Critical polls conducted by Film Comment, indieWIRE, the Village Voice/LA Weekly, Cahiers du Cinéma and now the Los Angeles Film Critics Association have all chosen David Lynch's 2001 "Mulholland Dr." as the best movie of the decade.
UPDATE 2/12/10: The Muriels and Slant Magazine also choose "Mulholland Dr." as best of the Aughts.
Full list below...
Justin Chang writes at LAFCA.net:
Call us provincial -- David Lynch's psychoerotic noir is one of the essential L.A. movies -- but the more significant reason for the film's enduring critical favor may be its deconstruction of the toxic allure of the Dream Factory. "Mulholland Dr." projects an ambivalence toward Hollywood with which almost any critic can identify: Moving images have the power to seduce and move us, but many of them are the products of a system that routinely turns dreams into nightmares and artists into meat. Famously salvaged from a rejected TV pilot, Lynch's film stands as both a cautionary tale and a mascot for the triumph of art and personal vision in an industry that, from where we sit, often seems actively devoted to the suppression of both. [...]
[One] of the quirks of our poll (and hopefully, one of its weird ancillary pleasures) is that it offers a snapshot of how well, or how badly, our award winners have held up over time. It also conveys something that frequently gets lost in the yearly awards-season quest for consensus and compromise: the unique taste of the individual critic. This taste often finds expression in a fierce passion for movies that, unlike "There Will Be Blood" (No. 2) or "Brokeback Mountain" (No. 4), are not always widely hailed (or even widely seen). Inclusion can be as startling as exclusion: Surely ours is the only group survey that found room for "In Vanda's Room" (No. 29), "Jackass Number Two" (No. 49), "The Silence Before Bach" (No. 52) and "Team America: World Police" (No. 47), but not a single film by David Cronenberg, one of the decade's most critically esteemed filmmakers (and the director of our runner-up for best picture of 2005, "A History of Violence"). What can we say? Ten has never been an easy number to work with.
Art may be unquantifiable, but then, anyone familiar with the peculiar mathematics of list-making knows it to be a highly unscientific practice, governed less by the forces of logic and reason than by the whimsies of instinct, temperament and personal feeling. If that's meant to be a disclaimer, it's also one more reason why "Mulholland Dr.," as strong an argument as any for the art of the irrational, makes a fitting champion for a great decade of cinema. Here's to another.
LAFCA best of the '00s results:
1. "Mulholland Dr." (David Lynch)
2. "There Will Be Blood" (Paul Thomas Anderson)
3. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (Michel Gondry)
4. "Brokeback Mountain" (Ang Lee)
5. "No Country for Old Men" (Joel & Ethan Coen)
5. "Zodiac" (David Fincher)
6. "Yi Yi" (Edward Yang)
7. "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days" (Cristian Mungiu)
7. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Peter Jackson)
8. "Spirited Away" (Hayao Miyazaki)
9. "United 93" (Paul Greengrass)
9. "Y tu mamá también" (Alfonso Cuarón)
10. "Sideways" (Alexander Payne)
UPDATE: Well, that's not to say it's unanimous. I just remembered this poll of "over sixty film curators, historians, archivists and programmers from festivals, cinematheques and similar organizations around the world" conducted by the Cinemateque Ontario in Toronto. Here's the top part of that list:
1. "Syndromes and a Century" (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Thailand)
2. "Platform" (Jia Zhang-ke, China)
3. "Still Life" (Jia Zhang-ke, China)
4. "Beau Travail" (Claire Denis, France)
5. "In the Mood for Love" (Wong Kar-Wai, Hong Kong, China)
6. "Tropical Malady" (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Thailand)
7. "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu" (Cristi Puiu, Romania); and "Werckmeister Harmonies" (Béla Tarr, Hungary).
8. "Éloge de l'amour"/"In Praise of Love" (Jean-Luc Godard, France)
9. "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days" (Cristian Mungiu)
10. "Silent Light" (Carlos Reygadas, Mexico)
"Mulholland Dr." came in at #17, in a tie with Michael Haneke's "Caché" and David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence."
39 Comments
Don't forget Cahiers du Cinéma
Thanks for the reminder! Just added them, along with a link...
War of the Worlds 8th best movie of the decade? I wish I could read French so I could see how they justify that pick.
