Best of the Decade - The 2000s

Well it took nearly a year (April 26th was the first list), and you may argue I still wasn’t ready. If I had known just how much damn work I would have put into this “fun little project” I probably would have run screaming before I started it. Had I to do it over again though I actually would have worked harder, I feel my 20s, 30s, and 40s lists were somewhat arbitrary. However it’ll be awhile before I update those. As of now I’m still debating even what my numbering will be but keep in mind after the top 20 or so the numbering becomes less important and it’s more a happy to have you aboard sort of ranking.

Perhaps in a few instances I opted to include a director (or even country) as a representative but even some of my favorite film makers were left out (where’s Spike Lee?). Oh well this list won’t please everyone, in fact I’m not sure it’ll please anyone, can’t even say I’m completely happy with it. Before I get into the list (no cheating and scrolling down) I’d like to talk briefly about the decade itself.

If you’re old enough to surf the internet chances are you lived through the 2000s and remember each of the years, from the major international milestones to two supremely pointless elections and an Olympic games or three no one remembers. As for film the dust is still settling as far as what came out and when. For the sake of the list I chose to limit myself to films released theatrically in 2009. I know that in the year and change after the end of the decade a few films made in 2009 and before have come out, but well it doesn’t seem wholly fair to include films that made my top ten of 2010 on this list. In all honesty I’m just cheating so I can fit more films on, but that’s how I’m justifying it.

Sorting out the film movements and major players may take a long time to figure. Most people familiar with international cinema will recognize the emergence of Romanian cinema as a major movement, and the steady increase of South Korean cinema thanks to directors like Bong Joon-ho, Hong Sang-soo, and Park Chan-wook. Elsewhere internationally Iranian cinema began the decade quite strong with such great films as Baran, The Hidden Half, The Day I Became a Woman, and others before increased censorship made great Iranian cinema a thing of the past by the end of the decade. Damn shame even the output of legends like Kiarostami, Makhmalbaf, and the imprisoned Jafar Panahi have diminished or completely dropped off.

Jia Zhang-Ke has been leading a one man Chinese renaissance to combat the bloated overdone “sell-out” films of former 5th Generation giants Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige. His cinema is far from indicative of the norm for Chinese cinema, which has adopted huge budgets and stars since adopting Hong Kong cinema as it’s own. Wong Kar-Wai started the decade off with one of his most praised films In the Mood for Love but by the end of the decade was having to defend his poorly received English language debut My Blueberry Nights. As globalization continues the very definition of a national cinema is becoming quite blurry.

Many of the best directors of this decade may still be waiting to be discovered. I showed up late to the party with Jia, who I first heard of when The World (his fourth feature) was released here. Thailand’s Apichatpong Weerasethakul is another late bloomer for me who I didn’t discover until Tropical Malady (his third feature) was released. Their story is similar and makes me wonder how many great directors are already making gems. Early decade mavericks like Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky have become part of the establishment with recent blockbusters Inception and The Black Swan, while still maintaining a large degree of artistic credibility.

Animation grew as a respectable form of cinema throughout the decade. Starting in 2001 the Academy decided to give an Oscar for the best animated feature, and aside from that first year, it has pretty much been the Pixar award. The Disney subsidiary has consistently proven itself the best name in the animation world and seem to produce a masterpiece on an annual basis. Needless to say they’re represented here. Hayao Miyazaki also made inroads on American soil (thanks perhaps to a Disney distribution deal) and made arguably his greatest film with 2001’s Spirited Away.

*After several years I decided to add years,countries, and directors for each film.  I had originally done this but a computer crash lost this info, and I was too damn frustrated to fix it.  So enjoy the amended list, and let it be noted, that although my tastes have slightly changed this list is left in tact.  Feel free to revisit my top 100 list to see which of the top films shuffled, or just take this as a pretty accurate ranking as of 2011.  I know I often blog and write about older films, so perhaps a more contemporary list can give you some suggestions going forward.  Perhaps in another 5 years I'll write about 50-11 on here.

50. Edge of Heaven (2008) - Turkey/Germany Faith Akin
49. Dancer in the Dark (2000) - Denmark/France/Sweden Lars Von Trier
48. Gran Torino (2008) - US Clint Eastwood
47. Memories of Murder (2003) - South Korea Bong Joon-ho
46. La Commune (Paris 1871) (2000) - France Peter Watkins
45. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) - US Wes Anderson
44. Last Days (2005) - US Gus Van Sant
43. Rambo (2008) - US Sylvester Stallone
42. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007) - Romania Cristian Mungiu
41. Regular Lovers (2005) - France Phillipe Garrel

40. Traffic (2000) - US Steven Soderbergh
39. The Saddest Music in the World (2003) - Canada Guy Maddin
38. Moulin Rouge (2001) - US/Australia Baz Luhrmann
37. Eureka (2000) - Japan Shinji Aoyama
36. Zodiac (2007) - US David Fincher
35. Cache (2005) - Austria/France Michael Haneke
34. Million Dollar Baby (2004) - US Clint Eastwood
33. Elephant (2003) - US Gus Van Sant
32. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) - US Larry Charles)
31. Two Lovers (2008) - US James Gray

30. The Death of Mr. Lazerescu (2005) - Romania Cristi Puiu
29. Kings and Queen (2004) - France Arnaud Desplechin
28. Bloody Sunday (2002) - UK/Ireland Paul Greengrass
27. The Day I Became a Woman (2001) - Iran Marzieh Meshkini
26. Angels in America (2003) - US Mike Nichols
25. Syndromes and a Century (2006) - Thailand Apichatpong Weerasethakul
24. Brand Upon the Brain! (2007) - Canada/US Guy Maddin
23. The Departed (2006) - US Martin Scorsese
22. Hero (2002) - China/Hong Kong Zhang Yimou
21. Up (2009) - US Pete Docter

20. Spirited Away (2002) - Japan Hayao Miyazaki
19. The Pianist (2002) - Poland/UK/France/Germany Roman Polanski
18. The Young Victoria (2009) - US/UK Jean-Marc Vallee
17. The World (2004) - Japan/France/China Jia Zhang Ke
16. Yi-Yi (2000) - Taiwan Edward Yang
15. No Country for Old Men (2007) - US Joel and Ethan Coen
14. Dogville (2003) - Denmark Lars Von Trier
13. Pride and Prejudice (2005) - US/UK Joe Wright
12. A History of Violence (2005) - Canada/Germany/US David Cronenberg
11. Sin City (2005) - US Frank Miller/Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino

10. Talk to Her (2001) - Spain Pedro Almodovar

Coming right after All About My Mother it’s hard to say this is Almodovar’s best film, but I’ll make that claim and stick by it. Much more subdued than his more hysteric earlier work but just melodramatic and perverse enough to let you know it couldn’t have come from another director. Along with the previous film it’s a fine place to start with Almodovar whose earlier work might seem too crazy to be taken seriously. Essentially it is the story of two men who form a bond caring for women who happen to be in a coma. That makes it sound like a regular talk fest that will bore you to tears but never with Almodovar, it gets creepy, provocative, brilliant, and somehow throws a miniature (in more ways than one) silent film in the middle of it. It’s rare when a director is so completely in control of his craft as Almodovar is on this, even enough to earn himself a best original screenplay Oscar as well as a best director nomination.

9. Requiem for a Dream (2000) - US Darren Aronofsky

The first great film of the decade took so long to follow up that the cult/legend of Aronofsky grew exponentially to a point that his subsequent films were at a decided disadvantage. One of the bleakest films of the decade this is a classic “everyone loses” sort of melodrama about addiction in myriad forms but one of the most fascinating to watch. Flexing some serious film school muscles Aronofsky has a new trick in store for virtually every shot in the film, recalling the carefree experimental days of the French New Wave, without the humor. The performances are great all around, particularly Ellen Burstyn who makes a welcome return to the screen as the diet pill addicted mother. Seen by very few during it’s initial theatrical run, like Donnie Darko and Memento it became a favorite of nearly every kid entering film school that decade and unlike those two films well it’s a hell of a lot better.

