As I plan to write articles on various topics related to film, I thought it would be a good
idea to cover what I think was the best picture from every year I have been alive.
However, it is important to identify some criteria.
First and most obvious would be that while I have seen a lot of movies over the years, I
still haven’t seen everything. In addition to that, when going through my watchlist I often
find that what I want to view next was made prior to a year of my existence. That is not
said to discredit filmmaking of the past 23 years, but rather to explain my mindset in
compiling this list and what I generally look for with filmmaking.
Another thing to mention is that I will include a list of Honorable Mentions after my pick
for the best. This is not a typical handout of “participation trophies”, instead it is a
recommendation. If I mention a movie in this article it is because I believe you should give
it your time, attention, and hopefully affection. I enjoy a variety of different genres, but I
was very selective on what I included here. If it made any segment of my list, it’s a solid
pick.
The last rule I have stipulated for myself is that I will not include multiple entries from the
same series. For instance, my choice for 2001 is part of a franchise. The other films in
said franchise could be my picks for the best film of their respective year, but they won’t
be simply because the prior one already made the list. I also will not be including entries
from the same series in the Honorable Mentions section as to avoid redundancy.
With all that being said, let’s get started.
2001
“The Fellowship of the Ring”
“The Fellowship of the Ring” follows Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) and a group of
fantastical characters. Frodo had just received a large inheritance from his uncle, Bilbo
Baggins, which includes a mystical ring that the dark forces of Middle-Earth seek to
regain.
The “Lord of the Rings” series of films are rightfully praised for a lot of things. Special
effects, story telling, cinematography, choreography, make-up, and all of it warranted.
What really draws me into the series whenever I do a rewatch though is the characters.
Truthfully, I cannot think of a major franchise that made so many perfect casting
decisions. Both the writers and actors seem to instinctively know what to do to bond you
to their character from their first moment on screen. The performances are not
necessarily naturalistic, they’re intentionally theatrical, but that’s what the material calls
for.
The world of Middle-Earth itself is sprawling, grand, mystical, and bombastic. Why should
the characters behave different?
Honorable Mentions: Spirited Away, Donnie Darko, Training Day, Royal Tenenbaums
2002
“About Schmidt”
“About Schmidt” is about Warren Schmidt (Jack Nicholson) going through an end of life
crisis after the death of his longtime wife and the upcoming marriage of his daughter to a
groom he does not approve of.
My Grandmother doesn’t like much. She has never purchased cable, she only owns a blu-
ray player because my father bought her one (that now sits and collects dust), her
entertainment viewing experience consists of watching the local news and PBS cartoons.
She liked “About Schmidt”.
This strikes to the very heart of what Alexander Payne is so very good at and what he
does time and time again. He creates a film around a sort of mundane subject and
studies the characters around it. By doing so, his final piece is something that appeals to
broad audiences with characters they can relate to, and the more difficult to please
cinephile with the craftsmenship of the work.
His movies are very deceptively sophisticated. The cinematography is always, ALWAYS,
really artful and well crafted, but never enters the realm of showing off. It’s something I’ve
noticed with the work of John Singleton (“Baby Boy”, Boyz in da Hood”) as well. The shot
composition seems standard at first, just what is required to capture the performances of
the actors, but then you notice something.
Whether it be a small item in the composition or a short little camera pan, there is
oftentimes something there to just heighten the scene that extra 2%. Whether the
audience is consciously aware of it or not, it does enter their mind. That extra little bit
makes a movie go from “I saw that one time. Good movie.” to “Aww you haven’t seen it
yet? You need to see it!”.
Perhaps what draws me to Payne’s work the most is that it’s very naturalistic. The
influence of 60s and 70s films is prevalent in his work, especially with the comedy
elements. The characters in his pictures don’t wink at the camera, or ask if you got the
joke. If you didn’t get it, oh well, he’s moving on.
I can’t think of another director who so easily and quickly let’s you understand the
characters you’re watching. He’s able to capture the same level of characterization one
would get with a novel’s inner-monologue through a visual state and brief conversations.
Again going back to both the deceptive sophistication and the naturalistic feeling, these
conversations never feel like exposition, rather just people talking. The truly remarkable
thing is how quick he can do it. Within’ the first 10 minutes of “About Schmidt” you feel as
if you’ve known this man for years. This is also obviously a credit to Nicholson’s work. A
refined old grump and a nice change of pace from his oftentimes more sinister roles.
Payne’s film prior to “About Schmidt” was 1999’s MTV movie “Election”. While “Election”
was a well crafted film, it was less mature than “About Schmidt.” The 99′ film had
elements of all I mentioned above, but not to the same extent. “About Schmidt” was the
first time he was able to craft it all together into my pick for 2002’s best.
Honorable Mentions: “Signs”, “The Bourne Identity”, “Auto Focus”, “Catch me if you Can”
2003
“Oldboy”
“Oldboy” has a plot that is nearly indescribable if you actually want to know what it is
about. The shortest possible explanation I can give is that a man named Dae-Su (Choi
MIn-Sik) is captured and held for 15 years. He is about to escape by his own merit when
he’s suddenly released and begins to unravel mystery after mystery as to who took him,
why he was taken, and how the plan unfolded.
Director Park Chan-Wook creates a deeply disturbing film that is captivating to look at
and inverts every typical trope a movie could have. “Oldboy” is an arthouse film that is
wrapped in a violent robe and treated much like a violent action film.
