NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

Open, general discussion of classic sound-era films, personalities and history.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5649
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostFri Jun 09, 2017 10:17 pm

The New York Times published a long and erudite listicle on the best films since 2000. Not sure why 17 years in is a milestone that called for such a thing, but we can play.

It's a seriously conceived list, but it left me with two contradictory thoughts. First, let me list it quickly:

1. There Will Be Blood, 2. Spirited Away, 3. Million Dollar Baby, 4. A Touch of Sin, 5. The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, 6. Yi Yi, 7. Inside Out, 8. Boyhood, 9. Summer Hours, 10. The Hurt Locker, 11. Inside Llewyn Davis, 12. Timbuktu, 13. In Jackson Heights, 14. L'Enfant, 15. White Material, 16. Munich, 17. Three Times, 18. The Gleaners and I, 19. Mad Max Fury Road, 20. Moonlight, 21. Wendy and Lucy, 22. I'm Not There, 23. Silent Light, 24. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 25. The 40-Year-Old Virgin

Now, I pay more attention to contemporary filmmaking than many here, I suspect, and even so, there's plenty of films I've just never even heard of here— A Touch of Sin, Summer Hours, Timbuktu, and so on. Others I haven't seen but have vague intentions to— I own the Criterion blu-ray of Yi-Yi, I have long meant to catch up with Romanian cinema and thus spend three hours watching Mr. Lazarescu slowly die in an uncaring hospital as if I had never seen Paddy Chayefsky's The Hospital, and so on. I'm sure many of these are, truly, worthy films, and I'm poorer for not knowing them.

But... It's what I call a hairshirt list. Grim subjects, bleakly told. In There Will Be Blood, Daniel Day-Lewis brilliantly plays a despicable character who goes from awful to worse. In Million Dollar Baby, paralysis and euthanasia are the subjects at hand. In Munich, there's an especially pornographic killing at the end which seems to be there to sour the whole idea of defending Israel. And In Jackson Heights is a Frederic Wiseman documentary—what more needs to be said?

With the exception of two cartoons (Pixar and Miyazaki, one each) and two popular hits bringing up the end (Mad Max and The 40-Year-Old Virgin), there's very little here to suggest that people go to the movies for fun, or for some kind of visionary experience that transcends ordinary reality and shows them something special. You don't have to like the way Inception turns the real and the dream world inside out, or the cartoon world of Wes Anderson dancing over the abyss of fascism in The Grand Budapest Hotel, or the Coen Brothers giving us a pair of revisionist takes on a beloved genre, the western, in True Grit and No Country For Old Men, or the affecting human drama in a fearsomely intellectual sci-fi tale in The Arrival, or the wonder of being in Brian Wilson's cracked head as he creates Pet Sounds in Love and Mercy, or the unprecedented epic sweep and command of CGI of The Lord of the Rings, or far and away the best depiction of the age of sailing ships ever put on film in Master and Commander, or a Bond reinvented not only with heart and soul but the stunning cinematography of Roger Deakins in Skyfall...

...but if you don't like any of those and keep picking neorealist dramas-slash-small scale tragedies from the Dardennes brothers and Hou Hsiao-Hsien, I kind of feel like you don't really like movies, at least not in the ways that I do. (And I've seen three Tarkovsky films in the last month, so I'm not exactly Mr. Pop Culture myself.) It's certainly not a list that seems all that interested in actors, to name one thing many of us like about movies— other than Day-Lewis' tour-de-sociopathy at the start, it's hard to even name who's in most of these.

I could make my own list, certainly, for one just by starting to substitute other films from the same directors (American Sniper or Sully for Eastwood, for instance; the wonderfully sly Carlos, a subtly satirical take on the terrorist Carlos the Jackal with a Nicholson-in-his-prime performance from Edgar Ramirez, over Olivier Assayas' Summer Hours, whatever that is). I won't indulge in that entirely; I'll just note that if I was going to list the 2000s movie I've seen the most, offhand it would probably be Talladega Nights, way too absurd and goofy for this list, yet endlessly, wonderfully quotable.

But really, I think the comparison is to earlier "best movies of all time" lists, like the first Sight & Sound poll in 1952 or the Brussels' World Fair list in 1958. Heavy on foreign art films and Hollywood martyrs like Griffith, Welles, and Stroheim, documentaries from Flaherty, allowing only Chaplin in as a representative of the idea that the movies might actually be fun. A pair of clear messages that the art of cinema was noble, sober, steeped in European culture and certainly not to be found, except briefly by mistake, in commercial cinema from that awful place Hollywood.