8. The Dark Knight (2008) - US Christopher Nolan

Although Memento put him on the map, it wasn’t until Batman Begins that Nolan made himself a household name in the director’s chair. As great as that first Batman film was, and spawning a whole wave of “gritty reboot” films it was the follow up The Dark Knight which may arguably lay claim to being the best sequel possibly ever made, and on the very short list of the best super hero films. It’s exclusion from the best picture race in 2008 is what many people are citing as the reason for the Academy nominating 10 pictures in the two years since. Heath Ledger delivered a memorable swan song as one of cinema’s greatest villains. Batman the character has never been better in any form than on screen here. Nolan proved that he was far removed from the backwards trickster he seemed to be with his first two films. He also proved that sequels could be better without necessarily having to be bigger. Doesn’t hurt that it was shot in Chicago, and well every movie can use a little more Eric Roberts. All that aside there is no shortage of great moments and juggling Harvey Dent’s descent and Joker’s unequaled mayhem made Scarecrow and Ra’s Al Ghul all but forgotten from the first. Perhaps the only downside was Rachel Dawes whose character was pointless for the most part and inexplicably replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal. That aside you can scarcely find a comic book movie more perfect.

7. The Incredibles (2004) - US Brad Bird

OK so maybe this is the best super hero film of the decade. Brad Bird’s Pixar debut was made as the company was already riding high on the success of Finding Nemo. Rather than adapt a wellknown super hero group, Bird created his own borrowing on plenty of traditions. In it’s place he made a family comedy that was all about the actual family. It’s humor was universal and didn’t pander to 3 year olds as many earlier Disney features did. This was designed as much for the comic book fan boy as the average first grader. In the process Bird made what is in my opinion the best animated film of the decade and the crowning achievement of the Pixar studio to date. So much of the humor arises from the mundane, Mr. Incredible’s massive weight gain, the weight gain in only one particular area of Mrs. Incredible, Fro-zone searching for his super suit and simultaneously arguing with his wife, and on and on. It’s sound design is also among the best of the decade an art much more felt than seen. Not to detract from other Pixar films of the decade like Finding Nemo, Up, Wall-E, or Ratatouille but well one of them had to be the best.

6. Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) - US/New Zealand Peter Jackson

A massive trilogy planned and executed at once that turned out to be one of the most mammoth undertakings in cinema history forever took Peter Jackson from the quirky disgusting filmmaker of Meet the Feebles and Dead Alive and made him a major Hollywood player. It did more for New Zealand cinema than any film before it, and almost instantaneously joined the discussion as being one of the best science fiction/fantasy franchises of all time. Motion capture became a new cinematic term, and even the most ardent of Tolkien fans had to admit these films got things about as right as they were going to get. Multiple viewings can only hope to reveal how much is going on and truth be told it can be a little tricky following all the various battles and wars going on but it never ceases to be an entertaining ride. The deluxe DVD’s set new standards for special features and behind the scenes access, a nice added bonus. Different people have a different favorite from the franchise, but as a collective whole this is one of the most impressive feats of cinematic storytelling you’re likely to find.

5. Children of Men (2006) US Alfonso Cuarón

As the debate raged amongst which of the Mexican director’s had the best 2006, I was casting my vote for Cuarón. As a fair comparison I went to see Children of Men immediately after Pan’s Labyrinth (I paid a then astonishing $10 for a movie ticket and I was going to turn that into a double feature damnation). You may already know I’m a sucker for long takes, and this film had them in abundance. Free of typical trickery entirely new rigs were built and designed to accommodate the ever elaborate photography. Aside from a mere technical marvel though the film’s political backdrop is enough to fill an entire philosophy and ethics class. Perhaps it is the best films that make us think, and this one does that, perhaps what would it be like to live in a world where no one can have kids anymore? What would we do if after 18 years someone was found pregnant? What would it mean if that person happened to be black? What would be the point at all of maintaining in that environment? 2006’s best film is densely layered indeed and is one of the most impressive works of cinema I have ever seen. The highlight of what was a very productive decade for Cuarón, who broke through with Y Tu Mama Tambien, and even helmed a Harry Potter film, which consequently happened to be the best of that franchise.

4. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) US Michel Gondry

Before Michel Gondry was at the helm of a painfully unnecessary Green Hornet movie, and before Charlie Kauffman took his first turn in the director’s chair the two teamed up for what was one of the most unique and original cinematic tales of the decade. Although un-nominated Jim Carrey was never better and isn’t likely to get any better than he was in this film. Kate Winslet earned another well deserved nomination for her work, but this is really Kauffman’s show. Taking us into an ethical dilemma of what would we do if we could erase painful memories but without lecturing or sounding like a philosophy professor. Juggling a few multiple plot strands and jumping into rapidly fading memories, there is a whole lot going on here. Even a third or fourth viewing won’t reveal all the things going on in the background of the shots. Gondry has a penchant for cluttering up his frames, as was evident in The Science of Sleep and Be Kind Rewind, but it makes some of the images appear almost like a Where’s Waldo drawing. A perfect compliment to Kauffman’s scatological style which never found a better marriage than here. Reminding us that two people who are supposed to be together will find some way, somehow.

3. Kill Bill (2003-2004) - US Quentin Tarantino

After a rather prolonged absence during which he tried to make Inglorious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino decided to put all his influences on his sleeve. In the process he made a film that combined all his love of kung-fu, samurai, blaxploitation, spaghetti westerns, and everything else in between to form the most awe-inspiring revenge story in all of cinema. As a collective whole the two films (originally intended to be released together) are an excessive, kinetic, over the top orgy of blood and guts with that wonderfully nuanced sense of character and dialogue that only Tarantino can use. It’s what separates this film from countless Japanese slaughter fests made throughout the decade. The reason why so many bloody films are so easily forgotten. Trimming the majority of the dead space away from the films this was paying homage to, it’s an all-killer no-filler thrill ride for a new generation. Yeah you can quote me on that, but clichéd movie critic speak aside this is a film that was well worth the wait and sadly Tarantino’s next two features didn’t come anywhere near equaling it. Greater than the sum of it’s parts Kill Bill ranks among the decades best just like Pulp Fiction does for the 90s and has already inspired a host of younger people to hunt out films like Shogun Assassin, Lady Snowblood, and The Streetfighter among countless others. Always wearing his influences on his sleeves but finding a way to supersede and improve upon them Tarantino every so often can remind people just why the hell he’s so damn good.

2. City of God (2002) - Brazil Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund

The decades best foreign film drew plenty of controversy for itself. Many people claimed this was exploitation at its finest with small children brandishing guns and quick to shoot anyone. Romanticizing the slums and exploiting intolerable conditions the film did none of that for me. Perhaps a criticism of sensationalism is understandable but it doesn’t detract from the film. There is nothing wrong with finding a way to make a film entertaining, and there is nothing romantic about this film. For most of the characters you can’t get away fast enough and it shows a Brazilian idea of what American films have been showing with countless gangster films for decades. Shown from the eyes of an outsider makes the film that much easier to identify with for us who see just how scary the situation can be and how easily falling into that life could be. There’s a lot going on and there is a quite a bit to take in over the three decade story which doesn’t seem so much a nostalgic recollection of the good old days as a tale of whose who from the eyes of a first hand witness standing just outside of it all. Some of it is brutal and hard to watch, but ultimately redeeming I find and I’ll take this film any day over the whitewashed garbage that Walter Salles has been turning out the last two decades. This has all the excitement of classic cinema novo ala Glauber Rocha with better production values.