It’s a very unique experience that is quite difficult to talk about unless the other individual
has seen it, and even then it’s not necessarily a cake walk. On a technical level, it’s
flawless, on a story level, the plot is a little….out there. Not every detail exactly makes the
most sense but I don’t really think it’s supposed to.
I don’t believe Chan-Wook wants this movie to exist in our world, rather a disoriented and
fun house mirror one.
Honorable Mentions: “Finding Nemo”, “Pirates of the Caribbean”, “Lost in Translation”
2004
“Spider-Man 2”
The Superhero flick that won over many respected critics. Spider-man 2 follows Peter
Parker (Tobey Maguire) as his vigilante life takes a massive toll on what he actually
wants in his personal affairs. Peter has to face-off against a 6 armed mad scientist, Doc
Ock, while contending with a current friend that is coming closer and closer to being a
former one, and the love of his life possibly marrying someone else.
I grew up on this film. However, that is not why I love it. There are many films I grew up
with, is “Like Mike” on this list? No. That to me is virtually meaningless.
Why I love Spider-Man 2 is because of how perfectly it tortures it’s main character. For
Peter to do the right thing, he is maligned, misunderstood, self sabotaging, and financially
strapped.
Atop of that, the things in his life he views idealistically are torn down in front of his eyes.
In the first film, you had the parental figure of Norman Osbourne, in this one you have a
second parental figure Otto Octavius, both stripped down to madness causing Peter’s
alter-ego to fight them. Otto also has a seemingly perfect marriage that Peter admires, if
not envies. Otto is forcefully relieved of that marriage by unlucky chance.
Mary Jane, the woman Peter has elevated to a saintly pedestal, has had enough of his
crap and only sees an inconsiderate, unreliable child.
Aunt May is losing her home due to financial woes. Woes that Peter can’t save her from
because of his vigilante distraction. Her home is also Peter’s boyhood refuge. That too is
taken from him.
Whether it was intentionally designed this way or not, Spider-Man 2 works as a metaphor
for leaving behind adolescents. Doing the right thing, taking care of responsibilities, and
living for what others need rather than what you desire.
Peter is removed from any idealistic view of the world he had left and lands smack dab in
the middle of reality. Just when he becomes cynical, just when he accepts that he’s
destined to be where he is forever and the love of his life is marrying an astronaut, it is
then he is finally rewarded.
The ending of Spider-Man 2 is beyond cathartic. It is gratification delayed and delayed
and delayed to both the characters and the audience, until boom! Just like life itself, it
hits you with something big. In the film’s ending, that big thing is a lovely woman in a
white gown rather than a bag of bricks. Just like real life however, you don’t know which
one you’ll be receiving until the final moments before impact. It’s a film who’s themes are
overlooked because of the bombardment of Hero flicks that followed in the preceding two
decades. It is far more than what appears on the surface level and I grow founder of it the
more I ponder it.
Honorable Mentions: “The Aviator”, “Passion of the Christ”, “Collateral”, “The
Incredibles”, “Sideways”
2005
“Batman Begins”
I don’t particularly like putting two Comic-Book films back to back on this list. Rarely
however, have two Comic-Book films been so deserving as to be back to back.
“Batman Begins” follows just what the title implies, the origins of Gotham’s night-time
vigilante portrayed brilliantly by Christian Bale. The film covers his various methods of
training, his self imposed exile from Gotham for said training, and his resurrection as both
Bruce Wayne and the mythical Batman.
He returns to Gotham when a near Biblical level of chaos is about to be released upon it.
A fear toxin that causes mass rioting and anarchy by a psychiatric official by the name of
Jonathan Crane.
“Batman Begins” is oftentimes my favorite of “The Dark Knight trilogy”. Sometimes it is
not, as it does depend on my mood, but if asked which one I’d like to watch the most it is
“Batman Begins”.
The reason for that is mostly due to the look of Gotham. It’s beyond grungy, it’s near
dystopian. Director Christopher Nolan has been open about taking influence from Ridley
Scott’s “Blade Runner” for the aesthetic of Gotham and man does it work. The hellish
orange lighting and cramped China-town look of the city creates a feeling of paranoia.
The perfect place for a creature of fear to dwell.
Which leads me to another reason this is my favorite of Nolan’s rendition on the
character. This movie gets as close to how I view Batman should be portrayed as any of
the live action films including 2022’s “The Batman”. The scene of Batman stalking the
criminal smugglers on the dock is shot and edited like a slasher movie, it’s shot from the
criminals perspective. This is what leads to the legend of the Batman. Criminals consider
that in fact, this is not a man, but a supernatural being.
I find it unfortunate that basically none of the other live-action renditions of the character
incorporated this, and even that Nolan was so quick to move along from it. The other films
are also great and I debated between placing this one or the crime thriller that is 2008’s
“The Dark Knight”, but for the above reasons I went with “Begins”.
Honorable Mentions: “The Proposition”, “Walk the Line”, “King Kong”, “Sympathy for Mr.
Vengeance”, “Grizzly man”
2006
“The Prestige”
“The Departed” was the “Best Picture” and “Best Director” winner of 2006. Originally I
wrote this list with that as my choice as well, but the more I thought about it, I really
prefer yet another Christopher Nolan film. “The Prestige”.
The plot follows Hugh Jackman as Robert Angier and Christian Bale as Alfred Borden.
They’re both rival magicians with Alfred having created the greatest trick seen up till that
point. Due in the most part to a personal vendetta, Robert stops at nothing to recreate the
trick with more showmanship in an effort to destroy Alfred.