But decades pass and eventually the same list is finding high art in precisely that, commercial cinema— Hitchcock, Ford, Singin' in the Rain. I wouldn't bet against the same thing happening for the first 17 years of the 21st century. As Reese Bobby says in Talladega Nights, "If you're not first, you're last."
“Sentimentality is when it doesn't come off—when it does, you get a true expression of life's sorrows.” —Alain-Fournier
Online
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5197
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 5:04 am

I read the piece yesteray and concluded it's the Times, Michael. It's hard enough to tell what the great works of art were after the captains and the kings have departed. Caught between their history and the rise of the Internet, they are struggling to become meaningful to a younger generation as their main audience dies off and their revenue dries up. They're like that annoying neighbor, talking to the kid who is so proud of the dance vines he posts to Youtube. He'll reply with a long anecdote about the time he met Margot Fonteyn at a reception for the ambassador from Yugoslavia. The kid will understand about a quarter of the words, nod respectfully and tell my niece that I'm losing it.

The Times is still drunk with sight of power. They want to get their fawning opinion of their hoped-for audience on the peg before they vanish entirely.


Bob
Last edited by boblipton on Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
The matter is complicated, and I shall proceed to complicate it still more.

-- Avram Davidson
Offline
User avatar

Mitch Farish

  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:30 am
  • Location: Charlottesville, VA

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 10:02 am

I guess most lists are made by hardcore cineastes (people who love using terms like mise en scène) instead of those who just want to be entertained. The same kind of people usually start off suggested silent film lists with titles like Intolerance, The Passion of Joan of Arc, and Pandora's Box instead of The Thief of Bagdad or The General, etc.
Online
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5197
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 12:15 pm

Mitch Farish wrote:I guess most lists are made by hardcore cineastes (people who love using terms like mise en scène) instead of those who just want to be entertained. The same kind of people usually start off suggested silent film lists with titles like Intolerance, The Passion of Joan of Arc, and Pandora's Box instead of The Thief of Bagdad or The General, etc.



Um, no. Unless by "cineaste" you mean "pompous blowhard."

Bob
The matter is complicated, and I shall proceed to complicate it still more.

-- Avram Davidson
Offline
User avatar

Saint-Just

  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:15 pm

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 1:01 pm

Have there been 25 good movies since 2000?
Online
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5197
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 1:05 pm

Yes there have. However, the answer is equally correct as an emphatic No there haven't.

Bob
The matter is complicated, and I shall proceed to complicate it still more.

-- Avram Davidson
Offline

earlytalkiebuffRob

  • Posts: 2757
  • Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:53 am

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 2:17 pm

Anyone else out there with a zero score? And I HAVE seen some post-2000 films...
Offline
User avatar

Brooksie

  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:41 pm
  • Location: Portland, Oregon via Sydney, Australia

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 6:41 pm

I fully expect to watch Spirited Away and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind ten, twenty or thirty years from now, and probably Mad Max: Fury Road too. Of the others I've seen, the majority fall into the category of 'saw it, feel no need to see it again'. At least one (L'Enfant) I actively loathed as an exercise in artistic narcissism.

It's going on twenty years since I learned my most important cinematic lesson. After studying film and literature at university - much of which was good, worthy and (remember this word) admirable, I went to see There's Something About Mary (1998). It's rude, it's crude, it makes little significant contribution to our understanding of the human condition - but damn it, it's bloody funny. I realised that I had spent three years admiring films and had lost sight of the idea of liking them. The compass of my personal taste had been jammed on 'important'. This freed it up to take in 'important', 'unimportant' and everything in between.

The short version - a revelation that has guided my cinemagoing ever since - is that it's OK to like a film. Doesn't have to be a piece of genius. Doesn't have to be profound. Doesn't have to be completely brainless, either. I just need to come out having enjoyed it.
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2825
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 7:09 pm

Brooksie wrote:I fully expect to watch .... I realised that I had spent three years admiring films and had lost sight of the idea of liking them. The compass of my personal taste had been jammed on 'important'. This freed it up to take in 'important', 'unimportant' and everything in between.

The short version - a revelation that has guided my cinemagoing ever since - is that it's OK to like a film. Doesn't have to be a piece of genius. Doesn't have to be profound. Doesn't have to be completely brainless, either. I just need to come out having enjoyed it.


My thesis on watching films is succinct. I just ask myself whether it entertained me. If the answer is yes, then I may qualify my observation by adding "how much". If the score is high then I judge it to be a good picture. Another qualifier is the memory test. Do I remember a picture after having seen it? If the memory is not there after a fortnight or so, then a would have to re-qualify what is a "good picture". Of course these qualifiers go out the window when one remembers having seen a good picture when one was in one's salad days, then bung it on again some 40 or so years later and finds the whole thing has got the foot rot.
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."
Offline
User avatar

Brooksie

  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:41 pm
  • Location: Portland, Oregon via Sydney, Australia

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 7:28 pm

The Guardian's take on the list picks up a point that has occurred to me:

Since networked TV has stopped screening films from the back catalogue, historical perspective is certainly harder to come by. So, unless an inspiring teacher is on hand to introduce the next generation of teenagers to the first version of Ben Hur or to original film noir, all lists of classic films will soon be drawn from just the last decade or two.