1. Mulholland Drive (2001) - US David Lynch

Well before I even started this project I knew Lynch’s film would top my list. In fact not long after I saw it I knew it would top my list. For the past 9 years or so I’ve been wondering if any film would come out that would be better, and well you have your answer to that question. Most of the films in my list I’ve seen more than once, and the upper echelon always benefit from repeated viewings. Not only do repeated viewings reveal more layers that were previously missed, but they also serve as the best judge of a film’s quality to decipher whether or not it can hold up. Mulholland Drive more than holds up. It is in my opinion Lynch’s masterpiece which is saying a whole hell of a lot. It’s disturbing, provocative, enigmatic, mesmerizing, and just damn perfect. Every time I watch it more and more of it makes sense, but there’s always a scene or two that make me scratch my head. Perhaps it’s Lynch’s way of saying “that’ll teach you to try and decipher meaning in my work” or perhaps it’s just another mystery waiting for me to reveal. As a side note this film also contains the best sex scene of the decade and well it made me a Naomi Watts fan for life. As he goes digital it’ll be interesting to see if Lynch will ever come close to topping this, or even bother being this coherent again. As it stands though this is the finest film of the decade and I will stand by that for a long time.

A slight deversion - about baseball

Well I know that it is a film blog, but well those of you who know me are aware that I'm about as obsessed with baseball as a person can be. As against tradition as it might be, baseball is starting on a Thursday with not one but three games, and well a few things I'd like to jot down before opening day.

Last Saturday I watched Major League for what might be the 40th time. It's become something of a tradition, similar to many people watching Christmas Story or It's a Wonderful Life before the holidays. Every time I watch it I seem to catch more. The product placement of Tecate on Jake Taylor's shirt when he arrives at Spring Training. There's the background player with a mullet who walks past Roger Dorn on two different shots (bad continuity Mr. Ward), and other such nitpicking items that only a billion viewings can reveal.

Major League might be my favorite sports film ever (wait it clearly is far and away my favorite sports film ever) but it does fall into a few cliches. For starters virtually every sports film from Rocky to The Fighter it is about an underdog. The Indians are purposely bad and anyone whose gone into opening day with a roster full of ?'s then they can feel the pain of the citizens of Cleveland at the beginning of the film. Perhaps if the film were remade the Pittsburgh Pirates might provide a suitable backdrop considering they're working on 19 straight losing seasons and nothing is letting me think that's going to change this year.

There is also the forced love story between Corbin Bernsen and Rene Russo. Russo made a career for herself in the late 80s and early 90s dragging down nearly any film she was in by being thrown into a half cocked and unconvincing love affair with someone just so that Hollywood could fulfill it's unofficial quota of appealing to women who clearly are only going to the film for that same reason (Kitty Carlisle in A Night at the Opera anyone?). Her role here is much more fleshed out that the supremely clumsy part she plays in Wolfgang Petersen's In the Line of Fire with an aged Clint Eastwood who is far too old for such nonsense. I won't blame her presence on the decline of the increasingly silly Lethal Weapon franchise, but let's face it she's no Patsy Kensit.

Not to beat up on the girl too much, but clearly the scenes she shows up in do grind the film down a lot, even with the faux-romantic score changing. The scene at the library provides plenty of comedy thanks to the quick pace and ever ready steadi-cam tracking a rather rapid fire exchange. The scene where he crashes the fiance's party was one I actually used to fast forward when I was a kid, and at the very least we could have gotten some nudity to spice up their "one last time" fling. Unlike the largely reprehensible sequels to this film, the first was at least rated R, which I know is a novelty in Hollywood to think that an R rated film can actually have an audience, make money and spawn a sequel without being a shitty slasher film. There was a time in the 80s when people in Hollywood actually seemed to give their audience some credit, hell even a children's film like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? had a little profanity, some sex appeal, and some casualties. But I digress and won't start shouting from my "They don't make 'em like they used to" pedestal quite yet.

For quotable dialogue and arguably the the best representation of life in the big leagues few people will point to a better film than Major League to the point where I'm not even sure what a possible number 2 would be. The vicarious joys of having the Indians defeat the evil Yankees in a one-game playoff would suffice for a few years, but in 1995 and 1997 the Indians would make it all the way to the world series before the unfortunate fate of all Cleveland sports teams befell them. Still game 7 of a world series would be a hell of an improvement for Cubs fans who haven't even appeared in the fall classic since 1945 (which is three years before the last Indians championship). For the record the Indians have the second longest active world series drought, so goes to show you how sad the life of a Cubs fan can be.

On that note let's get to some non-film related baseball predictions. I'm wrapping up my 2000s list and should have it posted tomorrow, perhaps while watching the three televised games on ESPN.

AL East
1. Red Sox
2. Rays
3. Yankees
4. Orioles
5. Blue Jays

Well this may shock you a bit. I despise the Red Sox (and Yankees for that matter) perhaps more than any sports franchise in the country. Yet hard to deny how souped up their lineup is. True I don't have a lot of faith that Josh Beckett, John Lackey, and Daisuke Matsuzaka will have bounce back seasons, and I'm convinced that Bobby Jenks will be an overweight trainwreck setting up Papelbon, but that lineup can easily drive in a billion runs this year. I believe that the Yankees will keep it interesting and although the loss of Pettite is huge, they're the type of team that will make a move if necessary at the deadline. Tampa Bay is a bit of a dark horse and lord only knows how they'll play without Pena, Crawford, Garza, and Soriano. However few teams have deeper farm systems and as the steroid-less Yankees and Red Sox keep getting older the Rays may just sneak past both of them. The Buck Showalter era seems promising in Baltimore, and the addition of Vladimir Guerrero and Derrek Lee should help out their lineup, but I'd be amazed if they won 80 games. Toronto seems like they've finally given into the idea of rebuilding after years of being half-in half-out, so I expect them to be bad, and someone has to be in last place. As always I'm picking the wild card out of this division.

AL Central

1. White Sox
2. Twins
3. Tigers
4. Royals
5. Indians

There are only so many times that the White Sox can lose to the Twins before things change. While the Sox have made another step forward with the addition of Adam Dunn and arguably the best bullpen in the league, the Twins have stood by re-signing Thome and Pavano and failing to make that big acquisition. Granted the Twins find a way to win from mid-July to September, yet comically fail as soon as the playoffs start, I think their run may be ending. They'll give the Sox a ton of problems as they always do, but providing the White Sox can stay healthy they should win this division and make a run in the post season. The Tigers did get Victor Martinez but that team still seems to be missing a few major pieces, but again if healthy (or if the Twins and Sox are facing serious injuries) they might surprise a few people. The Royals are campaigning for the position of the AL Pirates, trading their best pitcher this off season. They may have 8 of the top 50 ranked prospects but I've seen more than my share of highly touted prospects fail miserably so I think the best the Royals can do is not finish dead last. That spot is reserved for the Indians who have awful attendance, an often hurt lineup (even their golden catching prospect Carlos Santana will start the season on the DL), and a questionable rotation. I'm not picking good things for the Indians, and it might be a very dark time for Cleveland sports for the next couple of years, but with a new manager and a new outlook perhaps they can start to make progress.

AL West

1. A's
2. Rangers
3. Angels
4. Mariners

I've been burned by this prediction far too often, and up until today I wouldn't have gone so far as to predict the A's to win the division. The Rangers are the defending champions, but losing Cliff Lee and essentially replacing him with injury plagued Brandon Webb is not a fair trade. Adrian Beltre is a prototypical player who mysteriously is at his best in a contract year. His numbers last year for Boston were significantly better than expected and I expect a drop off. However in a hitter's paradise like Texas he may do just fine. The A's on the other hand have a great rotation, excellent bullpen, play great defense, and should have just enough offense to finally get back to the post season. The Angels are easily as good as these two teams but with the continued saga of Kendry Morales' injury and a few other question marks I'm not sure they can quite make it. I wouldn't be surprised if all three teams finish with a winning record. The Mariners are garbage and I'd be amazed if they lost fewer than 100 games this year.