Christopher’s brother Jonathan penned the screenplay for “The Prestige” and has been
vocal about it being a metaphor for filmmaking. The metaphor is not exactly subtle but I
don’t think it has to be, as it is effective.
Because this film operates as a metaphor for filmmaking with the backdrop of a specific
magic trick, the whole structure is dedicated to the reveal of how you were deceived. With
each piece snapping together perfectly and Nolan’s predisposition to operating non-
linearly working masterfully well with this film. I would say more so than nearly all of his
other films that use the same template.
Unlike other movies that have the crux of their story rely on a twist, this film holds up
exceedingly well upon repeat viewing. This is mostly due to the perfect performances
from the entire cast, but I will give special note to Rebecca Hall who plays Sarah Borden. I
consider her a very underused actress generally, but in this film she perfectly plays an
emotionally confused/abused wife.
“The Prestige” is a film that functions without a lull in pacing and beautiful pseduo-gothic
imagery. One of Nolan’s most visually memorable works which is truly saying something
when taking the man’s career into account.
Honorable Mentions: “The Departed”, “Casino Royale”, “Rocky Balboa”
2007
“Lars and the Real Girl”
2007 was a heck of a year for filmmaking. However, my pick for the year’s best goes to a
subtle, slow, relatively low-budget drama.
“Lars and the Real Girl” is a story about isolation. Lars Lindstrom (Ryan Gosling) is a man
with a kind heart, but a lonely heart as well. He orders a sex doll in order to form a bond
with really anything, and through this doll he becomes socially accepted in his small town.
The story is based around an irony. Lars orders the doll because he is viewed as weird
and unsociable by the town. Through the weirdness of him taking the doll around with
him as his girlfriend he develops friendships out of the surrounding civilian’s pure
curiosity.
What makes the film feel warm and heartfelt, rather than satirical and dirty, is that Lars
doesn’t fornicate with the doll. He treats the object like a real woman and inserts his
fantasies of caring and loving someone else onto the inanimate object. Lars is a man who
is stuck in adolescence so he indulges in playtime with a plastic toy in order to learn
social cues.
As I mentioned, the neighbors of Lars don’t outcast him further because of this. Instead
they embrace his stiff and rigid girlfriend for what she is. They ask Lars questions about
her and reintegrate him into their world.
I don’t want to give away the ending of this film, but it is very cathartic. Out of all the films
on this list I think I’d recommend watching this one the most. I don’t consider it to be the
best, but it is a great introduction into the sometimes more strange world of lower-budget
filmmaking.
, Honorable Mentions: “Zodiac”, “Hot Fuzz”, “Ratatoullie”, “American Gangster”, “No
Country for Old Men”, “There Will be Blood”
2008
“The Wrestler”
“The Wrestler” stars Mickey Rourke as Randy Robinson. Randy is a wrestler (who’d have
thunk it) well passed his prime and brutally wounded from his career. He has an
estranged relationship with his daughter, Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood), and begins a
new relationship with a stripper named Cassidy (Marisa Tomei).
Making this film as my pick for 2008 puts me in an interesting position because I only saw
it once. That in of itself says a lot that I remembered it highly enough to put it on here, but
it also means the little details and traits it carries I don’t exactly have etched into my
brain.
I just remember the film being brutally realistic. It paints the urban landscape that Randy
occupies as his own sort of purgatory and the matches he partakes in as his only form of
release. Well, okay the matches and the Cassidy character.
Randy is a bad father, a drunk, and not a particularly likeable person on basic levels. He
enters the ring because the crowd around him gives him the love he cannot receive
elsewhere. The crowd, however, is a false sense of love because the man in the ring is a
false sense of Randy.
The man in the ring is a heroic bastion of hyperized masculinity, the real man is a
blasphemy to what he needs to be. A deadbeat dad and a social misfit due to seemingly
his own faults more than the perception of others.
Honorable Mentions: “Wall-E”, “Iron Man”, “Gran Torinio”, “Dear Zachary”
2009
“Up”
“Up” is a children’s rendition of “About Schmidt”. Carl Fredrickson (Ed Asnar) is another
man in the midst of an end-of-life crisis, who embarks on a new journey after the death of
his wife. Both also involve traveling and are major crowd pleasing films that don’t enter
any realm of immaturity, though they do indulge in childlike wonder and the occasional bit
of schmulz. Do not confuse “immaturity” and “childlike”. They are not the same. One is
the mark of an edgy teen, the other a curious, willing to learn, spirit.
Obviously, I am being somewhat comedic and hyperbolic with that comparison, but there
are some similarities with both films. Even down to the similar color grading and grumpy
old man protagonist.
Why I placed “Up” on my list however is one particular similarity it has with “About
Schmidt”, the effective character development. The opening of this film is silent and
through visuals alone tells you the entire marriage of Carl and his wife Ellie. In the span of
about 5 minutes with some laid back music, you yourself feel the desire for marriage and
a fixer-upper home. At 8 years old I saw this film and I did even then.
It is often small little items (as I mentioned with Payne’s or Singleton’s shot composition)
or short little scenes that take a film from good to great. The visual storytelling in the
beginning of “Up” does just that except it takes it from good to the best movie of 2009 (in
my opinion).
The rest of the film operates as peak Pixar filmmaking, which is no small task and is
certainly no insult, however, none of it deserves to be studied as much as the opening few
minutes. The rest is a charming romp with likeable characters and yet another example of
a mentor figure being stripped down to villain in front of the eyes of our protagonist (as in
Spidey 2), but exists as nothing groundbreaking.
