What are the great films from the last fifteen years?

If you're setting the bar at The Shawshank Redemption and The Usual Suspects, I'm not sure the thread can contain all the films worthy of inclusion.

Me personally, The Usual Suspects if films from the last 16 years were included. Twelve Monkeys from the same year (also 16 years ago) was an especially well constructed time travel movie.

Fight Club would be another one I'd add to my personal list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disco Von Doom 

What modern masterpieces am I missing?

Waltz With Bashir is the first which comes to mind. If you're excluding foreign language films then of course that'll be your loss, but I haven't seen a more ambitious or affecting film from the last 15 years. It's all too rare for me to find a film I could call flawless, but this is as close as it gets. And I can and will watch it any time I come across it.

I think Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr Fox is mere inches away from the same status, as is the Coen Brothers' True Grit.

Pans Labyrinth

No Country for Old Men

Inglorious Basterds

The Mist

The Fountain (divisive though still great)

Oldboy

Donnie Darko

The Dark Knight

The Lord of The Rings Trilogy

American Beauty

The Thin Red Line

Fight Club

The Matrix

The Truman Show

LA Confidential

No love for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford? That's up there with The Royal Tenenbaums as my best film of the 00s. 

Agreed with Spike. I regard Jesse James higher than There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men, and I think those two films are capital letters GREAT.

I think what I appreciate the most about Jesse James is that it doesn't even really have a pedigree. With There Will Be Blood and No Country you were kind of expecting greatness due to the respective careers of Anderson and the Coens. Whilst I like Chopper I would never have imagined Andrew Dominik making what feels like a masterwork with his second film. It's just unsettlingly brilliant and populated with talented actors bringing their A game, but even then none of the actors (aside from Pitt) were standard 'name' actors. It's largely full of young, great, actors getting a chance to really prove themselves. It essentially represents the future of actors to me, in the way that the cast of Inception probably represents what new Hollywood will look like in a few years. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Marshall 

I think what I appreciate the most about Jesse James is that it doesn't even really have a pedigree. With There Will Be Blood and No Country you were kind of expecting greatness due to the respective careers of Anderson and the Coens. Whilst I like Chopper I would never have imagined Andrew Dominik making what feels like a masterwork with his second film. It's just unsettlingly brilliant and populated with talented actors bringing their A game, but even then none of the actors (aside from Pitt) were standard 'name' actors. It's largely full of young, great, actors getting a chance to really prove themselves. It essentially represents the future of actors to me, in the way that the cast of Inception probably represents what new Hollywood will look like in a few years. 

Brad Pitt cast as Jesse James was really inspired. It's very easy make the parallel between Jesee James' celebrity with Pitt's. That HAD to be intentional, and Pitt gave no hesitatation to display the ugly side of it. I'd rate Jesse James as Pitt's most honest performance, if that makes any sense.

It's funny, I was really reticent in watching Jesse James(I'm short handing it like this because I really don't want to make it an anagram)  because the tone seemed very mediatative, and I was afraid that I would be bored because of it. The high praise around these parts made me go "hmmm..." but then so do Malick films and as much as I try to get into them, I can't. Anyway, when I got around to Jesse James, I was completely rapted by it. Most of the time, if it isn't on the big screen, I watch movies on my laptop and I have the burden of being distracted by things and feel forced to press "pause" for whatever. That did not happen throughout the whole duration of Jesse James. Not. Once.

I still think Casey Affleck deserved that Oscar as well as Deakins just for that night time train robbery sequence. That's the most beautiful, haunting cinematography I've ever seen in a western. 

The question you're asking is not "what are the great films." The question you're asking is "what is canon." Sadly, two very different things.

Eternal Sunshine and Memento

Both are incredibly done, and they're such singular works by great filmmakers. I can watch them again and again (Eternal Sunshine in particular), and I still remember just being blown away the first time I saw them. They're #1 and #2 for me, and nothing else really comes close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disco Von Doom 


 No Country suffers from the off camera climax.

Not the best place to make that claim without backing it up with a more thorough reasoning (justification/rationale/what have you).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disco Von Doom 


I definitely agree with Inglorious Basterds, American Beauty, Fight Club, The Matrix and The Truman Show. Jim Carrey Should have won the oscar for best actor that year.

