Jinn's 100 Films of the 2010s

Tools    





The trick is not minding
Liking this so far. Heard of most of these films, including the HM. Sadly, this reminds me I have so much left to see from the previous decade. I spend so much of my time watching older films. I should remedy that.

Didn’t care much for The Babadook, or Django or The Hateful Eight. They weren’t terrible, mind you, but didn’t do much for me.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood restored my faith in QT, however.



I'd put this firmly under the "juvenile tendency" category.

I dunno. There's a stark difference between Mr. Blonde (a character everyone acknowledges as a sociopath) and the pawn shop dudes who are clearly sadistic with Jules and Vincent who has the audience sympathy. With Marvin, we (the audience) are left with rooting for "the good guys" to effectively erase a human being off the planet, as a joke, and Marvin is someone who we, the audience, have no reason to see as deserving of such a fate. All we know is that he's the inside guy for Marcellus. It's different when the film presents clearly sadistic characters doing sadistic things, but the dehumanization of a random person, being cheered on by the audience for no reason, goes a lot further to normalize the indifference of human life. And anyway I still don't see that being the case in Django, where the dehumanizing acts are exclusively committed by those who will receive their cathartic comeuppance.
Tomato, tomato. Anyway, I appreciate the fact that other characters admit that Blonde is a psycho, but still, when you look at Tarantino's subsequent films, his actions aren't any anomaly, but a preview of the general tone of QT's career (save for Jackie Brown, which is the true outlier as far as that goes), and, although the cop in Dogs is obviously a much more minor character in that film than Butch and Marcellus were in PF, I still felt sympathy for both of them as they were being tortured. As for Jules & Vincent's disposal of Marvin, I agree with you that it's a sadistic sub-plot, but it's not an either/or dilemma, as it's possible to find the tones of Pulp & Django both sadistic in their own way; the difference between them is, while the sadism is an obnoxious tendency with the former, it still has the theme of redemption running through it, which is explicitly delivered through one of the greatest monologues every written/performed in cinema history, while the latter has almost nothing of the sort.

And at least with Dogs, there was a sort of honesty about the nihilistic, empty nature of its sadism; with some of his historical revenge films, it just feels like he's dressing that up by appropriating the struggle of certain historically persecuted groups, by having them engage in these hollow revenge fantasies against their tormentors, which naturally results in some incredibly obvious, softball choices of villains, as if Tarantino's saying "Hey, you gotta be engaged in watching these people get their vengeance against their persecutors; I mean, c'mon, they're literally Nazis & slavemasters!". It all feels like a substitute for getting us invested in their stories a proper way, which is by actually developing his characters in compelling manners, as opposed to just using them as avatars of revenge, as far as I'm concerned.



...and, urgh, I still haven't seen Nightingale
I didn't like The Babadook that much. I don't remember exactly what issues I had with it, but I'm clearly remembering the disappointment. Nightingale, on the other hand, is good and positively gruesome at times.

Considering the previous Oz Perkins discussion, I'm interested to see what other horrors might make your list (especially as you already ruled out Hereditary which I'd describe as a Major Disappointment).

And about QT. I liked The Hateful Eight. For me, it was the first good QT in a long time. Django I found quite weak, and the only thing I enjoyed about it was Samuel Jackson. Still haven't seen his latest.
__________________



Out of those I've seen, I like most of what is on this list. Even those I wasn't entirely on board with (Carnage, Mandy) I respect in many ways.



Lots here I haven't seen though. Which isn't surprising because I'm usually about ten years behind on everything.



90. The Place Beyond The Pines (2012, dir. Derek Cianfrance)





There were several indies from the decade that managed portraits of working class American struggle that avoided patronizing its subjects - Out of the Furnace, Mud, Manchester on the Sea - and Cianfrance produced some of the best examples. (Among the worst, bordering on fetishizing, would be Beasts of the Southern Wild, Hell or High Water and Three Billboards - incidentally all with better reviews than the ones I mentioned )


I'm not sure what more to add for this one. The structure may be off-putting in its juxtaposition, but it's quietly complex and unnerving.


HM: Cianfrance's previous film, Blue Valentine, fits the same bill, but more focused on a relationship rather than a crime premise. Many would say that Valentine is the superior film of the two. I would be inclined to agree, except that only one of them has Ben Mendelsohn.
I guess I kinda agree with the structure = off-putting statement, mostly because it "castrates" the characters, but it's still executed well for the most part, and the performances are solid. My other gripe is that the last act is the weakest of the three, which kinda leaves you with that sour note in the end.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



88. Django Unchained/The Hateful Eight (2012;2015, dir. Quentin Tarantino)





And yet here we are. Clearly Tarantino is a highly gifted filmmaker with an innate sense of movement and tension on screen. I can have all kinds of qualms, regarding the characters, the more juvenile tendencies, QT's clear lack of understanding (or interest) in historical context, the muddled and sometimes laughably inept attempts at Big Statements, etc, etc. What I can't deny is that he makes irresistibly entertaining films, and that his visual tastes are far more refined than his emotional tastes. The films are fun, after all, not deep.