The first classic films I ever saw came from the time when old films functioned as the padding between newer material. It was very easy to stumble upon things. Today, that padding seems to be infomercials and cheap reality shows, and as the network television gradually gives way to a la carte/on demand models, the ability to find yourself watching something you wouldn't have sought out otherwise is diminishing.
Offline
User avatar

Christopher Jacobs

Moderator

  • Posts: 2287
  • Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:53 pm
  • Location: Grand Forks, North Dakota

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 8:13 pm

All "Top Film Lists" are subjective, according to the tastes, whims, and sociopolitical agendas of the creators of the list. These particular titles are all given good, persuasive reasons why they might be worth watching, but this seems to be merely a "favorite recent films" list, as it makes about as much sense to choose a top 25 of the 21st century using films from 2000 through 2017 as it would have been to choose a top 25 films of the 20th century covering the years 1900 through 1917 (which might actually be more fun to do, despite so much from that era now being lost forever).

Of the films in this really oddly-timed New York Times list, I've seen eleven. Seven of them I'd never even heard of before, and seven I either have never gotten around to watching or never felt the desire to see (only two of those seven are films I plan to see in the foreseeable future).

There might be three titles from the Times list that I'd keep in a top 25 (out of those I've actually seen): the brilliantly conceived and intricately executed Michael Gondry/Charlie Kaufman sci-fi comedy-drama-romance ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, Richard Linklater's amazing generation-long family project BOYHOOD, and perhaps Zhanke Jia's complexly structured and powerful study of random violence in modern China A TOUCH OF SIN.

SPIRITED AWAY may be good, iconic Miyazaki but is it really better than a more serious late Miyazaki effort like THE WIND RISES, among other of his films? And for recent cell-animated films, the Irish-made THE SECRET OF KELLS is first-rate, well-worth recognizing on this sort of list.

THE DEATH OF MR. LAZARESCU is probably worth suffering through once, but Lee Chang-dong's Korean film POETRY is far more thoughtful, moving, and bittersweet, as well as far more beautiful cinematically.

I liked both YI YI and SUMMER HOURS quite a bit, and they are well-worth seeing perhaps more than once, but ranking in the top 25 from the past 15 years? Probably not. The Japanese drama STILL WALKING, the 2012 Chinese reimagining of DANGEROUS LIAISONS, and the 2008 French film UN CONTE DE NOEL are at least as good. And Kathryn Bigelow's THE HURT LOCKER is a powerful film, but I prefer her ZERO DARK THIRTY, or for other true-life Mideast thrillers Ben Affleck's ARGO.

Rather than Clint Eastwood's MILLION DOLLAR BABY, which I was not particularly fond of, I'd rank his LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA and GRAN TORINO much, much higher, as well as his AMERICAN SNIPER.

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is probably my least favorite of all the Coen brothers' films from their entire career. I'd say the best Coen brothers films of the 21st century so far are THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU, and HAIL CAESAR or even their TRUE GRIT. Any one of those is more deserving of a top 25 ranking.

INSIDE OUT is a film I've been intending to see eventually, but is it just a token Pixar title? Is it really any better than RATATOUILLE or UP or TOY STORY 3? MAD MAX FURY ROAD sounded promising, but I've never gotten around to it. The other five I haven't seen held little appeal and no urgent "must-see" quality. Those seven films I'd never heard of I cannot comment on.

A dozen more worthy candidates not in the Times list might include THE TREE OF LIFE, REVANCHE, OF GODS AND MEN, BLANCANIEVES, KID WITH A BIKE, SAMSARA, PINA (a dance film that MUST be seen in 3-D or it has a fraction of the impact), SEXY BEAST, BIRDMAN, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, MACBETH (2015), the wildly ambitious CLOUD ATLAS, and many others.
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2825
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 9:33 pm

I haven't seen a lot of the films on the above list - nor would I walk across the road to do so in some instances. "Birdman" I would put on my list as one of the worst pictures ever made. Also making that list would be "Moonlight" and "Lobster" - but then, hey, as you say, making any type of list is only subjective.
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."
Offline
User avatar

Christopher Jacobs

Moderator

  • Posts: 2287
  • Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:53 pm
  • Location: Grand Forks, North Dakota

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 10:46 pm

Brooksie wrote:The Guardian's take on the list picks up a point that has occurred to me:

Since networked TV has stopped screening films from the back catalogue, historical perspective is certainly harder to come by. So, unless an inspiring teacher is on hand to introduce the next generation of teenagers to the first version of Ben Hur or to original film noir, all lists of classic films will soon be drawn from just the last decade or two.


