Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

User avatar
luney6
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby luney6 » Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:16 pm

BleuPanda wrote:59. The New World


Highly recommended!

BleuPanda wrote:

That last category is the most important, but it also relies on the strength of the other 3. What I think the typical 'Oscar Bait' films do is put their emphasis almost entirely on the narrative. The problem is, there are so many films that put a lot of emphasis on all fronts; why settle for a film that puts in less effort? Tackling heavy topics can actually hurt a film, as it can read as insincere; is the director seriously engaged with, say, the treatment of mental health, or was their decision to tackle the subject impacted by the belief more people would take interest due to the subject matter? I guess, much like my comment on Bowling for Columbine, these films make me engage more with the director's purpose than the message of their work.


The typical Oscar bait films tend to have an excessively banal, oft politically correct, and generally bad narratives.


Also, is it a good idea to critique each section of the film separately, when in art, the factor most important is how it all coheres? After all, all of the factors listed tend to be used in service to the narrative, right? Take for example My Dinner with Andre, or the films of Ingmar Bergman, which are not great works of cinematography, but derive their greatness from exceptional screenplays.
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

User avatar
BleuPanda
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2421
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby BleuPanda » Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:34 pm

luney6 wrote:
BleuPanda wrote:59. The New World


Highly recommended!

BleuPanda wrote:

That last category is the most important, but it also relies on the strength of the other 3. What I think the typical 'Oscar Bait' films do is put their emphasis almost entirely on the narrative. The problem is, there are so many films that put a lot of emphasis on all fronts; why settle for a film that puts in less effort? Tackling heavy topics can actually hurt a film, as it can read as insincere; is the director seriously engaged with, say, the treatment of mental health, or was their decision to tackle the subject impacted by the belief more people would take interest due to the subject matter? I guess, much like my comment on Bowling for Columbine, these films make me engage more with the director's purpose than the message of their work.


The typical Oscar bait films tend to have an excessively banal, oft politically correct, and generally bad narratives.


Also, is it a good idea to critique each section of the film separately, when in art, the factor most important is how it all coheres? After all, all of the factors listed tend to be used in service to the narrative, right? Take for example My Dinner with Andre, or the films of Ingmar Bergman, which are not great works of cinematography, but derive their greatness from exceptional screenplays.



I think it's less about critiquing each of those 4 elements separately as much as exploring how they tie into and influence each other. I haven't seen My Dinner With Andre, but I find most of Bergman's work do have exceptional cinematography (especially Persona), and as much as they have good screenplays, they also find really striking imagery (which I would categorize under style). For example, Wild Strawberries takes breaks from the immediate narrative to give us a better view of the countryside or explore Borg's current thoughts. When I see most Bergman films, I am convinced he considered every shot individually; the framing of each shot adds something to the narrative moment it represents. Meanwhile, with films like Revolutionary Road, it feels like everything exists purely to move the plot along; there's never a moment where I want to break down the details, analyze why the director chose a certain angle. I can accept these shots were chosen simply because they worked to get the point across; but all the best films get the point across and do more. For me, this is what separates a 7/10 film (i.e., Revolutionary Road) from, say, anything in this top 10.
If I could begin to be, half of what you think of me,
I could do about anything, I could even learn how to love.

User avatar
Petri
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 776
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:13 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby Petri » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:12 pm

And here we have the winners. Thanks for all who participated and commented.


Once you do something, you never forget. Even if you can't remember.

2. 千と千尋の神隠し [Spirited Away] (2001)



Director: Hayao Miyazaki

Country: Japan

Points: 1051,27

Year rank: #3 of 2001

Rank in 2010 final: 41 (up 39)

Votes: 15

Fans: whuntva #2, BleuPanda #2, antonius #2, Dexter #2, Dolly Wilde #2, JimmyJazz #3, Maschine_Man #3, Greg #11

Haters: Gillingham #132/137

Comment(s): Spirited Away is stylistically mesmerizing. In my opinion, it's the best coming of age story in film, expertly casting a young girl into a harsh world. As always, Miyazaki finds beauty within everything, and even the villains turn out to be nice folk. The train scene is one of my all-time favorites, silently revealing how much Chihiro has grown. (BleuPanda)

Miyazaki has many films that could easily stand as his masterpiece, but I think this one is a head above the rest. (Maschine_Man)



Silencio...