NL East

1. Braves
2. Phillies
3. Marlins
4. Nationals
5. Mets

Now to the National League. Everyone's eyes are on the Phillies, and I mean everyone. Their supremely touted rotation is getting comparisons to the 90s Braves staff and everyone seems to be penciling them in for a world series appearance or at the very least a division. If this sounds familiar it's because we saw it last summer with the Miami Heat and there was a team that clearly had its problems living up to the hype. With the decline of Rollins, Howard, Ibanez, and the injury to Utley as well as the departure of Werth this lineup isn't nearly as imposing. Their bullpen is suspect and their farm system all but depleted. Yes Roy Halladay will be great, Cliff Lee may win 20 games, but they're far from a lock. The Braves on the other hand have a great rotation, one of the leagues best farm systems, and have made a wonderful addition with Dan Uggla at second base. They might not have the glamor of the Phillies but they're on par with talent and other than Derek Lowe and Chipper Jones far younger. The Marlins are the perennial "wait and see" team. They have some great pieces but have failed to put them together for the last several years. Any given year could be the year for them, but I can't see them passing the Braves or Phillies. The Nationals are definitely on their way up, the addition of Werth should lessen the blow of Adam Dunn's departure, but clearly their eyes are on the future, and their two number one picks who should be helping the team out in the second half. The Mets on the other hand could very well be the most dysfunctional and worst team in baseball right now. Hard to imagine this team was a serious contender just a couple seasons ago. Nearly every one of their one time all stars are hurt including ace pitcher Johan Santana, and their lineup is comprised of a host of triple-A players no one's ever heard of (Cubs fans remember Angel Pagan?). It's a disastrous soap opera and with ownership issues and massive financial trouble this could be a seriously ugly year for the team from Queens. Just go ahead an celebrate the 25 year anniversary of your Miracle Mets and pray next year isn't as bleak, but don't ask me to feel sorry for you.

AL Central
1. Cardinals
2. Cubs
3. Brewers
4. Reds
5. Astros
6. Priates

Yeah that's right I'm picking the Cardinals. Injuries or not, if anyone can weather the storm of losing one of the three best pitchers in the National League it's the Cardinals. Dave Duncan is a wizard whose made a career getting pitchers to over achieve and someone will step up to fill Adam Wainwright's vacancy. The Pujols contract talks will be an issue but probably not for the most consistent power hitter in baseball history. I would have picked the Brewers to win, but the fact that both their off season pitching acquisitions (Marcum and Greinke) are starting the season on the DL has me slightly worried. They can hit the hell out of the ball and with a potential rotation of Greinke, Gillardo, Marcum, and Wolff they could be outstanding, especially with the issues with other teams, but well they're one of those injured teams. The Cubs are a huge question mark but have enough solid pieces to make a decent run if some of their players can rebound from a dismal 2009-2010. It'll take a long time to see just how they'll shape up, but their rotation should be solid (provided Zambrano doesn't self destruct a huge if), their bullpen should be remarkably better with Wood back in their, and after years and years they finally have their power hitting left hander with Pena. I imagine a fun an interesting season on the North Side and if Quade is anything like the Cubs last two managers, then they'll win the division, we'll see. Speaking of former Cubs managers, I have no faith at all in the Reds abilities to repeat. They had good years from nearly everyone, but now that all those young players have gotten paid I wonder if they'll be able to repeat their performances. Dusty Baker has a wonderful capacity to destroy young pitchers and there's already evidence of that this season. They won't be bad, but can't see them winning the division again, the Brewers and Cubs made too many improvements. The Astros are in transition and are probably more concerned with finding out what they have rather than making a serious run. And well poor Pirates, Jesus that streak won't end this year.

NL West
1. Rockies
2. Giants
3. Dodgers
4. Padres
5. Diamondbacks

The Rockies have been jilted the last season and are not quickly to forgive the Giants their recent success. With Gonzalez and Tulowitzki locked up they should be as good if not better than last year, and well someone has to win the division. The Giants may have a bit of a sophomore slump, and it doesn't help that Brian Wilson will be starting the season on the DL. The Dodgers should be interesting with first year manager Don "I thought I told you trim those sideburns" Mattingly, and still have a few great young players. With their ownership situation of recent years I'm not sure how well they can add an impact player when needed. The NL West has been a tough division to win and with the surprising performance of the Padres last year the race has gotten even tighter. The Padres shocked me and most of the baseball world by winning 90 games last year when everyone (myself included) picked them to finish dead last. The departure of Gonzalez is huge, but their rotation and bullpen is still among the league's best, who knows. The D-Backs are that other team in transition, and I honestly don't know a single pitcher in their starting rotation (is Micah Owings still there?). That said I have no idea how this team will play and won't predict much.

So to recap

AL
Boston
Rays (wild card)
White Sox
Athletics

NL
Braves
Phillies (Wild Card)
Cardinals
Rockies

Fear of Cinema

I’ve been thinking a bit about certain prejudices and often irrational fears in the world of cinema. Some are glaring points of contention that have the mark of the uncultured or downright ignorant, some the opposite with distinct odor of film snobbery, but even the most balanced of us regular movie watchers have some fear of cinema and it comes in places you might not expect it.

Let’s discuss some of the types of fear I’m referring to. Type one is rather simple it’s the fear of a genre. Have you ever met someone who absolutely refuses to watch horror films because they’re total wussies and are too scared of their own shadow that even the most mundane Saw film can actually terrify them? Chances are we’ve all met someone like that and usually shook out heads wondering how the hell these people still exist but realize that this is the most pure form of film fear. In a literal and figurative sense it really is a fear of a type of film, much in the way other people are scared of clowns, spiders, or heights.

This genre fear can take a few forms, the straight man who won’t watch any “chick flicks” or sit through some “faggy musical”. These people swear to their masculine allegiance and realize that anything that doesn’t involve gore, titties, and massive casualties better be a Coen brothers film otherwise you’re a total fag for watching it. Now this macho man/repressed homosexual is another type of friend most of us has who is free to dismiss a film like Brokeback Mountain while proudly proclaiming to never see it, and vowing never to see it. Musicals ranging from Singin’ in the Rain to the Sound of Music, and even more recent offerings like Chicago and Moulin Rouge are clearly not “manly films” so therefore have to be disregarded while that manly man spends his time watching Transporter 3 confident that his sexual preference won’t come into debate again.

There are also the nerdy connotations associated with science fiction and fantasy that make other people proud to avoid Star Wars for a lifetime rather than ashamed. The people who might love Lord of the Rings but dismiss Harry Potter as a much weaker franchise. Often the people with this prejudice are actually fans of the genre. Chances are there are more Star Wars fans who hate Star Trek than average people who dislike both. Nerds are a passionate group of people who will defend their champions with their last breath and campaign against everything in opposition. Perhaps like the macho man the fear here might be that they actually like the film(s) they’ve been bashing and have to proceed to apologize to all those friends whose opinions they bashed.

The fear of horror results from direct fear of being scared so I don’t think many people avoid horror films because they secretly worry they might like them, instead I think they avoid them because they don’t feel like having nightmares all night long. However there is a different reason to avoid films in this genre, and that is the lack of quality/waste of time quotient. Every year no matter how much we wish for it several horror films are remade. It seems that every one of these remakes removes nudity, dulls everything interesting about the original, and uses more handheld cameras to give it an “edgy” tone. So most of us might not fear watching the remakes of The Crazies, Last House on the Left, or The Stepfather, but would rather stick to the originals and save ourselves the headache of sitting through an inferior remake of a film that probably could have been improved upon. Call this a fear of wasting time, which certainly can fit into this blog topic.

However the idea of fear isn’t so simple regarding genre prejudices. Have you ever been scared to watch a film a second time because you fear you might not like it as much upon a closer inspection? Some films captivate us so perfectly on a first viewing that sitting through the film again might diminish that original opinion, sour the taste for us, reveal that the film we loved so desperately was in reality somewhat average. Or perhaps that film with a surprise ending won’t seem as extraordinary when you know the ending. The night I saw Pride and Prejudice in the theater was the result of a lot of changed plans and wound up being one of the loveliest evenings I’ve spent in the past decade. I wondered if with the situation and company change would the film hold up as well. After over 5 years I finally decided to give the film another chance and loved it as much as ever, proving that a great film can transcend any conditions, or perhaps the memory of that original night gave me a warm feeling of nostalgia sitting through it.

