The Criterion Collection

[MifuneFan]

Children of Men, Zodiac, Oldboy, City of God, The Pianist, The Lives of Others, Mulholland Dr., Pan's Labyrinth, In the Mood For Love, Lost in Translation, and so on

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

I think it's a perfectly fine list.

Do I agree with everything? No.

Do a couple of the choices smack of compromise and voting by committee? Yes.

Are there going to be many, many omissions in a list of 25? Obviously.

With that said, if you actually read the article and don't just look at the list, they explain and justify their picks very well.

Yeah, I'm starting to think I shouldn't have posted the list by itself cause it leads to people picking out whatever they don't like and using it to dismiss the whole thing instead of actually reading it/engaging.

[malakaheso]

Unless you have very vanilla taste, chances are you will disagree with critics a lot. Most critically acclaimed films seem very ordinary to me. Safe and/or rather uninteresting, but hey, that's my opinion and we all have one.

Yi Yi is probably the only film from that list that would make my personal list from the last decade. Maybe The Death of Mr. Lazarescu too, but I'd have to see it again. I really liked Inside Llewyn Davis too, but it isn't my favourite Coens since 2000.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

Yeah, I'm starting to think I shouldn't have posted the list by itself cause it leads to people picking out whatever they don't like and using it to dismiss the whole thing instead of actually engaging.

I can't see the article, and I don't support the paywall bullshit. I just don't see any Justification in claiming to make a "best" of list when many of the choices are simply there to fill a quota for a genre, with the goal of making your list have some "variety". It's either the best or it's not. There are plenty of films that are better than the 40 Y.O. Virgin, Fury Road, Moonlight, and a couple others on there. At the end of the day, it's all subjective obviously, and they can come up with justifications for everything, but I just can't take such a list seriously.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I can't see the article, and I don't support the paywall bullshit.

Not sure why you're hitting a paywall? Certainly I'm not a subscriber to NYT, and I doubt anyone else here is either. Check PM.

Edit: Er, or don't check PM. Won't let me send it.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Unless you have very vanilla taste, chances are you will disagree with critics a lot. Most critically acclaimed films seem very ordinary to me. Safe and/or rather uninteresting, but hey, that's my opinion and we all have one.

Yi Yi is probably the only film from that list that would make my personal list from the last decade. Maybe The Death of Mr. Lazarescu too, but I'd have to see it again. I really liked Inside Llewyn Davis too, but it isn't my favourite Coens since 2000.

I haven't even seen 2/3 of it, so it's helpful to me to have ideas of what to see based on what they say about them! I've been avoiding Inside Llewyn Davis besides seeing most of the Coen catalog, cause the reviews and concept made it sound like something I'd be incredibly annoyed by all the characters in, but maybe I should finally get over it.

Eternal Sunshine is probably my favorite film of all time (and yes, some of it is nostalgia from terrible break-ups in college), so obviously I support that one. Mad Max Fury Road is easily the most visceral action film post 1990. I really like some of the others as well, but wouldn't call most of them BEST OF THE DECADE. But, the reasons for including them are interesting. It was decided by committee, with some people disagreeing entirely, so it's not supposed to be some kind of "critics list the best of the century so far," it says as much at the top. It's "movies that they think are most likely to be listed as classics in the future," which absolutely will end up including "lowbrow" movies. Just look at current lists of critic-voted classics from the decades past. Tons of them are just whatever was popular while also being good, not entirely things like Au Hasard Balthazar or whatever.

[Keymaster]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

With this discussion of recent movies and Mad Max FR, I thought people were talking about this new list of "25 best movies of the 21st century so far" from the New York Times.

There Will Be Blood
Spirited Away
Million Dollar Baby
A Touch of Sin (2013)
The Death of Mr. Lazarescu
Yi Yi
Inside Out
Boyhood
Summer Hours (2009)
The Hurt Locker
Inside Llewyn Davis
Timbuktu (2015)
In Jackson Heights
L'Enfant (2006)
White Material
Munich (the justification on this one is interesting)
Three Times (2006)
The Gleaners and I
Mad Max Fury Road
Moonlight
Wendy and Lucy
I'm Not There (2007)
Silent Light (2008)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The 40-Year-Old Virgin

I know lists like these are subjective, but this one reeks of inconsistency and snobbery. So, here's my "subjective" opinion.

1) Films in RED: Not worthy of inclusion.
2) Films in Bold: Worthy of inclusion
3) Films italicized: Films I haven't yet seen.

Admittedly, there are several independent films on this list I haven't seen. That being said...

Fury Road, which is all style and no substance, is included (a token gesture to the science fiction genre), but the Times don't include much stronger science fiction films, such as (off the top of my head): Mr. Nobody, Her, About Time, Never Let me Go, Inception, heck, even Cloud Atlas. I'd also put the $7,000 film Primer on a list ahead of mega-budget Fury Road (if I were only picking sci-fi flicks).

Into the Wild, the best film of 2007, IMO, isn't included. However, There Will Be Blood is a worthy inclusion on the list, as it was my second favorite of that year. I've always maintained No Country for Old Men (2007) is excellent, but overrated.