Jim, not to be a list-obsessive, but do you think that all this acclaim for Mulholland Dr. will lead to it placing highly on all-time lists, such as theyshootpictures.com's list? (I myself certainly hope so, the LAFCA's top 2 are exactly the same as my top 2 of the decade).
Mulholland Dr. is already at the top of TSPDT's 21st century list and has been for years. But why does some movie's placement on some list matter? On an aggregated list, it's just a statistical curiosity, which makes it no more meaningful or valuable than other aggregated lists of less esteem, such as the IMDb Top 250. What is with this need to have other people agree with you, to have your opinion validated?
BTW, the fact that all of these polls have reached consensus on several of the top movies should not be very surprising. There is plenty of overlap among participants, but more notably, the same regions are being polled. The American polls focus only on New York and Los Angeles. Each group has particular tastes, and both groups share some tastes. But if you polled other regions (Appalachian, Midwest, Deep South, etc.), I am sure that you would get very different results. That the French love Lynch should also be no surprise.
If you look at the "odd one out" (Cinemateque Ontario), the most striking thing to see is that all of the titles were huge hits from the festival circuit that saw little success elsewhere, in terms of box office, distribution, or mainstream critical regard. In other words, these movies were the champions of the film festival crowd, i.e. the particular group of critics who frequent the top international film festivals. And that once again shows that no aggregated list is better than any other, because any such list will only represent the tastes of a particular demographic. The Los Angeles, New York, French, and Cinemateque Ontario lists should be no more surprising than a "fanboy"-friendly list like the IMDb Top 250.
Good questions -- and exactly the kinds of things I'd hoped these various lists would get people thinking and commenting about. Are the lists compiled with the intention of getting people to agree with them? What are the qualities that the films on the lists, and the people who voted for them, share? TSPDT says they compile their list in part to give people some suggestions for things they might like to see. That's the way I've always preferred to view these things...
This is all very strange. If you had asked me 6 months ago to list films that might top critics' Best of the Decade lists, Mulholland Drive would not have been one of the first 50 or so I thought of. And I love it - it was #30 on my list for the record - but I don't recall hearing such effusive praise for the film when it came out. I suppose it qualifies in the most important category for such lists - it was made by an auteur who is embraced both in America and probably even more so in Europe (or maybe Africa and Asia - I don't know.) It would be interesting, though, to see how many critics even had it at the top of their lists the year it came out.
And a few minutes of searching later, here's my answer at least from Film Comment:
http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/1-2-2002/criticspoll.htm
It was the runaway winner in 2001 with In the Mood for Love and Royal Tenenbaums a distant 2nd and 3rd.
And I couldn't find the Village Voice list, but Jim Hoberman had Mulholland Drive at #1 for 2001.
So I guess it didn't diminish in stature for many critics over the ensuing 8 years.
BTW, the Cinemateque lists kicks complete and utter *ss. Which is my way of saying "It's just like my list!"
Mulholland Dr. has been at the top of TSPDT's 21st century list for years. I know because I've checked the list every year for the past three or four years. Mulholland Dr. also received the most critics' awards back in 2001, as well as the most #1 citations that year: http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2001/
But you're right; going by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores alone, the rankings do seem odd. You just have to remember that numbers don't seem to have an intimate correlation with actual opinions. A History of Violence, for example, had nowhere near best-of-the-year scores, but was still ranked at or near the top of the most number of lists that year.
I don't know why I can't connect to MULHOLLAND DRIVE on the level most cinephiles do. It's in my top 100 for the decade; I'm a huge Lynch fan; I'm even well versed in his entire body of work, including music, photographs, and paintings. But I can't bring myself to put this movie up near the top of the decade's best.
Maybe some of it has to do with its origins as a failed pilot. I can't escape the serial premises he seems to set up before the film takes a left turn in the third act. So all I see is the series that never was, and a clever solution to make it self-contained.
Perhaps, I long for the Lynch of BLUE VELVET. Lynch works for me best when he is restrained (more like a spice than a flavor). And his recent output (with the singular exception of THE STRAIGHT STORY, which I'm quite fond of) has been suffused with his surreal sensibility.
I'm probably alone on this, but I just wanted to share.
Not what I'd have chosen, but I rather like the LAFCA top ten. Those are all movies that I clearly remember when and where I saw them, what I was doing at the time and how I felt about them, and they all had some small impact on my life.