It is that small moment at the top that makes me remember “Up”.
Honorable Mentions: “Watchmen”, Inglorious Basterds”, “The Informant”, “A Serious
Man”, “Fantastic Mr. Fox”, “The Road”, “Bunny and the Bull”
2010
“The Fighter”
“The Fighter” is an interpretation of the life and times of real life boxer Micky Ward (Mark
Wahlberg) and his brother Dicky (Christian Bale). Dicky was an unsuccessful boxer in the
past and suffers from substance abuse issues, both of which have negative effects on
Micky.
“The Fighter” is one of the most realistic films in terms of arguing families that I’ve ever
seen. Characters yell over each other, gesture wildly, cover their face in frustration, it’s
really quite terrific acting with the cast and direction on the part of David O’Russel.
The sweet and sour pull of “The Fighter” is what gives it the effective edge it has. Micky
is given affectionate moments with his female companion, Charlene (Amy Adams), that
takes you out of either A. the brutal boxing world or B. the family’s own fight ring. This is
done for just enough time to put you back in one of the two a moment later. A one-two
punch if you will. Alright, I’m done with the boxing puns.
O’Russel also does not ignore the boxing movie tropes set forth in the “Rocky” franchise.
At a time when the training montage was mostly reserved for parody, it is used effectively
here in a non-ironic sense to energize the audience. “The Fighter” does lean into the very
effective underdog element of “Rocky” and other sports films, but does so in a more
subtle way.
In short, “The Fighter” is a great film because it has enough to make it familiar to the
others in it’s genre, but is distinct in it’s own right. While not reinventing the wheel, it
makes the wheel roll a little smoother.
Honorable Mentions: “Shutter Island”, “Toy Story 3”, “Inception”, “Scott Pilgrim vs. the
World”, “Tron: Legacy”, “True Grit”
2011
“Midnight in Paris”
I really wanted to place “Warrior” with Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton as my pick for this
year and almost did. However, anything that can be said about “The Fighter” is pretty
much true for “Warrior”.
It too has realistic family dynamics, tropes of older sports films, and great acting. The
more I thought about it I also realized that it also doesn’t do these things quite as well as
“The Fighter”. While it doesn’t lean into melodrama to the same degree as a television
film that would air on TLC, it does lean enough into it for me to knock it down a few
increments. That compiled with the fact that it’s in the same genre as my 2010 pick and
it’s somewhat softer tone that came with a PG-13 rating, made me rethink it slightly. If I
were to do a top 3 of the year, “The Warrior” would certainly take the number 2 spot. For
the best though, I went with a movie that is nearly entirely different from anything else on
my list.
“Midnight in Paris” follows Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) who is an author visiting Paris with
his wife. While out on a midnight stroll, he is accidentally taken back in time to Paris of
the 1920’s, a time period he views as a peak of artistic culture. He becomes enamored
with the past and a particular woman in the past, Gabrielle (Lea Seydoux), and makes the
journey there again and again.
The film toys with the idea that humanity as a whole and artists more specifically look to
the past as the peak of fill in the blank and anything that came afterwards as
inconsequential or at best mediocre.
Gil tells Gabrielle when he goes back that she’s living in the best time for artistic culture,
and she responds by saying it was decades prior.
It’s pretty clever with how it handles it and seems to be the initial spark of inspiration for
the film’s creation, then followed by beautiful shots of Paris and painting-esque shot
composition.
The message of the film is certainly relevant today. I often see people complain that
“cinema is dead” and have been guilty of it in the past myself. However, what my former
being and these other individuals often don’t take into account is the lower-budget,
limited release pictures.
While it is true that the big studios focus is dedicated to franchise films at the moment, it
is also true that actual artistry does exist in some of those franchises for one (Dune) and
even in the more commercialized mainstream series’, there is one that breaks the mold
and becomes unique.
Atop of all that, I’ve found that the individuals that complain do not check the local
theaters showtimes to see what is playing. Unless one of the major studios publishes a
trailer for the film, they’re unaware of it. Thus they come to the conclusion that everything
is “Marvel”, “DC”, “Godzilla”, or something in that vain.
While the current state of cinema is not as groundbreaking or liberated as the 70s or 90s,
it is also not as restrictive as the 50s or 80s. Would I like studios to promote more unique
films? Of course. To act like they’re not around however is simply a fabrication or a
misunderstanding.
With that side rant over (not a rant really, just a piece of commentary/advice) back to the
actual film.
Gil’s character is the stand in for Woody Allen himself. All of his films have one, often
times he plays that stand in. At times (often) this stand in is abrasive and drags the film
down. This is not the case with Gil.
Owen Wilson’s general laid back persona lends a likability to a rather cynical character.
He is very charming and comes to Paris “as a child”. Gazing upon the beauty it contains
with a embrace of wonder.
I went on a bender of Woody Allen pictures some time ago. I’ve seen a good section of
them and “Midnight in Paris” I view as his best. The other films of his I quite enjoyed
were “An Irrational Man” (no one else liked that one) “Blue Jasmine” and “Ferris Wheel”.
All of these are of the last 15 years. While I like his early comedies enough, I actually do
prefer the more serious films mentioned.
I do however understand why fans of “Annie Hall” may not agree with me.
Honorable Mentions: “Warrior”, “Adjustment Bureau”, “Rango”, “Sucker Punch”, “The
Beaver”, “Super 8”, “50/50”, “Drive”, “Hugo”
2012
“The Master”
“The Master” stars Joanquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell. Freddie is a drunken WWII
veteran. In an attempt to conquer his alcoholism and ahem proclivities he studies under
the L. Ron Hubbard stand in Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman).