The first classic films I ever saw came from the time when old films functioned as the padding between newer material. It was very easy to stumble upon things. Today, that padding seems to be infomercials and cheap reality shows, and as the network television gradually gives way to a la carte/on demand models, the ability to find yourself watching something you wouldn't have sought out otherwise is diminishing.


That Guardian article is a good followup on the NYT list, but as one comment noted, it did not seem to realize that the list's purpose was to cover films only from 2000 to the present, and not films over 20 years old. Like that writer, I was tempted to add WADJDA to my list of notable omitted titles, if not also Jafar Panahi's TAXI, and agree that THE WHITE RIBBON should also be under consideration (not to mention THE ARTIST and NEBRASKA and perhaps Joss Whedon's lovely take on MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, to include a few more modern black-and-white productions).

If such lists achieve anything, it is to get people talking and hopefully thinking and even checking out films they might not otherwise have been aware of or considered watching. But again, they're all a matter of personal taste. On the other hand, the more people see, the more their tastes can shift, mature, broaden, and mellow. Classic films are easier to find in high-quality versions than ever before. The trick is getting more people to watch them. Thoughtful and intriguing modern films are being made every year. The trick is getting their audiences to be aware they exist and how to find them. It's also good to watch and/or revisit movies outside of one's comfort zone on occasion (old, new, domestic, or foreign) to extend one's experience and appreciation.

It helps to follow a variety of reviews to decide what might ultimately appeal or disgust, as all films always have completely opposite reactions by one critic or another, professional and amateur "user reviewer" alike (take David Lynch's BLUE VELVET or MULHOLLAND DRIVE, for example, or Andrea Arnold's WUTHERING HEIGHTS or FISH TANK), and the same people who love or hate a movie on its release may discover they feel the opposite five or ten or twenty years later.
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5649
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 11:23 pm

I was not impressed by The White Ribbon because I didn't buy its central premise, that various acts of sexism and brutality were signs of incipient fascism. To me they were just signs that it was the 19th century.

Been thinking about what my other top omissions so far would be. Here are two: The Lives of Others, a superb film about life under Communism, and the documentary about Philip Petit, who walked a wire between the twin towers, Man On a Wire.

The country that's missing? South Korea, so far as I can tell. The best modern crime dramas come from South Korea.
“Sentimentality is when it doesn't come off—when it does, you get a true expression of life's sorrows.” —Alain-Fournier
Offline

dr.giraud

  • Posts: 743
  • Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:15 pm
  • Location: Albany, N.Y.

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 12:54 am

Mike Gebert wrote:I was not impressed by The White Ribbon because I didn't buy its central premise, that various acts of sexism and brutality were signs of incipient fascism. To me they were just signs that it was the 19th century.


Ha! I saw this, completely by accident, at a midweek matinee with just me and about 20 elderly Germans (who were there in a group). They yapped in German through the first 15 minutes, then got very quiet for the duration--it struck some kind of nerve.

As for the Times list, I particularly don't get MUNICH--it seemed to me just another earnest Spielberg failure, especially compared to his superior LINCOLN. I think they felt bad that HURT LOCKER was their only war/terrorism pick.

I also don't get Judd Apatow--he seems to me to be anti-comedy in his stodgy search for normalcy and order, and his view of male-female relationships makes Ozzie & Harriet seem like Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice.
dr. giraud
Online
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5197
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 4:45 am

I've seen fourteen of them. Spirited Away is one of my favorite movies, but that simply means it hits my peculiar buttons. I see that my high opinion of American Sniper is supported by several of my fellow Nitratevillains, but does anyone expect a bastion of modern Liberalism like the Times to portray an American, as opposed tom say, a Palestinian man who shoots people for the army as a good guy?

I am particularly fond of the Coen's True Grit, but not because it is "revisionist" -- I have no idea what that loaded term is supposed to mean in this context, other than it is a remake. I adore it because the Coens clearly decided that there should be another John Ford western and made one impeccably.

In the end, all efforts at "best movies about cross-dressing sociopaths" or "Best movies of the last seventeen years, and then you can forget the rest" are didactic and preening. If the eleven movies I haven't seen cross my path, I'll record, watch and rate them on the IMDb and perhaps here. However, unlike Helmuth, I speak neither for Boskone nor the Eternal Truth, just for myself at the moment I open my mouth. Just like the New York Times.

Bob
The matter is complicated, and I shall proceed to complicate it still more.