Hell, yeah. I'm glad to see "Mulholland Dr." make such a strong showing on these sorts of lists. I went back and watched the movie three more times last week and on each viewing found it creepier, more fascinating, and, yes, more irrational than before. It is also intensely satisfying, a nightmare carried out to its fullest expression, without interruption or explanation. I still can't watch the reveal of the bum behind Winkie's, surely one of the scariest moments of the last 10 years, and also, I think, one of the greatest reveals of all time. The meaning and identity of the bum, as well as that of the cowboy, is an enigma I turn over and over in my mind. This is just great cinema; most other movies pale in comparison.
A great great film. It really deserves IMO more appreciation. It's also IMO the last great film Lynch has made (although it's only the second-last feature he's made).
The Cahiers list also includes War of the Worlds. Surely some mistake?
I'm glad to see Brokeback Mountain placing so high on a respected top 10 list of the decade. It deserves it, and it vindicates the kind of support the film got back in '05 from everyone but Oscar.
That Ontario list you added on is really interesting. I've only seen a few of those - thanks to our stupid release platforms here in the U.S., mostly - and I'm really surprised to see WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES listed again. I can't say I loved it, but it has definitely stuck with me. There are images in that film, most of just empty streets and the dim flame in the distance, that I don't think will ever be erased from my mind. In any case, hurrah for diversity!
But really that top ten just reeks of academia and anti-Hollywood snootiness, though I'll admit a -centrism on my part, also mostly due to release platforms and availability. Maybe if I was a festival programmer or something like that, I'd be able to give the tops of the decades to a bunch of Romanian and Thai movies. But I can't.
I have a question, mostly dealing with the utter lack of German cinema representation on these lists, with only THE LIVES OF OTHERS popping up now and then. But where is DOWNFALL, or SOPHIE SCHOLL, or GOODBYE LENIN, or THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX, or A WOMAN IN BERLIN, or even the overlooked HEAVEN? What's with that? These movies are at least as good as 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, 2 DAYS...Are people just done with German cinema? Is it their current obsession with vergangenheitsbewältigung and their newfound ability to wrestle with their demons cinematically in very direct ways? I don't get it.
"That top ten just reeks of academia and anti-Hollywood snootiness"? Was that really necessary or fair? Those people's opinions are just as sincere and personal as yours. Your statement just reeks of anti-intellectual, anti-academic snootiness. Your opinions are no better than theirs. I swear, lists bring out the worst in people!
All of the German titles that you've named were never so highly regarded by the kinds of people who vote in these specific polls. These are the people who have often been called "elitists" or "snobs." Their exclusion from the top ten spots is no surprise to me. They're "at least as good as 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days"? I've never heard or read anything to that effect before now, since the Romanian movie had the best reviews of any movie released this decade, apart from Army of Shadows. This is yet another example of presenting opinion as fact, as if your opinion had real authority.
I think that The Lord of the Rings is the greatest cinematic achievement of the decade, but I realize that it's an unpopular opinion. I'm just glad to see that some critics find a place for it among the expected art house hits.
I'm in no way anti-academic or anti-intellectual. I'm against the snobbery that runs rampant in academic and intellectual circles. Do you honestly think that I could be anti-intellectual and anti-academic if I were trying to open up discussion of this in any sort of forum? I would simply write, in addition to the list reeking (which it does), that not only are they dead wrong, but that this this and this is better. I didn't. I said, verbatim:
"...the utter lack of German cinema representation on these lists, with only THE LIVES OF OTHERS popping up now and then. But where is DOWNFALL, or SOPHIE SCHOLL, or GOODBYE LENIN, or THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX, or A WOMAN IN BERLIN, or even the overlooked HEAVEN? What's with that? These movies are at least as good as 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, 2 DAYS...Are people just done with German cinema? Is it their current obsession with vergangenheitsbewältigung and their newfound ability to wrestle with their demons cinematically in very direct ways? I don't get it."
Now, not only did I NOT say that their list was completely invalid, though I did voice distaste, but I in fact asked a question about the exclusion of a significant swath of world cinema that actually DID see a release here in the United States. I'm sorry that I haven't seen PLATFORM or STILL LIFE - films I'm interested to see - but they didn't get a release that was even a blip on the radar for most people. I also admit a -centrism.
