Best movies of the 2000s - Yearly Top 5 lists

[Bill]

As per usual, I haven't seen many movies on this year's list (only Star Trek). I will see Enders Game at some point, but missed it in the theatre. I should make an effort to see at least one of the top 5.

On another note, I did actually see Abe Lincoln VH not too long ago. I hate undead movies in general, so my expectations were very, VERY low. I did find it actually watchable, which in and of itself is pretty high praise. I will not call it good, just not an F-. Maybe an F+.

EDIT I figured it out. John needs to see more animated movies so more of the ones I see end up on the list

[John]

EDIT I figured it out. John needs to see more animated movies so more of the ones I see end up on the list

You're on to something. I figured the glaring omission from my lists were superhero movies (Man of Steel was the only one I saw last year, and I didn't like it), but you're right that I skip on animated movies, too. In fact, I just passed on a screening of The LEGO Movie yesterday. I do believe the last animated film I saw was Wreck-It Ralph, which I actually quite liked. It's funny: I don't necessarily dislike animated (or even superhero) films out of hand, but for some reason I find it very difficult to muster up interest in going to see them. Seems to be one of my little film-fan quirks.

[Arroyos]

We see different movies, Bob, because you have something people like to call "taste" …

Gee, John, I don't think I've ever been accused of having "taste" before.

But if you look at my list, at the whole list, I don't think it reveals anything like "taste," but rather a clear predilection for films without much violence, without much sex, with older actors, character-driven plots and no heroes. Relationship movies, perhaps. What some would call "chick flicks." If they had a catchy name for movies about old fart dinosaurs like me, that'd be my genre!

If it's showing at the shopping mall cinema, you can bet I won't see it. Haven't been to the local Edwards Cinema in 10 years, but I visit the local artsy film theatre every couple months. Going later today, in fact, in order to avoid all the hubbub around that other sporting event (no balls, no bats—what's the point?). My partner and I are headed out to the art film theatre to see "Nebraska."

[Shinkansen]

I read John's post, and saw World War Z. I watched it for the first time last night and have to say I'm a fan. Brad Pitt is now in two of my top 5 movies, Moneyball and World War Z.

[Alleghenies]

Good list, John. However, I would put Captain Phillips on my top 5 in 2013. Great story, and Tom Hanks was really good in that movie.

[John]

But if you look at my list, at the whole list, I don't think it reveals anything like "taste," but rather a clear predilection for films without much violence, without much sex, with older actors, character-driven plots and no heroes.

I remember that movie. I believe it was called Sunday school. I kid, I kid!

Seriously, though, a few titles on this year's list may be up your alley, Bob. I'd definitely recommend Her; it does have a couple of racy "sex talk" scenes, but no nudity. I think Lee Daniels' The Butler and Saving Mr. Banks are definitely worth catching, too. Obviously 42 fits right in with our shared interest in baseball; it's not nearly as good as Moneyball, but it's still worth a look. So, too, is Philomena; I didn't like it as much as some, but it's not at all a bad film.

You mention your local art house theater. I'm very lucky to have a superb one close by: the Cedar Lee, which opened back in 1925 and is still going strong nearly 90 years later. A lot of my friends dislike seeing movies there because it lacks the amenities of the modern theaters. I love the old place. It has the kind of character you won't find at the local megaplex. For anyone who is lucky enough to have an art theater in town, patronize it! It's important to keep these old houses of film worship alive.

[Zephyrs]

You mention your local art house theater. I'm very lucky to have a superb one close by: the Cedar Lee, which opened back in 1925 and is still going strong nearly 90 years later. A lot of my friends dislike seeing movies there because it lacks the amenities of the modern theaters. I love the old place. It has the kind of character you won't find at the local megaplex. For anyone who is lucky enough to have an art theater in town, patronize it! It's important to keep these old houses of film worship alive.

My Father-In-Law was the Projectionist at the Cedar Lee for many years and I have seen quite a few odd but interesting films there - fond memories.

[Arroyos]

You mention your local art house theater. I'm very lucky to have a superb one close by: the Cedar Lee, which opened back in 1925 and is still going strong nearly 90 years later. A lot of my friends dislike seeing movies there because it lacks the amenities of the modern theaters. I love the old place. It has the kind of character you won't find at the local megaplex. For anyone who is lucky enough to have an art theater in town, patronize it! It's important to keep these old houses of film worship alive.