-- Avram Davidson
Offline

earlytalkiebuffRob

  • Posts: 2757
  • Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:53 am

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 2:02 pm

Donald Binks wrote:
Brooksie wrote:I fully expect to watch .... I realised that I had spent three years admiring films and had lost sight of the idea of liking them. The compass of my personal taste had been jammed on 'important'. This freed it up to take in 'important', 'unimportant' and everything in between.

The short version - a revelation that has guided my cinemagoing ever since - is that it's OK to like a film. Doesn't have to be a piece of genius. Doesn't have to be profound. Doesn't have to be completely brainless, either. I just need to come out having enjoyed it.


My thesis on watching films is succinct. I just ask myself whether it entertained me. If the answer is yes, then I may qualify my observation by adding "how much". If the score is high then I judge it to be a good picture. Another qualifier is the memory test. Do I remember a picture after having seen it? If the memory is not there after a fortnight or so, then a would have to re-qualify what is a "good picture". Of course these qualifiers go out the window when one remembers having seen a good picture when one was in one's salad days, then bung it on again some 40 or so years later and finds the whole thing has got the foot rot.


Of course one has to qualify this with a definition of 'entertain', which some may see in the idea of 'light entertainment'. It should also encompass a work which holds the interest or attention, whatever its tone or content...
Online
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5197
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 2:12 pm

"He who'd make his fellow creature wise,
Should always gild the philosophic pill"
-- W.S. Gilbert
The matter is complicated, and I shall proceed to complicate it still more.

-- Avram Davidson
Offline
User avatar

Arndt

  • Posts: 1173
  • Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:02 pm
  • Location: Germany

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 3:09 pm

Christopher Jacobs wrote:INSIDE OUT is a film I've been intending to see eventually, but is it just a token Pixar title? Is it really any better than RATATOUILLE or UP or TOY STORY 3?


Yes.
MELIOR
Offline

Daniel Eagan

  • Posts: 717
  • Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:14 am

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 5:24 pm

Mike Gebert wrote:The New York Times published a long and erudite listicle on the best films since 2000. Not sure why 17 years in is a milestone that called for such a thing, but we can play.

It's a seriously conceived list, but it left me with two contradictory thoughts. First, let me list it quickly:

1. There Will Be Blood, 2. Spirited Away, 3. Million Dollar Baby, 4. A Touch of Sin, 5. The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, 6. Yi Yi, 7. Inside Out, 8. Boyhood, 9. Summer Hours, 10. The Hurt Locker, 11. Inside Llewyn Davis, 12. Timbuktu, 13. In Jackson Heights, 14. L'Enfant, 15. White Material, 16. Munich, 17. Three Times, 18. The Gleaners and I, 19. Mad Max Fury Road, 20. Moonlight, 21. Wendy and Lucy, 22. I'm Not There, 23. Silent Light, 24. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 25. The 40-Year-Old Virgin

Now, I pay more attention to contemporary filmmaking than many here, I suspect, and even so, there's plenty of films I've just never even heard of here— A Touch of Sin, Summer Hours, Timbuktu, and so on. Others I haven't seen but have vague intentions to— I own the Criterion blu-ray of Yi-Yi, I have long meant to catch up with Romanian cinema and thus spend three hours watching Mr. Lazarescu slowly die in an uncaring hospital as if I had never seen Paddy Chayefsky's The Hospital, and so on. I'm sure many of these are, truly, worthy films, and I'm poorer for not knowing them.

But... It's what I call a hairshirt list. Grim subjects, bleakly told. In There Will Be Blood, Daniel Day-Lewis brilliantly plays a despicable character who goes from awful to worse. In Million Dollar Baby, paralysis and euthanasia are the subjects at hand. In Munich, there's an especially pornographic killing at the end which seems to be there to sour the whole idea of defending Israel. And In Jackson Heights is a Frederic Wiseman documentary—what more needs to be said?


I agree that this list looks very medicinal. Like voters polled before the election, Scott and Dargis give answers they think they should, movies you should see rather than films they actually like. Because I think Dargis would have included at least one Johnnie To, one Hirokazu Kore-Ede movie.

I respect the titles on the list but don't particularly like many of them. I agree I would have put a different Eastwood, a different Coen brothers, much less European miserablism. Hou Hsiao-Hsien, the Dardennes, Kelly Reichardt, Lazarescu — accomplished filmmakers whose work fails to move me.

But I would defend a few titles. I am a big admirer of Pixar, I probably would have included a Toy Story and maybe even The Incredibles. On the other hand Inside Out is one of the most generous and intellectually exciting animated features I've ever seen. It deals with death and disillusionment in a devastating but still kid-friendly way, has the best Tex Avery gags this century, and on every level is simply astonishing.