In any case, thanks for responding to my comment without attempting to answer the question aside from saying that none of those films got the same acclaim. But, you're wrong. DOWNFALL in fact carried widespread critical acclaim, as did GOODBYE LENIN, BAADER MEINHOF and SOPHIE SCHOLL. And if you're looking at Tomatometer percentages, once you get into the 100s of reviews counted, you're talking about small percentage differences of bad versus good reviews that might affect your view of what is 'widespread' and not. If that were what you wanted to argue, then check this out: PLATFORM only got 18 reviews, but only 71% were positive. That's not widespread acclaim, though I wouldn't call 18 reviews widespread reviewing. But to the real comparison to put this in perspective: MULHOLLAND DR. got 81% out of 149 reviews, which gives it more reviews and a lower percentage than any of the films I mentioned. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN? 94% That's widespread acclaim.
I'm not sure what the problem is, Matt. There is room for only ten movies on a "ten best of the decade" list. There are thousands of movies from many, many countries that qualify. It's unrealistic to demand, or even expect, one particular country (such as Germany) to be represented. What difference does it make what country a particular movie is from, anyway? It's a critic's job to look for and recommend good movies. It's not their job to look for and recommend good movies from, say, Bulgaria.
And no, those movies you listed were not that highly acclaimed, at least not on a "best of the decade" level. The Tomatometer is meaningless. All it does it tell us how many critics liked the movie. It does not tell us how much they liked it. On Movie City News's compilation of critics' top 10 lists for 2009, The Baader-Meinhof Complex didn't even make the top 30 for the year, let alone the decade.
I didn't demand that anything be included; simply asked why the exclusion. And the tomatometer may be useless, but the poster that criticized me utilized it in a previous post of theirs on this same thread, so I felt its use justified to combat the claim they weren't widely acclaimed - which they were.
I don't really care that one group or another didn't put something on the list, only that no one seems to have this stuff on there, and I asked a question...if that's unrealistic to want to discuss without getting into 'not as widely acclaimed' and 'it's only ten best lists' and whatever else people come up with to not have to think about an answer, then that's fine by me, too, but none of that answers the question I asked - especially when the one reason that would make sense: the critical acclaim - is false.
furthermore, if more positive reviews than negative is no way to judge acclaim, despite the innaccuracy of the tomatometer or metacritic, then how do you have the right to claim that none of them were acclaimed at a level of 'best of the decade' status? all of the films i mentioned received more positive reviews than MULHOLLAND DR., and that seems to be sweeping it in most lists.
The Movie City News list I mentioned does not represent "a group," it represents every professional film critic with a Top 10 list. And I think your question WAS answered. The simple answer is: Downfall, Sophie Scholl, etc., are not beloved enough to be considered the best of the decade. It's as simple as that. I mean, I don't know how else to answer your question, or what kind of answer you're looking for that hasn't already been offered.
And no, they did not receive more acclaim than Mulholland Dr. Critics LOVED Mulholland Dr., with many calling it a masterpiece. It had its detractors, sure, but those who loved it REALLY loved it (and when it comes to these consensus lists, passion for a movie far outweighs universal appreciation). I don't remember any critic going into rapturous praise over Sophie Scholl, and I don't even know what A Woman in Berlin is. These movies' absence from these lists has nothing to do with them being German (as you said, The Lives of Others achieved the kind of acclaim you're talking about) and everything to do with them not being that great. Your own personal opinion of their worth is irrelevant.
"To end this ridiculousness, it just doesn't make sense to judge 'widespread acclaim' with how much single critics actually liked the movie"
And yet it makes more sense to judge it by how many critics kinda sorta liked it? If one movie has 100% of critics saying, "Yeah, that was pretty good, but nothing special" and another movie has 75% of critics saying, "That was a masterpiece!" and the other 25% saying, "That wasn't very good at all," which movie is the most acclaimed?
"I can't tell you how much people really loved a movie over another one"
Can't you? Not even by... oh, I don't know... reading what they have to say about it?
The term "more acclaim" carries with it an implied value. something is MORE THAN something else. what is the value? what is that value measured against? how can you judge that value if the value is something like, "those who loved it REALLY loved it" that you're judging it off of? Your singular opinion, upon reading a review of one movie that, "Hey, this guy REALLY loved this movie - it must be great!"? How is that possibly a way to measure value? And why, if that's how you're judging whether or not something is deserving of praise, is a professional film critic's praise that may or may not be more praising than another professional film critic's praise of certain films considered genuine because they REALLY loved something that becomes nonsensical and ill-informed if it's something that I, a lowly poster of thoughts on the internet, REALLY loved but see not getting any attention, though there are actual statistical methods (though flawed like the tomatometer may be) to back up my claims and none to back up yours?
