Jamaul's Top 50 Films of the 2000s

[jamaul]

Hello friends ... as I stated in another thread, I'm a part time poster, full time lurker round these parts. I've begun a blog dedicated to my 50 favorite films of the decade, and while you may notice that the decade is actually, um, not quite over, I've come up with a gimmick to make it okay.

That gimmick is, basically, to begin dropping one title per day on this blog from the 50-day mark to the end of the year. Or, in other words, 11/12/09-12/31/09 = 50 days. So I began my list today with:

50. Irreversible (2002)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zGZzu-jWrAQ/SvwyfS1ZgiI/AAAAAAAAACI/xan9XgNYo_k/s1600-h/irreversible.jpg

What could be a more fitting way to kick off this list than to start with a choice I initially hated? At eighteen years-old, seeing Irreversible for the first time appalled and deeply, deeply disturbed me. Upon first viewing, I was unwilling to accept the rich, underlying themes because the what was there on the surface was so vile, so disturbing, so extreme. In hindsight though, I see things differently: Gasper Noe’s film is an audacious work that initially appears to be a brutal affront on an unsuspecting audience, but upon subsequent viewings reveals itself to be a heart-wrenching film about the infinite destructibility of time (to paraphrase the tagline). Add to that a brilliant reverse-time structure (a la Memento) and an innovative visual aesthetic, Irreversible, while not one of the more pleasant films on my list, is certainly one of the most important.

So, I wanted to extend an invitation to the scholarly, erudite young minds that make up the match-cut message boards. With that, I will continue to post my entries here for your viewing/reading/arguing pleasure. In the meantime here is a link to the blog: top50films00.blogspot.com (http://top50films00.blogspot.com)

[Adam]

Hmmm, I've never seen Irreversible, but I do have a thought on something you wrote in the list's introduction on your blog


Still, with advancing technology, the internet and breakthroughs in communication making films far more accessible, and with the digital medium paving the way towards a frontier in redefining the aesthetics and limitations of the medium, perhaps the 2010’s could usher in a golden age that may finally eclipse cinema’s pinnacle decades.

See, the real trend I think you're forgetting here is how amazing scripted television was in the aughts. Talk about providing depth and doing away with the traditional limitations of cinema. The biggest thing we've seen over the past 10 years are all these super creative types with singular visions being given total freedom to do nearly whatever they wanted with hours and hours of content to play with. And I think more and more talented filmmakers are going to be lured into television because of those unique, almost endless creative possibilities

ESPN's Bill Simmons recently did a podcast with I think Bill Hader where they were trying to come up with the defining film of the past decade. And they decided the defining film of the aughts was more than likely a TV show. Seriously, was there a movie that came out this decade more significant than The Wire or The Sopranos or The Shield and whatnot?

Also, you kind of ragged on the '80s as a bad decade for film, which is a total misconception, I think. It's kind of an easy assumption a lot of people seem to make, but the fact is maybe regardless of taste, the '80s was secretly a phenomenal decade in film and at least as good as this past one, if not better. In my mind, anyway

[MadMan]

Whoa welcome back. I vaguely remember you back on RT, although that was probably ages ago. Anyways, I will comment on your list as much as I can (aka when I've actually seen one of the movie listed-I'm way behind in 2000s viewing).

[lovejuice]

i don't watch many movies these days, but i'll keep my eyes closely on this list.

[jamaul]

49. Children of Men (2006)

Alfonso Cuaron made three great films this decade; three films made greater after considering how different they are one film to the next. Children of Men, a bleak vision of a childless future, is at once shocking not only for how well made it is, but for how it fits in the modern genre of science fiction. This is one of the few films of its kind since September 11 and the Bush administration to not root its concept with a contemporary political slant. Rather, Children of Men is more concerned with focusing on what the world would look like in fifty years if mankind lost its most basic purpose of existence: procreation. The result is something of an oddball mainstream studio film, infused with such an arresting cinematographic style that its nearly impossible to look away, or to not be enraptured by the events taking place on screen. Most of all, this is how science fiction used to be: meditating on a possible future by adding or subtracting from the present in an attempt to not only dazzle our imaginations, but to enrich and stimulate our philosophical, rather than political, perspectives.