I'm also a big Assayas fan, I even found reasons to like his cheesey attempt to cash in on Kristen Stewart (Personal Shopper). Summer Hours stunned me, it was a warm, beautiful, evocative look at a family dealing with its identity and purpose after a death everyone knew was coming. I watched it breathlessly. It had so much more feeling and technical expertise than Carlos, which I also loved. You sort of take things like cinematography, design, music, and acting for granted in his work, but Summer Hours was remarkably good in all those aspects.

And I've often approached Frederick Wiseman's movies as punishment for liking Dwayne Johnson movies. Long, slow studies of topics that didn't interest me, explored in exhausting detail. Five minutes into In Jackson Heights I was sold. Wiseman somehow fastened on one of the crucial issues in our country today, immigration, and found an actual melting pot neighborhood where all the problems associated with it played out in real time in front of your eyes. Without preaching or making obvious statements, Wiseman covers the politics, religion, economics, and social concerns of a community of strivers, giving voice to those who are rarely heard. One Mexican woman describing efforts to rescue her daughter, kidnapped by coyotes when she tried to cross the border, is worth every political speech I've heard since the election. The final scene is simultaneously uplifting and heartbreaking. This is narrative filmmaking on the highest level, made by a man in his eighties whose style is so fluid and unobtrusive that at times you don't even realize how you are being led.
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2825
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 7:47 pm

I dragged out the list of all of this century's* pictures I have had a look at. I then extracted those pictures that have entertained me in one way or another or have, to my mind, been worth the money paid to look at them. I haven't put this list in any order - nor have I bothered to try and pick ten best. I just thought it might be of some little value. Some of you will no doubt say "My. God! How could he have sat through such balderdash?" Whilst, on the other hand it may cause a few to look up some titles they are not familiar with. Anyway, here it is:-

ALONE IN BERLIN 2016
CAFE SOCIETY 2016
CHURCHILL'S SECRET 2016
DENIAL 2016
THE FINEST HOURS 2016
FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS 2016
GENIUS 2016
HAIL CAESAR 2016
A HOLOGRAM FOR THE KING 2016
I.T. 2016
KONGENS NEI 2016
MAIGRET SETS A TRAP 2016
MAIGRET'S DEAD MAN 2016
RACE 2016
SULLY 2016
YOUTH IN OREGON 2016
45 YEARS 2015
THE AGE OF ADALINE 2015
THE BIG SHORT 2015
BRIDGE OF SPIES 2015
BROOKLYN 2015
THE DANISH GIRL 2015
THE DRESSMAKER 2015
THE INTERN 2015
ITHACA 2015
L'ETUDIANTE ET MONSIEUR HENRI 2015
LAST CAB TO DARWIN 2015
THE LEGEND OF BARNEY THOMPSON 2015
LITTLE BOY 2015
A MAN CALLED OVE 2015
THE MAN WHO KNEW INFINITY 2015
MARGUERITE 2015
MOONWALKERS 2015
A PATCH OF FOG 2015
REMEMBER 2015
A ROYAL NIGHT OUT 2015
SECOND BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL, The 2015
SPOTLIGHT 2015
WOMAN IN GOLD 2015
5 FLIGHTS UP 2014
THE ANGRIEST MAN IN BROOKLYN 2014
THE BEAT BENEATH MY FEET 2014
BOULEVARD 2014
BOY CHOIR 2014
CALVARY 2014
CASTLES IN THE SKY 2014
DYING OF THE LIGHT 2014
ELSA AND FRED 2014
THE HUNDRED FOOT JOURNEY 2014
THE IMITATION GAME 2014
LEARNING TO DRIVE 2014
LILTING 2014
LOVE IS STRANGE 2014
MISS MEADOWS 2014
MR. TURNER 2014
PADDINGTON 2014
PAPER PLANES 2014
PIGEON SAT ON A BRANCH REFLECTING ON EXISTENCE, A 2014
PRIDE 2014
ST.VINCENT 2014
THAT DAY WE SANG 2014
WELCOME TO ME 2014
WHAT WE DID ON OUR HOLIDAY 2014
WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS 2014
ALL IS LOST 2013
THE BOOK THIEF 2013
CAPTAIN PHILLIPS 2013
LA CAGE DOREE 2013
NEBRASKA 2013
PHILOMENA 2013
SAVING MR. BANKS 2013
STILL LIFE 2013
LE WEEKEND 2013
AMOUR 2012
ARBITRAGE 2012
BLANCANIEVES 2012
FLIGHT 2012
HITCHCOCK 2012
LINCOLN 2012
MOONRISE KINGDOM 2012
QUARTET 2012
ROBOT FRANK 2012
STILL MINE 2012
THE ARTIST 2011
BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL, The 2011
J. EDGAR 2011
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS 2011
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN 2011
SALMON FISHING IN THE YEMEN 2011
THE KING'S SPEECH 2010
LA TETE EN FRICHE 2010
ROUND IRELAND WITH A FRIDGE 2010
SHUTTER ISLAND 2010
WHO IS CLARK ROCKEFELLER? 2010
CHARLIE AND BOOTS 2009
HARRY BROWN 2009
HOLY WATER 2009
MAO'S LAST DANCER 2009
A SINGLE MAN 2009
FROST/NIXON 2008
IS ANYBODY THERE? 2008
ME AND ORSON WELLES 2008
MISS PETTIGREW LIVES FOR A DAY 2008
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE 2008
DIE WELLE 2008
AUGUST RUSH 2007
DEATH AT A FUNERAL 2007
GARAGE 2007
HE WAS A QUIET MAN 2007
L'INVITE 2007
LA VIE EN ROSE 2007
MR. BROOKS 2007
MY BOY JACK 2007
DESACCORD PARFAIT 2006
KENNY 2006
NIGHT LISTENER, THE 2006
PERFUME - THE STORY OF A MURDERER 2006
PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION, A 2006
QUEEN. THE 2006
STAN 2006
VENUS 2006
BREAKFAST ON PLUTO 2005
C.R.A.Z.Y. 2005
GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK 2005
THE INTERPRETER 2005
MRS. PALFREY AT THE CLAREMONT 2005
PRODUCERS. THE 2005
DOWNFALL 2004
FINAL CUT, THE 2004
VERA DRAKE 2004
MUDGE BOY, THE 2003
MY HOUSE IN UMBRIA 2003
TAIS TOI 2003
DECALAGE HORAIRE 2002
AMELIE 2001
GOSFORD PARK 2001
MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, The 2001