I REALLY loved DOWNFALL. If I were a critic, would that then justify it's inclusion on a list, or give me the right to simply notice that it's not on any? You're an insult to intelligence, sir, and you're a horribly mean person. Your excuse for belittling another person's love for another film? You don't remember anyone actually loving any of those films. Well, you remember wrong - go back and read reviews of some of them and quit sounding like someone just pulling things out of their ass.
Well, I couldn't follow your train of thought there, but you seem to have entirely missed the point. We're not talking about a movie's worth or measuring its value or its theoretical justification on a list. There is no mathematical formula. We're talking about ACTUAL lists made by ACTUAL critics, which are then combined to create these consensus lists. But if you need a value, we can measure opinions of critics either by their ratings (one to four stars, scale of 1-10, whatever) or just by reading the language of their reviews. But it's not an exact science. You don't need a mathematical value to make the claim that Citizen Kane is more acclaimed than Downfall, even if an equal number of people like and dislike the two movies.
Why even question why Downfall is not on any Top 10 lists of the decade's best movies? The bottom line is that the critics who made these lists thought there were 10 better movies this decade. Period. Downfall only appeared on 16 professional Top 10 lists for 2005, compared to Brokeback Mountain's 144. Even relatively obscure movies like The World and The Holy Girl appeared on more lists. So I ask you: if Downfall wasn't even one of the 10 best movies of the YEAR for the vast majority of critics, why would it be considered one of the 10 best of the decade? And that's by far the most well-received movie you mentioned.
I really don't understand why you're so up in arms about this. I'm sorry you feel that I'm a "horribly mean person," though I have no idea where that comes from (and I should point out that I'm not the one hurling insults like "you're an insult to intelligence").
And my point about A Woman in Berlin is that if I don't even know what it is (though I see now that it was only just released last July and has a 79% on your hallowed Tomatometer), I couldn't imagine it showing up on any Best of the Decade lists. I never made any claims about the quality of the movie itself.
The questioning of why aren't these on any lists is just as important and valid a question of whether or not MULHOLLAND DR. should be topping so many of them - which is the discussion many people are having. Since I asked that question, you've done nothing but attack the fact that I asked the question at all, claiming that because a film isn't included, it's not valid to point that out, when the entire discussion set up by Jim in this and other posts is about critical consensus and the fact that MULHOLLAND DR. seems to be getting a lot of it, which a lot of other posters have commented on, saying they liked this or that or other things...but because I name specific films that may or may not be "as good as" others in varying meanings and methods, that makes me and my comments invalid?
whatever.
One last thing, and then I'm stopping, because obviously this is going nowhere:
If you don't even know what a movie is, how can you possibly comment on its worth, one way or another, since obviously you have neither seen it, nor read one of those famously not-praising-enough-to-be-worth-your-time reviews of it.
To end this ridiculousness, it just doesn't make sense to judge 'widespread acclaim' with how much single critics actually liked the movie, Mr. Fuller, and this isn't the first time you've made a claim that doesn't have any sort of factual evidence or reasoning whatsoever to back it up on this discussion board.
If enthusiasm were the requirement for how many likes versus dislikes for looking at aggregates, then surely the enthusiasm some people felt for BAD LIEUTENANT or ANTICHRIST would weight those films in some miraculous way for discussions of acclaim and how much of it one film has more than the other rather than looking at mere numbers...acclaim is a statistics game, not a gut feeling game. I can't tell you how much people really loved a movie over another one, but I can tell you how many more liked it than they did that other.
Interesting that it's coming out on top in so many places...
The pictured scene is one of the most disturbing sequences I've ever seen.
Well, theyshootpictures.com came up with their latest top 100 movies and here are their top five of the decade:
In the Mood for Love (#246)
Mullholland Drive (#374)
Yi Yi (#446)
Spirited Away (#495)
The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (#535)
While I am a fan of Mulholland Dr. (unlike certain people I blog and podcast with), I have a hard time buying it as the consensus film of the decade, but I guess I'm in the minority. Even if the logic behind its no. 1 consensus status revolves around its study of film and the system behind it, I'd argue that Caché is a much better examination of the way we view and interpret cinema.
I've never seen "Syndromes and a Century," but wasn't a fan of Apichatpong Weerasethakul's "Tropical Malady." Maybe I'll have to revisit it. However, half the films on the Cinematheque Ontario's list have a pretty large contingent of detractors.
