Best Movies of the Decade, 2000-2009
Submitted by neptune on Mon, 01/18/2010 - 14:42
Tags:
- 8.7 Synecdoche, New York, Charlie Kaufman, 2008, USA
- 8.5 Mulholland Dr., David Lynch, 2001, USA
- 8.5 Memento, Christopher Nolan, 2000, USA
- 7.8 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Michel Gondry, 2004, USA
- 7.7 The Departed, Martin Scorsese, 2006, USA
- 7.5 Dogville, Lars von Trier, 2003, Denmark
- 7.3 Werckmeister Harmonies, Béla Tarr, 2000, Hungary
- 7.3 There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007, USA
- 7.3 Primer, Shane Carruth, 2004, USA
- 7.3 Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky, 2000, USA
- 7.2 21 Grams, Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2003, USA
- 7.2 Irreversible, Gaspar Noe, 2002, France
- 7.2 Adaptation., Spike Jonze, 2002, USA
- 7.1 Lost In Translation, Sofia Coppola, 2003, USA
- 7.1 Amorres Perros, Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2000, Mexico
- 7.1 2046, Wong Kar Wai, 2004, Hong-Kong
- 7.0 Children of Men, Alfonso Cuarón, 2006, United Kingdom
- 7.0 I'm Not There, Todd Haynes, 2007, USA
- 7.0 In The Mood For Love, Wong Kar Wai, 2000, Hong-Kong
Author Comments:
Loosely based on Lukeprog's/Scaruffi's numerical system.
And yes, I'm a sucker for Kaufman.
Hang on, Scaruffi gives xXx a 7.0??!1oneoneonewut
Yeah, but he gives Hero an 8.0. That makes up for it.
Although he prefers 2009's scifi masterwork Push by that auteur of auteurs, Paul McGuigan.
...what's the deal with Primer?
So needlessly convoluted, it had a few interesting moments but was so bogged down as a whole. I read that it was his intention to make it obtuse in order to reflect the nature of time travel (a somewhat pompous notion, but whatever); but I think he went a little too far, and maybe it's my ego but I like to think of myself as someone who does alright with challenging films. Its labyrinth nature probably had a lot to do with me not caring for a single characters (who couldn't have possibly acted with less conviction). The longer it went on the more nonsensical it became and the more my interest waned.
A-fucking-men.
The form/stylistic aspect of any artform can be used to actually enhance the overall emotional impact of the content: a childlike tone slowly morphing into a complex intellectual register (A Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man) exaggerates the theme of growth; a soliloquoy can be used not only to further audience understanding but also show how the protagonist is isolated and doesn't have a confidante (Hamlet); the film is shown as five minute snippets to constantly remind us of the short-term memory problems of the protagonist (Memento) etc. Primer's highly complex plot and somewhat distant characters are intentional, and serve to amplify the film's overall communication.
These are regular, superficial guys who happen to be highly intelligent; not heroes, anti heroes, overly charismatic people who you meet and think 'hey I could write a movie about this guy' or people who have great amounts of emotional depth. I think this is a film that brilliantly depicts what it intends to show, the highly complex and paradoxical world that these fickle people would create should they stumble upon the power of time travel. The plot is brilliant in my opinion, and films shouldn't really be plot based unless they really are this fascinating.
I don't think you need to care about characters for a film that isn't anything to do with character development. Who did you care about in 2001?
It's not a perfect film by any means but I found it incredibly compelling and quite profound. I also love physics and the speculation / ideas in this were very fun. Hope that explains its placement a bit better for you.
Any recs from you guys based on my current choices?
A major element of Primer, though, is the dissolution of the guys' friendship, and that seems unimportant if you don't care about the characters (and I didn't). And how can you understand what drove these two men apart, or why one gets indignant about the abuse of time travel, or even what the guy's plan is to abuse the invention, if you have no idea what is going on in this incomprehensible narrative? Clearly these guys have a better sense of the internal logic of their world than the audience does, so it's not like Memento where we're actually seeing the events unfold the way the main character understands them.
As for recommendations... I recently saw and enjoyed Intacto, which is also a complex narrative about people toying with a force larger than themselves, but in my opinion, a much better film. I was also going to recommend David Gordon Green's George Washington, which has a gorgeous lyricism to it in my eyes, but Scaruffi apparently thinks it's a bit worse than Save the Last Dance and just a little better than Dr. Dolittle 2, so watch at your own risk.
I think perhaps it's less about these two guys, and more about the inherent selfishness of humans. It looks down on humanity quite a lot (much like 2001). I admit it's quite hard to make sense on first viewing, but Mulholland Drive didn't make full sense to me first time either. I can see why there's things that some people wouldn't like, though.
I'll give em both a watch. I actually don't really agree with Scaruffi half as much on cinema, particularly his 'Greatest of All Time' list. In fact Scaruffi strikes me as a massive ass nowadays, but he just has a music taste which correlates to mine.
So question: do you feel you have a full understanding of what happens in Primer now? If so, how many times have you watched it? I'm not trying to make a point, I'm really just curious.
I think there are definitely some great films on Scaruffi's lists, but I am still floored by the massive ass's ranking of The Great Race as the 25th-best movie ever made.
I think I do. I've watched it three times.
http://www.nobleworld.biz/images/Gendler.pdf
That's very helpful. If you want to get really exact, this is pretty crazy but also adds to one's understanding:
http://neuwanstein.fw.hu/primer_timeline.html
I think the latter is only really worth it if you really want to get pedantic. I haven't bothered to read it properly.
Haha yeah, The Great Race is a hilarious choice. For someone who dismisses so many films he sees as lacking profundity, having North by Northwest as the second best film of all time seems crazy (Don't get me wrong, I love it, but it's not a film with great depth).
Seeing as I loved Before Sunset, is it worth me watching the original? How does it compare?
I'm a huge believer in form, trust. I think cinematic language is probably the most misunderstood facet of the medium. And I'm not opposed to artistic language being difficult; I like Brakhage in film, stuff like Atrocity Exhibition in literature, Franz Kline in painting and all that fun stuff. Great art is about interaction, I think, and something as impenetrable as Primer is for me an indication the artist has lost their way. I definitely got the feeling Carruth was being overly self-indulgent and somewhat condescending.
It wasn't a question of "caring" about characters, it was more being totally disinterested in them and their actions. The narrative completely failed to captivate me. I do think it had some interesting moments conceptually, but that's the most praise I can muster for it.
On a side note, I'm quite indifferent towards 2001, it's an empty film that's nothing more than an exercise in aestheticism. Sophisticated effects based around vague transcendental themes... blah. I don't want Elston to come in and yell at me again.
Anyone who puts Splendor in the Grass and Desert Shore in their top ten is not to be taken very seriously =). And I definitely don't find Citizen Kane to be film of great depth, I think it's an exceptional movie, but certainly not due to profundity.
As for films you should see; I think you might find Cronenberg's Spider to your liking, and possibly Hou's Cafe Lumiere... and Haneke's Cache. Maybe? I honestly haven't gotten a strong grip on your tastes, but I could see you enjoying those.
Wow, those are really intense. I think if I took the time to unravel all that, I'd probably appreciate the film more too.
Agreed about North by Northwest, that surprised me too. It's almost as if he has entirely different standards for film and music though. He seems to really like these grand-setpiece-driven works of entertainment, be they actually brilliant (North by Northwest, Modern Times) or not so much (Great Race, The Birds).
Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are both brilliant films. The heartbreaking bittersweetness of the sequel is missing from the original, of course; you just see these fresh-faced twentysomethings having an affair to remember. As long as you're anticipating a well-made, sweet romance constructed in the same style, I think you'll enjoy it. It's a truly unique, realistic way to watch people fall in love.
Definitely see Before Sunrise, maybe the most convincing romance movie ever. I give it an 8.5 (but that might be my heart talking)
Such a shame Four Lions didn't premier in this decade. It would have clearly dominated the list with the rightful 9.5 it deserves! ;) On a serious note there's a few films I might have expected to slip onto the end of this list but presumably didn't quite make the cut. I'm thinking Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Gangs Of New York and maybe even Million Dollar Baby. Also interesting to see you decided Synecdoche was better than Memento in the end. What would Eyes Wide Shut have got if it had been in the 00's?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HilwtqaN4Gs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3XzUYd6nrU&feature=channel
The Matrix meets Eternal Sunshine meets Nolan. Yes.
Primer was alright. Not particularly noteworthy imo. I didn't really find it confusing, but I found the last 30 min to be frustrating. I was actually pretty interested in the story up until things started to really unravel and I wish they had done something else with it. It just felt kind of like a cop out. Still, the photography was nice and the acting wasn't bad. It was well written. But I would not watch it a 2nd time (heck, I had a hard time finishing it).
Why Memento?
Yes, formally it's very good, but I didn't think it had many interesting things to say. Nolan is obviously a talented editor, and the way he skillfully structures the film is a large part of its appeal; but what good is an intelligent treatment if what's being treated isn't particularly noteworthy? It's a charming piece, but I don't think it holds up to rewatches because there's not a whole lot to chew on. It's a perfect example of how style and content merge, but the narrative really doesn't offer enough for me to regard it as a great film.
Seeing it as two strikes me as being very high, especially since I'd take thirteen of the next seventeen films over it.
Purely aesthetically, Werckmeister Harmonies might be in the top three or four films of all time. Stunning.
What might be higher? 2001, Barry Lyndon and The Mirror (from what I've seen) come to mind.
Kubrick's better stuff, Tarkovsky's stuff, Wong Kar Wai's 2046/In The Mood For Love, etc etc. They're all just possibilities, nothing is concrete.