Isn't that a simpler explanation?

Not everything is on the surface of the narrative, but everything is certainly on the surface of the film. That's what we're watching and listening. Even symbolism is on the surface. I don't see a reason for explaining away stylistic choices by appealing to a thematic reading.

[trotchky]

If we initially read Morris as cool, it's not so much because he's in the middle of the shot as because he's the owner of a popular club and dressed in the fashion of the times. Isn't that a simpler explanation?

No, because the movie is clearly trying to do something deeper. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

[B-side]

On a somewhat unrelated note, anyone ever have one of those funks where you find yourself largely uninterested in film? Like, not necessarily that you just don't enjoy it anymore, but you start to thinking, "eh, this seems like something I might be able to do", and thus the "it's just a movie" thing starts kicking in. I'm getting this a lot lately. I guess it kinda comes back to that Groucho Marx quote: "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."

[Sven]

Not everything is on the surface of the narrative, but everything is certainly on the surface of the film. That's what we're watching and listening. Even symbolism is on the surface. I don't see a reason for explaining away stylistic choices by appealing to a thematic reading.

This is the thing: choices in a film happen FOR A REASON. I believe what is happening is trotchky is trying to piece together the REASONING for Anderson's application of technique. I agree that this REASONING should not have to JUSTIFY style. But frequently, in fact, nearly always, THEME and STYLE are connected. This is called "CONSTRUCTION" and artists do it when they are creating. Style is not ARBITRARY.

[Sven]

On a somewhat unrelated note, anyone ever have one of those funks where you find yourself largely uninterested in film? Like, not necessarily that you just don't enjoy it anymore, but you start to thinking, "eh, this seems like something I might be able to do", and thus the "it's just a movie" thing starts kicking in. I'm getting this a lot lately. I guess it kinda comes back to that Groucho Marx quote: "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."

Story of my life. It's a hard balance.

[trotchky]

On a somewhat unrelated note, anyone ever have one of those funks where you find yourself largely uninterested in film? Like, not necessarily that you just don't enjoy it anymore, but you start to thinking, "eh, this seems like something I might be able to do", and thus the "it's just a movie" thing starts kicking in. I'm getting this a lot lately. I guess it kinda comes back to that Groucho Marx quote: "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."

I'm finding myself uninterested in film, because I feel like all I really want to do from now own is meditate and explore my feelings and mind, possibly with the aid of a foreign substance or two.

[baby doll]

But doesn't the flash operate as a textual tool, too, considering the film's flashy subject?

My interest in film is almost entirely formal, so I am more sympathetic to your point of view than I am letting on. I don't give two figs about postmodernity or meta or whatever. But I AM saying that this formalism IS at the service of a text (this is Hollywood, baby!) and in the symbiosis of text and form comes a meaning that you seem hellbent on delegitimizing for some reason. Yes, Anderson is flashy, but in a completely different way than he is being flashy in TWBB. That change in flashiness is essential to note because it MEANS something.Yeah, this seems fair. But what you're talking about is tone (obviously the disco beat and camera movement in Boogie Nights has a different effect on the viewers' emotions than stasis with no music at all), while what trotchky is talking about is how the style of the film reflects the film's themes, which seems like a bit of a reach.

[B-side]

Story of my life. It's a hard balance.

How do you shake it? I find myself so excessively critical in these times, it's almost impossible to just let go and be immersed.

[B-side]

I'm finding myself uninterested in film, because I feel like all I really want to do from now own is meditate and explore my feelings and mind, possibly with the aid of a foreign substance or two.

You so crazy, trotch. I'm Buddhist and even I don't meditate in the conventional way.:P

[BuffaloWilder]

Like, not necessarily that you just don't enjoy it anymore, but you start to thinking, "eh, this seems like something I might be able to do", and thus the "it's just a movie" thing starts kicking in.

Become a filmmaker.

Problem solved.

I, for one, look forward to giving you a half-hearted blog endorsement.

[baby doll]

No, because the movie is clearly trying to do something deeper. You just refuse to acknowledge it.If 35mm film was deep, the light from the projector wouldn't pass through it and we wouldn't be able to see anything.

[BuffaloWilder]

If 35mm film was deep, the light from the projector wouldn't pass through it and we wouldn't be able to see anything.

http://www.geocities.com/~cheshyre/ebert.jpg

[Cult]

How do you shake it? I find myself so excessively critical in these times, it's almost impossible to just let go and be immersed.

It'll pass on its own, most likely. I go through stretches where I don't remotely feel like watching any movies. Then, suddenly, I'll have a big spurt where I do. Usually seeing a really indisputably great film is all the kick in the pants you'll need.

[Sycophant]

Become a filmmaker.

Problem solved.

Maybe for you (if I understand you). In the time I was directing/editing a feature-length film, I went from watching about 8 movies a week to about 2 a month, with friends. I just wrapped post-production 3 weeks ago, and I'm finally starting to watch like four or five movies a week again.

[trotchky]

If 35mm film was deep, the light from the projector wouldn't pass through it and we wouldn't be able to see anything.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, and I'm fairly certain you don't either.

[transmogrifier]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, and I'm fairly certain you don't either.

I'm pretty sure it's a joke.

[trotchky]

I'm pretty sure it's a joke.

Oh yeah, you're right.

[baby doll]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, and I'm fairly certain you don't either.Light passes through film because it's thin, and because of this, one can project images on a screen. If film were deeper (or thicker), light wouldn't pass through it.

[The Mike]

1. Big Fish
2. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
3. Moonlight Mile
4. Spider-Man
5. Lantana
6. Moon
7. Iron Man
8. Serenity
9. Spartan
10. City of God
Updated.

[Ivan Drago]

The part where the little girl gets shot but oh wait--NOT REALLY is the most snide thing I've seen from a director trying to make an authoritative statement on a social issue since the ending of I Stand Alone.

Missed this - what issue did the ending make a statement of?

[Pop Trash]

When is M.C. Hammer doing an official one of these?

[eternity]

I just noticed how many of the movies on the worst lists that I absolutely dig. Ken Park, Inland Empire, For Your Consideration, Hamlet 2...