Well, we aren't quite as big as those other lists, but 13 folks came together for Out 1's Best of the Decade list. Mulholland Drive is actually my #1 pick, and I figured it to win our collective list, but, alas, it did not! I'm totally fine with it being a consensus choice since it's my "pony" in this "race." But that list from Toronto is mighty fine.
In case anyone is interested in yet another Best of the Decade list...
http://www.out1filmjournal.com/2010/01/out-1-film-journals-best-movies-of.html
The entire concept of consensus seems flawed here. Particularly these types of polls where you rank say 10 films and may the film with the most fevered fan base wins. While these lists are objective and non-scientific, the way you set up the poll likely determines a big reason why a film is chosen. Perhaps as much as the contingent of critics polled.
Mulholland Dr was pretty good, but I think these lists unless they are like sight and sounds, then they lack much purpose. At least for me there is some psychologically understand someone's approach to film in a persons list. Once we group people together there is another dynamic and I fear the result is no more closer to the truth, though many may argue that it is.
Electronichate may be on to something. Mulholland Dr. was, no contest, the best Lynch film of the decade, so lovers of Lynch all put it on their ballots and it makes the top 10. Other directors may have split their votes (which isn't to say you can't have more than one work by the same director on your list, but if you're striving to make it well-balanced and make the most of limited space, it's bound to happen).
It just goes without saying in my house. Mulholland Drive is the best film of the decade and one of the best of all time right up there with Vertigo, Third Man, Marienbad, Aguirre, Kane, and Nashville. Yes, there is a consensus because any cinephile who's been going to the movies and breathing knows that it is an important film--even if they hated it.
I think this is a great testament to the film. From the first time I saw it I said to my Film Teacher - Its part of my top 3 best films ever made. (The Godfather, Chinatown and Mullholand Drive)
Love it
Canonizations = promotions = people seeing films they haven't seen / or people considering important questions like: WHY that film? WHY NOT this film? etc. = food for thought and progress of the cinema as a medium of art!
Yeah, I'm all for these lists! Keep 'em coming!
Here's mine:
I. THERE WILL BE BLOOD
II. IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE
II. SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY
IV. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
V. DOGVILLE
VI. CACHE
VII. SILENT LIGHT
VIII. WERCKMEISTER HARMONIAK
IX. MULHOLLAND DRIVE
X. WAKING LIFE
X. BEFORE SUNET
X. PUNCH DRUNK LOVE
X. FRIDAY NIGHT
X. PLATFORM
X. ADAPTATION
X. THE BOSS OF IT ALL
X. HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
X. INLAND EMPIR
X. RUSSIAN ARK
I can't wait to see what new films come out from Anderson (Paul especially but Wes too), the Coens, Weerasethakul, Denis, Sokurov, Lynch, von Trier, Linklater, Reygadas, and Haneke!
Zodiac is a terrible movie. The story is weak, like a bad CSI episode. The photography is nice like all David Fincher movies but it certainly not deserves to be one the best movies of the decade!!!! The plot goes nowhere, the pace is boring. I only find the murders well filmed, and that's about it.
I'm shocked not to see the recent Scorsese movies." The departed" is a masterpiece. And for once the script is absolutely amazing. Acting too. Recently I find movie critics much more attracted too the look of movies rather than a structured and strong story.
Same for "There will be blood" which I find really overrated. The look is a complete rip off of Kubrick (especially the end which is filmed almost like the Shining). The story is Ok but kind of absurd and unrealistic. It's really the actors that make it into a strong movie. But strong acting doesn't make necessary amazing movies. My opinion on this movie can be duplicated for Brokeback Mountain, which is for me a really nicely filmed TV drama. But nothing that will change cinema.
Then I do agree that Team America is a really strong and influencial movie! The humour, story and pacing are really smart. (it's actually one of my all time favorite movies and same for Quentin Tarantino, not that it means anything but it shows a weird interest). It's the first time ever that a movie uses all the Hollywood schemes and tricks to make a really fun and non cynical feature. It's a difficult very difficult thing to do and the "south park" guys achieved it.
And about Cronenberg, History of Violence is a good movie but definitely not a masterpiece. Acting overpowers the story. The men dominate the movie with their strong russian mafia stereotypes that leave Naomi Watts completely invisible and weak in the story. She doesn't act like a human but more like "the moral side" of the boys. The end shows the lack of strengh in the plot with a very impossible change of mind of the brother. The sequence with the baby is terrible and disappointing because it breaks all the tension with a stupid and sudden drama. I actually think that Taken, even low on dialogues, is a much better and powerful take on the russian /mafia / prostitute subject.
