Peter Travers' 10 Best Movies of the Decade

Started by Derek, December 13, 2009, 09:43:36 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Derek

It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.

Jeremy Blackman

Dang, he even called him PTA.

I've always had a soft spot for Travers.

His #2 and #3 are also great choices.

Gold Trumpet

Snooze. Did Peter Travers only consider movies that play at multiplexes? It's sad when Muholland Drive is the only off kilter choice and even that movie entered the mainstream (a bit) when it was released.

Jeremy Blackman

True, 4 through 10 are boring choices, but honestly I would have expected his whole list to look like that... so I applaud him. Let's all give Peter Travers a big hug!

john

Shoulda been PDL, but fine... whatever.

Travers' heart is clearly in the right place.
Maybe every day is Saturday morning.

brockly

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on December 13, 2009, 02:07:48 PM
4 through 10 are boring choices

i would add 8 to that. great list though. i don't know who this guy is but it makes me happy to see such a respectable list spring from something as widely recognised as rolling stone.

Quote from: john on December 13, 2009, 04:51:32 PM
Shoulda been PDL, but fine... whatever.

nah, he got it right.

Pozer

nah, GT got it right. and PT shouldve at least rethought Da Depa'ted which hasnt even held up through half of the decade.

Pubrick

redeeming first choice seems a fluke after invalidating inclusion of the departed.

that movie didn't even hold up to the end of the year it was released. instantly forgettable except to marty's accountant

children of who? azkaban was a better and more memorable film by Cuaron. not that i would place either on this list.
under the paving stones.

Pas

definitely a fluke... the rest of the list isn't that great (except Mul.dr.) .... children of men, history of violence and departed are not that important movies. Actually, none of them are even the best of the decade of their own director!!!!! (children is second, History too, and Departed is fuckin third (turd? jk it's a good film, but it's just a remake and the original is better (better casting anyway that's for sure, urghh Matt Damon and Leo Dicaprio for this, rly? whatever))

I've never seen the invincibles but it looks like it's just some entertaining thing.

No Country was very good and I placed it on my own top 25...but not very re-watchable. I just did last week acutally and what I first thought was an original ending now just feels anti-climatic.

Gay Cowboys I haven't seen but again looks like a choice based on Heath Ledger's death+gay cowboys.

Alexandro

there is truly only one film that is clearly above all others this decade and that's there will be blood. everything else is a distant second. sorry, but that's that.

the aviator is better than the departed, and gangs of new york, for all it's faults, it's probably more memorable than both.

a history of violence is a great film, but no top ten material for a decade.

no country for old men is totally deserved, but the coens have two other fantastic pics for this decade: oh brother and the mand who wasn't there, the latter is my favorite.

a top ten of this decade should / must include spirited away.

Gold Trumpet

See, I don't care if I agree with a list. People here are disagreeing with certain choices on Travers list, but just because it's from the basis of a list, all I am hearing is general disagreement. There is no inspiration to articulate why the picks are wrong or boring or whatever.

I'll always disagree about the merits of There Will be Blood or History of Violence, but a decent list can still have those films and be good if the full list surprises me and make me think about the worthiness of films I have overlooked, but this list is not only boring, but it's just bad. I swear an 18 yr old kid has recently made this same exact list. He probably thought himself newly sophisticated because he can now represent There Will Be Blood as his number one, but his youthful history of falling for overrated multiplex slosh is everywhere else on the list. LOTR was probably his number #1 when he was 15, but he transformed himself and feels like he did a 180, but he's still honoring LOTR at #10.

We all go through this. When I was younger, I was trying to find my voice, but I was still showing my youth by most of my selections being nothing more than the most popular choices. This isn't that I am against Hollywood movies because I believe the Incredibles is one of the best films on the list, but I want lists that have variety and show a balance with being able to appreciate different aspects of cinema. There is no identity of that in this list. Peters Travers is an 18 year old kid.

Derek

No he's not. Take that back.

Trying to define a decade with 10 picks is a thankless job. I think it's a good list, many of them were box office hits, some were not. But I think if you go back year by year, they're at or near the top of many critic's lists. Complaining these 10 happen to be American movies is like complaining the lack of strong female characters in Lawrence of Arabia. There just wasn't room for them.
It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.

Gold Trumpet

Uhm, not taking back anything. You counter my argument by saying some of the films were box office hits and some were not. That wasn't my point. My point is that all of them were generic staples of multiplex viewing. All of them played in my little city (besides Muholland Drive) and all of them are generic choices. You are right to say that they all do appear in a lot of lists, but all the other lists have variations to the generic strands. Even the most populace movie critics throw in a few left field choices, but this movie is standard protocal through and through. I never considered Peter Travers to be much of anything anyways so I may be complaining for no reason, but my point stands.

Derek

So, you qualify them as generic because they're not obscure? And because they're not obscure and were well received it lowers their quality? Maybe not the list I'd put together either, but to call Travers a teenager for liking these movies is as out of left field and arbritary an attack as I've heard. Popularity doesn't equal cinematic junk food.
It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: Derek on December 14, 2009, 06:09:53 PM
So, you qualify them as generic because they're not obscure? And because they're not obscure and were well received it lowers their quality? Maybe not the list I'd put together either, but to call Travers a teenager for liking these movies is as out of left field and arbritary an attack as I've heard. Popularity doesn't equal cinematic junk food.

It's not advertising for obscurity to ask for a little variety. In fact, considering Travers representation as a "major" critic, it just shows his ineffeciency as a critic that most of his films where what publicists were arguing as that year's best movie for the Oscars. It could be coincidence that all of his choices are overly familar and popular, but it seems like he either has bad taste or is just bowing to a populace list. Even Roger Ebert would make his lists pretty varied and reflective of a critical tastebud, but I have no notion of critical taste in Travers' list at all.