(* - the new century started in 2001)
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."
Offline
User avatar

Brooksie

  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:41 pm
  • Location: Portland, Oregon via Sydney, Australia

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 11:21 pm

Arndt wrote:
Christopher Jacobs wrote:INSIDE OUT is a film I've been intending to see eventually, but is it just a token Pixar title? Is it really any better than RATATOUILLE or UP or TOY STORY 3?


Yes.


Yes, it is absolutely a credible candidate for future classic. I was lucky enough to take my niece to see it at the El Capitan in Hollywood, and was struck by the way it was psychologically complex in a way that could nevertheless be easily understood by a seven year old. Well worth watching.

I'm glad I'm not the only fan of Hail, Caesar. It certainly seemed as if I was at the time. I'm generally not a fan of the Coens - too mean spirited, too misanthropic - but that one hit all the right notes for me.
Offline
User avatar

Frederica

  • Posts: 4830
  • Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:00 pm
  • Location: Kowea Town, Los Angeles

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostMon Jun 12, 2017 11:26 am

Brooksie wrote:
Yes, it is absolutely a credible candidate for future classic. I was lucky enough to take my niece to see it at the El Capitan in Hollywood, and was struck by the way it was psychologically complex in a way that could nevertheless be easily understood by a seven year old. Well worth watching.


Ditto. I also like The Incredibles, but mainly for Edna Mode.

Brooksie wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only fan of Hail, Caesar. It certainly seemed as if I was at the time. I'm generally not a fan of the Coens - too mean spirited, too misanthropic - but that one hit all the right notes for me.


Also ditto. Was rather surprised by how good Channing Tatum was in it.

I read this list when last week. It annoyed me, but then I quite often go to movies just to be entertained. YMMV.
Fred
"Screw the men. I've got the horse."
Helen B. (Penny) Chenery
http://www.nitanaldi.com"
http://www.facebook.com/NitaNaldiSilentVamp"
Offline
User avatar

Smari1989

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:14 am
  • Location: Norway

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostMon Jun 12, 2017 12:29 pm

I think I've only seen 5 of the ones listed here, but... 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN, one of the best 25 movies of the last decade and a half? Really?? That's ridiculous, IMO. It's a decent enough comedy of its kind, with a clear "moral," but still... wow. I'm honestly not crazy about ETERNAL SUNSHINE... either, though I realize I'm likely in a minority there.

How they didn't find room for Michael Haneke's AMOUR is beyond me. I do quite like THERE WILL BE BLOOD and MILLION DOLLAR BABY, though.
Max Linder blog: http://maxlinderblog.wordpress.com

My WEBCOMIC, Ticklish Town: http://www.ticklishtown.com
Offline
User avatar

Arndt

  • Posts: 1173
  • Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:02 pm
  • Location: Germany

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostMon Jun 12, 2017 3:05 pm

Brooksie wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only fan of Hail, Caesar. It certainly seemed as if I was at the time. I'm generally not a fan of the Coens - too mean spirited, too misanthropic - but that one hit all the right notes for me.