The last real fear of cinema I want to mention is length. This goes along with the fear of wasting one’s time. Plenty of people have probably noticed that I recommend a lot of ludicrously long films. My number one from 2010 was a solid 5 hours plus, my favorite film of the 80s was a good 15 hours long. Many of the greatest films of all time are long, sometimes to the point of absurdity. Yet very few people feel like spending multiple hours following one story, just like many people who love to read are scared to pick up that 1000 page book and may be more comfortable settling into that 200 pager. After all you can spend 100 minutes watching a film, or 210 chances are you might prefer the shorter because it’ll take up less of your time. This is one fear that seems hardest to overcome for many people, but looking at my numerous lists of favorites, there’s plenty I’d recommend.

There are plenty of happy endings when we conquer our fear of cinema however. What seems like a century ago I had the American Film Institute’s 100 Years 100 Movies list, the first one. It was in late 1999 and I had spent the night at my grandmother’s house the night before. I turned on TCM the next day and found Yankee Doodle Dandy was coming on. This was #100 on that list and a *gasp musical. I couldn’t stand burst into song crap or so I thought and wanted nothing to do with any of the numerous musicals on the list. I recorded it anyways because it was on. As it progressed I started to watch it, and was amazed. Not necessarily because the film was so great, although I enjoyed it immensely, but because the songs were in context. People didn’t spontaneously start singing and dancing, instead the songs were part of the narrative, recreated in stage productions, rehearsals and all serving the narrative. The concept of the old backstage musical was new to me at this point in time and I wondered if this film could surprise me, maybe it was time to get over my bias towards musicals. Later that day on the way home I stopped at a used book/video store and purchased Singin’ in the Rain. When I got home I helped put up Christmas decorations while watching the film and was even more impressed. I realized then that I’d watch all 100 films on this list.

Overcoming my musical fear was just the first step. I realized if this genre could house gems then so could the scary world of silent cinema, foreign movies, even an animated Disney cartoon. The next steps were fairly swift and I realized that if a film was given a good rating I’d watch it free of fear. Now don’t get me wrong there are some films that I approach with great hesitation, make no effort to go out of my way to see, and put at a disadvantage. In 2008 Doubt came out and I couldn’t be less interested. I was growing tired of the annual Meryl Streep Oscar nomination, and a somber film about a priest being accused of molesting a child sounded like a plea for Academy recognition that plagued plenty of previous would be contenders (Cold Mountain anyone?). After two years I finally saw the film and wasn’t impressed much. To say it was a bad film would be misleading, but to say it was worth seeing wouldn’t exactly be true. Perhaps I had unfairly relegated the film to the dungeon before I saw it, but if the film was exceptional it would have overcome that obstacle.

Take another film from 2008 that worked the opposite direction. Ever since Ron Howard inexplicably won a best director Oscar for A Beautiful Mind I’ve had very little if any interest in his work. When Frost/Nixon made a few top ten lists I wasn’t interested, but then it appealed to my weakness, it got nominated for best picture. For those who know me will know that I’ve seen all but 4 films nominated for best picture since the Academy began handing out awards, so there was no chance I would avoid this film for much longer. I took myself to see it and was quite impressed. Perhaps I set the bar so low that this film had to live up to it, or perhaps this just overcame the prejudice I assigned to it. I’m not saying the film was a masterpiece, but it certainly struck me as a better film than the guilt trip known as The Reader.

So perhaps I need to make a final appeal to sum up my argument. It’d be a cliché to say “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, and well I think it applies. We can avoid films that are scary because we’re big babies, or plenty others because we feel uncomfortably homophobic about its content, maybe another because its too long, but well there’s greatness everywhere. So get over it, and dig in people, there’s nothing to be afraid of.

Oscar Aftermath and the Best of the Best Picture Winners

Well another year and a whole lot of arguing and bitching to be done. In fact I can't recall a year where I've been more disappointed with the final results than this in a long time. For those who read my last blog post, you'd know that I was not expecting King's Speech to rack up a best picture Oscar or for Tom Hooper to win best director, but well I guess there haven't been too many surprises in a long time.

We'll have to wait for the passing of time to judge how horribly wrong these choices were, but let's just say this film will join the ranks of such blah best picture winners as Shakespeare in Love, A Man For All Seasons, Cavalcade, The Life of Emile Zola, and plenty of others. In fact I was really hoping that the writer who decides what presenters are going to say had Spielberg say something better like "The winner will join such films as Out of Africa, Chariots of Fire, Oliver, and Around the World in 80 Days". There is indeed a dark side to every selection, but I'll hold off on condemning the film outright, that doesn't mean I have to be happy for it.

Yet again the majority of the foreign film nominees no one ever heard of, and I don't believe three of them even were released here. I was rooting for Dogtooth, but also wondering why the hell Carlos wasn't nominated, but well that's what's so wrong with the Academy bi-laws. I smiled so sweetly when Jean-Luc Godard decided not to show, guess he still hates Hollywood as much as ever gotta love it.

Kirk Douglas is at least a million, but he was somewhat amusing on stage. Could have done without Celine Dion ever appearing in public again, and nothing makes me dry heave more than inner city grade schoolers singing at an award show. So in case you were wondering, I had absolutely no say whatsoever in the production of the show. I had serious doubts about Franco and Hathaway's ability to host the show and well he seemed stoned, and she laughed about as much as Jimmy Fallon. There monologue was awkward and not even remotely funny, wonder if it would be too much to get Billy Crystal to host it again, clearly everyone preferred him.

Glad that Melissa Leo and Christian Bale got their Oscars, Leo had the best speech and seemed to be the only one who injected any life whatsoever into the show. Watching the "Closer" video in 1994 I don't think I would have ever guessed that man would one day win an Oscar, but Trent Reznor certainly deserved it, and well the Social Network could have won a few more awards as far as I was concerned. It was hard to gauge just what was going to win throughout the night because the wealth was pretty evenly distributed, with the exception of three of the major four. Natalie Portman and Collin Firth had their Oscars sewn up months ago, so no surprise there, although I did worry that Geoffrey Rush would take Christian Bale's Oscar from him, glad Bale is now the second Academy Award winning Batman.

Now for an added bonus I wasted far too much time ranking all 83 best picture winners in numbered order best to worst. Now this list is in terms of how the films compare to the other best picture winners, not how deserving they are of the award. You can judge for yourself where I think King's Speech ranks with it's predecessors, feel free to argue about my choices but it shouldn't be meant to be over analyzed. Perhaps a few of the ones at the bottom might benefit from another visit, but well that's another debate in itself.

The Top 83 Best Picture Winners

1. The Godfather
2. All Quiet on the Western Front
3. Lawrence of Arabia
4. Casablanca
5. Annie Hall
6. Ordinary People
7. Schindler’s List
8. Gone with the Wind
9. The Best Years of Our Lives
10. On the Waterfront
11. Ben-Hur
12. The Departed
13.No Country for Old Men
14. The Godfather Part 2
15. Platoon
16. It Happened One Night
17. The Deer Hunter
18. Rocky
19. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
20. Million Dollar Baby
21. Bridge on the River Kwai
22. Unforgiven
23. American Beauty
24. Rebecca
25. You Can Count on Me
26. From Here to Eternity
27. Titanic
28. The Midnight Cowboy
29. Dances With Wolves
30. An American in Paris
31. The Last Emperor
32. All About Eve
33. Crash
34. Amadeus
35. Silence of the Lambs
36. Forrest Gump
37. The Grand Hotel
38. Hamlet
39. The Apartment
40. Marty
41. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
42. Patton
43. Braveheart
44. Rain Man
45. The Gentleman’s Agreement
46. The Lost Weekend
47. Chicago
48. Mutiny on the Bounty
49. Gandhi
50. Tom Jones
51. The Hurt Locker
52. The Sting
53. How Green Was My Valley
54. Slumdog Millionaire
55. A Man for All Seasons
56. Terms of Endearment
57. Wings
58. A Beautiful Mind
59. In the Heat of the Night
60. Going My Way
61. Shakespeare in Love
62. Gladiator
63. The English Patient
64. The Greatest Show on Earth
65. The King’s Speech
66. All the King’s Men
67. Chariots of Fire
68. Kramer vs. Kramer
69. Gigi
70. The Great Zigfield
71. Mrs. Minniver
72. The Broadway Melody
73. West Side Story
74. The French Connection
75. Cavalcade
76. The Sound of Music
77. Around the World in 80 Days
78. The Life of Emile Zola
79. Driving Miss Daisy
80. Cimarron
81. My Fair Lady
82. Out of Africa
83. Oliver

History Repeating Itself and the Oscars

Well a ritual is upon the film going world and everyone within ear shot is hearing a load of Oscar predictions and speculations. People are arguing for what should win, what probably will win, and what should have been nominated, etc. I’m no stranger to this phenomenon as my long term readers will recall last years pre and post Oscar posts. A year later and I’m even more informed on this year’s crop, seeing every film nominated in the four major categories and with a few opinions on each of them.

