The MoFo Top 100 of the 2000s Countdown

→ in
Tools    





How is Holden's post about Return of the King's previous list rankings before the countdown post? Is he psychic (isaac)? Does he have inside access? Wait a sec. Holden is Thief? Thief is Holden. Finkle? Einhorn?
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
I have a pretty big appreciation for the trilogy, and for me Return of the King has for whatever reason been my favorite of the 3. It was in contention for my list but didn't make it. Obvious knew it didn't need the points either.



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
How is Holden's post about Return of the King's previous list rankings before the countdown post? Is he psychic (isaac)? Does he have inside access? Wait a sec. Holden is Thief? Thief is Holden. Finkle? Einhorn?
Captain Obvious AKA @Thief gave it away.



The Return of the King is great. What can be said about it? I guess the debate about which is the best will take place again, and maybe one more time before the countdown is done. As I already confirmed, it's all one very long movie. Like Lav Diaz.



ROTK was a fantastic ending to the trilogy in every way. I loved the character dynamics they gave Pippin and Gandalf, really becoming close to each other. And none of the action felt ham-fisted (save the elephant scene which was still awesome), which I found to be impressive in its own right. The thing about LOTR is that it's more character-driven than anything, even when it's shoving SFX in your face. ROTK was my number 19.

Sent-In Ballot:

#2. Oldboy (22)
#3. Sin City (47)
#5. Requiem for a Dream (26)
#6. Memento (11)
#7. Yi Yi (49)
#8. The Departed (19)
#9. The Dark Knight (10)
#10. Casino Royale (37)
#13. Million Dollar Baby (57)
#15. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (53)
#16. Let the Right One In (29)
#19. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (8)
#20. Iron Man (83)
#21. Inglourious Basterds (18)
#22. Pirates of the Caribbean (63)
#25. Hot Fuzz (30)

Post-Ballot:

#2. Oldboy (22)
#3. Sin City (47)
#5. Requiem for a Dream (26)
#6. Memento (11)
#7. Yi Yi (49)
#8. The Departed (19)
#9. The Dark Knight (10)
#10. Casino Royale (37)
#12. Snatch (71)
#14. Million Dollar Baby (57)
#16. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (53)
#17. Let the Right One In (29)
#18. Slumdog Millionaire (not placed but it made my new 25)
#19. Monsters, Inc. (74)
#21. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (8)
#22. Iron Man (83)
#23. Fantastic Mr. Fox (70)
#24. Inglourious Basterds (18)
#25. Pirates of the Caribbean (63)

Seen 53/91



How is Holden's post about Return of the King's previous list rankings before the countdown post? Is he psychic (isaac)? Does he have inside access? Wait a sec. Holden is Thief? Thief is Holden. Finkle? Einhorn?
Equal doses of confidence and impatience, I guess. Maybe I should take a break tomorrow and let Holden and Raul run the show.

__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



Quite enjoy The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King but not enough to vote for it as it reminds me far too much of the day I scaled Ben Nevis and all the false summits.

Seen: 65/93 (Own: 45/93)



Faildictions (millennial edition v1.01):
26. Superbad (2007)
25. Memento (2000) [11]
24. Road To Perdition (2002)
23. The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers (2002) [15]
22. Shrek (2001)
21. Requiem For A Dream (2000) [26]
20. Oldboy (2003) [22]
19. Inglourious Basterds (2009) [18]
18. Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (2004)
17. City Of God (2002) [25]
16. In The Mood For Love (2000) [12]
15. O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000) [21]
14. Children Of Men (2006) [17]
13. Amélie (2001) [16]
12. Zodiac (2007) [9]
11. WALL·E (2008) [13]
10. The Departed (2006) [19]
9. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring (2001)
8. Shaun Of The Dead (2004) [20]
7. Mulholland Drive (2001)
6. Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
5. There Will Be Blood (2007)
4. The Dark Knight (2008) [10]
3. Spirited Away (2001)
2. The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King (2003) [8]
1. No Country For Old Men (2007)

Twenty-one down, five to go....



Critics




Critics thoughts on our #8, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King...



It currently has a 93% Certified Fresh Tomatometer score among critics, and a 8.9/10 score on IMDb (with 1,700,000 votes).