My Father-In-Law was the Projectionist at the Cedar Lee for many years and I have seen quite a few odd but interesting films there - fond memories.

Now that's a GREAT coincidence! What are the odds?

Of my preferences in films, John wittily wrote:

I remember that movie. I believe it was called Sunday school.

He's right. I overstated the I'm talking about (I dig nudity), it's the fantasy. Sex in Hollywood films is like models in Playboy: too beautiful to be real, too glamorous to be believed, too air-brushed to bother with. Sex in Hollywood films is polished and choreographed, like a dance number in a Broadway show. We can admire the shine, but it's all surfaces and appearances. It looks like someone's adolescent dream of what sex might be like, before you actually have sex. It lacks the emotion, the grit, the humanity.

If you remember the films Sam Peckinpah made back in the 60s and 70s—The Wild Bunch, Ballad of Cable Hogue, Straw Dogs, The Getaway, Pat Garret and Billy the Kid—his treatment of violence in those films is analogous to what I'm describing as Hollywood's general treatment of sex. He glamorized it. Used slow motion to show bodies hit by bullets, blood bursting out, and the slow agonized faces of the dying. It was all very beautiful, very cinematic, and not at all like death by gunshot.

He reified violent death until it became a cliché others imitated.

Hollywood tends to reify sex, to work hard at making it look beautiful and meaningful and special. When it is usually plain and banal and common.

Still, John's right, I was happy as a kid back in Sunday school. All those intriguing maps in the back of my Bible kept me fascinated for years!

[Denny]

EDIT I figured it out. John needs to see more animated movies so more of the ones I see end up on the list

You're on to something. I figured the glaring omission from my lists were superhero movies (Man of Steel was the only one I saw last year, and I didn't like it), but you're right that I skip on animated movies, too. In fact, I just passed on a screening of The LEGO Movie yesterday. I do believe the last animated film I saw was Wreck-It Ralph, which I actually quite liked. It's funny: I don't necessarily dislike animated (or even superhero) films out of hand, but for some reason I find it very difficult to muster up interest in going to see them. Seems to be one of my little film-fan quirks.

It's from a few years ago now, John (2006), but speaking of animated movies, did you ever see A Scanner Darkly? It's Rotoscoped--the animation is traced over the actual film footage of the actors, so kind of a weird cross between regular film and pure animation. Based on a Philip K. Dick novel and I think it would be right up your alley if you haven't seen it.

[John]

Sex in Hollywood films is like models in Playboy: too beautiful to be real, too glamorous to be believed, too air-brushed to bother with. Sex in Hollywood films is polished and choreographed, like a dance number in a Broadway show. We can admire the shine, but it's all surfaces and appearances. It looks like someone's adolescent dream of what sex might be like, before you actually have sex. It lacks the emotion, the grit, the humanity.

Actually, I think sex in Hollywood films is disappearing. It's not like the '80s, when you had all kinds of highly Hollywood-ized sex scenes in mainstream fare. Today, sex is almost too racy for many R-rated films. It feels like there has been a bit of a sea change culturally, where sex has become a greater taboo while violence (which you can see copious amounts of in a PG-13 film) is no problem. As a lover of wanton sex and violence, I find this terribly disappointing. It's like being giving chocolate but being denied the peanut butter. Again, I kid, I kid!

Of course, another way of looking at it is that Hollywood has merged sex with violence. What is this, after all, if not a fetishist objectification of violence?

Excuse me ... I believe I need some "alone time." I really, really kid! I think ...

It's from a few years ago now, John (2006), but speaking of animated movies, did you ever see A Scanner Darkly? It's Rotoscoped--the animation is traced over the actual film footage of the actors, so kind of a weird cross between regular film and pure animation. Based on a Philip K. Dick novel and I think it would be right up your alley if you haven't seen it.

This is one of several big gaps in my library of film knowledge. I know all about A Scanner Darkly and it has been recommended to me on several occasions, yet I still haven't seen it. I really, really need to change that. Maybe I'll carve out some time this month for a viewing.

[Borealis]

I will continue to contend that 'Moneyball' is boring and horribly over-rated, but I do recommended highly, Bob, '42' - it was well done and does pretty good justice to the times. I'd also suggest The Butler. Forrest Whitiker is always great and Oprah is surprisingly good. Lots of great little cameos, too. It also depicts the era(s) nicely!!

[Arroyos]

I will continue to contend that 'Moneyball' is boring and horribly over-rated, but I do recommended highly, Bob, '42' - it was well done and does pretty good justice to the times. I'd also suggest The Butler. Forrest Whitiker is always great and Oprah is surprisingly good. Lots of great little cameos, too. It also depicts the era(s) nicely!!

Thanks, Michael. I'm looking forward to seeing The Butler. I watched 42 in preparation for my Baseball Lit class and was disappointed. Not in the baseball--the movie captures the game and the athleticism of the players as well as any I've seen--but the distortions and omissions in Jackie's story bugged me (esp. leaving out all the physical and verbal abuse he suffered from his teammates in the early months of the season), and Harrison Ford's 2-dimensional buffoonish characterization of Branch Rickey made the film seem less like a biography and more like a cartoon.

As for Moneyball, well, it's probably as full of inaccuracies as 42, but it was more fun. I'd agree with you that it's overrated, but I enjoyed watching Billy Beane outsmart the rest of the baseball world. And it was a kick to see how much of what Billy did that year for the A's has become standard practice across MLB. But, no, it doesn't rank up there with Bull Durham or Bang the Drum Slowly as a great baseball movie.

[Apollos]

I will continue to contend that 'Moneyball' is boring and horribly over-rated, but I do recommended highly, Bob, '42' - it was well done and does pretty good justice to the times. I'd also suggest The Butler. Forrest Whitiker is always great and Oprah is surprisingly good. Lots of great little cameos, too. It also depicts the era(s) nicely!!

I think more than anything else I was disappointed with how far Moneyball strayed from the book. Recognizing of course that the book wasn't exactly Hollywood movie-making material, I felt like it took a lot of liberties with regard to both how the A's organization operated and how it portrayed a lot of the characters in the story. I mean, if the A's were a step away from the World Series and lost a couple free agents would it really be time to go back to the drawing board as the movie suggests? Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense to lay out the story the way it actually went down wherein the revolution slowly happened several years prior to that point? I never got how they couldn't make the original story a little more adaptable to a Hollywood-style movie but then again, I'm certainly not experienced in screenwriting and have no idea the complexities involved in such a feat.

[Bill]

You mention your local art house theater. I'm very lucky to have a superb one close by: the Cedar Lee, which opened back in 1925 and is still going strong nearly 90 years later. A lot of my friends dislike seeing movies there because it lacks the amenities of the modern theaters. I love the old place. It has the kind of character you won't find at the local megaplex. For anyone who is lucky enough to have an art theater in town, patronize it! It's important to keep these old houses of film worship alive.

My Father-In-Law was the Projectionist at the Cedar Lee for many years and I have seen quite a few odd but interesting films there - fond memories.

More coincidence…my dad lived about a block from there for about 10 years, although I admit we spent a lot more time at the Winking Lizard Tavern than the movie theatre. It's been a while since I've been there though. I think the last thing I saw was the Enron documentary.

[John]

I will continue to contend that 'Moneyball' is boring and horribly over-rated, but I do recommended highly, Bob, '42' - it was well done and does pretty good justice to the times. I'd also suggest The Butler. Forrest Whitiker is always great and Oprah is surprisingly good. Lots of great little cameos, too. It also depicts the era(s) nicely!!

I think more than anything else I was disappointed with how far Moneyball strayed from the book. Recognizing of course that the book wasn't exactly Hollywood movie-making material, I felt like it took a lot of liberties with regard to both how the A's organization operated and how it portrayed a lot of the characters in the story. I mean, if the A's were a step away from the World Series and lost a couple free agents would it really be time to go back to the drawing board as the movie suggests? Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense to lay out the story the way it actually went down wherein the revolution slowly happened several years prior to that point? I never got how they couldn't make the original story a little more adaptable to a Hollywood-style movie but then again, I'm certainly not experienced in screenwriting and have no idea the complexities involved in such a feat.

You probably would have preferred the original Steven Zaillian version then, Brian. It hewed much closer to the source material. This was before Stephen Soderbergh's aborted version. Soderbergh's tinkering with Zaillian's script almost scuttled the entire project. Of course, before all this there was Stan Chervin's version. I actually have six different Moneyball script versions on my hard drive, starting with an early Chervin and progressing through the final shooting script. It's fascinating to see the twists and turns as different writers took a whack at converting the story to the big screen. (No pun intended.)