“The Master” is not only my best of 2012, it is one the best films I’ve seen period. I should
probably qualify this by saying I am a P.T. Anderson fanatic. I adore his writing and the
weird pace he bestows upon all his films. They have this dream like flow that is laced with
metaphor and at times irony, often a dark humor as well.
“The Master” is the type of film that is so good, it’s redundant to cover the things it does
well. Everything is done well. The film looks so beautiful that I cannot technically grasp
how it looks the way it does. The performances rank amongst the best of the entire cast,
the music is phenomenal, it’s about as perfect as a film can be. Unless you don’t like
things that are weird, then I wouldn’t recommend it I guess .
The core theme of “The Master” I believe to be manipulation. Lancaster Dodd
manipulates both Freddie and the audience with his sophisticated, boisterous, and
performative charm. It is just that though, a performance.
Whether Lancaster believes his snake oil or not, that is what he is selling. Even knowing
this as an audience member I found myself taking his side against his detractors simply
due to his manipulative charisma. As an audience member you find yourself wondering if
you could be duped by a salesman the same way Freddie was. I think the film actually
made me take a more distrustful look at people after my viewing.
Honorable Mentions: “Skyfall”, “Django Unchained”
2013
“The Place Beyond the Pines”
A film that deals with Luke Glanton (Ryan Gosling) and the son, Jason (Dane DeHaan) he
has by Romina (Eva Mendes). Also involved is a police officer named Avery Cross
(Bradley Cooper) and his own son, Jack (Craig Van Hook).
To describe the plot in any more detail would give away the narrative shift that takes
place. What at first is jarring and uncomfortable later becomes the very thing that makes
the movie more interesting.
“The Place Beyond the Pines” is a slow burner film. In many ways it has traits of a
western. Outlaw type characters that feel pressed upon by society, a young woman that
falls for the “bad boy”, the freedom brought about by motorcycle’s is shown to be the
character’s stand in for a horse, the scenic cinematography, all compiled into
a…..well…that would spoil it.
The script for this film is really quite unique. Written and directed by Derek Cianfrance it
feels nearly like an anthology, but it’s just a little too tied together to be quite that.
Unfortunately I can’t say much about this one without giving it away. But, the film is more
than worth your time.
Honorable Mentions: “The Wind Rises”, “Bad Words”, “Blue Jasmine”, “Don Jon”,
“Nebraska”, “Inside Llewyn Davis”, “Out of the Furnace”, “Wolf of Wall Street”, “Enemy”,
“Prisoners”
2014
“Nightcrawler”
“Nightcrawler” stars Jake Gyllenhal as Louis Bloom. Louis is a nocturnal and boarderline
animalistic cameraman. He purposefully seeks out the most disturbing footage he can
find in order to sell it to a local news station.
The reason I call the character of Louis “animalistic” is not because he operates on a
level of instinct. No. He is very aware of the actions he is committing and the
consequences of them. The term suits him in the sense that everything he does is for his
own benefit and he’s completely detached from the affect that it has on those around
him.
Before “Joker”, “Nightcrawler” served as a reminder to the era of films about social
collapse/isolation. It has imagery and subject manner from “Taxi Driver”, “King of
Comedy”, and some commentary on surveillance like Coppola’s “The Conversation”.
“Bringing out the Dead” is another film that is reminiscent, however that came out much
later than the last 3 mentioned.
Louis is nihilistic, cruel, self-serving, and generally unlikeable. The movie contains an
unrelenting mean spirit, one that would fit a different era more than the past 10 years. For
that, I appreciate it’s effort. It doesn’t take the soft route, it doesn’t put a caveat in for you
to enjoy Louis in one aspect. No, Louis is a bastard. Pure and simple. Cut and dry.
“Nightcrawler” criticizes the News Station for buying what is essentially snuff film footage
from Louis but it also criticizes the people that watch the news. If violence wasn’t what
sold, the station would buy other types of footage. Again, that type of social commentary
is reminiscent of 70s films. Taking a shot at the public in that manner is not something
often done, at least not so directly, in a more modern film industry.
Honorable Mentions: “The Grand Budapest Hotel”, “Captain America 2”, “Chef”, “Dawn of
the Planet of the Apes”, “Guardians of the Galaxy”, “Whiplash”, “Interstellar”, “Inherent
Vice”
2015
“The H8ful Eight”
“The Hateful Eight” is a difficult film to describe the plot of briefly. Sooo….I’m going to
write it very very simplisticly. It’s about 8 very bad people that for a variety of reasons, all
end up in the same cabin during a snow storm.
What writer/director Quentin Tarantino did with this film is take his first directorial
feature, “Resevoir Dogs”, amplify the pure vileness of the characters as well as the
violence, then put it in the old west.
“The Hateful Eight” does hold it’s own though. For one thing, the cast is phenomenal.
Samuel L. Jackson, Walter Goggins, Kurt Russel, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Bruce Dern, Tim
Roth, I could go on. The banter between them works so well and as always with
Tarantino’s dialogue, stays interesting.
I have long had a theory (which was sort of confirmed by QT in his book “Cinema
Speculation”) that Tarantino purposefully writes the most vile characters possible, then
dares you to like them.
He has people become horrible murders, then say something so charming that you
chuckle. Then you feel guilty for chuckling. I think it’s his way of writing people as real.