[jamaul]

I will agree with television, but I am certainly not an authority on the subject. Between staying caught up with film, taking time to read and explore music, television gets lost in the pop-culture shuffle, for me. I have very much wanted to go back and explore HBO dramas, because you are correct, they have certainly expanded the limitations of movie-theater cinema.

Ever since I first saw Berlin Alexanderplatz a couple of years ago, I felt that the filmmaker could have more freedom if he/she were to bring their vision to the small screen, as Fassbinder’s epic is probably his best work. Same with David Lynch's Twin Peaks -- truly a sprawling work fascinating if only because it somehow got picked up by a mainstream television studio. At the same time, I'll kinda throw out this argument: in an age of diminishing attention spans, look at a film like Lord of the Rings? Or Best of Youth. Or a shorter, more self-contained, but nonetheless extraordinary accomplishment like Russian Ark, a film that could only work as movie-theater cinema. A lot of my favorite films of the decade are indeed self-contained works without the necessity of expanding, free-flowing narrative threads. I love them because after two hours (or three, or six), I can meditate on the work as a whole and its dramatic impact on me, as opposed to waiting a year to see where it'll go next.

Lastly, the 80s. Yeah, I guess that was a very backhanded, dismissive comment. But what defined the 80s for most people?: the age of the blockbuster. The decade in which studios locked the doors to what seemed to be the infinite possibilities of a director's freedom, as filmmakers in the late 70s sacrificed commercial success for vision. As an artist you would think, well, of course! -- but as a business person, well, you're there to make a dollar. This mentality of commerce over quality is evident everywhere in the 80s, and would be perfected in the 90s, as corporations would get better and better at turning culture into capitalist gain. But the awkward 80s reflect the beginning of the homogenization of film, music, fashion etc.

[Qrazy]

Also, you kind of ragged on the '80s as a bad decade for film, which is a total misconception, I think. It's kind of an easy assumption a lot of people seem to make, but the fact is maybe regardless of taste, the '80s was secretly a phenomenal decade in film and at least as good as this past one, if not better. In my mind, anyway

That doesn't make any sense. It's certainly going to be predicated on taste and based on this I agree with Jamaul that the 80s was a weak decade. I agree for the reason he's posted but I also feel this way because of an aesthetic shift in cinema on a more general level. There were certainly exceptions but the 80s as a general trend was marked by massive use of synth, a certain style of electric guitar, bad fashion, and seemingly closer shooting (more mid shots/close-ups than the 70s)... none of which I enjoy very much. Many of the directors I love also did some of their weakest work in the 80s (again with some exceptions). I mean don't get me wrong there were definitely some great films in the 80s, I'm actually involved with a top 100 80s list on RT right now. But that general 80s aesthetic... when you see a film and know it's an 80s film... that's probably my least favorite aesthetic of any decade ever.

If there are fifty 80s films I think are very good, there are a hundred 70s films I think are as good or better.

[MadMan]

Children of Men is a brilliant film. Rather dark, sure, but great nevertheless. Clive Owen is fantastic as usual, but its Michael Caine who steals the show in this case. Its probably one of my favorite performances of the decade, really.

[Grouchy]

That doesn't make any sense. It's certainly going to be predicated on taste and based on this I agree with Jamaul that the 80s was a weak decade. I agree for the reason he's posted but I also feel this way because of an aesthetic shift in cinema on a more general level. There were certainly exceptions but the 80s as a general trend was marked by massive use of synth, a certain style of electric guitar, bad fashion, and seemingly closer shooting (more mid shots/close-ups than the 70s)... none of which I enjoy very much. Many of the directors I love also did some of their weakest work in the 80s (again with some exceptions). I mean don't get me wrong there were definitely some great films in the 80s, I'm actually involved with a top 100 80s list on RT right now. But that general 80s aesthetic... when you see a film and know it's an 80s film... that's probably my least favorite aesthetic of any decade ever.

