Top Ten Films of the Decade

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by jstasa51

You seem a little uptight 'Gooch'

Relaaaax

I didn't mean for it to come across that way. The other thread has some good discussion, minus the debate of what a decade is. I would prefer to see that thread get started again instead of everyone repeating themselves.

[toef]

Just because we started counting with year 1 doesn't mean decades are 1 to 10 (e.g. 2001 - 2010).

It might be shocking, but.... we can define decades however we want, and the way it's been accepted and understood is to start with the 0 and go to 9.

Britain, and the British colonies that would become the US, didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until the middle of the 18th century. By then I'm pretty sure they were so far removed from year 1 that it was a lot more sensical to think of decades as 0-9.

If people want to consider 1990 part of the 80s, they're certainly entitled to. All 5 of those people or so.

[Lsalas76]

Not sure why people have to argue about what a decade consists of why can't they just answer the op's topic. Here is my list based on the movies I have only seen.

1. Lotr return of the king
2. The Dark Knight
3. Kill Bill volume 1
4. Shrek
5. Gladiator
6. The Departed
7. Wall-E
8. Bourne ultimatum
9.Walk the Line
10. Crash

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by lsalas76

3. Kill Bill volume 1

I liked volume 2 better, reminded me of the Sergio Leone westerns.

Originally Posted by lsalas76

6. The Departed

If you liked this and are not adverse to watching a Foreign Language film then I would highly recommend the Infernal Affairs Trilogy on which it was based.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

agreed, so one second after 11:59:59 on 12/31/2009, the decade is done.

No, one second after that is between the 9th and 10th year, two seconds after that and the tenth year of the decade begins. The decade isn't done until the end of the 10th year.



Anyways, I don't care about this argument - one person would argue math, the other would argue social conventions, and the two don't neccessarily meet. So if you guys want to argue best films from 2000 - 2009, knock yourselves out.

[Erik E. Erik]

Originally Posted by goochspot

I didn't mean for it to come across that way. The other thread has some good discussion, minus the debate of what a decade is. I would prefer to see that thread get started again instead of everyone repeating themselves.

Love your sig, Gooch.

[Jumpman]

Had to really think about this and what might or might not change the list with what comes out the remainder of the year but here it is:

Zodiac The Director's Cut
Requiem for a Dream
Memento
The Dark Knight
The Fountain
The New World
United 93
The Passion of the Christ
Minority Report
The Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition


If I extended beyond the ten, I'd probably add:

Pixar's The Incredibles, Wall E, and Up
There Will Be Blood
Children of Men
Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith (Star Wars fan here, no arguments)

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Had to really think about this and what might or might not change the list with what comes out the remainder of the year but here it is:

Zodiac The Director's Cut
Requiem for a Dream
Memento
The Dark Knight
The Fountain
The New World
United 93
The Passion of the Christ
Minority Report
The Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition


If I extended beyond the ten, I'd probably add:

Pixar's The Incredibles, Wall E, and Up
There Will Be Blood
Children of Men
Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith (Star Wars fan here, no arguments)

Great list! However, I would remove Minority Report and Fellowship of the Ring and replace them with Children of Men and There Will Be Blood.

[Jumpman]

Thought about it but I'm just an absolute sucker for Minority Report. In terms of Spielberg's vision of the future, it's the movie I've always wanted to see. I can't really explain it beyond that but that film hits me on all points.

As for Fellowship Extended, with all the trilogies that have hit this decade, I just feel that that particular film is pretty much perfect. Now, the trilogy is no where near my favorite. I personally just have issues with the last two films. I much prefer the Prequels, the Bourne Trilogy, and the Matrix Trilogy to the Rings Trilogy.

But, in terms of sci-fi fantasy, The Fellowship of the Rings extended cut is king. A perfect film.

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Thought about it but I'm just an absolute sucker for Minority Report. In terms of Spielberg's vision of the future, it's the movie I've always wanted to see. I can't really explain it beyond that but that film hits me on all points.

As for Fellowship Extended, with all the trilogies that have hit this decade, I just feel that that particular film is pretty much perfect. Now, the trilogy is no where near my favorite. I personally just have issues with the last two films. I much prefer the Prequels, the Bourne Trilogy, and the Matrix Trilogy to the Rings Trilogy.

But, in terms of sci-fi fantasy, The Fellowship of the Rings extended cut is king. A perfect film.

Please tell me you favor the Prequels over the LOTR Trilogy only because you have a soft spot for anything related to Star Wars? If not, and you actually think the Prequels are better films than the LOTR films, please explain why?

[Porkchop Express]

In no particular order:

The Dark Knight
Kingdom of Heaven
LOTR: Fellowship
Kill Bill (Counting I & II together)
The Fall
The New World
The Prestige
Le Pacte des Loups (Brotherhood of the Wolf)
Watchmen
Gladiator

[Jumpman]

My issues with the Rings Trilogy is mainly the last two films. It has more to do with the fact that I personally think that a fatigue set in on the storytelling and craftsmanship.

With Fellowship, while it is an adaptation, it feels pure Tolkien. I'm not a purist of the books by any means but when Jackson kept close to the spirit of the books, the films soared. When he didn't, they got lazy and over indulgent.

Plus, I personally feel Jackson's directing style got really repetitive in the final two films. I mean, the sweeping helicopter camera shots got very, very old real quick.

The other aspect of it is the emotion of the last two films. In Fellowship, everything felt organic to the characters and the story. With the last two, after having gotten so much praise from critics and fans alike, I personally feel Jackson played up the drama way too much in order to get emotional responses from the audiences. To me, it felt very manipulative, especially the ending of Return of the King. It was just too over done for my taste.