However before we get cracking on yet another solitary man voicing his (occasionally) informed opinion on the upcoming fest, lets take a trip back, way back to a decade when the Oscars weren’t even called the Oscars yet. According to anecdotal film history Bette Davis claimed to name the Academy Awards by saying that the bald statuette looked like her husband whose name was Oscar. That’s the legend, and it makes for a good little anecdote to tell your family while watching the ceremony this Sunday. The year Bette Davis won her first Oscar was 1935 for Dangerous, which was given to her because she inexplicably wasn’t nominated for best actress in 1934 for Of Human Bondage, see even back then Oscars were handed out for previous mistakes.

Truth be told neither film has held up as well but despite it’s sometimes absurd melodrama, Dangerous might be the better performance, by a nose. I have no problem recommending it for people who are Davis fans or simply want to see one of the all time greats diva it up. Davis would go on to be nominated numerous other times winning again for Jezebel, and getting cries of outrage at her losses for better performances in The Letter, Little Foxes, Now Voyager, and All About Eve. However every year has it’s story, and that’s a whole other book.

Now there’s another reason why I mention 1934 and 1935 because they hold a unique mark in the history of the Academy. They were the only two years that 12 films were nominated for best picture. Looking at the films from each year they differ wildly in quality, 1934 doing a woefully bad job at justifying it’s gluttonous assortment of nominees. The 1935 nominees hold up surprisingly better, and well let’s get into them a bit.

1934

IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
The Barretts of Wimpole Street
Cleopatra
Flirtation Walk
The Gay Divorcee
Here Comes the Navy
The House of Rothschild
Imitation of Life
One Night of Love
The Thin Man
Viva Villa!
The White Parade

In case you didn’t guess, It Happened One Night was the winner, hence why it was listed first and capitalized. I could also have capitalized it because it’s by far the best film nominated, and I mean by far. In fact It Happened One Night was the first film to win all the major awards, a feat repeated by One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Silence of the Lambs. A feat that isn’t too easy considering there isn’t even a film nominated in all four categories this year. Any list of the best classic films would recognize this as one of the all time bests, Oscars notwithstanding. It set Frank Capra up as Hollywood’s best director for the remainder of the decade as he won the first of three Oscars in 5 years, a feat never repeated, and not likely to.



Now then as now Davis supporters argued that her performance should have won, and at the very least been officially nominated. However Claudette Colbert may have just as easily been given an award for her body of work for the year. In the first show actors were selected for every film they did in a year, hence why Janet Gaynor won for Sunrise, Street Angel, and Seventh Heaven and Emil Jannings won for The Last Command and Way of All Flesh. Claudette Colbert was the first of eventually four people who would appear in 3 best picture nominees in the same year (also appearing in Imitation of Life and Cleopatra), I’ll fill you in on who another actor to earn that distinction is soon enough. Based on her competition of opera singer Grace Moore for One Night of Love and Norma Shearer for The Barretts of Wimpole Street I’d say Colbert certainly seemed worthy. Shearer was the original Peter O’Toole getting nominated several times without an Oscar to show for it, although history hasn’t been as kind to her extremely dated period films that were the epitome of MGM’s high gloss yet mediocre style at the time.

Like the actress race, there were only three best actor nominees, which you’re right if you think that’s really odd considering there were 12 best picture nominees. Gable’s competition was Frank Morgan in Affairs of Cellini and William Powell for The Thin Man, probably the second best film nominated for best picture that year. I’ve never seen or heard of anyone who has seen Affairs of Cellini so I’d say forgettable is an apt description that year. Danny Peary offered John Barrymore as his Alternate Oscar choice for Twentieth Century, but warning you he goes WAY over the top there, but that’s kinda the point.

I can’t think of any other year that deserved fewer best picture nominees. In fact had It Happened One Night, Cleopatra, and The Thin Man gotten a nomination and nothing else it wouldn’t have mattered much. I’ve seen only 41 films from that year, and of those 41 I’d give a 5 star rating to only three (Man of Aran and King Vidor’s Our Daily Bread to go along with It Happened One Night). So keep in mind that if 10 nominees seem like too much, it could be much worse you could have 12.

Ignorance alert, although I just watched Here Comes the Navy today, I’m yet to find a copy of The White Parade. 1934 has been the hardest year to complete in my Oscar quest, considering those two films along with House of Rothschild were never even released on VHS let alone DVD. So if it’s a year you feel like exploring further good luck it won’t be too easy.

1935

MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY
Alice Adams
The Broadway Melody of 1936
Captain Blood
David Copperfield
The Informer
The Lives of a Bengal Lancer
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Les Miserables
Naughty Marietta
Ruggles of Red Gap
Top Hat

Well from a cursory glance at this years nominees you can see noticeable upturn in quality. Many people still regard Mutiny on the Bounty as one of the all time classics, and it’s certainly a step up from the big budget snore fest starring Marlon Brando that inexplicably got a best picture nomination in 1962. It also earned the unique distinction of being the first with three best actor nominees, and go figure the winner was the only nominee not from that film, Victor McLaglen for The Informer. The Informer has dated very badly and McLaglen’s performance is obnoxious at best, but fans of Ford will still appreciate his German Expressionism interpretation, a film which won him the first of a record 4 best director Oscars.



Contributing to the strange inconsistencies of the Academy at the time, they nominated 4 people for best actor, and 6 for best actress, and 4 for best director. As mentioned earlier Davis won her Oscar for Dangerous, beating out Katherine Hepburn for Alice Adams, Miriam Hopkins for Becky Sharp and a few others who I am not at liberty to compare.

Charles Laughton was this year’s beneficiary of the 12 nominee rule when he became the second actor to appear in three best picture nominees. Like Colbert, Thomas Mitchell (1939), and John C. Reilly (2002) he appeared in the best picture winner as well as two of his competitors. Laughton was also in Les Miserables and Ruggles of Red Cap which have held up well over the years. Ruggles of Red Cap is one of the year’s funniest performances and is a welcome change of pace after the two monstrous literary villains he played in the other films. You could do a lot worse than having a 1935 Charles Laughton night.

Fred and Ginger appeared in a best picture nominee for the second straight year with their best film Top Hat which helps add even more credibility to a vastly improved Oscar class. Perhaps the only two major snubs that year would be the Marx Brothers A Night at the Opera and James Whale’s Bride of Frankenstein, but then as now horror films seldom get any love. Although no year is perfect and just as today’s Oscar crop features several films that did absolutely nothing for me, there are still a few worthy candidates and a couple of favorites that were left off the ballot, history repeating itself for sure.

2010

Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

So that brings us up to the present. Our crop of best picture nominees is decent here. Unlike The Blind Side last year there isn’t really a film that make me dry heave here. Truth be told if I were ruling the world, and god willing someday I will only two of these films would be on my list, see my previously posted top 10 to see which. That doesn’t mean I hate the other 8 nominees at all. Quite the contrary, I’m sure another viewing of The Social Network will probably have me drinking the same kool-aid as everyone else, and I really did love Toy Story 3.