Roger Ebert gave it ★★★½ and said:
"At last the full arc is visible, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy comes into final focus. I admire it more as a whole than in its parts. The second film was inconclusive, and lost its way in the midst of spectacle. But Return of the King dispatches its characters to their destinies with a grand and eloquent confidence. This is the best of the three, redeems the earlier meandering, and certifies the Ring trilogy as a work of bold ambition at a time of cinematic timidity."
Meanwhile Sean Nelson, of The Stranger, said:
"Ultimately, the chief difference between this film and its two predecessors is the presence of resolution. The story ends, just like we all knew it would. And there's something inherently disappointing about that."
As for our MoFo reviewers, @The Rodent said:
"a fitting and satisfactory end to Jackson's trilogy (I say Jackson's trilogy, as it is Jackson's, not Tolkien's). Again though, various changes in character and plot mark it down for me... but it's still an absolutely spell binding movie, a touch more improved than the second movie too and still well deserving of LOTR's title."
And @Yoda said:
"Ultimately, [its] flaws are more than forgivable in light of the tremendous depth of the story, and the unrivaled skill which went into bringing it to life. The praises of 'greatest trilogy of all time' may be premature, but they are by no means ridiculous. The Return of the King may also be the return of the unbridled Hollywood epic."



Your movie taste is almost as strange as mine.
I don’t like heavy fantasy. The only reason why I saw the other two is because my best friend wanted me to watch them with her. She’s also the reason why I have seen a couple of the Harry Potter movies. A different friend is to be blamed for me having seen two of the Twilight movies. I hated all of those movies and have no desire to finish any of those series.



Despite RotK being high on my list, I actually have a few bones to pick with it. The theatrical cut included too many scenes at the end than it needed to, but cut earlier scenes it really shouldn't have. Certain story threads remain incomplete because of that, which is pretty funny when you consider how long the film spends wrapping everything else up at the end. While the Extended Edition does fill in those gaps, it also manages to ruin the tension certain scenes had in theatres.

Tl;dr: There's no perfect cut of RotK.

Seen: 60/93



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Since so many people have already announced how lousy The Return of the King is, I have to say it's my #2. Unlike others who say the F/X suck and the ending goes on way too long, what I actually see and feel are exciting, suspenseful sights and deeply affecting ones throughout and especially during the admittedly drawn-out ending which make me cry over and over. It may be the exact opposite of Jackson's low-budget beginnings but not of his creative decisions to put out this heartfelt epic in a very brief amount of time.

It's probably a good time (or not) to tell you my #3 is King Kong.

I know we have a few MoFos who don't especially care for the newest King Kong, but I'm a big fan of the film. Jackson found the right balance between crafting a loving homage to the 1933 original (his favorite film growing up) and retooling it for the CGI era. I admit that I'm usually not a fan of remakes, but I find this one to be the best version of the classic story. Although Jackson can be accused of making this Kong "too-everything" (too long, too bloated, too much CGI, too much emotion, etc.), he does accomplish quite a bit in the way of suspense, action, spectacle and a believable Beauty and the Beast story with terrific performances as the couple by Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis, the latter aided by the effects team. Jackson's production designers also got to create the spectacular New York City of the '30s and the exotic, otherworldly Skull Island where Kong and the other huge creatures from the past still roam in the wild.

The film is basically divided into three parts. Part One (52 minutes) begins in Depression-era NYC where comic actress Ann Darrow (Watts) has just lost her gig and is contemplating going to work at the burlesque house to earn enough to eat. At the same time, movie producer/director Carl Denham (Jack Black) has just learned that the studio heads hate the rushes from his latest "wildlife" picture and are going to fire him, so, escorted by his assistant Preston (Colin Hanks), he gathers together what he can and hightails it towards the ship waiting to transport him across the ocean to the mysterious location where he wants to finish up his project without the studios' help. His primary problem is that he's lost his leading lady, and Fay Wray isn't available since she's off working with Merian C. Cooper. (A nice in-joke since Wray played Ann in the '33 King Kong and Cooper co-directed it. There are several such references throughout the film.) Luckily for Carl, he comes across Ann and entices her to join him when he mentions that his film is being scripted by playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), an author with whom Ann would like to work. They get to the ship just before the studio execs and are introduced to Capt. Engelhorn (Thomas Kretschmann) and his crew which includes First Mate Hayes (Evan Parke), teenage former stowaway Jimmie (Jamie Bell) and Lumpy the cook (Serkis). Jack is also aboard ship, even if it originally isn't his idea. During the voyage, Denham gets plenty of footage with Ann and her leading man, prima donna Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), but the captain isn't happy that he's sailing for an uncharted island, and then he learns that Denham has a warrant out for his arrest. Just when it looks like they'll divert to Singapore to hand Denham over to the authorities, the ship enters a fog bank and eventually reaches Skull Island.