1. Mulholland Dr. (2001)



Director: David Lynch

Country: France, USA

Points: 1125,46

Year rank: #1 of 2001

Rank in 2010 final: 1

Votes: 14

Fans: BleuPanda #1, Gillingham #1, Petri #1, JimmyJazz #2, Midaso #2, Michel #4, bonnielaurel #7, Dolly Wilde #8, Dexter #11

Haters: None

Comment(s): A puzzlebox in film. Looping narratives that rely on the audience's own passion to discover its secrets. My favorite film ever, and the type I can (and have) write about endlessly due to its many symbols and interpretations. (BleuPanda)

User avatar
BleuPanda
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2421
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby BleuPanda » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:17 pm

I was always amazed at how poorly Spirited Away performed last time around. Good to see it in its rightful place.
If I could begin to be, half of what you think of me,
I could do about anything, I could even learn how to love.

User avatar
Petri
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 776
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:13 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby Petri » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:21 pm

antonius (after the results of 2000s poll in 2010) wrote:So I really need to see Mulholland Drive then…

After six years looks like it's still on your watch list. :)

User avatar
Maschine_Man
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:42 am

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby Maschine_Man » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:55 pm

I'm so happy for Spirited Away! Can't believe that low ranking last time!

User avatar
bonnielaurel
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:48 pm

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby bonnielaurel » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:34 pm

Thanks, Petri, for a flawless presentation. Also BluePanda and the others for the comments.

Non-English movies have done much better than in other decades. 2005 and 2009 have nothing in the top 30.

These would have been the Best Picture winners with the forum members in the jury:

2000 Yi Yi
2001 Mulholland Dr.
2002 Cidade de Deus
2003 Dogville
2004 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2005 L'Enfant
2006 El Laberinto del Fauno
2007 No Country for Old Men
2008 Wall-E
2009 Mary and Max

Or if you exclude non-English and animated movies:

2000 Dancer in the Dark
2001 Mulholland Dr.
2002 Far from Heaven
2003 Dogville
2004 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2005 A History of Violence
2006 Little Children
2007 No Country for Old Men
2008 The Dark Knight
2009 Inglorious Basterds

User avatar
bootsy
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:38 pm

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby bootsy » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:26 pm

Thanks Petri for putting this together. I must admit that I haven't seen a lot of these movies on the list especially most of the foreign ones and of course I wish the number 1 was different but nonetheless I had fun doing this and look forward to the next poll.

User avatar
Dexter
Different Class
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:04 am

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby Dexter » Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:42 am

bonnielaurel wrote:Russell Crowe isn't very popular on this forum.


I'm one of the "haters" of both Russell Crowe movies but I think it's his magnificent performance which stood out and elevated Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind from its many flaws. The same can also be said of his 1992 film Romper Stomper. The only movie of his that I can call a modern classic is L.A. Confidential - an engaging story, marvelous script with an impeccable cast.

Great job Petri! Excellent and a very smooth rollout. Great list too voters, it seems the love for Bjork also translate to the movies although I find Mulholland Drive hard to make sense, I can see how many have it as their best of the decade with its trademark Lynchian surreal and dreamlike sequences and a glimpse of a hollywood nightmare. The rest of the top 10 are also deserving of their spot.

User avatar
luney6
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby luney6 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:47 pm

BleuPanda wrote:
luney6 wrote:
BleuPanda wrote:59. The New World


Highly recommended!