I hate to say that The Black Swan is a tad bit overrated. Not a bad film, but perhaps the bar was set too high for me and Mr. Aronofsky with Requiem for a Dream and I’ve been waiting for him to reach that mark again. Natalie Portman practically already won her Oscar and I’m just happy Meryl Streep isn’t nominated, no offense to the Queen mother of all actresses but enough is enough, really Julie and Julia? Much needed break there. Michelle Williams would be a nice dark horse candidate but her co-star Ryan Gosling was unfairly left out of the best actor race considering I’d pick his performance over all five best actor nominees. Sorry that stuttering doesn’t impress nearly as much as everyone else, but I know my cries will fall on deaf ears considering how much buzz is going Collin Firth’s way for The King’s Speech.

My main complaint with this years nominees is a similar one to last year, where the fuck are all the foreign films? I mean based on bizarre and incomprehensible Academy bi-laws that make their foreign language Oscar completely worthless in terms of respectability, they can at least make up the difference by recognizing some of those subtitled features in the big race. After all you expect any well informed film goer to believe that the ten best films from the year were all American? Don’t bother to point out British co-productions, they’re as American as apple pie, I’m looking at you King’s Speech with your echo of old Miramax glory hounding. Now perhaps the Academy didn’t have to make half the nominees foreign as I would have, but at least one. Considering how few foreign language films have ever even been nominated, and none since Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in 2000, expanding the nominees to ten seems like an even bigger slap in the face to films from other countries. Perhaps the tide will turn next year.

So here’s a quick list of what probably will win, and what I’d like to win:

Best Picture
Likely to win - The Social Network
My pick - Inception

Best Actor
Likely to win - Collin Firth (The King’s Speech)
My pick - Javier Bardem (Biutiful) - not that great of a film, but he’s the best of this bunch

Best Actress
Likely to win - Natalie Portman (Black Swan)
My pick - Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

Best Director
Likely to win - David Fincher (The Social Network)
My pick - David O’Russell (The Fighter) - although I wouldn’t mind if Fincher or Aronofsky got their’s

So there you go, we’ll see whose right.

Top 50 of the 90s

Well I wanted to post this a little sooner, but what are you going to do? I decided to expand upon my typical top 10 list for the 90s with a top 50 and well I’d like to take some time to explain my logic behind it. For starters ten films has always been a bummer for me. A top ten for a given year is a decent list but think about it in regards to a decade. Basically if you make a top ten list of ten years that’s as good as saying you can select one film per year. Now this makes the quality of the list great, but it leaves an incredible wealth of films on the cutting room floor. How often have we looked at a best picture race as one between two horses? Just because LA Confidential is a better film than Boogie Nights (in my opinion anyways), doesn’t mean that Boogie Nights isn’t a great film. Take that and multiply it by ten and you have an idea of how limited these lists have been.

Now that brings us to the next point, why 50? After all why not go for a top 100? If you stated that a top ten of a given year would be sufficient, then a top 100 for a decade would simply average your top ten of every year. Well I considered this and realized that the list would suffer from a bit of overkill. After all there are easily 100 really good if not great films from the 90s, but I think the human brain will shut off before too long, and would it really be a compliment for a film to be named the 93rd best film of the 90s? A top 100 for a decade is troublesome to research as well. If I make a top ten, there’s a good chance that most people reading it have seen several if not all of the films. Perhaps they find a couple to rent and therefore learn a little more about the decade. Its hard for anyone to have seen every film on a top 100 and the research to see those can wind up being overbearing. Therefore a top 50 is something of a middle ground. I’m sure most of the readers of this blog will find a few films that they haven’t seen, but not so many to discourage them from even trying to check some of them out.

Another reason that I slightly hinted at in at least my last two decade posts is the question of equality. Proportionately speaking, foreign language films constituted 1/10 of my top ten. So therefore 10% of the top ten, pretty poor number that doesn’t even come close to doing justice to the many great international films made in that decade. Thanks to an expanded list, they constitute 34% of my top 50. Now some people may say that’s still not that much, but if you’re a fan of fractions that just a hair more than 1/3 of the list, certainly a much more generous sampling proportionately. If this isn’t good enough, I apologize but if you are looking for some subtitled films to see from the 90s, I got 17 recommendations on this list.

There is another justification for this list. The majority of my readers, if not all of them grew up in the 90s, many lived through the entire decade. This makes the 90s a unique decade amongst my top tens. Since I was born in the 80s my cinematic memories are hazy, and largely shaped during the late 90s. For that reason many people lived through these films being released which means they are much more likely to recognize the titles and chances are they’ve seen the films already. Expanding the list expands the number of films mentioned. I wonder how many people reading this have seen all ten films of on my 50s list, and I know only about 2 people have seen my special jury prize for that decade, yet I wouldn’t be surprised if most people have seen 8-10 of my 90s list.

Looking ahead expect a similar top 50 to accompany my 2000s list. Since every one reading this blog that I can account for lived through all of this decade it only makes sense to expand the list. For this reason I’m approaching my research in a different way this time around, watching films to make a top 50 is far different than researching for a top 10. I’ve seen more films from the past decade than any other, but for that reason I have more films that I need to revisit and take a closer look at. At least with that list every film should be available on DVD and the majority available on Blu-Ray so happy hunting whenever I wrap up that list.

I’ve also now officially seen every film up for the major Oscars (picture, director, actor, actress) so expect a detailed list of bitching/predicting before the official award show.

50. The Pillow Book - Peter Greenaway
49. After Life - Hirokazu Kore-eda
48. JFK - Oliver Stone
47. Rebels of the Neon God - Tsai Ming-Liang
46. Deconstructing Harry - Woody Allen
45. Happy Together - Wong Kar-Wai
44. Quiz Show - Robert Redford
43. Flowers of Shanghai - Hou Hsiao-Hsien
42. Rushmore - Wes Anderson
41. Europa, Europa - Agnieszka Holland

40. Heavenly Creatures - Peter Jackson
39. South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut - Trey Parker
38. Three Kings - David O’Russell
37. Dances With Wolves - Kevin Costner
36. Bad Lieutenant - Abel Ferrara
35. Underground - Emir Kustirica
34. Existenz - David Cronenberg
33. Ghost - David Zucker
32. American Beauty - Sam Mendes
31. Thin Red Line - Terence Malick

30. Fargo - Joel and Ethan Coen
29. Chungking Express - Wong Kar-Wai
28. Unforgiven - Clint Eastwood
27. To Live - Zhang Yimou
26. Hard Boiled - John Woo
25. Through the Olive Trees - Abbas Kiarostami
24. Saving Private Ryan - Steven Spielberg
23. Lost Highway - David Lynch
22. Boogie Nights - Paul Thomas Anderson
21. All About My Mother - Pedro Almodovar

20. A Brighter Summer Day - Edward Yang
19. Terminator 2: Judgment Day - James Cameron
18. Red -Krzysztof Kieslowski
17. Dazed and Confused - Richard Linklater
16. Reservoir Dogs - Quentin Tarantino
15. The Blue Kite - Tian Zhuangzhuang
14. Satan’s Tango - Bela Tarr
13. Toy Story/Toy Story 2 - John Lasseter
12. Magnolia - Paul Thomas Anderson
11. 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance - Michael Haneke

10. Malcolm X - Spike Lee
9. Natural Born Killers - Oliver Stone
8. Fight Club - David Fincher
7. LA Confidential - Curtis Hanson
6. Ulysses’ Gaze - Theo Angelopoulos
5. Schindler’s List - Steven Spielberg
4. The Big Lebowski - Joel and Ethan Coen
3. Before Sunrise - Richard Linklater
2. Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese
1. Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino

They Shoot Pictures Don't They?

Well one of the few joys to accompany the frigid cold month of January is the annual updating of They Shoot Pictures Don't They's top 1000 films list, herein after referred to as TSPDT. This year's update can be found here, see how well you do. Every January they take as many greatest film lists as they can find and through some strange calculations determine just what the 1000 greatest films of all time are via a consensus ranking. There are always a few updates, but this year's 38 new entries was by far the lowest change since the list has been annually updated.

Perhaps they're running out of lists to find. Next year Sight and Sound's once a decade poll of the ten best films of all time is going to be updated and it's one of those monumental milestones in film canonization. There may be some significant changes, even in the top ten come next year's updates, so perhaps 2011's list is the calm before the storm.

One of the gripes often made by even the makers of the list is that it relies far too heavily on lists and polls from the US and Europe leaving the majority of Asian cinema, and those down in Australia and Africa somewhat neglected. This does pose a bit of a problem even if anyone from anywhere can theoretically select any film from anywhere for a greatest film list, but based on my own local preference I can imagine the troubles when that gets magnified a thousand times over.

My first encounter with the list was probably somewhere around 2005-6. Someone posted on a film site asking how many films from the top 100 we needed to see. I outdorked myself (not the first time trust me) and found I had already seen the top 100. I went on further in the list and went until about 193 before I found a film I hadn't seen yet, which was Jean Eustache's The Mother and the Whore which has since if you refer to my 70s post quickly became one of my favorites. While beefing up my films to look for list, I went through the rest of the list one lazy day and found I needed to see over two hundred films from the list, quite a daunting task. Sporadically for the next few months/year I watched what I could without focusing too intently on the list, after all with that many films to see it wasn't exactly a weekend marathon that could complete things.

Then came the end of 2007 when I ventured into my quest to see every film from my top 20 favorite directors. It was a grueling several month long quest with 20 individual stops some lasting longer than others but at the end I realized what a singular purpose could accomplish. Then in January of 2008 the list was updated in rather grand fashion, I wrote down what I needed to see and decided this list would be my next objective. By this point the number of total films to see was whittled down quite a bit, but was far from a short list. Thanks in large part to Facets I went through the films I needed to see chronologically, from such pictures as Charlie Chaplin's The Pilgrim to Harmony Korine's Gummo. Along the way two films slipped through the cracks.
The Always Elusive

Truth be told more films slipped through the cracks but at various times I was able to see those. Yet two remained, and still remain elusive. The first was Stan Brakhage's The Art of Vision. Now there have been a few series of his films shown at Doc Films over the past couple years, and two different anthologies of his work released by the Criterion collection. In all I've easily seen more Brakhage films than any director ever, yet The Art of Vision is not one of those. Now from the research I've done it appears that The Art of Vision was a re-edit of Dog Star Man, perhaps the most seminal film from Stan Brakhage. They're both listed as the same year, but I've reason to believe they're two different films rather than two titles for the same picture. So although I've seen Dog Star Man, I can't quite technically say I've seen Art of Vision. For shame this one remains as elusive as ever. I'm still amazed any Brakhage is available on DVD so I shouldn't complain too much but how the hell did enough people see this for it to get on the top 1000, and not just that it's ALWAYS been on the top 1000, no matter how many updates it never seems to leave. Thorn in my side number one.

The other film is one that I did have an opportunity to see but wound up out of state that particular weekend. That film is Jacques Rivette's Out 1: Spectre. Roughly four hours and some change (Art of Vision is also a bit of an epic) it is actually a smaller condensed version of a much more epic film called simply Out 1. Now one glorious weekend in 2007 I watched all 12 hours of Out 1 during it's one and as far as I can tell only screening in the city of Chicago at the Gene Siskel Film Center. Two weeks later was the scheduling of Out 1: Spectre which of course had no makeup screening. So I can say I saw a rough cut or an extremely extended cut of the film and all the footage therein, but it's apparently re-edited in a way that makes it seem like a completely different film, at least according to pretentious people who believe the film has a plot to begin with. This one I feel a little more inclined to say "technically I've seen it", but well not under that title. Ironically bit torrent files exist for the 12 hour version which was THE most difficult to find film for decades, but nothing seems to be circulating for the four hour version, who knows?

Class of 2011



These two I check each year and see them slip a little on the list but hold their ground and no at least for one more year they remain on top of my list of films to look for. Of the 38 new films added this year I discovered only three were new for me, and by that I mean 1. For some reason I mistook The Amazing Transparent Man with The Incredible Shrinking Man. By title this mistake is genuine but anyone who knows of the quality between the two films couldn't begin to fathom such a grievous error being made. I figured even if I HAD seen The Incredible Shrinking Man before I clearly didn't remember it enough so watching it again couldn't hurt, especially when the film is a mere 80 minutes long. So I found it nice and quick and watched it last night. When you get over the limitations of it's genre, with extremely corny and predictable dialogue and characters, horribly over the top music that feels like being hit in the head repeatedly with a frying pan, and cheesy special effects that may or may not have been cutting edge at the time the film is a masterpiece. You can forgive simple lines and laughable relationships in a 50s film because you come to expect it, however there is no way a film could get away with that in today's day and age. The film at times is your cold war radiation monster film, but instead it deals with a lot of potent themes of the time and today for that matter. You can make allegories all you want for him being a "shrinking man" just as you can say all you want about a fear of feminism in the Attack of the 50ft Woman. The last half hour of the film, which makes a basement seem like the most terrifying place on the planet is horror filmmaking at it's absolute best with arguably the most gruesome, nerve wrecking, and downright terrifying man vs. creature fight ever. When looking for a little cheese, do yourself a favor and hunt this one out.



Also on the list was Anthony Mann's Bend of the River. Now I was somewhat shocked to find this film was on the list last year, the year before that, etc. I even have the film on DVD and meant to watch it one day, but never put any priority to it meanwhile not realizing it was on my list and had been for quite some time. I've adored pretty much all the Mann-James Stewart Western's I've seen and perhaps I was savoring them too much by putting off watching the last few remaining. Well that ended a couple hours ago when I watched this film at long last. I kicked myself a bit because the film featured Julia Adams in it's cast, yes the same Julia Adams from Creature from the Black Lagoon, arguably the most attractive scream queen of all time. She also happened to have been burdened by a rather bad Universal contract that kept her from making hardly any films of note. However this film made two years prior is worth hunting out for Creature fans longing to see Adams in anything worthwhile. Granted there's a lot less one piece swimsuits in this film, but you can't expect much else in a Western shot around Portland. Stewart is again a somewhat morally suspect anti-hero who nearly reluctantly is goaded into doing right usually by being contrasted with someone even worse. Far greater minds than mine have examined the Mann-Stewart Westerns ad-nauseam so I'll just refrain and say it's a great Western for people who don't like Westerns to watch.



The one true new addition to the list that I needed to see was one of those "aw hell" films. Not because I didn't want to see it, but because I already had the film and was planning on watching it because it was on another list I was working on, in this case Film Comment's 150 best of the decade list. That film was Peter Watkins' La Commune (Paris 1871). Like the Mann-Stewart Westerns I've made a point to savor Watkins work. I first encountered his films when his Punishment Park was recommended in the Village Voice film guide. I was completely blown away with the pseudo-documentary style, the highly political subject matter and the overreaching belief that "this could happen". More of his films were luckily available at the time and I shortly afterward saw The Battle of Culoden, The War Game, and Privilege. Only the first film was truly a "documentary" which borrowed from modern day recreation techniques so it is far from simply a talking head documentary, much like the style employed in La Commune. This film which totals a mere 6 hours in length is about the self governing Commune set up in Paris following the defeat during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. This was the first true socialist government set up in the modern world and was an experiment doomed to failure. Rather than tell it's tale conventionally, Watkins built sets, cast actors, encouraged them to do their own research and recreated the tumultuous times, employing many modern media techniques with his own on the scene news anchors covering the anarchy much like CNN would today. It's a wonderful mix that makes it nearly impossible to define yet proves once again why Watkins films are so special and why I wanted to space out his work as much as I could to savor and enjoy each individual film.

So I'd figure I'd let you know where the list stands, still 998, damn bastards but a whole lot less work to catch up this time around. I can scarcely recommend a better consensus list to work on if you're looking for a year long film project.

Up next . . .

I've toyed with the idea of expanding the 90s list to 11-50, no great explanations just extra recommendations.
Research has begun for the 2000s list and boy there's a lot where that came from.