My "Best" Of The Decade

[oscar jubis]

This list, and the forthcoming list of foreign-language films is what, based on my own experience and thought, constitutes the best films released in the decade that is about to end. These are the films (the kind of cinema) that have inspired me to pursue a career in the field of film studies, to embark on a brand new adventure as a approach a half century of living. It goes without saying that I think films are important. I think cinema is the modern manifestation of a very old human need to tell stories and to create representations of our existence, of our being.

The titles below represent the films that have given me the most pleasure, edification; the films that have nurtured me and inspired me the most over the past ten years. The films are listed in rough chronological order of world premiere. The three titles followed by an * are documentaries. I intended to list 20. Then I decided to leave one slot available for a film yet to be discovered or a film I have seen yet to reveal all its glory.

THE HOUSE OF MIRTH (Terence Davies) 2000
MULHOLLAND DR. (David Lynch) 2001
A.I. (Spielberg-Kubrick) 2001
APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX (Francis Ford Coppola) 2001
ARARAT (Atom Egoyan) 2002
BLOODY SUNDAY (Paul Greengrass) 2002
THE CENTURY OF THE SELF* (Adam Curtis) 2002
SPIDER (David Cronenberg) 2002
25TH HOUR (Spike Lee) 2002
THE PIANIST (Roman Polanski) 2002
THE CORPORATION* (Abbott/Achbar) 2003
BEFORE SUNSET (Richard Linklater) 2004
SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL: THE JOURNEY OF ROMEO DALLAIRE* (Peter Raymont) 2004
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (Michel Gondry) 2004
YES (Sally Potter) 2004
AWAY FROM HER (Sarah Polley) 2006
HALF NELSON (Ryan Fleck-Anna Boden) 2006
CHOP SHOP (Ramin Bahrani) 2007
GOODBYE SOLO (Ramin Bahrani) 2008

[cinemabon]

In a decade that introduced us to Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, AI is the last movie of the decade I believe needs recognition. I hated that film and I can't stand your justification for it. To me, its child abuse... and we endlessly debated this both privately and in public, Oscar.

However, that said:

The first Harry Potter film was good.

The whole Lord of the Rings trilogy was outstanding.

Erin Brokovich (2000)

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Lord of the Rings: the fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Spirited Away (2002)

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Lost in Translation (2003)

More later.... I gotta go... wife is calling

[tabuno]

2008 - Top Ten List

The Reader
Mama Mia!!!
Body of Lies

Honorable Mention List

The Women
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Changeling

2007 - Top Ten List

Atonement
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
He Was a Quiet Man

Honorable Mention List

Nanny Diaries
1408
Gone Baby Gone

2005 - Top Ten List

North Country
Crash

Honorable Mention List

Memoirs of a Geisha

2004 - Top Ten List

Dogville

Honorable Mention List

Touching the Void
Kill Bill Vol. 2
The Aviator


2003

Honorable Mention List

Fear and Trembling
Lost in Translation

2002 - Top Ten List

Mulholland Drive

Honorable Mention List

Punch-Drunk Love

2001

Honorable Mention List

Moulin Rouge
Spirited Away


2000

Honorable Mention List

House of Mirth

[cinemabon]

Let's see... I left off in 2003. I don't believe you said "top ten" so I will just mention a few or so from each year I deemed significant to me...

Hotel Riwanda (2004)
The Aviator (2004)
Sideways (2004)
The Incredibles (2004)

Capote (2005)
Good night and good luck (2005)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Howl's Moving Castle (2005)
Memoirs of a geisha (2005)

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
(I was not impressed with this year)

No film from 2007 is worth mentioning at all except "Sicko"

Milk (2008)
Wall-e (2008)
The Dark Knight (2008)
Slumdog millionaire (2008)
The Reader (2008)
Encounters at the end of the world (2008)
Waltz with Bashir (2008)

2008 made up for the previous two years.

I mentioned a film on my list for different reasons: first, I like the movie, the story, the acting, etc. Secondly, its impact on film history; and third, is it socially relevent to its time and true to its subject matter.

