Best Films of the 21st Century

[Michaelson]

Sorry, I know I'm not contributing much more than nominations, I'm just not that good at waxing lyrical about movies and art in general, but a couple of others that have both been mentioned, but nowhere near enough, are Downfall and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Adaptation would be pressing for a spot on my list as well, and usually I'm wary of all that quirky [censored], but Kauffman's scripts are just so smart. BJM, Adaptation and ESotSM all examine fascinating issues in really clever ways, I think.

[TomE.]

[ QUOTE ]

10. Mulholland Drive, David Lynch, 2001

[/ QUOTE ]

I really like movies that make me think, but after watching this the first time I was completely baffled. I watched it a 2nd time, trying to pick up hidden meanings, but was still confused. The third time I watched it, I simply watched it without trying to figure it out and it was much more enjoyable. It's like a dream of a dream, and something about it makes me happy. Indescribable.

[ QUOTE ]
7. Lost in Translation , Sofia Coppola, 2003

[/ QUOTE ]

There seems to be 2 schools on this film - love it and hate it. I loved it. It got an immediate pass from me since it had Bill Murray, but I thought it was an awesome story that was wonderfully told.


[ QUOTE ]
5. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, 2001
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, 2002
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, 2003, Peter Jackson

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised at some of the hate these are getting. I thought "The Fellowship" was incredible, but I thought "Two Towers" turned Gimli into Gomer Pyle. I read the LOTR trilogy a long time ago, but Gimli was a tough SOB in all the books. Still, all together, I think these 3 movies are great.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Sex and Lucia, Julio Medam, 2001

[/ QUOTE ]

I watched this the first time to see Paz Vega nekkid, but found it to be an excellent movie. Some great, unexpected twists put it on my "must see" list when recommending films to people.


I haven't seen the others you list, but I've queued them at Netflix. While I don't really subscribe to "Best Of" lists since individual tastes vary wildly, some 21st century movies I'd recommend are:

-Requiem For A Dream (mentioned more than a few times already)
-The Machinist (I'm a machinist, so there we are. Still, Christian Bale's transformation into a 100lb skeleton was shocking, and the story was just "out-there" enough for me to enjoy.)
-Rabbit-Proof Fence (A well-told tale of 3 native Aussies trying to find their kidnapped mother.)
-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Everyone knows the synopsis for this one, yes? I really like Charlie Kaufmann screenplays.)
-Snatch (2000 release, but close enough for me. One of my favorite flicks.)

[John Cole]

There's an easy answer to your question: 99% of the public has been eating crap for so long it tastes like ice cream. When asked why the plastic vomit sold so well, Lenny Bruce replied, "Because the plastic dogsh*t sold so well."

More seriously, I think your reaction stems from a confusion between art and entertainment. I like entertainments, but they don't stick with me, don't make me think, don't trouble my thoughts or comfortable view of the world. The movies that mean the most to me stay with me for years after seeing them.

However, as an avid filmgoer and reader of film criticism and theory, I have also been influenced by writing about film, especially the work of philosopher Stanley Cavell who considers films (the screwball comedies of the '30s, women's melodramas, musicals) as serious philosophical investigations.

As far as not being able to watch movies with subtitles, that's just absurd.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love Lost in Translation and find the LOTR flicks a hoax. Often terrifically, epicly flaccid, I can see these easily being surpassed in the future. I feel these are very much a wonder of their time, not of all time. These will last until someone comes up with the money to do them again. And that money will be less and less as technology advances. I don't think I've been more disappointed in films in the last 20 years than these, besides any Matrix but the first. I find it hard to imagine that these movies would be more well regarded if their author weren't so subject to cult-like worship and if the technology and scope of the flicks weren't so compelling at the time of their production. I'm confident time will bear me out that the direction in these films was unexceptional and the raves for them were very firmly fixed in their time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree completely. The three movies are excellent. It is more than just technology. I don't think Peter Jackson's cult could have had that much impact, the love for the movies came from all over the place.
Also, I don't think that the fact that the books are famous is the reason that they are where they are. Many people hadn't heard of the story before. The trilogy was a hit everywhere. For example, it was a hit in LatinAmerica, and I don't think Tolkien was read that much in LatinAmerica (at least not before the epic success of the movies). Another thing to point out is that Harry Potter is a much more popular book and yet the movies don't get the critical acclaim that LOTR gets.
You may not like it, you have your reasons, but I have to disagree with the "time will tell". I think this will be remembered for many years. It will be shown to future generations alongside Star Wars as the best fantasy trilogies.

[/ QUOTE ]

The movie didn't get made in or for Latin America. There is always a place or culture that doesn't know another one's stories, but Lord of the Rings is something extremely well known in America, which is the major market the film was produced for and by.

The jokes about the films being a lot of walking hit on how slow the pacing can be. What is exceptional about this series of movies are its use of CGI to make an animated character with believable acting, the rescue of a much-loved series that has been botched in filmic versions before, and its scope and length. Some would argue that the film has the virtues of themes of its books, which resonate strongly with them. Fair enough. These don't seem to me to be lasting or unexceptional virtues.

The comparison to Star Wars is a good one, though. That's also a film and series with high points but much bungling, and the original is more exceptional now that it's a nostalgic tug from our childhoods than it was when it came out and was a simple, fun movie about cowboys in space.

At least the pacing was a little tighter.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uhhhh...Aren't we kind of forgetting Crouching Tiger,Hidden Dragon and Spiderman 2? Sorry if they aren't boring or vapid, but they are great movies by any standards. Just in case you think I am some kind of action movie junkie, my favorite movie
is 'The Grapes of Wrath'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did consider Crouching Tiger, but I think the Spiderman movies are just not very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked the first one a lot, but was disappointed with the second one.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did consider Crouching Tiger, but I think the Spiderman movies are just not very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I have a serious question? I loved Spiderman 1 and 2 and thought they were terrific entertainment and well done (haven't seen 3 yet). I have avoided Crouching Tiger because I suspect strongly I wouldn't like it.

Why is it that film geeks, uh, er, I mean film afficianados pretty much hate on anything the general public likes and get hard ons for foreign obscurities that 99 out of 100 people would consider torture to sit through? Personally I hate foreign movies and subtitles in general because I can't focus on the visuals. I also think that movies of the past 10 or 20 years aren't all that great as a whole as whizbang special effects have taken over. I like the older stuff. Gimme the 40's through the 70's. I love classic Hollywood. But I do watch a wide variety of movies and like a lot of them. I turn a lot of them off very early on as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The average guy makes shows like Gimme a Break etc. ad nauseam big hits. The average person likes eating at McDonalds.

It's not that having different tastes makes you a snob.

If you are turned off to movies just because they have subtitles, you can't ascribe those faults to the movie or say people who are willing to deal with subtitles are snobs or out of sync with what god-fearing, decent Americans like, or whatever. It's not the films, and it's not the people who give them a fair chance. It's you.

[Blarg]

On LOTR and to Dom on Sex and Lucia:

I didn't really hate LOTR, just was very disappointed that it didn't come anywhere near to living up to my expectations according to reviews of almost everyone, pro or guy about the neighborhood. Maybe no movies could live up to that hype, but I felt the trilogy fell dramatically short. I honestly also found the acting not so hot in some places. The camera got stuffed in the face of that CGI guy a lot, and I felt some of his acting felt strained and trite. I was disappointed I was supposed to be so awestruck by it. It let me down.

On Sex and Lucia, I felt similarly unsurprised. It felt more like a bit of a limp mood piece with softcore in it to me.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did consider Crouching Tiger, but I think the Spiderman movies are just not very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I have a serious question? I loved Spiderman 1 and 2 and thought they were terrific entertainment and well done (haven't seen 3 yet). I have avoided Crouching Tiger because I suspect strongly I wouldn't like it.

Why is it that film geeks, uh, er, I mean film afficianados pretty much hate on anything the general public likes and get hard ons for foreign obscurities that 99 out of 100 people would consider torture to sit through? Personally I hate foreign movies and subtitles in general because I can't focus on the visuals. I also think that movies of the past 10 or 20 years aren't all that great as a whole as whizbang special effects have taken over. I like the older stuff. Gimme the 40's through the 70's. I love classic Hollywood. But I do watch a wide variety of movies and like a lot of them. I turn a lot of them off very early on as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I love a good Hollywood escapist film as much as the next guy! Give me Casino Royal, the Bourne movies, LOTR, Mission Impossible...I love them all..heck, I even enjoyed Armegeddon.

I just think the Spiderman movies are not very good, that's all. The first one was decent...the second one bored me to tears and I haven't seen the third one.

As for your subtitles/foreign film hate, I think Blarg castigated you better than I could. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[NozeCandy]

If the second Spiderman bored you, the third will just make you angry. If I had driven my car to the theater that night, I would have left early, and I never leave early.

[John Cole]

Okay, a few more alternates:

Michael Haneke's Code Unknown, The Piano Teacher, and Hidden.

Bela Tarr's Wermeister Harmonies.

Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven.

Miyazaki's Spirited Away.

Guy Maddin's The Saddest Music in the World (If Lynch has been influenced by Maya Deren, then what's gotten into Maddin?)

Terrence Malick's The New World.

Michael Winterbottom's Tristram Shandy: A [censored](Are you really censoring "[censored]"?) and Bull Story.

For its story and acting, I like Patrice Leconte's Man on a Train but couldn't put it into the top ten.

Michael Mann's Collateral (What the hell, I love Mann's films, and it seems a homage of sorts to Le Samouri.)

My favorite as well is In the Mood for Love. (And I was disappointed with 2046, its "sequel.")