Sometimes all those lists just go for the arty, pretty and nicely filmed features and forget the essence of cinema: a strong, cinematic and simple popular object. That's what Kubrick or Hitchcock were good at and actual directors seem to forget.
Thank god we have Tarantino, Scorsese and JJ Abrams to tell me I'm wrong
Matt, you're being either intellectually dishonest or obtuse. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is really ridiculous.
First of all, I never used Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores to defend any of my arguments. What I said, in a previous comment, was that "going by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores alone, the rankings do seem odd. You just have to remember that numbers don't seem to have an intimate correlation with actual opinions." So I did not assert that those scores had anything to do with what a movie actually means to critics at the end of the day/year/decade. How does what I said there justify your indefensible use the Tomatometer to make your point?
Second of all, I never claimed that those German movies were not "widely acclaimed." Feel free to quote the part where I said that. I actually said, "All of the German titles that you've named were never so highly regarded by the kinds of people who vote in these specific polls." There are two parts to that statement. The first part is "never so highly regarded." Not "never so widely acclaimed." Note the difference. I was referring to passionate support, NOT how widespread the praise is. You're the one who brought Rotten Tomatoes into this, not me. The second part is "the kinds of people who vote in these specific polls." That means that you must identify the specific people who are voting in these polls and look at their original reviews (if available) of those German movies. After all, the polls represent the views of particular critics, not critics in general.
Third of all, why does there need to be a reason for the exclusion of particular titles from the top ranks of lists like these? These lists aggregate the highly varied opinions of many individuals. These individuals each have their own reasons for why they like or dislike any given movie or like it more than another movie. To try to deduce meaning from these lists is to engage in idle speculation. The only thing that these lists themselves show is what has and has not been in vogue. That's all. If you want to know why critics preferred certain movies over others, or why certain movies deserved to be named among the best of the year or decade, then go read reviews and the write-ups for the annual lists.
Fourth of all, "the one reason that would make sense: the critical acclaim" is NOT FALSE. Look at it this way: Movie A receives 50 raves and 50 pans with nothing else in between, so its Tomatometer score is 50%; Movie B receives 100 slightly positive reviews with nothing better or worse, so its Tomatometer score is 100%. Which movie do you honestly think will get ranked higher? This is the key point. Mulholland Drive can top these lists because the passionate support behind it is way, WAY higher than for any of the other movies that you mentioned, so how many more negative reviews it has compared to those other movies is irrelevant. Why is that so hard to understand?
Fifth of all, your question about the German movies' exclusion was worded as a loaded question. You claimed that those movies were "at least as good" as 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days, but that was merely your personal opinion and had nothing to do with your question, which was about the opinions of OTHER people. Then you expressed frustration at failing to comprehend why the critics who did these polls didn't agree with your opinions. So your question was not really asked out of curiosity; it was rhetoric. It was simply your way of attacking the credibility of the polls without any good reason.
Sixth of all, even when replying to my comment, you continued to assert that the Cinemateque Ontario list "reeks of academia and anti-Hollywood snootiness," and you further stated, "I'm against the snobbery that runs rampant in academic and intellectual circles." That clearly shows that you are anti-intellectual and anti-academic, because you denigrate something that you obviously perceive to be inherent to "academic" and "intellectual" circles, without proving it. The Cinemateque Ontario list only shows that its contributors prefer certain kinds of movies to other kinds. One could only conclude "snootiness" if one were able to show explicit denigration. The Cinemateque Ontario list does not explicitly denigrate anything. So how exactly does it "reek" of anything? You're the one who's denigrating something.
You asked, "Do you honestly think that I could be anti-intellectual and anti-academic if I were trying to open up discussion of this in any sort of forum?" I would say yes, if by "any sort of forum," you meant a forum sympathetic to anti-intellectual and anti-academic views. The infamous IMDb forums are full of such views. Mere discussion does not qualify as "intellectual" or "academic" discussion. It's just talk, or, at worst, "bitching."