I thought sequels drove away box office in some cases, while franchises such as Spiderman, Harry Potter, James Bond, and even Superman did well based on previous releases. Even Shrek brought in major box office receipts. Despite his anti-semiticism, Mel Gibson laughed all the way to the money changers in the temple with his "Passion of the Christ." Lucas continued to milk Star Wars on television. IMAX theaters popped up everywhere this decade (more than doubled their numbers). Animation improved to the point of realism ("Christmas Carol") and documentary film moved to the darkside of the Iraqi War ("Taxi to the dark side"). When filmmakers tried to "cash" in on a 911 disaster movie, theater-goers stayed away in droves. Historical epic movies such as "Troy" and "Alexander" bombed. While fantasy epics such as "Lord of the Rings" brought in monumental profits for New Line Cinema. Small independent films made new inroads to the Oscars, such as Juno, Sideways, and Little Miss Sunshine - all premiered at Sundance, not at Cannes. Previously taboo film subjects such as homosexuality took center stage with Brokeback Mountain and Milk. These films stirred national debate to right some long overdue wrongs when it comes to gay rights.

Although we had a dunce leader for most of the decade and the stock market crashed for the second time, we did see some improvements in film's depth and social impact. 2000-2009 may not be the best decade in film, but it certainly helped film advance forward in many ways.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
AI is the last movie of the decade I believe needs recognition. I hated that film and I can't stand your justification for it. To me, its child abuse...

Well, technically it is mecha abuse.
Maybe I am a masochist or a glutton for punishment. Here I am again quoting you and consequently giving you another opportunity to tell me how much you hate something I love. You realize (I'm sure) that the abuser in A.I. is a child, the human child of Monica and Martin who returns to his parental home years after a cure for his fatal disease is found. His name is Martin. He realizes that his parents, as a way to fill the void he left, have bought a "mecha" named David who is capable of loving. Child proceeds to abuse mecha and to manipulate his parents into thinking they need to get rid of "it" (David).

The film is a posthumous statement from Stanley Kubrick brought into being by a sympathetic interpreter (Spielberg). One of the inherent questions in 2001 is whether HAL 9000 is human or partly human since he can experience feelings such as jealousy and contempt. And consequently, if HAL 9000 is human or partly human, whether that puts the human beings who created it in the same realm as gods? A.I. elaborates on those notions to ponder the nature of love, being human, and the concept of god.

In order for the film to truly work, one has to feel, as you seem to feel, that David's pains and joys are those of a "real boy".

[cinemabon]

Patooie on such rationalization and all those who support this fine yet supremely misguided intellectual.

I'm laughing, of course, because we covered this ground before. I love this post. It will give everyone a chance to voice their opinion of the decade. Good choice, Oscar.

[oscar jubis]

In previous posts, I had detailed the collaborative process between Kubrick and Spielberg but I hadn't made the connection between 2001 and A.I.. I also came across a comment by a former poster who liked the film except for the too-sweet, too-optimistic ending in which David outlives the entire human race and gets to spend a day with a briefly resurrected Monica. I am aware we need to avoid regurgitating the same arguments but I felt I had something to say I hadn't said before.

I am glad you think this thread is a good idea. Except for one film you listed and one film Tab listed, the titles in both of your lists have refreshed memories of films I have enjoyed this decade. My foreign-language list of 19 "bests" is forthcoming.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't know how all this discussion took place without my noticing when I thought the site was down!

Just a note to say, Oscar, that the choice of AI seems to me quite justified. I have always been enormously impressed by it both emotionally and technically (yes, and intellectually too) and disagreed with its many detractors.

I've been thinking about THE CORPORATION and it's a good choice, an important, seminal even, doc. Would disagree with some of your choices, but yours is a very personal list, as indicated by including both CHOP SHOP AND GOODBYE, SOLO!

I think David Lynch is one of the great ones.

Isn't APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX cheating a bit?

Disagree with HALF NELSON as you know. That is, it's a good movie, I'll grant that much, but not extraordinary enough to single out for the whole decade.

More later.

Thanks for opening this discussion.