BleuPanda wrote:

That last category is the most important, but it also relies on the strength of the other 3. What I think the typical 'Oscar Bait' films do is put their emphasis almost entirely on the narrative. The problem is, there are so many films that put a lot of emphasis on all fronts; why settle for a film that puts in less effort? Tackling heavy topics can actually hurt a film, as it can read as insincere; is the director seriously engaged with, say, the treatment of mental health, or was their decision to tackle the subject impacted by the belief more people would take interest due to the subject matter? I guess, much like my comment on Bowling for Columbine, these films make me engage more with the director's purpose than the message of their work.


The typical Oscar bait films tend to have an excessively banal, oft politically correct, and generally bad narratives.


Also, is it a good idea to critique each section of the film separately, when in art, the factor most important is how it all coheres? After all, all of the factors listed tend to be used in service to the narrative, right? Take for example My Dinner with Andre, or the films of Ingmar Bergman, which are not great works of cinematography, but derive their greatness from exceptional screenplays.



I think it's less about critiquing each of those 4 elements separately as much as exploring how they tie into and influence each other. I haven't seen My Dinner With Andre, but I find most of Bergman's work do have exceptional cinematography (especially Persona), and as much as they have good screenplays, they also find really striking imagery (which I would categorize under style). For example, Wild Strawberries takes breaks from the immediate narrative to give us a better view of the countryside or explore Borg's current thoughts. When I see most Bergman films, I am convinced he considered every shot individually; the framing of each shot adds something to the narrative moment it represents. Meanwhile, with films like Revolutionary Road, it feels like everything exists purely to move the plot along; there's never a moment where I want to break down the details, analyze why the director chose a certain angle. I can accept these shots were chosen simply because they worked to get the point across; but all the best films get the point across and do more. For me, this is what separates a 7/10 film (i.e., Revolutionary Road) from, say, anything in this top 10.


True, true. Persona does have some fantastic cinematography, but then again, without the exceptional screenplay, it wouldn't be as great as it is. Then, talking about films like Wild Strawberries or Shame, which have good camera work, and like you said, the shots are well plotted to enhance the narrative. And yet, in the end the films are rely heavily on their screenplay to reach the amount of depth they do. Compared to the screenplay, the camera work has a relatively minor role in adding to the merit of the films. And finally, you have films like Autumn Sonata, and Scenes from a marriage, where, while not bad, the cinematography is disposable in terms of what it adds to the narrative. Yet they are some of his greatest films, and some of the greatest films, period. I also recall a quote from an interview (of James Berardinelli on Cosmoetica), which both critics taking part generally agreed with; "Ingmar Bergman: the best published writer of the 20th Century" . And apart from Bergman, even most Woody Allen films, most Nuri BIlge Ceylan films, or films like La Jetee derive much of their quality from their respective screenplays.

And further still, aren't the cinematography, the acting, the soundtrack, and all other said techniques, in their finality, used as techniques to weave, or enhance, the narrative? After all, films like those of Terrance Mallick and of Steve McQueen, or even say, Koyaanisqatsi, demonstrate this. Hence, focussing on the narrative is a good thing, and thus, I argue, that the problem with a typical Oscar bait film is lack of a good, original, plausible narrative. I think that maybe it's better to phrase such films as primarily plot driven, as opposed to being character/narrative driven as most great films (not all) are.

Also, another wonderment; why should animation be considered a part of cinema? After all, don't shouldn't wouldn't it be more apt to classify them as two separate art mediums? After all, they both have distinctly different strengths and weaknesses. It seems like comparing photography with painting; a great photograph would likely use a distinctly different techniques from a great painting. And, thus, a great photographer (or a film-maker) shouldn't be considered a very useful commenter on a great painter's works (or an animator), and vice versa.
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

antonius
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 609
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Hoboken, Antwerp, Belgium

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby antonius » Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:32 pm

:oops:
Petri wrote:
antonius (after the results of 2000s poll in 2010) wrote:So I really need to see Mulholland Drive then…

After six years looks like it's still on your watch list. :)

User avatar
Gillingham
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby Gillingham » Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:00 pm

Thanks a lot Petri, great presentation!
And also thanks to BleuPanda for the many comments which I enjoyed reading.