Million Dollar Baby is one of the weakest cards in Clint's deck. I was not impressed by it's ham-fisted twist in the final act. The movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. Apologies to the actors involved. They were all excellent.

The inclusion of Inside Llewyn Davis over Oh Brother Where Art Thou is baffling. Oh Brother is, arguably, the finest film the Coen Brothers have made.

The inclusion of YiYi is a solid choice.

I have no arguments with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but where is Adaptation? It's arguably Kuaffman's greatest script.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin? It's an entertaining film, but... Seth Rogen's been in several better films than this one the past couple decades. Steve Carrell's also moved onto brighter pastures.

The Hurt Locker is only the sixth best film out of the eight films I've seen Kathryn Bigelow direct.

If I were just picking from Spielberg films, then Catch me if you Can makes my list hands down over Munich (still a solid film, no doubt). Neither is top 25 worthy.

The New York Times must think so highly of itself not to include the Lord of the Rings trilogy (one film in reality), because they don't wanna run with the pack... but what if Lord of the Rings really is one of the best films of the current century? Typical snob logic.

And where is Birdman, an outright masterpiece? (Some would argue the film is snobbish, but the wit and insight of the screenplay justify it)

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but lists always inspire great discussion, and - man - this list is just a big, fat fail burger.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Not sure why you're hitting a paywall? Certainly I'm not a subscriber to NYT, and I doubt anyone else here is either. Check PM.

Edit: Er, or don't check PM. Won't let me send it.

No worries. When I click the link it brings me to a log in / sign up screen. I googled it though, and was able to find it that way. I'm reading through it now.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Keymaster

Fury Road, which is all style and no substance, is included (a token gesture to the science fiction genre), but the Times don't include much stronger science fiction films, such as (off the top of my head): Mr. Nobody, Her, About Time, Never Let me Go, Inception, heck, even Cloud Atlas. I'd also put the $7,000 film Primer on a list ahead of mega-budget Fury Road (if I were only picking sci-fi flicks).

They specifically said in the description that it was included as a token action movie, not sci-fi. Are you another that read the list and not the article? What action movies would you put instead on your list? I can't think of any better, while I agree that many are better if you look at it from a SCI-FI perspective since it's not really trying to be one, it's just using that future setting as a backdrop to justify the insane chases/production design/costume design and yes, even themes. Not to mention, it was stuck in it considering it's part of a series that was set in the future from the first entry.

If anything was the token sci-fi movie, it would be Eternal Sunshine, but I don't think it was intended as that either. They definitely don't mention it as such in the description, probably because no such excuse has to be made for its inclusion. I think they just skipped token sci-fi/horror entries entirely since they had two movies that could be classified as the former. If the latter had been included, my guess is it would have been Pan's Labyrinth since it's one of the few "classy" ones that critics can agree is high-brow.

[MifuneFan]

If we're discussing Fury Road purely as an action film, I'd put The Raid / Raid 2, Dredd, 300, and John Wick above it.

[llj]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

If we're discussing Fury Road purely as an action film, I'd put The Raid / Raid 2, Dredd, 300, and John Wick above it.

I like most of these too, but I feel like the set pieces for some of these films lack a certain amount of creativity. Wick and Dredd in particular are mostly "stand and shoot" affairs (which is why I feel JW2 is superior to JW1 in that it had more variety and better use of locations as part of the action) FR set pieces may be ridiculous but they are often pretty creative.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

If we're discussing Fury Road purely as an action film, I'd put The Raid / Raid 2, Dredd, 300, and John Wick above it.

Mad Max FR has ten times the costume design/production design of any of those, and the setpieces are much, MUCH more audacious than anything in them. 300 in particular is just a bunch of CGI'd grunting guys posing to best show off their painted-on abs. I get that you apparently prefer bare-bones things, but one of them had a whole fleet of insane vehicles created and actually blew most of them up, and created an entire world of sets and costumes, while Dredd and JW just have some good action choreography and a lot of CGI bullet hits to go with a bunch of faceless guys getting blown away. JW in particular has nothing interesting in terms of production/costume design. Not to mention MMFR has actual characters and ideas in it.

I found The Raid to be a totally empty film with some good fights in it, The Raid 2 to be a bore that should have chopped out at least an hour of "plot" to get to the incredible action scenes, 300 to be a very influential yet very stupid and regressive flick (I saw it well after everything had already ripped it off, admittedly), and Dredd/John Wick to be awesome. But, they pale in comparison to FR in every respect possible, apart from being as bare-bones as you can get. (This said, the concept of JW being a revenge flick for a dead dog is about my favorite thing ever)

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

With this discussion of recent movies and Mad Max FR, I thought people were talking about this new list of "25 best movies of the 21st century so far" from the New York Times.

There Will Be Blood
Million Dollar Baby

These are the only ones whose inclusion I agree with.

[MifuneFan]

I love Fury Road, don't get me wrong. As a whole, it's a superior film to those, but purely in terms of the action included, I feel the ones I listed are better examples of that genre. I think Fury Road is an adrenaline rush unlike very few films, and visually, it's beautiful, but if I feel like an action film, in the usual sense of the term, I'm more inclined to watch films like John Wick, Raid, 300, etc..