The Dark Knight and No Country for Old Men I think will be remembered for singular performances. The Dark Knight feels too long and No Country suffers from the off camera climax.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is good, but not something I would watch again and again. The third film is easily a half hour too long.

Definitely some good choices.

So really you're not asking what are the 'Greatest' films of the last fifteen years, you're asking what are peoples favorites.

This thread is inherantly flawed, but seriously, American Beauty needs to get the fuck out of here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Park Chan-wookie 

This thread is inherantly flawed, but seriously, American Beauty needs to get the fuck out of here.

 

Yeah seriously.

You all have no idea what profoundly deep messages of deep deepness American Beauty is trying to enlighten you with, I'm sure...

Don't worry.

YOU WILL SOMEDAY.

Much better people than I have gone into your issues with the film's lack of climax on this site.  But I have to assume that you've already read about why the film must be told the way it was.  The lack of 'payoff' to Llewelyn's story was very much a part of the reason the film was so highly acclaimed.  If it had actually had the more conventional approach you wanted (which I can completely understand), it may have resulted in the film being more of a True Grit than the best picture it deserved to be.

Actually, the lack of resolution for Llewelyn didn't bug me at all.  But I admit that I was left a little cold by the film's muted ending.  I think it was due to the fact that Tommy Lee Jones' internal crisis didn't click for me rather than anything to do with the 'missing' climax.

As for connecting with an audience...  the film connected just fine with both of my parents.  Though, my dad did wonder if there was a sequel.  Hahahahahah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disco Von Doom 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

So really you're not asking what are the 'Greatest' films of the last fifteen years, you're asking what are peoples favorites.

A great film has to connect with it's audience. Are there any great films out there that are disliked by all? You could argue that perhaps there are some films which are disliked now and will be hailed as masterpieces by later generations. As Nietzsche said, "some of my readers are born posthumously." But that is for later generations to decide.

The flip-side to that coin of course is that just because a film is liked, doesn't make it 'great'. You named The Usual Suspects and Shawshank Redemption as some of the 'Greatest' films in fifteen years straight out of the gate. Hell you even concede that The Royal Tenenbaums is essentially a cult film that divides too many people - essentially you're just naming your favorite films and insisting they're the greatest because you like them. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disco Von Doom 

 I'm just saying that the film will be remembered for Javier Bardems performance, which it should be.
 

What nonsense, people will be remembering it for a lot more than a single performance. We're not talking about Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine or Jim Broadbent in Iris - this was one of the Coens most successful films of all time - both critically and commercially. To say that Bardem is the only thing worth remembering about it is just nutty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disco Von Doom 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

The flip-side to that coin of course is that just because a film is liked, doesn't make it 'great'. You named The Usual Suspects and Shawshank Redemption as some of the 'Greatest' films in fifteen years straight out of the gate. Hell you even concede that The Royal Tenenbaums is essentially a cult film that divides too many people - essentially you're just naming your favorite films and insisting they're the greatest because you like them. 

 

Rain Dog, you are correct in saying that just because something is liked does not mean that it is a great work of art. Which is exactly why I am not just naming off my favorite movies. There are plenty of movies that I would list among my favorites which I know are not going to be remembered as being the all time great films.

But I will defend Shawshank, The Usual Suspects, and The Royal Tenenbaums.

Shawshank Redemption - Beautifully directed, career defining performances from Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, and a well written story with an amazing twist ending.

The Usual Suspects - Arguably the greatest twist ending in the history of film. An ending that demands repeat viewings, and a film that holds up against those repeat viewings. I could count the flaws in this film on one hand and still have three or four fingers left over.

The Royal Tenenbaums - This film was definitely mis- advertised as a straight up comedy when it is more of a tragicomedy.

I take issue with any of those three being listed in any 'Greatest' lists personally and still think you're just rattling off favorite films you've convinced yourself are brilliant.

Eh, we're disappearing down a very subjective rabbit hole here so I'll leave you to your thread - but I will say this, to 'defend' those three films like you just have and then to try and argue that the only thing NCFOM will only be remembered for is Javier Bardem leaves me thinking maybe that "Donnie, you're outta your element."