User avatar
Gillingham
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby Gillingham » Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:10 pm

luney6 wrote:
BleuPanda wrote:
luney6 wrote:
Highly recommended!



The typical Oscar bait films tend to have an excessively banal, oft politically correct, and generally bad narratives.


Also, is it a good idea to critique each section of the film separately, when in art, the factor most important is how it all coheres? After all, all of the factors listed tend to be used in service to the narrative, right? Take for example My Dinner with Andre, or the films of Ingmar Bergman, which are not great works of cinematography, but derive their greatness from exceptional screenplays.



I think it's less about critiquing each of those 4 elements separately as much as exploring how they tie into and influence each other. I haven't seen My Dinner With Andre, but I find most of Bergman's work do have exceptional cinematography (especially Persona), and as much as they have good screenplays, they also find really striking imagery (which I would categorize under style). For example, Wild Strawberries takes breaks from the immediate narrative to give us a better view of the countryside or explore Borg's current thoughts. When I see most Bergman films, I am convinced he considered every shot individually; the framing of each shot adds something to the narrative moment it represents. Meanwhile, with films like Revolutionary Road, it feels like everything exists purely to move the plot along; there's never a moment where I want to break down the details, analyze why the director chose a certain angle. I can accept these shots were chosen simply because they worked to get the point across; but all the best films get the point across and do more. For me, this is what separates a 7/10 film (i.e., Revolutionary Road) from, say, anything in this top 10.


True, true. Persona does have some fantastic cinematography, but then again, without the exceptional screenplay, it wouldn't be as great as it is. Then, talking about films like Wild Strawberries or Shame, which have good camera work, and like you said, the shots are well plotted to enhance the narrative. And yet, in the end the films are rely heavily on their screenplay to reach the amount of depth they do. Compared to the screenplay, the camera work has a relatively minor role in adding to the merit of the films. And finally, you have films like Autumn Sonata, and Scenes from a marriage, where, while not bad, the cinematography is disposable in terms of what it adds to the narrative. Yet they are some of his greatest films, and some of the greatest films, period. I also recall a quote from an interview (of James Berardinelli on Cosmoetica), which both critics taking part generally agreed with; "Ingmar Bergman: the best published writer of the 20th Century" . And apart from Bergman, even most Woody Allen films, most Nuri BIlge Ceylan films, or films like La Jetee derive much of their quality from their respective screenplays.

And further still, aren't the cinematography, the acting, the soundtrack, and all other said techniques, in their finality, used as techniques to weave, or enhance, the narrative? After all, films like those of Terrance Mallick and of Steve McQueen, or even say, Koyaanisqatsi, demonstrate this. Hence, focussing on the narrative is a good thing, and thus, I argue, that the problem with a typical Oscar bait film is lack of a good, original, plausible narrative. I think that maybe it's better to phrase such films as primarily plot driven, as opposed to being character/narrative driven as most great films (not all) are.

Also, another wonderment; why should animation be considered a part of cinema? After all, don't shouldn't wouldn't it be more apt to classify them as two separate art mediums? After all, they both have distinctly different strengths and weaknesses. It seems like comparing photography with painting; a great photograph would likely use a distinctly different techniques from a great painting. And, thus, a great photographer (or a film-maker) shouldn't be considered a very useful commenter on a great painter's works (or an animator), and vice versa.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you here at all. Of course many of Bergmans films have a great screenplay, but for me it's the cinematography of films like Det Sjunde Inseglet, Nattvardsgästerna, Persona, Fanny och Alexander and Viskningar och Rop that elevate those films to masterpieces and not so much the screenplay. Sven Nykvist is one of the best cinematographers that ever lived and his work with Bergman is absolutely outstanding exactly because of the images they were able to evoke and put on screen the way they did. Maybe you could be right about Woody Allen (Although: Manhattan!), but for Bilge Ceylan and La Jetee in particular the cinematography is easily the most important and distinctive aspect. I can't imagine La Jetee being made with the same screenplay but a different cinematography and having the same impact as it has the way Marker made it.

