►Top 25 of the 00s◄

[socketlevel]

Time to step up:

1.   The Five Obstructions
2.   The White Diamond
3.   Adaptation (Criminally underlooked by previous posters)
4.   Spirited Away
5.   Salinui Chueok (Memories of Murder)
6.   Gwoemul (The Host)
7.   The Royal Tenenbaums
8.   Dogville
9.   Battle Royale
10.   Dancer in the Dark
11.   Wall-e
12.   George Washington
13.   Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
14.   There Will Be Blood
15.   Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
16.   The Fountain
17.   Elephant
18.   Requim For A Dream
19.   Storytelling
20.   The New World
21.   Little Children
22.   In the Bedroom
23.   Intacto
24.   Old Boy
25.   Children of Men

Close calls: United 93; Bruno; Narc; Unbreakable; The Pledge

[Stefen]

Balsy top two. Both documentaries. 

[Gold Trumpet]

for all the things going for it, I'm surprised you had time to stop and think something like: this editing and choreography is poor.

My argument has nothing to do with the choreography. It has something to do with the editing, but that is a lower level criticism. The main level to my criticism has to do with how the musical aspects has little to add to the film. That's important because they are so overly handled through out the film so it affects the rest of the film. Yes, what Von Trier does is different, but he does it at such an obvious and simplistic level. I'm more inclined to wish Von Trier took notes from Fellini who made a drama into a musical (of sorts) when he did 8 1/2. He had success because he didn't make the musical montages overly obvious. He found ways to interweave them into the text of the main story. During 8 1/2, before long, the viewer has little notion of what reality is and isn't. That's a psychological rendering of the musical mixing into reality, but Von Trier has little interest to blur the lines in his approach. The musical numbers are black and the realism is white. Does Von Trier need to exactly duplicate Fellini? Not at all, but he does need to come up with a concept of some equivalence in thought.

I think Von Trier does this because he thinks the content of the film will overwhelm viewers. In your case and others, it seems like it did. Fine. I've never tried to stand in the way of anyone liking something, but I know others who got into the movie, but were abruptly taken out when the musical numbers collided with the development of the story. I'm always skeptical of stories that are about extremely sad situations because abuse of those stories are so common. Artists feel like they can get away with anything in the abstraction process because the general story is so sad, but that just shows film is the easiest art to fall prey to in the emotional category. It's good that Von Trier dabbled with other structures, but different alone isn't good.

[Stefen]

GT hates Lars Von Trier.

While I would argue I also don't hate the Coens or Tarantino, I would admit I have a general distaste for them, but I've just really disliked every Von Trier film I've ever seen.

Dude, you gotta be trolling. I can picture you thinking about this thing you posted, before you posted it, and saying, "I'm gonna go after three of their favorites at once and see what happens."

What do Lars Von Trier, Quentin Tarantino and the Coen Bros have in common other than the fact that you dislike them and they all make movies?

[Gold Trumpet]

GT hates Lars Von Trier.

While I would argue I also don't hate the Coens or Tarantino, I would admit I have a general distaste for them, but I've just really disliked every Von Trier film I've ever seen.

Dude, you gotta be trolling. I can picture you thinking about this thing you posted, before you posted it, and saying, "I'm gonna go after three of their favorites at once and see what happens."

What do Lars Von Trier, Quentin Tarantino and the Coen Bros have in common other than the fact that you dislike them and they all make movies?

Yes, Lars Von Trier and Quentin Tarantino obviously have gotten more love than most other filmmakers on the board. More than Wes Anderson, PT Anderson, Werner Herzog or numerous others who seem to get only praise. Tarantino hasn't been bashed at all in the last year and of course, Von Trier is talked about frequently on the board. I must have been just plotting.

Jesus, I was just giving identification of two filmmakers I generally don't like. I was making a point about how I can't approach Von Trier the same way as I do those filmmakers because I don't know him as well as I do the Coens and Tarantino. Even still, me mentioning all three together has nothing to do with their filmic similarities. The point is rounded about how everyone here knows my likes and dislikes, but I was just trying to show how dislikes and likes can occupy different zones of context.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

3.   Adaptation (Criminally underlooked by previous posters)

Which is funny considering how gushed over it was in the Xixax awards.

[pete]

that movie wasn't that good.
I think there's the truth about spike jonze that people need to accept - at least spike jonze up 'til now anyways - sometimes the brilliant moments don't add up and a good setpiece in the second act doesn't mean the ending is satisfying.

[Neil]

and i don't see why you're so tough on that particular film?

I mean, you've stated a few issues with it, but i just don't see where you believe the film doesn't work, or whatever?

[pete]

it acts like it's caught between a guy who is interested in the story and a guy who wants something larger-than-life and more thrilling, but the whole act doesn't work because, though it keeps on wanting to display merits for the latter - it clearly shows contempt for "Hollywood" by making half the movie purposefully hoaky.  That wouldn't have been a problem except that it's too clever for it's own good, but not funny or genuine enough, and it ends up working only on paper, or for audiences who hold equal contempt for "entertainment."  The last act of the film only works if it's like Big Fish: if the storyteller believes in the validity of the story, however hoaky it may seem.  As Adaptation stood it was at least 20 minutes of one elaborate wink/ elbow to the ribs, because the filmmakers and the actors and definitely some of the audience acted like they were so above Hollywood genres.