Oftentimes you hear people speak of criminals saying “I never would’ve suspected”. Well,
if you had a diner and Jules Winnfield or Vincent Vega walked in would you think of either
of them as a gangster? Or would you never suspect them?
In a way, Tarantino’s career is similar to the final act of “Unforgiven”. Spoilers in case you
haven’t seen it. Clint Eastwood has you rooting for his character, William Munny, to kill
every last person in that little town. Even though the whole first and second act were
about him reverting from that way of life!
The film corrupted you to root for someone committing inherently evil acts much like how
QT does in nearly all of his films. I think what he is saying is that it’s all a matter of
perspective.
What “The Bride” does in “Kill Bill” is brutally violent, and she probably kills some people
along the way who have no idea how she was wronged. From the perspective of a random
bodyguard, or a now motherless child, this woman is pretty evil. Yet we as the audience
never stop rooting for her and ourselves become corrupted. This is due to the perspective
in which the film is framed.
“It takes a magnificent filmmaker filmmaker to corrupt an audience.”-Quentin Tarantino,
page 63 of “Cinema Speculation”.
Honorable Mentions: “Mad Max: Fury Road”, “Irrational Man”, “Creed”, “The Revenant”
2016
“Hell or High Water”
Toby Howard (Chris Pines) together with his brother Tanner Howard (Ben Foster) rob a
chain of banks in order to save the family ranch from foreclosure. They are pursued by
two Texas Rangers Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges) and Alberto Parker (Gil Birmingham).
“Hell or High Water” is a western in modern day. Making that statement is nothing new
and borderline irritating to fans of the film, but nonetheless it remains true. Everything
from the story itself, to the outlaw characters, to the scenery, to the last action set piece
are straight from the works of Leone, Peckinpah, or their ilk.
Instead of an older trusty horse, our outlaw protagonists have an old muscle car. A muscle
car covered in dust and with a torn dashboard. Instead of a bandannas they have ski
masks, instead of a saloon for them to hideout in, they have a casino.
What western would be complete without commentary on the “Man”? The reason that the
brothers are targeting a specific bank chain is because the ranch was given a loan by that
establishment. A loan that would be deemed “predatory” in the following years. Because
of this the audience initially sides with the outlaws, however the director begins to
challenge you on this with the character of Tanner.
While Toby wants to limit the possible human casualties, Tanner is a madman. An ex-con
that was not rehabilitated to society and carries a disassociation with the emotions of
killing.
The film by having this dynamic on the individual level with the brothers, and on a societal
level with the bank vs. the brothers vs. the authorities, creates an effective morality quiz.
Like Leone questioning the myth of the old west, director David McKenzie questions the
myth of modern rural life and the supposed economic recovery.
Honorable Mentions: “Hail Ceasar”, “Deadpool”, “10 Cloverfield Lane”, “Arrival”, “Fences”,
“The Founder”
2017
“Blade Runner 2049”
“Blade Runner 2049” is the sequel to the 1982 film “Blade Runner”. The film follows
Officer K (Ryan Gosling) as he attempts to unravel a case of a child born of a replicant.
That brief explanation of the plot sets up an exploration of the original ideas set forth in
the first film, and expands upon them. Both movies question the nature of being sentient.
The first does so with robot “replicants” this one takes it a step further by having the
significant other to Officer K be a hologram woman. This takes the level of audience
detachment even further.
This is a heavy over simplification of very complex themes that are too in depth to explore
here. What I do have time for is to talk about the films other attributes.
Much like it is a redundancy to refer to “Hell or High Water” as a western, it is also a
redundancy to refer to Roger Deakins as a great cinematographer. Again though, it
doesn’t mean it’s untrue. “Blade Runner 2049” is so majestically beautiful that if the film
remained without plot, and was a series of images of the vehicles and city with static
noise playing it would remain engaging. While the original “Blade Runner” has a more
lived in an dirty look to it than it’s predecessor, that doesn’t take away from the scenery
that is shown.
The musical score is both foreboding and beautiful, the acting from everyone is top notch
with Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard) giving the best performance of his career in my honest
opinion, and the general art direction is amazing from top to bottom.
I have a heavy predisposition toward liking this film quite a bit. While I have only listed his
films as “Honorable Mentions” previously in this list, Denis Villenue I believe to be the
most talented director that has come into public consciousness in the past 20 years.
“Prisoners”, “Enemy”, and “Arrival”, all could have easily made this list, but I am trying to
make a list that represents a large swath of films I enjoy and not the works of one
director. The case with “Arrival” and “Hell or High Water” was an even toss up with how
much I respected/enjoyed them respectively, so I went with the latter as I knew I’d
include “2049” later.
The world created by Ridley Scott is lovingly homaged here while also not being a 1:1
replica (or replicant). “2049” works as a solo film if you have not seen the original. The
mark of a truly great follow-up.
Honorable Mentions: “Split”, “Phantom Thread”, “Logan”, “Dunkirk”
2018
“Mission Impossible: Fallout”
Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his efficient team of spies attempt to stop a mad man, John
Lark (August Walker), from detonating nuclear weapons in various countries and starting
WWIII.
In looking through the films released in 2018, I came to the conclusion that I’d seen hardly
any of them. So with that conclusion, I had to pick the one I thought best achieved what it
had set out to do. Thus we have “MI: Fallout”.
The films in this series are all the same thing. Ethan Hunt goes against his agency in
order to stop some global threat. They’re an excuse for Tom Cruise to maintain his feeling
of youth and perform death defying stunts. Somehow though, it never gets old.
Aside from the 2nd film in the franchise, they’re all consistently great and while being
amusement park rides, you don’t have to turn your brain off and not think about it. The
films are over the top yes, but the plots are logical enough that they do not become dumb
fun like Michael Bay’s “Ambulance”.
“Fallout” happens to be my favorite in the franchise. It’s the darkest in tone and the most
tense with the threat of literal nuclear annihilation. Also, Henry Cavill is amazing as the
henchman to the main threat. He adds a layer of grit to the series that was needed.
Oftentimes film analysis comes down to how deep the meaning and themes of the picture
are. What then gets lost in the weeds is asking if the movie achieves what it set out to do,
and if it does to what degree does it achieve it?
“MI: Fallout” is not a deep meaning drama, but here’s the thing, it wasn’t trying to be.
What it sets out to do it does perfectly. It’s a fun “007”/”Indiana Jones” style adventure
with spectacular stunts and set pieces. The comedy moments are light and fun, but do
not break the mood like so many other modern blockbusters that are trying to mooch off
the “family pleasing” formula of the “Marvel” films.
Honorable Mentions: “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs”, “Isle of Dogs”
2019
“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”
“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” follows Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he
struggles to maintain his career as a down and out actor, let alone reclaim his prestigious
reputation. His trusty sidekick stands by his side the entire time, his stuntman, driver,
personal assistant, therapist, and friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). The two travel through
1969 Hollywood and surrounding areas in what becomes an alternative timeline film that
explores the general vibe of the year, without being historically accurate in every aspect.
The film is a caricature sketch of 1969 with Tarantino being the artist on the pier. While
having real elements, those elements are hyperbolic and stylized for the purpose of
drawing the viewers attention and for QT’s own artistic expression.
While being a nostalgia trip, Tarantino’s dialogue is at peak form as is the storytelling at
play. The detours the film takes don’t feel like detours, instead they feel like their own
little movie. In a way, the entirety of “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” could be viewed as
a collection of shorts with a couple characters tying all of them together. Which each little
segment you get lost in it and forget the general plot of the film that got you there to start
with.
In summary, the film is just genuinely cool. It’s Tarantino doing what he does best, writing
characters and talking about movies. It also plays out as his thesis statement on film
culture.
Honorable Mentions: “Glass” (yes I mean it, I really like it), “Joker”, “Ford v. Ferrari”,
“1917”
2020
“Tenet”
“Tenet” is a time travel film about preventing a nuclear event. The main character is
played by John David Washington and is simply called “Protagonist”. Protagonist must
capture the nuclear device from an arms dealer (Kenneth Branagh) with the help of his
comrade Neil (Robert Pattinson).
A certain worldwide problem did not give me much choice in selecting the film of the year
for 2020. In fact, I have only one “Honorable Mention” for this year.
Truth be told “Tenet” is a flawed film. Not because, as many point out, it’s difficult to
understand (though it is) but because the film has a detachment to it that places the
acting/characters in the commonly mentioned uncanny valley. It may very well be the
intent, but for this film I’m not sure it exactly works.
The reason I put “Tenet” here and not the other “Honorable Mention” is because it’s still
director Christopher Nolan doing his thing.
“Tenet” is Nolan’s spiritual successor to “Inception”. Like “Inception” it is a big sci-fi
concept film that toys around with tweaking what the world around you is. Both movies
also rely on exposition to carry the audience through what is happening. “Inception” is
easier to understand, yes, but the experience of viewing “Tenet” is something amazing in
and of itself.
The grand set pieces are very well paced and amazingly choreographed (actors would be
moving backward in a scene convincingly while others were moving forward), the
cinematography is pretty flawless, and the general plot is interesting and tense enough to
keep one engaged.
It’s not Nolan’s best work but it operates in a way that feels like a well oiled clock. The
clock-maker assures the audience he knows what’s going on, even if you don’t. Watching
the second hand tick by is the purpose of the film, figuring out the inner-workings is for
later viewings.
Honorable Mention: “Kubrick by Kubrick”
2021
“The Last Duel”
The plot of “The Last Duel” follows Jean De Carroughes (Matt Damon) who has a bitter
rival in Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver). Their personal hatred comes to a head when Jean
accuses Jacques Le Gris of assaulting his wife, Marguerite (Jodie Comer), and the two
agree to a duel to determine who the truthful party is. Their theory is that whomever God
allows to win the duel is the person in the right.
I love this film. While it is made pretty clear what the actual events that transpired are by
director Ridley Scott, the actors all play the part like they’re telling the truth. Adam Driver
seems to believe his story as much as Matt Damon does his, and Jodie Comer does hers.
Maybe this was unintentional and the liars in the film were just supposed to be great at
lying, but they seemed to truly believe their own account of the tale.
Aside from that the film is stunning to look at, the entire cast is phenomenal and the set
pieces all felt real. The film was very immersive in this midevil world, excluding the non-
historically accurate vocal proclivities, and while being rather long it breezes by. Very well
edited and paced structurally. Especially when you consider that the film has you watch 3
different accounts of the same incident for a large portion of it, which somehow avoids a
feeling of repetitiveness.
Honorable Mentions: “Dune”, “No Sudden Moves”, “Licorice Pizza”
2022
“Till”
“Till” is based on the short life and times of Emmet Till (Jalyn Hall) and his mother Mamie
Till-Bradley (Danielle Deadwyler). Emmet was the victim of a racist murder in a
Mississippi town of the year 1955 and Mamie seeks justice afterward, as well as societal
change to the nation.