Seventh of all, why do you interpret the claim that nobody else seemed to have loved a particular movie as "belittling" your own love for the movie? To me, the claim is an objective, neutral statement, not a rhetorical ploy. It's almost as if you're more offended that other people don't share your love than you are at someone mentioning this fact to you. This goes back to one of my original questions, which is why do you care so much about what other people think of the movies that you love? This is not a loaded or rhetorical question. Typical discussion around any sort of lists that are published involve praising or condemning said lists, based on individuals' subjective opinions. There is very little, if any, discussion that questions the emotional reactions that people have to the lists.
Finally, why do you have such a hard time believing or accepting the fact that most other critics simply did not love those German movies as much as you did? I'll give you something better than Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, or these critics' polls. Here is TSPDT's ranked list for the 21st century, which was last updated in January 2009: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury.htm
Notice that NONE of the German movies that you love so much even appear in the top 100. In fact, no German movies are in the top 100, and the highest-ranked German movie is The Lives of Others at 127. Here is how TSPDT compiled the list: "It is primarily based on critics' year-end lists (from 2000 to 2008), plus it also takes into account mentions given to any films from 2000 onwards that show up in critics' all-time-best-of lists (that are also used for the compilation of our 1,000 Greatest Films list)." So there you go. That should definitely prove that critics in general did not feel that the German movies were worthy of being among the top ten movies of the decade, simply because few included them on annual ten-best lists. What more do you want? TSPDT's list is the best statistical method to settle this issue. Their list is how you measure the "value" of acclaim. How is Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic better than TSPDT's list?
Matt,
You said, "The questioning of why aren't these on any lists is just as important and valid a question of whether or not MULHOLLAND DR. should be topping so many of them." I'm sorry, but neither are important questions. And they are valid only in the sense that any question might be valid. Previously, you claimed that Robert Fuller made a bunch of assertions without properly supporting them. But you do the same thing, even worse than he did. So kindly explain why those questions are "important" questions.
The truth is that there is only one real answer as to why certain movies are or are not included on some list and ranked higher than others: The person(s) who made the list simply thought that certain movies were greater than others. If that seems so obvious that it's common sense and doesn't even need to be stated, then that shows you how meaningful the question actually is. (It's not very meaningful at all.) Now, WHY the person(s) thought that certain movies were greater as to merit inclusion on a list, that's another question entirely. But it's not a very good question when applied to a group opinion, because every individual within the group will have different reasons, even when the outcome is the same (agreement or dissent with the group's collective yea or nay).
The question of whether or not Mulholland Dr. "should be topping so many" lists is, quite frankly, stupid. Everybody has a different opinion on the movie, which means that no opinion is better or more authoritative or more credible than any other. That means that answering the question provides no useful insights, apart from a glimpse into the psychology of the answerer. It doesn't advance film criticism or scholarship or any way that people think and talk about movies. All that it does is give people an excuse to bicker over who's right and who's wrong about the quality/value/worth of a movie and of each other's tastes. Discussions like that go nowhere.
Here are some valid and important questions: What are the implications of Mulholland Dr.'s success with all of these groups? What are the implications of a consensus? How important is a consensus in any field of film criticism/scholarship? What value do people get from critics' lists and polls, and why is that important to them?
For the last time, why can't you accept that the PARTICULAR critics involved in these polls simply didn't think that your beloved German movies were very great? Can you not see that your question is really no different from asking why Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, or any other mega-blockbuster (especially the award-winning and acclaimed Avatar by James Cameron), was excluded? And if you really want to know why those critics didn't like the movies as much as you did, then why are you asking the people here? What kind of answer do you want or expect?
Please see my post from yesterday, which Jim stuck at the bottom of the page instead of within the thread. I address everything that you've said in great detail.
Someone explain why "Mulholland Dr" should be the film of the decade? I mean, just because a film is incomprehensible (which some film critics usually find it a plus) doesn't make it great.
And thank goodness historians, archivists, curators etc. aren't in charge of movie making; just think how quickly cinemas would shut down.
The film is comprehensible Hillel, maybe if you see what went on in the movie you might consider it great too as some did?
But I am still very curious why it is considered number 1 by so many big groups. I am not surprised to see it in many individuals' top 1, but not as the top 1 from a whole load of critics or even in a top ten by Jim. Is there any article, Jim, in which you might have discussed in detail about it and its merits above most movies? If so I would love to read it. Not that I hate the movie, I might even agree or place it somewhere there in a list if I chose to make a similar one. I just want to see the reasons behind it all (I am happy you placed NCFOM and A Serious Man before them though).
Leave a comment