[Chris Knipp]

The list again:

THE HOUSE OF MIRTH (Terence Davies) 2000
MULHOLLAND DR. (David Lynch) 2001
A.I. (Spielberg-Kubrick) 2001
APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX (Francis Ford Coppola) 2001
ARARAT (Atom Egoyan) 2002
BLOODY SUNDAY (Paul Greengrass) 2002
THE CENTURY OF THE SELF* (Adam Curtis) 2002
SPIDER (David Cronenberg) 2002
25TH HOUR (Spike Lee) 2002
THE PIANIST (Roman Polanski) 2002
THE CORPORATION* (Abbott/Achbar) 2003
BEFORE SUNSET (Richard Linklater) 2004
SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL: THE JOURNEY OF ROMEO DALLAIRE* (Peter Raymont) 2004
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (Michel Gondry) 2004
YES (Sally Potter) 2004
AWAY FROM HER (Sarah Polley) 2006
HALF NELSON (Ryan Fleck-Anna Boden) 2006
CHOP SHOP (Ramin Bahrani) 2007
GOODBYE SOLO (Ramin Bahrani) 2008

I haven't begun to think about this. I don't even yet know if I can make a decade list. It seems a monumental tassk. But it seems worthwhile, both to evaluate the period and to refine one's own values and preferences.

Obviously the choices would in large part be films that have deeply moved one. That is why I consider IKIRU my all-time favorite film: because first of all it so profoundly moves me; then because it is by who I think is one of the world's greatest directors; and finally because it shows remarkable craft. But emotion is the clincher. I am sure this is true for this list.

A fourth element in the choice might (but needn't) be timeliness for the period, the decade. The inclusion of documentaries might signify that those became more important than ever during this time. Then one needs to focus on key directors of the decade, Bahrani and Ryann Fleck and Anna Boden being Oscar's most important to emerge, evidently, as maybe Wong Kar-wai was for the 90's. Cronenberg, Linkleter and Gondry also might be directors who became major during this moment. SPIDER is tight and beautifully crafted and ETERNAL SUNSHINE seems Gondry's masterpiece. AE might be seen a bridge between decades, artists, and genres.

Other directors were already notable -- Spielberg/Kubrick, Lynch, Coppola, Lee, Polanski; nothing new there; I still think APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX is irrelevant unless you think the reissue/reedit is an important form/genre, which maybe it indeed is.

I might alternately just make a list of all the movies I listed among the year's ten best that now seem forgettable. Because along with the emergence of films that stand the test of time is the equally notable way that others fade.

[oscar jubis]

The movies on my list are basically the ones that have continued to give me pleasure and edification during repeat viewings. These movies have resisted/survived my attempts to be open-minded while reading reviews which point out alleged flaws or limitations. Apocalypse Now, in either version, is probably the film I listed which has the most detractors (or at least the most notorious detractors). Both Kehr and Rosenbaum find it incoherent or confusing. Kehr wrote that the film suggests that Coppola would be happier as a painter or photographer than as a director. Kael, speaking for all of "us" (by using "we" and "our" as she favored) wrote that Coppola couldn't supply the "visionary, climactic, summing-up movie" we were ready for.Kael: "Coppola got tied up in a big knot of American self-hatred and guilt, and what the picture boiled down was: White man-he devil." The film itself, as you can see, is open to debate. I find that none of these negative statements are baseless. And yet I can make the case that for me Apocalypse Now is a great if not perfect movie.

Now finally I address the issue you bring up, Chris. I find that the 50 minutes of footage added to the original theatrical version are substantial enough. They enrich the original footage and expand its vision of both America and Vietnam. Two long scenes in particular come to mind. One involves Playboy "bunnies" flown to Vietnam to improve "morale" and another involves a family of French landowners which brings into play Vietnam's recent past as a French colony. On the other hand, the Redux version of 90s fave Ashes of Time was not substantially different or better than the original hence you won't find it in the upcoming foreign list.

Wouldn't you say that your 5,035 posts qualify you to be crowned "Mr. Filmleaf"?

[Chris Knipp]

I was defending a lot of your choices and pointing out their logic; the discussion of your decade list began with people jumping furiously on your choice of "AE," which I jumped in to support. You could respond also to that rather than speak only for my minor doubt about the choice of a redited film originally from the 1970's. Maybe the best arguments for that choice as I suggested are: that reedits are a significant category, when they're of important works; and that it's a greater film than anything that's come out in the noughties.