2022 was a great year for film. While 21′ acted as a reemergence after the hibernation
that was 20′, it still didn’t feel fully back. With 2022 however, I had several pictures that I
could’ve selected for the best of that year.
What ultimately led to my selection of “Till” is how masterful the film feels. This is
obviously not a pleasing story to watch, within that unpleasantness however is the little
things that I mentioned with Alexander Payne and John Singleton. Little moments of
artistry that save a scene from being a flat image.
Whether that’s a camera move, or just an interesting angle, the pictures never falls into
the trap that many “true story” movies do of a realistic account that is mundane and lacks
an artistic interpretation to the image.
Atop of that, the movie’s rich color emulates the colorized films of the era in which it
takes place. The vibrant colors are not true to reality necessarily, but are true to the
fictionalized world shown on film in that era. By that weird proxy, you become immersed
in the time period presented through that association and the warm feeling created by it.
The warm feeling is then shattered by the actual events that took place and the
heartbreaking performances by the cast. I have never seen an actor portray the pain that
Danielle Deadwyler is able to conjure up for this film. It’s respectable because it is
unpleasant to watch.
“Till” is an example of how biopics should be done. Too often the “true story” movies fall
into the realm of “shlock and aaawwwweee!”. (Neither of those words are typos.) They
feel like emotional manipulation (which all art is but you don’t want it to feel that way) to
an annoying degree and become barely better than a Hallmark movie counterpart.
“Till” does not do this. It doesn’t devolve into preachyness to get across the themes
presented nor does it overstay it’s welcome. Director Chinonye Chukwu understands that
the story presented is important and that the film doesn’t need to be 3 hours long to prove
that. She respects the audience enough to not create an overly long film in an attempt to
convince them they are viewing a grand historical film. She creates a good, well paced
film first.
By doing so she allows the subject matter to be played out by the actors, and then the
audience comes to the desired conclusion on their own. Not by a manipulative outside
force but by the film’s actual moving images.
Honorable Mentions: “The Northman”, “The Fablemens”, “Top Gun: Maverick”, “Babylon”
(Yes I mean that “Babylon”.)
2023
“Killers of the Flower Moon”
Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) marries Molly Burkhart (Lily Gladstone) with actual
desire for her and the pressuring of his uncle William Hale (Robert DeNiro). William is in
one way or another taking the land of the Osage Native American population in Oklahoma
and plans to use Ernest to capture the land of Molly’s family.
2023 was the best year for movies in the entirety of my life. In fact, this was a 5 way race
for my pick for this year. What it came down to was simply this: I really like Scorsese
movies.
I like his placement of the camera, I like his editing, I like his use of music (most of the
time), I like when he lets a scene play silently, and most of all, I like how he handles
characters.
What Martin Scorsese is so talented at and what he does time and time again is to
present people as people. He doesn’t make them over the top sinister or have a character
monologue to the audience about how evil the antagonist is.
He puts these people in a room, he lets them talk, he lets them damn themselves to us.
Allows the audience to form their own conclusions by showing the actions of the
characters in a matter-of-fact (though oftentimes artistically stylized) manner. Much like
“Till” “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a historical film that makes a moral statement. Also
much like the 2022 counterpart, it does this without feeling preachy.
Scorsese is brilliant at showing moral decay and that is on display here as well with the
character of Ernest. Scorsese doesn’t want to play pretend. He doesn’t want to sugarcoat.
He wants to get to the heart of the no good bastard that his characters often are. He does
that with DiCaprio and DeNiro here the same way he does with Pesci, Liotta, and DeNiro
in “Goodfellas”.
People have argued that the film is overly long, I personally don’t agree with that. It’s
long ,yes, but I never felt personally that a certain scene could’ve been cut down or
scrapped entirely.
A masterful piece of work in my humble opinion.
Honorable Mentions: “The Boy and the Heron”, “Godzilla Minus One”, “Past Lives”,
“Dream Scenario”, “Somewhere in Queens”, “Fool’s Paradise” (Yes, that one) “Barbie”
“Oppenheimer”, “The Holdovers” “Wonka”
2024
“Furiosa”
“Furiosa” follows the title character played by Anya Taylor-Joy as she makes her way
through or around various lords of the apocalyptic wasteland that Earth remains as.
This will probably be my most controversial choice considering “Dune 2” came out this
year. I may edit this list later as well as I am writing this in June, obviously we still have
half the year to go.
The reason I put “Furiosa” above “Dune 2” is simply because it’s weird. From start to
finish the movie is really weird. It’s a sort of fairy-tale template placed in a desert
hellscape with over-the-top masculine vehicles (that are probably compensation) and
extreme violence.
I oftentimes defend the movies that are described as self-indulgent. “Babylon”, much of
Tarantino’s work, “The Fablemens” etc. I do this because (perhaps this is a pattern you’ve
noticed) I appreciate films that make no apologies for what they are, simply showing the
situations as the creatives imagined them as happening. That perfectly describes
“Furiosa”.
Visually the film is stunning, every frame is meticulously crafted to look beautiful in it’s
disorder, every shot is well placed and doesn’t feel unfitting to the scene it represents.
Story wise some of it is told by mystic narration, some of it by straight visuals, other
moments by timecuts, this creates a feeling of disorder and chaos. How would you
describe the world of “Mad Max”? Disorderly and chaotic? So perhaps that was the point.
“Furiosa” is a condemnation of humanity and what we will do to merely survive while also
being a warning of falling into cult manipulation.
Honorable Mentions: “Ministry of Ungentlemenly Warfare”, “The Bikeriders”