Compare that with Lucas' Prequels in terms of drama and emotional. Some feel that Lucas didn't go emotional enough...that the style of the films were too theatrical...operatic in nature. Well, I really dug that, considering he basically made this known, that the Prequels, would be very much different in tone and style from the Originals back in the early, early 80's.

With the drama, Lucas just lets it play out and lets the audience decide what's emotional and what isn't. Now, sometimes, he didn't play up certain aspects enough to get the punch. But, at least he didn't manipulate.

In terms of his direction, I've always loved Lucas's style. It's very simple yet very affective. And I was even more impressed in the Prequels with this style because of the digital toys he had at his disposal. He could've changed but he shot those films exactly like he would any other film of his that didn't have the digital backlot.

I felt the visual effects from ILM were far superior to Weta's in the Rings Trilogy. I felt the story was better in the Prequels. Now, I never said the writing was better. We all know Lucas has problems with dialogue. But, the overall plot and thematic arc of the story and the character of Anakin Skywalker, I felt, we just better played.

At times, I personally felt that Lucas cut back too much but at least he cut. Jackson, for all his supposed genius, just didn't know when to cut things. I mean, in extended form, Two Towers should've been no more than 3 hours and 15 minutes..at max. As it stands now, it's 3 hours and 43 minutes. And the bloatedness of Towers killed the structure of King.

I give credit to both for the ambition of both projects. But, no matter what, I think Lucas was going to get killed with the mere existence of the Prequels because of the Originals. And I think Jackson got a pass with a lot of people in the Rings Trilogy. The last two films, cinematically, aren't anywhere near the Fellowship of the Ring. That film just sings.

Long, ass rant.

[Riff Magnum]

There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men
Mullholland Drive
A Serious Man
Gran Torino
The Wrestler
Inland Empire
LOTR: FOTR
The Proposition
Inglorious Basterds

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

My issues with the Rings Trilogy is mainly the last two films. It has more to do with the fact that I personally think that a fatigue set in on the storytelling and craftsmanship.

With Fellowship, while it is an adaptation, it feels pure Tolkien. I'm not a purist of the books by any means but when Jackson kept close to the spirit of the books, the films soared. When he didn't, they got lazy and over indulgent.

Plus, I personally feel Jackson's directing style got really repetitive in the final two films. I mean, the sweeping helicopter camera shots got very, very old real quick.

The other aspect of it is the emotion of the last two films. In Fellowship, everything felt organic to the characters and the story. With the last two, after having gotten so much praise from critics and fans alike, I personally feel Jackson played up the drama way too much in order to get emotional responses from the audiences. To me, it felt very manipulative, especially the ending of Return of the King. It was just too over done for my taste.

Compare that with Lucas' Prequels in terms of drama and emotional. Some feel that Lucas didn't go emotional enough...that the style of the films were too theatrical...operatic in nature. Well, I really dug that, considering he basically made this known, that the Prequels, would be very much different in tone and style from the Originals back in the early, early 80's.

With the drama, Lucas just lets it play out and lets the audience decide what's emotional and what isn't. Now, sometimes, he didn't play up certain aspects enough to get the punch. But, at least he didn't manipulate.

In terms of his direction, I've always loved Lucas's style. It's very simple yet very affective. And I was even more impressed in the Prequels with this style because of the digital toys he had at his disposal. He could've changed but he shot those films exactly like he would any other film of his that didn't have the digital backlot.

I felt the visual effects from ILM were far superior to Weta's in the Rings Trilogy. I felt the story was better in the Prequels. Now, I never said the writing was better. We all know Lucas has problems with dialogue. But, the overall plot and thematic arc of the story and the character of Anakin Skywalker, I felt, we just better played.

At times, I personally felt that Lucas cut back too much but at least he cut. Jackson, for all his supposed genius, just didn't know when to cut things. I mean, in extended form, Two Towers should've been no more than 3 hours and 15 minutes..at max. As it stands now, it's 3 hours and 43 minutes. And the bloatedness of Towers killed the structure of King.

I give credit to both for the ambition of both projects. But, no matter what, I think Lucas was going to get killed with the mere existence of the Prequels because of the Originals. And I think Jackson got a pass with a lot of people in the Rings Trilogy. The last two films, cinematically, aren't anywhere near the Fellowship of the Ring. That film just sings.

Long, ass rant.

Wow! Thank you for your detailed response. Though I may not agree with you on all points, you make a very good case. I will have to go back and watch the LOTR Trilogy with you're criticisms in mind. I don't know if I can re-sit through the Prequel trilogy. I've seen each film twice and I didn't really enjoy any of them except the last one. I agree the ideas were there, but I could not get past the bad dialogue and bad acting. I guess my imagination isn't as strong as it used to be.

[Kryptonic]

Superman Returns
Zodiac
Valkyrie
Return of the King
The Matrix Reloaded
Casino Royale
Batman Begins
Minority Report
Drag Me to Hell
Kill Bill Vol. 2

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men
Mullholland Drive
A Serious Man
Gran Torino
The Wrestler
Inland Empire
LOTR: FOTR
The Proposition
Inglorious Basterds

Have you already seen this?

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Superman Returns
Zodiac
Valkyrie
Return of the King
The Matrix Reloaded
Casino Royale
Batman Begins
Minority Report
Drag Me to Hell
Kill Bill Vol. 2

Are these your favorites or the ones you think are the best?

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by goochspot

Are these your favorites or the ones you think are the best?

Those are the best movies I've seen this decade that I enjoyed the most.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by goochspot

Have you already seen this?

Yeah, had to drive to Dallas, but yeah. It's pure Coen greatness.

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Yeah, had to drive to Dallas, but yeah. It's pure Coen greatness.

Great! I cannot wait!