I love No Country For Old Men to death, but if you asked any casual movie watcher what the most memorable thing about it was they're more than likely going to say "That creepy guy with the weird hair cut and cattle gun".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walker 

I love No Country For Old Men to death, but if you asked any casual movie watcher what the most memorable thing about it was they're more than likely going to say "That creepy guy with the weird hair cut and cattle gun".

...but those same people probably never even watched films like There Will Be Blood and The Assassination Of Jesse James - we're not talking about the people that made Old Dogs a hit, I thought we were trying to point to films in the last fifteen years as 'The Greatest'.

The problem with the word 'Great' is that it is utterly subjective and contextualised. 

I'd make a claim that In The Mood For Love, Audition, A Prophet, This Is England, Sex and Lucia could all be classed as great films, but that's completely subjective AND based on the place the discussion is taking place. CHUD will run a lot more AFI than my tastes and will be American centric, which means that objectively I'm out of luck. 

If we're going to use "The Greatest" as the range of which to gauge a film's quality, shouldn't it make some impact with people who aren't as enthused about moviemaking like we are?

Please forgive me if this sounds snide, but didn't you make a thread about what I just said not too long ago?

I'm still not 100% sure what's being discussed here. Are we predicting the films that will stand the test of time/be remembered 30 years from now? Favorites? Because it's really hard to judge the former. For all we know the Coens(for example) will be remembered for Fargo/Lebowski/No Country(pick one), or be up there with someone like Kurosawa/Hitchcock//Kubrick and have a lot of classics under their belt watched by people long after they're dead. It's interesting to make predictions based on that, in a time capsule sort of way.

Will Tarantino be remembered for Pulp? Basterds?

PTA for There Will Be Blood? Boogie Nights?

I think it's already fair to say Shawshank is a modern classic. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus-7 

I think it's already fair to say Shawshank is a modern classic. 

I do not understand the blind love this film gets from some quarters, it's an okay film and all but such blind adoration just seems misplaced - I just don't see it as the classic so many others do. Usually, if I don't like something that's so well spoken of I can at least get where others are coming from even if I don't agree. With Shawshank, I'm simply bewildered, I don't see this masterpiece some people go on about.

The elephant in the room is Mulholland Dr.

I'm not its biggest fan, but I know people will still be watching Saving Private Ryan, if only for the Normandy invasion.

For me Shawshank is a classic that fits in better with the films of classic Hollywood than the "modern times" it was released during.  I don't think it's a blind adoration.  There's nothing sexy about it.  It's not a hip movie.  It's an old-fashioned film that makes most people laugh and cry.  It's a film that was ignored during release and gradually earned its audience over time.  And I use the word "earned" very deliberately.  It's a film that simply 'works' for most audiences.  And when I say 'works' I use it a bit anxiously, because there are lots of shit films that 'work.'  But the way Shawshank gained its reputation feels more honest than most word-of-mouth films. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 
I do not understand the blind love this film gets from some quarters, it's an okay film and all but such blind adoration just seems misplaced - I just don't see it as the classic so many others do. Usually, if I don't like something that's so well spoken of I can at least get where others are coming from even if I don't agree. With Shawshank, I'm simply bewildered, I don't see this masterpiece some people go on about.

 

It's one of those "feel good" movies(one of the few to feature prison rape, no doubt) that truly earns it without feeling sappy or forced(like say, Gump). Great performances all around, well-directed, failed to connect in theaters but has become a smash on home video, and adored by many different types of people. It's not even in my top 20 for the last 20 years, personally, but I know it connects with a LOT of people.
 

I'm similarly bewildered by American Beauty and the Usual Suspects. Both fine films, no disagreement there, I just don't "get" why some people hold them up as modern classics.

Yeah, I get the American Beauty thing, but Shawshank deserves pretty much all the respect its gotten. Everyone loves that movie, and any complaints I've ever heard on it strike me as contrarianism. It's not something with the gravitas of a Raging Bull, but it fits quiet nicely next to Mr Smith Goes to Washington, and those are both great movies.

Also, what exactly is the way to distinguish something's intrinsic greatness beyond our own tastes, other than to compare and contrast in a thread with like-minded types? We all agree on There Will Be Blood, it seems. I'll add love to the Inglourious Basterds train, and maybe throw in some Children of Men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

Also, what exactly is the way to distinguish something's intrinsic greatness beyond our own tastes, other than to compare and contrast in a thread with like-minded types? 

I think this essential conundrum is why I'm coming off more snide in this thread than I mean to and not throwing my hat in the ring with my own suggestions - they'd be just that, MY suggestions based on a whole range of subjective factors and somehow then trying to say that adds up to objective 'Greatness' - when everyones definition of greatness differs wildly anyway. I just don't see a thread like this not degenerating into people arguing about their favorite movies and that's about it.

if we are talking about truly great films,

No country, Basterds and There will be blood are up there for me along with eternal sunshine of the spotless mind

If we are talking about movies we like that we think are well made and endlessly rewatchable I would submit

observe and report

burn after reading

funny games

Hustle & Flow

anything by Danny Boyle, though my favorite is Sunshine

napolean dynomite - I will stop and watch this on comedy central even with the 15 minutes of commercial to 15 minutes of movie ratio

red belt and spartan

the weatherman

inside man

closer- mainly for clive owen's 2 epic fuck off speeches, but portmans ass gets an honorable mention

disco, I know better than to try and explain why I think something is great, but I think No Country is so outstanding I will try anyway.

This film is not only beautifully shot, well acted and superbly written. There are pieces of true originality that make it transcendant.

Yes Bardem's villian is wonderful, from friendo to the bowl cut, you simply cannot hope to top the character or the performance.

The tension of the traditional thriller that inhabits the majority of the film was exquisite.

But what truly makes this film great in my eyes are the three things people take most issue with. The off camera inevitable resolution of the bardem, brolin conflict, having bardem's character get hit by a car, and tommy lee jones quiet resignation at the end.

These 3 elements showed me that the coens truly respected McCarthy's work and would not cheat the audience of the true impact of the material.  Having Brolin win the conflict, or Bardem be a supernatural killing machine or Tommy Lee Jones as the wise old law man saving the day would of betrayed what to me was the core concept of the work.

That being drugs, the border, violence and their impact on both societies. Of course I may be completely misinterpreting the film (on first viewing I felt that Bardem's character was meant to be a symbol, not flesh and blood), but this movie approaches perfection in my eyes.

Regarding AMERICAN BEAUTY...I personally think that it's a movie that gets a little too much hate around these parts (the performances from Spacey/Bening/Cooper more than justify its existence), but yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to try to fit it in here.  One of the best of the last 15 years?  It wasn't even near the best of 1999 (Hellooooo, THE INSIDER!)

Speaking of which, I think that THE INSIDER deserves to get wedged in here somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Umami 

 the best of 1999 (Hellooooo, THE INSIDER!)

 

Speaking of which, I think that THE INSIDER deserves to get wedged in here somewhere.

YES.  You'll find no argument from me.

I'm an asshole because the only Mann film I haven't seen post-Manhunter is the Insider. :(

And '99 was such a great year for movies without it. I'm going to make up for it.

*ETA: There Will Be Blood is my favorite film post-2000. If nothing else, it will be remembered for Day-Lewis, who is totally on fire, so I feel it will stand the test of time. Plus, it's a period film, which seem to age better(whether it's a movie set in the 80's, or a Roman epic). One cool thing about No Country For Old Men is that it's a period piece, but it doesn't feel like one, while still being totally accurate.

This Is England (the best British film of the decade, IMO)

Master & Commander

Open Range

In Bruges

Layer Cake

Down With Love

Spider-Man 2

Far From Heaven

Harry Potter 3 (I rank this behind Wizard Of Oz as the 2nd greatest young fantasy film of all time)

Run Lola Run

The Constant Gardener

Children Of Men

Dogville

Master and Commander will age VERY well, Children of Men has the issue of time catching up with it(as plausible as it is, but then again, 2001), and I have no doubt In Bruges and Layer Cake will find their cult(if they haven't already), but I have no idea about Spider-Man 2. Currently it's one of my favorite comic-based films, but it was missing just a little something(maybe the Spidey one-liners, maybe the superhot "out of Peter's league" MJ). It's still fantastic though, and I can't believe people rate the first above it. The effects hold up(unlike 1 and 3), which is another notch in the plus column.