HM: The Sisters Brothers (2018, dir. Jacques Audiard) is a quality western that disappeared overnight but well worth seeking out.
Probably my two least favorite Tarantino films, even if I still enjoyed them. I haven't seen it in a while, but I remember thinking that Django unravels a bit in its last act, while I really don't remember that much about The Hateful Eight, even though I saw it a year or two ago. It ultimately didn't stick as much as, say, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or Inglourious Basterds.



87. Margin Call/A Most Violent Year (2011; 2014, dir. J.C. Chandor)





Cheating with the two-fers? Sometimes I can't help it. J.C. Chandor has had an impressive decade, from his debut ensemble drama about the '08 recession to the somewhat misleading title (which isn't violent at all, actually) of his look at the kind of organized crime that's as normalized as a strip mall. I could've added All Is Lost, a film nearly as compelling (I'm sure Redford fans would think more so), but what's clear is that Chandor has either providential fortune or a golden touch to managing his actors, extracting excellence in virtually every role.


I know some of you may point to Triple Frontier, and my condolences, but I place more of the blame there on Mark Boal, surely one of the worst writers currently working in Hollywood. This film better reflects Boal's ignorant (dishonest) jingoism than any of Chandor's prior work.



HM: Arbitrage (2012, dir. Nicholas Jarecki), a similar financial thriller to Margin Call, and only requires a certain tolerance to Richard Gere to fully enjoy.
Haven't seen A Most Violent Year yet, but I really dug Margin Call. Like you said, good management of a great ensemble.



86. The Babadook (2014, dir. Jennifer Kent)





I like the kind of horror film that can penetrate into really primal areas of fear and inadequecy, and, like The Shining, the struggles of parenthood is prime territory for horrific impulses. This film adds complications, by having a single working mother and a child who is more explicitly special needs, and also, maybe most important, an archetypal spectre that is elusive and subjective and elemental. More than The Shining, the audience is never assured of whether our enemy is mere hallucination, manifested subliminal desire, or a truly supernatural presence, tapping into something both magical and psychological. One of the very best horror films of the decade, Essie Davis is tremendous, and, urgh, I still haven't seen Nightingale


HM: The two other superlative horror films that combine psychological and social archetypes would be It Follows and Hereditary, both very good, but also both have diminished for me on rewatches.
I liked this film, but not as much as most people. Kent's direction is great and the film is effectively creepy, well-paced, and patient for the most part, but I think it got a bit off her hands in the last act.



85. Snowpiercer (2013, dir. Bong Joon-ho)





Not the most sophisticated dystopian social allegory ever conceived, this is still filled with enough verve and imagination to make it a highlight. Sections of the train are some of the most jaw-dropping action sequences of the decade, and the characters are a grotesque menagerie of banal evil. And, let's face it, it's better than the Matrix!
I really dug this, as heavy-handed and in-your-face as it was. Overall, I think it works well. This was the first Bong film I saw, so maybe I wasn't as attuned to his style as I am now, but it's effective.



I stopped reading when I realized you were reviewing Hugo the movie and not Hugo the doll.

Doll>>>Movie

just kidding...

91. Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017, dir. Dan Gilroy)
Another one of the decade's films that I feel was undeservedly ignored on release, as well as critically
Just caught this a few months ago and couldn't agree more. Denzel was terrific but I had heard next to nothing about it. I only gave it a shot because I liked Nightcrawler. I noticed it's streaming for free somewhere now, so those of you who haven't seen it are encouraged to check it out.
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



I stopped reading when I realized you were reviewing Hugo the movie and not Hugo the doll.

Doll>>>Movie

just kidding...
Jest not lest you jest yourself.


You're not wrong. Hugo has been my faithful companion since I was 7. It's unfair, nay, cruel to hold the candle of any mere motion picture to the blinding sun of thespic beauty that is the golem of glory spoken of by unwashed shamans only by the name of Hugo (tm) Man of a Thousand Faces!

He's ready for his close-up, Mr. DeMille.



I guess I kinda agree with the structure = off-putting statement, mostly because it "castrates" the characters
It shifts narratives about halfway through, so it may disappoint those who've invested in the Gosling character to have him sidelined for the Cooper one.



Jest not lest you jest yourself.