Re-watching is certainly the ultimate test of whether a movie holds up, but I also value how deep a groove it leaves on one's brain; whether it proves inherently memorable, or the emotional and sensory and intellectual impression it made proves more lasting than other movies'.

Coppola may seem to have failed and flailed in recent decades, yet I like his 2009 TETRO so much I'm listing it among my Best of's for this current year. And this is an underappreciated and underseen film. But it's not likely to have grooved my brain like Robert Duval relishing the beauty of napalm in the morning -- or that previously lost dinner of French colonialists.

Evaluations by critics at the time often prove "wrong" later. Not always, but often. Thus even Hoberman and Rosenbaum err. Pauline's "we" bothers you; but you probably don't admire her criticsm, and aren't old enough to appreciate the role she played as I am. (I've said this before.) Her first-person-plural usage may point to an aspiration to shared critical standards -- an idealism; a hope. It's a also reflection of her sheer audacity, and her desire to draw all of us in. But of course it's a kind of pontificating: the "editorial we" slides into the "royal we."

[oscar jubis]

Yes, I am well aware of your supportive stance on my choices here (which does not mean you love them but it means that you can find a rationale for my listing them). I started the post by explaining how I arrive at my choices, with a general audience of readers in mind (not as a defense of anything anyone has posted here). Then I brought up my belief that the choice of Coppola's film would be debatable (or dubious?) when referring to any version of the film. Finally I addressed your specific and valid concern about listing a film that, let's face it, was shot during the 70s. By the way, my choice does not imply any generalization about the value of director's cuts or expanded versions or re-edits. I just think that this version, which I consider an improvement over the original, is one of the best (in my opinion) 19 English-language movies I managed to watch in the past decade.

[Chris Knipp]

But I do love A.I, and half of the others on your list, MULHOLLAND DRIVE (or David Lynch anyway), APOCALYPSE NOW (whether or not now, or in whatever form), BLOODY SUNDAY, SPIDER, THE PIANIST, THE CORPORATION, BEFORE SUNSET, ETERNAL SUNCHINE, and GOODBYE, SOLO.

Oh yeah, they are English language, aren't they.

So that means you're not done. Probably far from it.

I'm finally about to watch MAN PUSH CART. It's come up on my queue.

If I do make a noughties Best List I won't put it in this thread -- this is yours.

CINEMABON (he's got a boner for cinema?) says nothing is worth mentioning from 2007 but SICKO. This is the year of THERE WILL BE BLOOD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, ZODIAC! SICKO probably was the most important documentary, though, at least for Americans.

[cinemabon]

Chris, I really hated those films from 2007 and won't go into it now, but you know me and gratuitous violence. I don't like filmmakers who sell tickets to audiences interested in the chop-shop.

Mr. Filmleaf... where would you put it, Oscar? Like a fig leaf?

I haven't seen "Apocalypse Now" since I saw the first and original cut in 70mm at the Bruin when Coppola premiered the work. It had no titles and did not end with the famous Jim Morrison song, "This is the end." Some people found this disturbing, which may be why Francis cut and cut and cut new versions (Aren't there three out there?) I thought the film strange then and still do. Certainly other films have explored Vietnam better than that confused work. The movie rambles on from place to place like the mind of its central character, Captain Willard (Martin Sheen), whose voice drones on with some sort of internal dialogue. I found it boring and the end silly. I hate Brando's appearance and wondered why it seemed so incomplete when Coppola stated why... he refused to pay Brando's asking price for the reshoots. So he had to use the material on hand, the same stunt Brando pulled on "The Godfather." Why he hired him after they did not get along on that set is beyond me?

Happy New Year... see you in the next decade.

[Chris Knipp]

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is certainly violent, but I've explained elsewhere how faithful to the excellent novelistic source the film is, and you can't call it gratuitous, given the sources and the motivation; that was a misreading. And THERE WILL BE BLOOD isn't really violent at all: it's about clashes of ideology and value, not of arms. As for APOCALYPSE NOW, evidently it is a masterpiece that does not appeal to everyone, but the question of why anyone would hire Brando isn't too complicated. Maybe because he's one of the greatest film actors of all time, perhaps?