It wants a Big Fish ending but acts too snide to actually earn it.

[socketlevel]

GT again nice points, and valid... i guess i agree to disagree. this really comes down to the impact of the sudden tone change. i liked it, whereas it was too much for you. fair enough, point taken.  strangely i think i'd more often side with your sensibility on this one, but my heart's in a different place i guess.

i gotta admit i laughed at "I think Von Trier does this because he thinks the content of the film will overwhelm viewers. In your case and others, it seems like it did."
that reads borderline elitist and patronizing, but knowing you from your previous posts makes me think I got lost in the written word

also i'm sorry but i wasn't accusing you of standing in the way of other people's taste or interests, i was simply amazed that you had the opinion you did.  not in a condescending way, but on the contrary, in an intrigued manor.

If it's any consolation, I don't think you're trolling, your choices for the 25 best dictate that you're not.  stefen, he would be more so trolling if he didn't have "popular" picks on his list. you accuse him of attacking well like directors yet oliver stone and clint eastwood are two examples of directors equally popular. true the three he chose to make an example of are probably more popular on this site, but in fact his choices get less indie cred; be it a good or bad thing.  so that's a round about way of saying i think he means it.

pete i think i'd agree with you if another film like adaptation came out.  adaptation is one of those movies that only gets made once, and works in the true meaning of cliche, to the point of establishing it.  "The first man to compare the flabby cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

kaufmen & jonze were poets. the next is an idiot.  (cough cough cold souls)

[Gold Trumpet]

i gotta admit i laughed at "I think Von Trier does this because he thinks the content of the film will overwhelm viewers. In your case and others, it seems like it did."
that reads borderline elitist and patronizing, but knowing you from your previous posts makes me think I got lost in the written word

Yes, it does come off as patronizing and arrogant, so let me explain myself. While I do believe the story of the film affected a lot of people, I have to admit I am prone focusing on certains parts of a film over other parts. I can like a film because I think its honest and thoughtful in the story, but be able to disregard any of the technical mishaps. A lot of times when people like movies, they are liking parts of a movie. Whether they realize it or not, when they review a film and mainly highlight a few things, it shows that only parts of a film really stuck with them. We all fit into that category in numerous ways. The debate is in how important those parts of a sum are. It's left open to interpretation.

Also, thank you for the kind words. I've been appreciative of all your responses. Stefen is a friend so I don't worry about his comments. While I have to admit my opinion runs counter to many popular beliefs here, I do admit I can do my fair share of liking obscure filmmakers over popular ones. It's just in certain conversations I can also lean toward popular filmmakers, but no one is really just one way or another.

[socketlevel]

I consider myself an active viewer. I also consider the things i write, while maybe not ground breaking, clearly indicate some form of internal analysis and an attempt at articulation of these observations. So despite my best efforts, i was swept away by this film. not just once mind you, three times. I like talking films a ton, talking and analyzing many things actually, but film is the main passion.  

every once and a while a film doesn't appeal my intellect.... lol usually it's a pixar movie... but this time it was dancer in the dark. despite everything working against it, it did that for me. I guess i was just so amazed, and short sighted, that i couldn't see how it would not affect everyone in the world the same way! lol

So did Von Trier trick me? maybe (and i know that's not your point, just going on a tangent here). but isn't that the point? at least isn't that why we got into films in the first place? i think the day I can't be tricked (which, modesty aside, isn't too often) by a movie, i'll stop liking them.

and fyi opinions running counter to popular beliefs on this site is old hat to me, so no biggie.  one love.

[pete]

pete i think i'd agree with you if another film like adaptation came out.  adaptation is one of those movies that only gets made once, and works in the true meaning of cliche, to the point of establishing it.  "The first man to compare the flabby cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

the play in annie hall or the last scene of Get Shorty?  Plenty of well-intentioned (or snidely intentioned?) scene have failed on screen before, I dunno why you think this one is so special or forgivable.  I think he wanted the cliche to be entertaining, as a lot of satires are entertaining (the pseudo-action scenes in many Simpsons episodes were very entertaining) but the one in the film was just flat.  There are some things Jonze and Kaufman thought they knew how to do but did not.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

pete i think i'd agree with you if another film like adaptation came out.  adaptation is one of those movies that only gets made once, and works in the true meaning of cliche, to the point of establishing it.  "The first man to compare the flabby cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

the play in annie hall or the last scene of Get Shorty?  Plenty of well-intentioned (or snidely intentioned?) scene have failed on screen before, I dunno why you think this one is so special or forgivable.  I think he wanted the cliche to be entertaining, as a lot of satires are entertaining (the pseudo-action scenes in many Simpsons episodes were very entertaining) but the one in the film was just flat.  There are some things Jonze and Kaufman thought they knew how to do but did not.

If in the case of someone like Wes Anderson where the style is so intrinsic in the delivery that it feels like a routine exercise for the artist, then I can see your point on how "it's been done before."  But art isn't always about completely new invention, and often times, if not all times, invention is reapplication and taking a new approach to something.

Adaptation isn't just a movie about making a movie, but even doubting the need to express that in and of itself.  The fear of telling a worthwhile tale that comes with storytelling.  Adaptation may not make my top 25 of the decade list, but it's a pretty solid movie.

[pete]

I didn't dislike it because "it's been done" - that was just in response to socketlevel's assertion that it was the FIRST movie to do it.  scroll up to read what I was saying before that.