[CQD84]

I love how a lot of people take lists seriously. It's all subjective. Who cares if they list one film over another? Who cares if they list a comedy? Who cares if you don't think a film or two deserves to be on the list? Getting upset over that sort of thing would be like if someone gets mad over a grocery list. "Oh, you like Jack's frozen pizza over Tombstone? Please toss this in the trash. My taste in frozen pizzas is better than yours. Your list is a joke."

[llj]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

Mad Max FR has ten times the costume design/production design of any of those, and the setpieces are much, MUCH more audacious than anything in them. 300 in particular is just a bunch of CGI'd grunting guys posing to best show off their painted-on abs. I get that you apparently prefer bare-bones things, but one of them had a whole fleet of insane vehicles created and actually blew most of them up, and created an entire world of sets and costumes, while Dredd and JW just have some good action choreography and a lot of CGI bullet hits to go with a bunch of faceless guys getting blown away. JW in particular has nothing interesting in terms of production/costume design. Not to mention MMFR has actual characters and ideas in it.

I found The Raid to be a totally empty film with some good fights in it, The Raid 2 to be a bore that should have chopped out at least an hour of "plot" to get to the incredible action scenes, 300 to be a very influential yet very stupid and regressive flick (I saw it well after everything had already ripped it off, admittedly), and Dredd/John Wick to be awesome. But, they pale in comparison to FR in every respect possible, apart from being as bare-bones as you can get. (This said, the concept of JW being a revenge flick for a dead dog is about my favorite thing ever)

Yeah, I don't think FR gets enough credit for how it stages incredibly complex set pieces in a visually coherent way. It's not just spamming SFX and or doing standard action things. It's juggling several elements at the same time while showing you what's happening in a manner that's easy to understand in any given action scene. That's a tremendous achievement by itself. Still too many people come at action movies like they're analyzing literature but you have to come at these movies in terms of the action FIRST and instead judge how well the script frames the action, builds tension and suspense, etc,.

[Keymaster]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

They specifically said in the description that it was included as a token action movie, not sci-fi. Are you another that read the list and not the article? What action movies would you put instead on your list? I can't think of any better, while I agree that many are better if you look at it from a SCI-FI perspective since it's not really trying to be one, it's just using that future setting as a backdrop to justify the insane chases/production design/costume design and yes, even themes. Not to mention, it was stuck in it considering it's part of a series that was set in the future from the first entry.

If anything was the token sci-fi movie, it would be Eternal Sunshine, but I don't think it was intended as that either. They definitely don't mention it as such in the description, probably because no such excuse has to be made for its inclusion. I think they just skipped token sci-fi/horror entries entirely since they had two movies that could be classified as the former. If the latter had been included, my guess is it would have been Pan's Labyrinth since it's one of the few "classy" ones that critics can agree is high-brow.

I admit I hadn't read the article, but thanks for the additional insight. If the NYT specifically said they had to include a film that was an adrenaline fueled action spectacle, then I suppose by that limited definition I would include Fury Road. There's no debating the awesomeness of the action scenes themselves.

As far as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I view it as a more effective piece of drama than science fiction, though it succeeds well in both genres. Good points though.

[Keymaster]

Originally Posted by CQD84

I love how a lot of people take lists seriously. It's all subjective. Who cares if they list one film over another? Who cares if they list a comedy? Who cares if you don't think a film or two deserves to be on the list? Getting upset over that sort of thing would be like if someone gets mad over a grocery list. "Oh, you like Jack's frozen pizza over Tombstone? Please toss this in the trash. My taste in frozen pizzas is better than yours. Your list is a joke."

Yes, lists are subjective, which is why I led off with, here are my "subjective" views on the NYT list.

I'm definitely acknowledging that. One man's trash is another man's treasure and all that. It's the debate that's fun.

[AaronJ]

Any list like this is totally dependent upon what one's criteria are. For me, the list-maker needs to decide between three approaches (to my mind anyhow).

1. Films that are going to be the most influencel and remembered decades from now.

2. Films that the list-maker thinks of the most well-executed and provocative ones.

3. Films that produced the most enjoyment.


Then, of course, there's some sort of combination. Of the three. For example, if I were working on #3, Mean Girls would make my list. But it wouldn't if I working within the first 2. Hunger would make #2, possibly #1, but would never make #3 -- watching that is about as much fun as nailing one's scrotum to the floor.

And on and on. That's why they're fairly impossible to do. For me at least.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by llj

Yeah, I don't think FR gets enough credit for how is stages incredibly complex set pieces in a visually coherent way. It's not just spamming SFX and or doing standard action things. It's juggling several elements at the same time while showing you what's happening in a manner that's easy to understand in any given action scene. That's a tremendous achievement by itself. Still too many people come at action movies like they're analyzing literature but you have to come at these movies in terms of the action FIRST and instead judge how well the script frames the action, builds tension and suspense, etc,.

I'd agree with that actually. The set pieces are quite incredible in the film.