I love the Coens and this is one of their best. You have got to admire their self-confidence.
MELIOR
Offline
User avatar

2 Reel

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 10:34 am
  • Location: Earth, for the time being

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostTue Jul 04, 2017 3:56 pm

Don't you imagine that the "test of time" will surely put his ace card on the table eventually? The world seems to proactively save only those films that deeply touch people with timeless and inspiring themes that transcend generations.

The wretched refuse of our teeming shores tend to disappear, for example, the many films made between 1940-2000 that have never been transferred into any other format and are dying like Camille in a single print tainted with reddish Eastman color, or a scratched b&w 16mm reduction print shunted onto a back shelf in the storage closet of an obscure independent tv station, or just the negative stashed away and forgotten in a poorly managed vault off Hollywood and Vine.

What's your bet for the Top 10 films made since 2000 that will beat the odds and survive to the year 2117?
They call me "Dangerous Dal"
Offline
User avatar

drednm

  • Posts: 6912
  • Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
  • Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostWed Jul 05, 2017 8:25 am

Here's my list of the top 25 films since 2000:
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
http://www.amazon.com/Edward-Lorusso/e/ ... 203&sr=8-1
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5649
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostWed Jul 05, 2017 8:53 am

What's your bet for the Top 10 films made since 2000 that will beat the odds and survive to the year 2117?


In the conventional sense I think that many things that seem good now will continue to seem good, many things that seem good will be quite forgotten (I cannot imagine that Million Dollar Baby will still be anybody's favorite then, but others of Eastwood's films might), and things that seem minor now will seem more important in retrospect because they sum up an era in a way we can't see, as the people living in it. Baby Driver could seem a poignant treasure from a lost age when we've seen Ansel Elgort grow up and old before our eyes, and driving your own car is outlawed as unsafe in an autonomous vehicle world.

What I suspect we're living through, though, is the Cambrian Extinction of theatrical feature films. Spectacle is the only reason to see many features theatrically now, while more and more the experiences that people respond most deeply to are continuous narrative series— think of the things that seem iconic and talked-about over the last decade and a half and it's at least as often The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Lost, The Walking Dead, Mad Men, Stranger Things, Orange Is the New Black or a dozen others.

Meanwhile the most interesting new movies are often produced by streaming services and may only appear there— I was excited to learn that the Korean director of Snowpiercer had a new film, Okja, and looked to see if it was playing in Chicago yet. No, it's playing on Netflix. Considering how Miramax deliberately sabotaged Snowpiercer's US release after the director blocked their efforts to trim the unusual story down, how much did he give up by giving up on theatrical release and having a much smoother and appreciative experience with Netflix? I suspect on a personal level at least, he thinks it was well worth it, but I'd like to see his movie in a theater anyway.

I can't say whether this is good or bad. Well, I can— I already miss just going to the movies as a casual habit, I think of middling product in the 70s and how you could still just go see The Eagle Has Landed or The Gauntlet for $2 at a crappy shoebox theater, the absolute opposite of an event, yet that was kind of satisfying in its own way. At the same time, would I trade that world for the one in which I had Ben Model's new edition of When Knighthood Was in Flower to watch at home, and plucked it out of a stack that contained a dozen other rarities by everyone from H.G. Clouzot to Andre de Toth in blu-ray editions. I'd be crazy to. I live in the world of instant access I barely could even dream of then, when a Buster Keaton movie playing at the film society was like the circus's once-a-year visit.

But I think the primacy of the feature film is close to its end, after almost exactly a century. When this list gets made in 2117, or even 2037, it won't be all about fiction films running between 95 and 180 minutes, which you had to leave the house to see.
“Sentimentality is when it doesn't come off—when it does, you get a true expression of life's sorrows.” —Alain-Fournier
Online
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5197
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostWed Jul 05, 2017 9:08 am

What a downer, Mike! What with Ringling Brothers closing down the circus and my Independence Day visit to the Goshen Historic Race Track (World's oldest Harness Track!), which is open three days a year, your plausible scenario of another part of my world vanishing is ruining my day. I think I'll go smoke cigars this afternoon, while I still can.

Bob
Last edited by boblipton on Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
The matter is complicated, and I shall proceed to complicate it still more.

-- Avram Davidson
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5649
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

Re: NYT's Top 25 Movies Since 2000

PostWed Jul 05, 2017 9:24 am

This will cheer you up: the Chinese are already sick of our stupid movies:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... -5-1016926
“Sentimentality is when it doesn't come off—when it does, you get a true expression of life's sorrows.” —Alain-Fournier
Next

Return to Talking About Talkies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests