Hollywood Reporter Critics Pick the 50 Best Films of the 21st Century

What gets labelled as "political" and for whatever reason is fascinating (e.g. is Before Sunset a "female" movie just because one of the leads is a woman and, if so, why didn't you apply the same label to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), but I'm also wondering why certain films that do clearly have their own political outlooks don't get labelled as such (e.g. A Serious Man explicitly dealing in Jewish identity politics or Boyhood about a boy's formative years in a single-parent household and how he reacts to toxic masculinity around him). It just looks like a very myopic and superficial read of the whole thing that, as others have noted, is more likely to indicate how little you've taken their actual quality into consideration.

As for the directors who didn't make it, I think you really have to make a case for which 21st-century films of theirs merit inclusion beyond just being made by well-known directors - most of those names haven't made anything I'd consider worthy of a top 50 of the 21st century (even if I do like their 20th-century work).

You're kidding. Leaving aside whether you can even discern a film's objective quality from the aggregate opinion of "average" moviegoers (of which the number of people who consistently rate movies on IMDb is clearly a percentage), this is a much less diverse group of films than the THR list. 7 superhero movies (6 if you don't include Joker), 7 animated films (4 of which belong to Disney), 6 Christopher Nolan movies (actually 7 because you didn't include Interstellar despite it being on the list right under City of God), etc. About the only way it matches up to the THR list for diversity is in terms of foreign-language films and even then it only has 17 next to THR's 18.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

If a critic were to argue a film is a good film explicitly because it is (for example) a gay positive film, and makes absolutely no other note of how it communicates those elements with some kind of quality or clarity, that would definitely be an extremely bad critic. And while I wouldn't say that never happens, I honestly don't think that is something that happens very often.



At most I think these elements may predispose some members of an audience into liking a film, maybe even more than it 'deserves'. Or that they might believed that its perceived social good merits them a little nudge into loftier critical territory. And while those elements may be defined fairly as a bias, I don't think they are anymore of a bias than someone preferring a fast paced film over a slowly paced film, or a beautifully shot film over a amateurishly shot film, or one genre over another. Our biases always factor heavily into making a list of favorite or best films. It is completely unavoidable (the only factor that I think sort of reduces the idea of personal bias is to lean heavily on the notion of a films broader influence on the art form....but then we are just replacing our own biases with a general consensus biases of what has resonated with audiences and other artists the most....so its still a bias that is going to be affected by our politics and our social mores)



Ultimately, it's how a critic communicates their response to a film that matters. And even in situations where the politics or the themes of the movie may factor heavily into how they rank them on a list like this, as long as they can illustrate why those elements make the films matter, and how those elements were done better in these films than another films, they have done their job (whether I think most critics are actually doing their job is another matter, which is yet another resentment I have towards everything that has happened in this thread, because I never want to be arguing on behalf modern critics who do not deserve me going to bat for them....they are uniformly terrible)


If a critic is pounding their fist on a table and telling everyone that some half baked film about gay rights is the best movie ever, and yet gives no evidence of why, and refuses to admit that their fawning adoration has anything to do with the subject matter....yes, this would be annoying. And while I've had some similar arguments with people in real life, who are basically just really excited about seeing themselves or their view points represented on screen, and have literally zero idea of how to articulate why that makes a movie good, I don't think many of these sorts actually write about films and get noticed because....they aren't likely capable of doing such a thing. Even the absolutely worst critics in the world (and there is a massive competition for this distinction) can generally move past this kind of completely empty soapboxing.



And I will add to this, if we are really concerned with shitty 'social good' movies getting added to these kinds of lists under false pretenses (which I'll repeat, we shouldn't be), the solution to this is for their to be more of them. The reason shitty ones are rising to the top of the class is because certain audience members are so hungry for ANY type of representation, they might fall in love with the most pandering hunk of bullshit on earth just in order to have a film to fall in love with. The more gay (or black or trans or female or whatever) themed films you have, the more you force people to have critical distinctions between which of them are actually good and which can be immediately forgotten.


Because it seems you are aware you have better things in life to be worried about. Which is the healthy way to live life.




If someone is likely to dislike films they believe are too representative or diverse on principal, and that is their line, their arguments need to be about why they don't want to see movies about gays or blacks or trans people. And even if their reasoning is based on totally poisonous views, I can at least grasp that they are defending their line in regards to what a film should or shouldn't be.



Now, I probably wouldn't like them much as a person, but I would understand what they are fundamentally doing. I could at least potentially have an honest argument with that person on why I think diversity in film is important or has value or can lead to films that are very much of high quality. Then they could explain why diversity doesn't do these things. Or does the opposite of these things.


But is that is what is happening here? These threads continually devolve into posters simply not believing other people can love these movies. These people are obsessed with the lines that other people are drawing. Questioning their validity. Refusing to even accept critics or members of the audience could ever honestly think these films are better than the films they think are more deserving. This isn't critical discussion. This is a ****ing pathology.


This angle makes a genuine conversation about film (or, really, anything) an impossibility. They've decided anything I or anyone else says in regards to that films quality is based on some kind of collective dishonesty. Which allows them to bat away any defense of it as essentially being a lie (just look at the Sight and Sound, Jeanne Dielman conversation a few months back.....I and many others went out of our way to explain why we loved that film, but none of this was ever responded to, all we got was more conspiracy laden nonsense about how no one can really like it, and we were just towing some SJW line for championing it).


So this isn't about anyone's 'line'. This is about bad faith arguments. And, honestly, maybe even more important to me, essentially being called either a liar or some gullible and cowardly viewer. Whether intended that way or not, these are not attacks on the films but on those who like them. When boiled down they are insinuations that those who dare to like a film someone else doesn't are liars, and the one way you are going to consistently rile the beast in me, is to insinuate what I say isn't my truth. And if you do that enough, this is the kind of bullshit that is always going to happen.




Yes.


If this is their reason for calling a film bad, yes, that is a prime example of bad criticism.


But...


We also can't entirely separate our personal experiences, or the kind of day we are having, from our experience with a film. So in some ways, it is a bit of a lie to completely remove these elements from the conversation.


Now, the example you give is a fairly egregious example of this, and shouldn't be tolerated in a professional critic. But there is also plenty of grey area here and what a critic can do when life may be clouding their critical sensibilities. Pauline Kael wrote a fairly famous review of Shoeshine that is a decent example of this. Explains she saw the movie after a vicious fight with her boyfriend at the time and by the time she left the film was sobbing hysterically. Mentions how her boyfriend walked off and watched the same film that night and also found himself leaving the movie in tears. And while she makes attempts to explain what about the film moved her, she also insinuates that she can't be entirely certain how much of her tears were spilled because of the film and how much were because of what had just happened to her relationship. She is zoning in on that space where life and art intermingle and how they can't ever fully be separated. And maybe this is the exact spot where the alchemic magic of art really sparkles. She is talking about film as if it is that river you can only step in once. Our experiences with film change, even if they fundamentally remain exactly the same. The movie experience is about that moment in our lives of watching that movie. It's never really just about the movie.




Yes. And there are lots of bad lists from critics who we should hope should know better. But I still have trouble understanding why, even with that empty 'official' stamp, why a terrible list matters that much. Like, I get that it's depressing to see when they are particularly bad, and I get particularly distressed when I think of some critics getting a paycheck for their shit opinions and their shit explanations, but there are always going to be bad takes. Bad lists. Bad reviews. How we respond to them is what matters. Finding a critical way to show our dissent. Not evoke cabals and conspiracy theories to explain how the rest of the world might not agree with us.



Take it from someone who has never seen a list that aligns with my own critical sensibilities. It can be alienating. This one thing (art) that makes me feel as if maybe I am actually a part of this world after all, becomes yet another thing where I'm on the outside looking in. Still alienated from this thing I hoped would make my worldview more understood. In a lot of ways it can have a stupidly devastating effect. But....even I don't care that much, even as I tell you how important these things are for me in the abstract. You accept that you can't control how other people respond to art. Instead, you devote yourself to explaining how art matters to you instead of expecting others to do it for you.


And if any of this was gobbledee gook, my apologies. I had to write this quickly before tending to some life shit and had no time to look it over, which is usually essential when it comes to the word vomit I generally spew in these conversations.

not really...letterboxd users are filled with out of job losers with no life and no girlfriend.

You mean there's more to life than movies? I guess I'll have to step out of the house one of these days.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

I guess I need to get me one of those letterboxd accounts

Excuse me. I do have a job!

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

I sense a little tension...


This is the most pretentious out of touch movie list alive seen in awhile. Usually I'm writing titles down that I haven't seen when lists like these pop up, but not this time. It's actually inspiring a reverse effect.

Unless it's too late to say nice things about this list, I'm glad to see that Far from Heaven, The Gleaners and I and Yi Yi - which I still think is the best movie of this century so far - made it and that they haven't been lost in the shuffle considering their age.

I don't mind the list. As long as I don't let myself get hung up and what was excluded, I like most of what I've seen on it. And there are a few I'm unfamiliar with, which I'm always happy with, whether they deserve it or not. It gets boring just seeing the same things pop up again and again.

Personally, I think all three of them are worthy of a list like this, and I actually rank Mulholland Drive behind both Inland Empire and Twin Peaks.


As for the question of whether TP is a movie, I can take that either way. I think it is probably more interesting structured as it was for episodic television, but I wouldn't lie and say I wouldn't have loved for this to have just come out in theaters in its 15 hour glory. It would have been a nice (likely) kiss off for a wonderfully uncompromising career.

There was one very pleasant surprise on this list. Thrilled to see Wendy and Lucy make the cut. LOVED that movie but it was probably the last movie I expected to see on this list. Also have to say I think Parasite should have been higher on the list than it was.

I've deleted a few posts in this thread.

If you see something you think is over the line, report it, don't reply to it, please. If you do, that just makes it more likely the offensive/insulting thing will have to stay up (or substantive replies will have to be removed) to try to sever that discussion from the rest of the thread.

I'm pretty much in agreement. I mainly posted that to open the door of the bar to let in some fresh air because all that racism, claims of the list being pretentious, etc. are the equivalent of cigarette smoke.

As much as I like the following movies, it is kind of dull to see them appear on lists like these.
We get it. They're great. Make room for others now!

Eternal Sunshinse of the Spotless Mind
Pan's Labyrinth
Spirited Away
The Social Network
Zodiac

Apologies folks. Neither of us saw that stuff until this morning, hence the delay in moderation in this case.

Anyway - onward!

__________________

What exactly makes it "out of touch" and why does it matter if it is? Guaporense highlighting films from the IMDb top 250 inadvertently makes a good argument for why being "in touch" with what mass audiences like doesn't necessarily give you the quote-unquote best films ever made, merely the most popular ones. I mean, the only 21st-century film you have in your top 10 is Taken - you obviously like it, but are you ever genuinely surprised that it doesn't end up on lists like this?

Maybe so, I just think it's funny to say he should be on the list more when he doesn't have that many films (though I guess that doesn't stop them from doing the same for Jane Campion).

Racism, where and what exactly? I haven't read the entire thread so maybe I missed something, but I think the charge of racism is pretty strong and the term racism is overused these days.

As mentioned above several posts were deleted.

That makes sense, thanks. I didn't see those post before they were deleted. But someone PMed me just now and told me what they said and I would call that food reference a racist comment.

Wow, looks like I missed a lot of content here.