You're not wrong. Hugo has been my faithful companion since I was 7. It's unfair, nay, cruel to hold the candle of any mere motion picture to the blinding sun of thesbic beauty that is the golem of glory spoken of by unwashed shamans only by the name of Hugo (tm) Man of a Thousand Faces!

He's ready for his close-up, Mr. DeMille.
SON OF A ---!

Ok I think we might have discussed this years ago but I lusted after that little mother-effer for years but Santa never came through. It's almost like my mom didn't want it in the house for some inexplicable reason.
But yeah, the wound is still fresh. I'm jealous, is what I'm trying to say.



SON OF A ---!

Ok I think we might have discussed this years ago but I lusted after that little mother-effer for years but Santa never came through. It's almost like my mom didn't want it in the house for some inexplicable reason.
But yeah, the wound is still fresh. I'm jealous, is what I'm trying to say.
It was a hand-me-down from my grandmother.

I smell an Hereditary sequel....



I didn't like The Babadook that much. I don't remember exactly what issues I had with it, but I'm clearly remembering the disappointment.
I know that a lot of people found the kid to be extemely annoying. And he is. But that's exactly why his mother secretly wants to be free from the responsibility for him. I'm not sure if your disappointment was along those lines?


(especially as you already ruled out Hereditary which I'd describe as a Major Disappointment).
"Disappointment" being the film or my exclusion of it?


Django I found quite weak, and the only thing I enjoyed about it was Samuel Jackson. Still haven't seen his latest.
I totally agree that Sam Jackson was the best part of Django, and as with Pulp Fiction he seems to have been the only actor not given any award attention at all.

Both of these films have stretches I like a lot, and various fumbles that are badly executed (like the third act flashback in Eight).



"Disappointment" being the film or my exclusion of it?
The film. Here's what I wrote about it back in the day:
Hereditary  



And at least with Dogs, there was a sort of honesty about the nihilistic, empty nature of its sadism; with some of his historical revenge films, it just feels like he's dressing that up by appropriating the struggle of certain historically persecuted groups, by having them engage in these hollow revenge fantasies against their tormentors, which naturally results in some incredibly obvious, softball choices of villains, as if Tarantino's saying "Hey, you gotta be engaged in watching these people get their vengeance against their persecutors; I mean, c'mon, they're literally Nazis & slavemasters!". It all feels like a substitute for getting us invested in their stories a proper way, which is by actually developing his characters in compelling manners, as opposed to just using them as avatars of revenge, as far as I'm concerned.
Since you mention it, I'll point out that at the time of Basterds' release, there were some Jewish groups, mostly older and actual survivors and whatnot, who were not very flattered by the scene where they torture a German soldier. It's one thing to show Jews taking revenge on Hitler, but torturing a Nazi actually places them morally on par with the Nazis, and it either ignores or insults the post-war legacy of human rights commitment, the Geneva Convention for example, that many Jewish survivors spearheaded. I doubt that Tarantino has the maturity to discern the difference, and, being a rich white American safely ensconced in the comforts of fantasy violence, I'm sure he sees no reason why he should.



The film. Here's what I wrote about it back in the day:
Hereditary  
I liked it a bit more than you did. I thought the atmosphere was fine. But the plot inconsistencies, or how the "scenes don't fit together", really become accentuated on repeat viewings. I think that both of Aster's films have major issues with how he develops his stories, characters, etc.



99. High-Rise (2015, dir. Ben Wheatley)





This is an extremely messy adaptation of a classic, and notoriouly unfilmmable, JG Ballard novel about class dissolution, but the messiness isn't entirely unwelcome. The film would have been more effective had it been made a couple of decades earlier, and preferably by Terry Gilliam, but I still can admire much about its quasi-Gillam air and materialistic disdain.


HM: A Field in England - Wheatley's previous venture about spores and religion, it's more polarizing than his other films but also a lot more fun than Sightseers.
They did kind of make it two decades earlier. Too bad it was in service of late-stage Dr. Who which had slid from its heady Jon Pertwee/Tom Baker days to that of Sylvester McCoy...the serial is called Paradise Towers if you're curious.

Will concur with A Field in England. It takes some interesting turns along the way, but it kept me watching even though I'm still not entirely sure what happened in places.



They did kind of make it two decades earlier. Too bad it was in service of late-stage Dr. Who which had slid from its heady Jon Pertwee/Tom Baker days to that of Sylvester McCoy...the serial is called Paradise Towers if you're curious.
Hm. Doesn't sound like typical Dr. Who fare.


Reminds me of that scene from Don Delillo's White Noise where a fight break out between 1st class and coach on a crashing airplane. Except, in a decrepit skyscraper instead.