If there are fifty 80s films I think are very good, there are a hundred 70s films I think are as good or better.
I actually agree with Adam on this, although a while back I would have agreed with you.

The reason? Yeah, the '80s WAS the era of the blockbuster as opposed to the artistic freedom of the '70s. But, in many ways, I think this focus on commercial gain helped launch a revival of genre cinema in Hollywood that, during the '70s, was almost exclusively Euro-centric, if that's even a word. The stylistic shift to more close-ups and more coherent, serviceable storytelling produced some of the most effective neo-classic Hollywood films I can think of. Movies like Brazil, Dead Ringers, Hellraiser, The Thing and Blade Runner are classics that benefitted from the blockbuster mentality of the decade and that, to an extent, couldn't have been made before in the same way.

Plus, internationally, you got Akira, Ran, Wings of Desire, Diva, Fitzcarraldo and a bazillion others. If there are a hundred very good films in the '70s, then there are a hundred others in the '80s. You can't really argue logic like that.

Still, the '70s is my favorite decade, hands down.

[jamaul]

Oddly enough, I agree with everyone's arguments on the 80s. It was lacking, it still produced great films (The Shining, Blade Runner, Once Upon a Time in America, Brazil, Ran, Blue Velvet, Last Temptation of Christ, Do the Right Thing: all among my favorite films), it was underrated in some respects, maybe overrated in others. My favorite thing about the 80s of course, the best thing to come out of it hands down, was, well ... Me (1985). For without me, we wouldn't have this great list. Anyway.

As far as decades go, film-wise, I'm partial to the 60s, myself. So many great filmmakers, so many countries contributing to the medium, so many rules being broken, limitations expanded. The form saw its growth into maturity in that decade and, in my opinion, proved film to be an art to rival any of the others. I think seven of my ten favorite films are from the 60s.

[jamaul]

I have a hard time keeping track of movies I hated ... I do really well with repressing them from my memory and focusing more on the movies that I either love, or really challenge me. That said, no movie irritated me, pissed me off, or continued to aggravate me as it won awards (especially the friggin' Oscar) this decade than Crash.

[Qrazy]

I actually agree with Adam on this, although a while back I would have agreed with you.

I take it you agree with him that the 80s was a good decade for cinema in relation to your taste and not the statement that the 80s was a good decade for cinema regardless of taste because that seems to me to be an indefensible position. My taste is such that I don't like the staple aesthetic of the 80s, as a result I do not like the decade very much. Someone may alternatively really like synth music, mid shots, etc and therefore enjoy the decade more. I'm not saying they're wrong to like these things, simply that because I don't I feel the 80s to be a weak decade.


The reason? Yeah, the '80s WAS the era of the blockbuster as opposed to the artistic freedom of the '70s. But, in many ways, I think this focus on commercial gain helped launch a revival of genre cinema in Hollywood that, during the '70s, was almost exclusively Euro-centric, if that's even a word. The stylistic shift to more close-ups and more coherent, serviceable storytelling produced some of the most effective neo-classic Hollywood films I can think of. Movies like Brazil, Dead Ringers, Hellraiser, The Thing and Blade Runner are classics that benefitted from the blockbuster mentality of the decade and that, to an extent, couldn't have been made before in the same way.

Plus, internationally, you got Akira, Ran, Wings of Desire, Diva, Fitzcarraldo and a bazillion others. If there are a hundred very good films in the '70s, then there are a hundred others in the '80s. You can't really argue logic like that.

Still, the '70s is my favorite decade, hands down.