User avatar
luney6
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby luney6 » Sun Aug 07, 2016 7:20 am

Gillingham wrote:I'm afraid I can't agree with you here at all. Of course many of Bergmans films have a great screenplay, but for me it's the cinematography of films like Det Sjunde Inseglet, Nattvardsgästerna, Persona, Fanny och Alexander and Viskningar och Rop that elevate those films to masterpieces and not so much the screenplay. Sven Nykvist is one of the best cinematographers that ever lived and his work with Bergman is absolutely outstanding exactly because of the images they were able to evoke and put on screen the way they did. Maybe you could be right about Woody Allen (Although: Manhattan!), but for Bilge Ceylan and La Jetee in particular the cinematography is easily the most important and distinctive aspect. I can't imagine La Jetee being made with the same screenplay but a different cinematography and having the same impact as it has the way Marker made it.



And while I do agree that several of Bergman's film do have great cinematography, I would still argue that, several of them might even have made great works of literature. Wild Strawberries, for example, well shot as it is, has such a script. And as for Winter Light, I would obstinately argue the same, for that screenplay is one of the greatest ever penned. Now while true, that a film like Manhattan does have some beautiful cinematography, it does mostly act as one aspect of narrative, and an aspect that would not have as much merit at all, had Woody Allen's screenplay been lacklustre. The beautiful cinematography in that film is a lot different from the narrative-driving kind generally found in Terrance Mallick's films, and hence, I would argue that beauty only manifests as a part of (stylistically?) good film, but there is much more needed to preen it into a great one.

Alright, even so, will you agree that clearly these directors do tend to put in a lot more effort than the typical Oscar bait film does in their narrative, right?
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Depeche Mode
Strange Fruit
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:13 am

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby Depeche Mode » Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:56 pm

Whoo Adaptation out of top 100, while Eternal Sunshine is at 3? Bizzare. Anyway it might have been funny if I had voted as I changed my mind on 25th Hour so much I would actually have it at number one. I think one of the reasons I didn't vote is cause I have seen most films from the list but a lot of them when I was like 16, so it would be hard to rank them well.
My top 10:
1.25th Hour
2/3 The Pianist, Adaptation
4.Lost in Translation
5.4 luni
6.Children of Men
7/8.Dogville/Moon
9.Match Point
10.The Wrestler

Bottom 10:
Beautiful Mind
Into the Wild
V for Vendetta
I'm Not There
The Fountain(thought it was ridiculous but that was a looong time ago to be fair)
District 9(same here)
Punch Drunk Love
Amelie/The New World/Donnie Darko(rather vacuous experiences for me)

antonius
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 609
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Hoboken, Antwerp, Belgium

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby antonius » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:33 pm

Petri wrote:
antonius (after the results of 2000s poll in 2010) wrote:So I really need to see Mulholland Drive then…

After six years looks like it's still on your watch list. :)

Saw it just now. It was really great. Probably going to watch it again soon. So much I've missed, I think.

User avatar
Petri
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 776
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:13 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Films of the 2000s: Top 150 movies of 2000s FINAL RESULTS

Postby Petri » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:47 pm

antonius wrote:
Petri wrote:
antonius (after the results of 2000s poll in 2010) wrote:So I really need to see Mulholland Drive then…

After six years looks like it's still on your watch list. :)

Saw it just now. It was really great. Probably going to watch it again soon. So much I've missed, I think.

Glad you watch it and like it. :) It's a movie that definitely support multiple views.


Return to “Films, movies, motion pictures...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests