The MoFo Millenium Top 100

If LotR counts as one I would say Kill Bill would also. That may be an arguement against it though. It becomes "where do you draw the line?"

__________________
Family DVD Collection | My Top 100 | My Movie Thoughts | Frank Capra

Only one Phoenix movie and one Pixar movie?

I didn't know you were so fond of Ghost World. Excellent movie. Just rewatched it the other day in fact. Not sure if it'll make my top 25 though.

__________________

I like Joaquin, but I'm a Jake Gyllenhaal man. And Up is largely boring, but it manages to have some strong parts. Some of the films I listed I'm not even totally sure about (Lemony Snicket, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) -- I know I've seen them a lot and I have good memories of them, but it's been years since I saw them.

Ghost World, to me, is the millenium. I would love for it to win, but I'm pretty sure it won't.

Kill Bill was one film split into two, whereas the Rings are three seperate films which tell one story. Kill Bill could be one choice, but the Rings should one each.

Personally, I'd say we should be separating movies in a series. It really does end up being a question of where you can draw the line.

I mean, I happen to much prefer the first Kill Bill over the second, and I'd prefer to differentiate the two. Just an example.

i'm looking forward to this, but gosh, we have to wait six months? what if this thread gets lost in the shuffle between now and then and some of the regs who haven't been around lately (Caitlyn, Destiny, etc) miss it?

__________________
letterboxd

On the subject of film series: I think it's fine to lump them all together (provided that all films in the series were released during or after 2000) or to list them individually. However, I think a decision needs to be made one way or the other and be applied to all film series, not just a select few. Otherwise I think it could make voting for and arranging the list rather confusing.

in case anyone wanted an official 'best of' list as a starting point of what they haven't seen, here's IMDB's Top 50 movies of the 00's (that's 2000-2009, specifically), for starters.

IMDB'S Best "2000s" Titles

Oh yeah, for some reason I thought Fight Club was released later than that.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Mulholland Drive wins or I leave.

__________________

LoTR I can see both arguments but each Kill Bill varies so drastically stylistically they're their own entities imo.

You gotta pick each film separately, not lump a series or trilogy or even a duo together. If you want to list all three LOTR movies, more power to you, but one at a time. You like Harry Potter? Great, there are eight potential slots for you.


Turned in my list: two Lars von Triers, two David Finchers, three scripted by Charlie Kaufman, and seven that primarily use a language other than English. And Sexy and I only have four overlaps.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Shouldnt we all post our lists on some other thread? i dont want to wait till July before the mystery is revealed.

Uhhh.. I have seventeen non-english movies... out of twenty five.

My argument on LOTR being lumped together is twofold. Ya'll can tell me what you think:

1) It was filmed as one and only released separately. It is one "production," which sets it apart from, say, the Harry Potter series.

2) The point of these lists is to produce an accurate representation of what people think of the films of this decade. Splitting LOTR up will almost certainly lead to it being lower than is truly indicative of how beloved it is by most of us. And indicating how beloved the films on this list are is the entire point.

I think that second point is really all that matters. Which will place it in a ranking more in line with how much most of us like it: by splitting its vote, or consolidating it? Seems like it'd definitely be the latter. And I think the first point provides us with a good way of drawing the line.

I can agree with Lord of the Rings being counted as one entity. However, I think the same argument then applies also to Kill Bill and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, since it's my understanding they were also filmed as one but split up for release. Those three would be all I can think it can be applied to, though. Of course there may be others I'm not aware of, and if there are, it certainly diminishes the argument.

Yeah, I'd agree about those other two examples, as well.

I've sent mine in. 9 non-English movies, and 5-6 more British or international English-language productions. 2 that I've seen for the first time in the last 6 months. The bottom 5 or so were all surprises to me and might have changed several times between now and the deadline. 7 are on my top-100 (+12) of all time, and a few others will likely be added to it eventually.

I have 4 overlaps with Holden's Top 25 of 2000-2009 with a couple others that almost made mine.

No overlaps with Sexy Celebrity but he also has 2 or 3 that I almost picked.

Frankly, I don't rate all three of the LOTR films equally. I think Fellowship is superior to the other two, and I would have The Two Towers down much further than the first and third installments. So by averaging them together and combining them as one, you're also disallowing geeks to, well...be geeks. I think it's much more interesting to find out, at least among the MoFo contingent, which of the three is The Empire Strikes Back, to see if there is one true film that places above the others.

And perhaps mostly, it just feels like a way to cheat and get two extra slots. I say if you love all three parts of LOTR, use three precious places on your list.

And yes, "precious" was intentional.

I guess it comes down to what you feel the list is "for," then: is it "for" the process of submitting our entries (hence the emphasis on slots as a precious commodity), or is it "for" the creation of a list that best summarizes the best films of the decade? For me, it's the latter, so that's why I prefer combining them. If someone else thinks it's more about the former, then it makes sense that they'd rather break them up.

Obviously, it's not my game and not my call. That's how I'd roll if it was, but whatever's decided, I'll naturally go with.

I say don't waste a slot on something you know will never win. If the film is really, really, really that important to you, maybe, but if it's something you know nobody else is gonna vote for and you can live without including it -- ditch the bitch.