Yes there were many good films in the 80s I do not deny this. But I can certainly argue my position because I expressly said that if there are 50 80s films 'I think are very good' then there are 100 70s films that 'I think are very good'. Which is to say that I have expressly gone through lists of films in the decades and there are more 70s (picking an arbitrary decade here... also true of the 60s and probably the 50s) films I enjoy than 80s. Furthermore, if I were to compare the average 70s film I really like, it usually beats out the 80s film I really like. And even many of the 80s films I do quite like have those distinctive 80s qualities that I dislike which drags them down a bit in my esteem precisely because I do not like the aesthetic approach of the decade.

[Grouchy]

I guess my point is best summarized in that the '80s, as a reaction to the '70s, are quite influential and awesome in their own right, and that many wonderful movies like Die Hard are a product of the revitalization of commercial cinema and couldn't have been made in the climate of the previous decade. Every art period is always a reaction to the earlier one, and it seems kind of pointless to argue one against the other.

[Adam]

I take it you agree with him that the 80s was a good decade for cinema in relation to your taste and not the statement that the 80s was a good decade for cinema regardless of taste because that seems to me to be an indefensible position. My taste is such that I don't like the staple aesthetic of the 80s, as a result I do not like the decade very much. Someone may alternatively really like synth music, mid shots, etc and therefore enjoy the decade more. I'm not saying they're wrong to like these things, simply that because I don't I feel the 80s to be a weak decade.

Yes there were many good films in the 80s I do not deny this. But I can certainly argue my position because I expressly said that if there are 50 80s films 'I think are very good' then there are 100 70s films that 'I think are very good'. Which is to say that I have expressly gone through lists of films in the decades and there are more 70s (picking an arbitrary decade here... also true of the 60s and probably the 50s) films I enjoy than 80s. Furthermore, if I were to compare the average 70s film I really like, it usually beats out the 80s film I really like. And even many of the 80s films I do quite like have those distinctive 80s qualities that I dislike which drags them down a bit in my esteem precisely because I do not like the aesthetic approach of the decade.

That stereotypical, cheesy '80s aesthetic you're talking about was really only around in the first few years of the decade and it wasn't even as ubiquitous then as you're making it out to have been

But, yeah, it was silly of me to say it's not a matter of taste, since everything comes down to taste. You know, though, I'm a pretty big loser and I've pored over lists of films, too, and I personally think the '80s stacks up with any decade in film. When it's done, maybe you could link to that RT list you're making and I'll come up with my own

[Qrazy]

I guess my point is best summarized in that the '80s, as a reaction to the '70s, are quite influential and awesome in their own right, and that many wonderful movies like Die Hard are a product of the revitalization of commercial cinema and couldn't have been made in the climate of the previous decade. Every art period is always a reaction to the earlier one, and it seems kind of pointless to argue one against the other.

To me films like Die Hard, Predator, etc aren't that great though. I enjoy them (more so the former) but they're not my cup of tea.

[Qrazy]

That stereotypical, cheesy '80s aesthetic you're talking about was really only around in the first few years of the decade and it wasn't even as ubiquitous then as you're making it out to have been

I don't really agree. I think it permeated most of the decade especially when you start talking about Japanese and Chinese cinema which continued it even into the early 90s. But yeah the better films of the decade are for the most part the ones that managed to avoid the dominant style of the decade (Ran, Fitzcarraldo, The Sacrifice, Fanny and Alexander, Raging Bull, etc).


But, yeah, it was silly of me to say it's not a matter of taste, since everything comes down to taste. You know, though, I'm a pretty big loser and I've pored over lists of films, too, and I personally think the '80s stacks up with any decade in film. When it's done, maybe you could link to that RT list you're making and I'll come up with my own

Will do. There were definitely some great 80s films... I mean My Friend Ivan Lapshin was made in the 80s!

[BuffaloWilder]

To me films like Die Hard, Predator, etc aren't that great though. I enjoy them (more so the former) but they're not my cup of tea.

I don't think Die Hard was the best example, either - I'll admit to not being that big a fan of it - but I agree with Grouchy on the whole.

[jamaul]

48. The Life Aquatic (2004)

There was an unavoidable feeling in 2004, with the release of Wes Anderson’s follow-up to his brilliant The Royal Tenenbaums, that with The Life Aquatic the talented auteur was repeating himself, at least thematically. Five years later, and after the release of 2007’s The Darjeeling Limited, I’d still argue he is. Under the same breath, I’d have a hard time explaining exactly why that’s a bad thing when the depth and richness of his films still have the ability, film to film, to get under your skin, despite their cold, dryly sarcastic detachment. The Life Aquatic was unjustly dismissed upon release as a messy, shallow misfire on Anderson’s part, and worse, squandered potential. It was hard for me to find enough positives in the film when I first saw it to warrant even half the enthusiasm I had (and have) for his two previous films, which meant that while I admired the film, it didn't make my top ten of 2004. But over the course of the last five years, few films this decade, upon subsequent viewings, have had the ability to sneak up on me like this one. Still, the result is a highly ambitious, albeit flawed effort ... but one with an emotional core as strong as almost any.

[Dukefrukem]

I think it's his best film.

[jamaul]

47. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

One of the most harrowing films of the last ten years, Cristian Mungiu’s Palme D’Or winner is a captivating and haunting experience so realistic that its images, its tension and its characters stay with you far longer than the film’s running time. Case in point, as heavy and draining as the film is, I’ve been unable to muster the effort to sit down and revisit it, making it one of the very few films on my list I’ve only seen once. But like many of the more challenging works on my top 50, the power of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is more in what remains inexplicable: I’m not sure exactly how the themes tie in with late-1980s Romanian society, nor do I see an overtly pro-choice leaning in the film. What I do know is that the result of what remains on the screen is nothing short of disturbing.

[jamaul]

46. Borat (2006)

If you were eighteen or over in the year 2006 and able to get to a theater, and you passed up an opportunity to witness the comedic brilliance of Sasha Baron Cohen’s “Kazakhstani” reporter brought to life through the faux-documentary cameras commanded by Larry Charles, then you missed out on one of the best audience experiences of the decade. Aside from that, Borat continues to be significant three years after its release not only because it’s still as funny in 2009 as it was in 2006, but because regardless of what regime change America has undergone in the last year, Borat is as prescient as ever. Cohen’s ability to conceive and embody characters built on society’s preconceived stereotypes should not only have been enough to warrant him an Oscar nomination, but a humanitarian award. What initially appears to be irreverent candid-camera hijinks ultimately reveals itself to be a rather frightening indictment of America’s current state of cultural affairs.

[jamaul]

45. L'Enfant (2005)

Another slice of neo-realism life from the Dardenne brothers -- this one their second Palme D’Or winner -- L’Enfant borrows more than a few themes from Robert Bresson’s 1959 masterpiece, Pickpocket, but retains a sense of brutal honesty and spontaneity in its verite style, making any allusions to the previous film an afterthought. With its natural lighting, handheld cameras and inexperienced actors, L’Enfant’s economy of style and revelatory subject matter make it a riveting experience. Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne’s body of work is one I wish to further explore, and films such as The Son -- also a great film -- are ones I must revisit. Like Bresson, their films are rare works that have the ability to achieve a sort of spiritual transcendence in such subtle ways.

[jamaul]

44. The Best of Youth (2003)

At an unwieldy length of six hours, Marco Tullio Giordana’s The Best of Youth is likely to be the most unseen film on my list. An Italian film spanning the events, trials and various travails of a single family over the course of forty tumultuous years in Italy, the film is an epic, rich experience, deserving of a place among the best of this decade for its amazing ambition and achievement. Unraveling and building with the narrative strengths and freedoms akin to that of a novel, the extended time allows for the characters to grow in a way unheard of in mainstream cinema. The result is a work more concerned with its human drama than giving way to large set pieces and stylistic exuberance.