0021: Top Ten Films of the 2000's

  1. Talk to Her (2002, Pedro Almodovar)
  2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michael Gondry, 2004)
  3. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000, Ang Lee)
  4. The Lord of the Rings (2001/2002/2003, Peter Jackson)
  5. Moulin Rouge! (2001, Baz Luhrmann)
  6. Dancer in the Dark (2000, Lars Von Trier)
  7. Mulholland Drive (2001, David Lynch)
  8. Requiem for a Dream (2000, Darren Aronofsky)
  9. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001, Wes Anderson)
  10. Far from Heaven (2002, Todd Haynes)

Great! I am ashamed, but I still have yet to see Hedwig. It is high in my NetFlix cue, if that saves me any face...

Of course, you know this list only primes the pump for your top ten 2002 list. Would I be wrong in assuming that Far from Heaven tops the crew?

I'll have to catch 25th Hour before it leaves town.

Great job!

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

Ah, I see your note; I suppose Two Towers could possibly claim your top spot.

I await with anticipation.

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

After watching Monsoon Wedding and Far from Heaven second times, The Two Towers fell a little below them.
I think it's time to make my list.

Well, I consider Monsoon Wedding to be a 2002 release, so...


As you probably know, Monsoon is on my 2001 list, so I forget most consider it 2002. Great film; it is colorful fun but surprises with some very touching scenes, and as you noted on another list, many of the performances are outstanding.

Good stuff!

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

You can check out my top ten of the year, it's posted now. I gotta say, when stacked up against 2001, last year was pretty weak. Of course, I had the same problem with 2000. Here's the way I see it:

# of GREAT films: 2 (Crouching Tiger..., Dancer in the Dark)
# of Really Good film: 4 (You Can Count on Me, Wonder Boys, The House of Mirth, Chicken Run)
# of Worthy, Memorable films: 5 (Hamlet, Chuck and Buck, Traffic, O Brother..., Erin Brockovich)

# of GREAT films: 5 (Hedwig..., MR!, The Fellowship of the Ring, Mulholland Drive, The Royal Tenenbaums)
# of Really Good films: 6 (Sexy Beast, The Others, In the Mood for Love, Ghost World, Gosford Park, Our Song)
# of Worthy, Memorable films: 6 (Waking Life, The Circle, Ginger Snaps, In the Bedroom, Under the Sand, Lantana)

# of GREAT films: 3 (Monsoon Wedding, Far from Heaven, The Two Towers)
# of Really Good films: 9 (25th Hour, 8 Women, Lovely & Amazing, Chicago, Y Tu Mama Tambien, What Time is it There?, Baran, Spider-Man, 24 Hour Party People)
# of Worthy, Memorable films: 5 (About Schmidt, The Hours, Adaptation, The Piano Teacher, Sunshine State)

2001 had the most great films, but 2002 had the most really good films. The thing about 2000 is that I still have to see many of the acclaimed movies of that year, and I hold out full judgment until I see them.

Why do you consider Monsoon Wedding (2001) to be a 2002 release?

I go by year of release in America. It makes things simpler for me. For instance, if a 2001 French film is released in America in May 2002, I will call it a 2002 film for the sake of simplicity. I could not have possibly seen it in America in 2001.
I take a lot of my cues from what mainstream critics and the Oscars consider to be films from that year. For instance, even though many felt (and still feel) that Memento is a 2000 film, most critics put it on their best of 2001 lists, so I did the same.

I guess that begs the question then, what do you classify as a "release"? If it plays at a Film Festival in the US is that considered a release?

I'm not just trying to be contentious, I do have a point.

I feel that the only way to have a comparative discussion with other film-lovers of the quality of the films that were released in a certain year is to throw aside all US-centric notions and go by the year that the film was released, not just in the US, but anywhere in the world. I think that provides a much better chance of comparing the level of filmmaking for a certain year.

Take Seven Samurai, for example. According to the IMDB it was released in Japan in 1954 yet didn't play in the US until 1956. Can you really consider that a 1956 film when it was released a full 2 years previous?

If all film-lovers world wide were to stick to the year of worldwide release then people could truly compare their favorite yearly film lists. As it is, if everyone sticks to their own country's year of release I feel it simply creates confusion and doesn't engender critical comparison.

Well, I understand what you are saying, but I simply find it simpler to classify the films that I see by the release date in my country. It is what nearly every critic in America does, and I'm not sure what is wrong with the idea. If a 2001 film does not play for critics in America until 2002, then should the critics not put it on their 2002 top ten? Where does it go then? It is simply a way of making things simple for myself. Why is this wrong?
I understand your larger point, but I think doing things your way would create larger confusion considering that most critics use the release date rather than the IMDB date to classify films. I appreciate your point, and I understand it, but I think I'm gonna stick with my way.

AAA, it's not wrong. I was just throwing another way of looking at it out there for consideration.

Mmm, I was really testy that day, sorry Dan, really sorry.

would you consider Eternal Sunshine As the best from 2004 then?

Yes, yes I would. I haven't updated the Best Movie of Every Year list in a while, because I need to retool it.