All the supporting characters seem to have some back stories going on. For example, the Captain seems to be a very soft-spoken guy but you can tell that he's at sea hiding from some haunted past. However, the most affecting relationship of the lesser characters is the father-son one between Hayes and Jimmie. Hayes is trying to teach Jimmie life lessons, and Jimmie has just begun reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness, so their discussions of that book seem to be playing out in their true life adventure on the sea and at Skull Island. A relevant line is when Hayes tells Jimmie that the novel "isn't an adventure". After the setup and intro, Part Two (84 minutes) gets into the rock 'em, sock 'em action and creepy suspense, and this is where Jackson both pays faithful adulation to his fave film and deliberately tries to go into overdrive with a series of pumped action scenes which recreate but go well beyond the source. The original had one T. Rex; this one has three. [Note: Kong's battle with the three is both hilarious and has some startling 3-D looking shots, mostly involving the dinosaurs trying to eat Ann. I've heard some viewers complain that this fight scene is ludicrous and defies the laws of physics. Well, if you really think about that while watching a movie about a giant ape fighting three dinosaurs in 1933, then you probably shouldn't be watching this movie (and most fantasy) in the first place.] The original had one mad stampeding dinosaur; this one has dozens. The original had to cut out the gross-out scene with giant bugs and headsuckers; this one includes it using the original's storyboards.

The other thing which separates this Kong from the original is the emotional empathy between Kong and Ann. In the original, Ann was terrified of Kong throughout the movie and showed no other emotions toward him. Kong was interested in the way Ann smelled. In fact, he pokes her with his finger a few times and then raises it to his nose to get a good smell of her. He's obviously fascinated with Ann, but she just wants to get away from the "Monster". In the 1976 remake, which was also updated to the '70s, Jessica Lange doesn't even play Ann. Instead, she plays Dwan and she's terrified initially by Kong, but later when they spend some quiet time alone and she finds Kong to be her protector against even worse beasts, Dwan even gets turned on by what Kong can do to her body! She does feel some love for Kong though, however it's nothing like the attachment which develops between this version's Ann and Kong. Eventually, Ann holds on tight to Kong when she sees that he's the one who can save her from Skull Island's scary fauna. She also introduces Kong to the concepts of humor and beauty. There is a deep, mutual bond between the two characters which I find totally natural, no matter how many times I've heard somebody call it weird or stupid. So, even if some find this movie redundant or a vulgar waste of money, I find it a good, old-fashioned entertainment, but with a lot more heart and soul than the other versions.

Dehnam and the crewmembers are able to capture Kong and take him back to NYC where he displays the Ape as the Eighth Wonder of the World. Denham is really depicted as a weasly guy who'd probably sell his mother to get a hit in the entertainment business. Jack turns out to be a decent heroic figure. [Note: the original Kong has Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) as the First Mate on the ship who was a heroic figure and Ann's human love interest. This film seems to turn that character into three characters: Brody's playwright, Parke's first mate, and Chandler's vain actor who, not so coincidentally, is named Bruce.] Part Three (40 minutes) is what happens when Kong is in NYC, leading up to the climax at the Empire State Building. We are witness to another array of spectacle and action made all the more fun by it occurring in a meticulously-recreated 1930's Times Square and environs. I don't think I need to go into any details about these scenes, but they don't disappoint me at all. Kong himself remains dignified right up to the very end.

I want to add that I grew up with the 1933 King Kong, and it was instrumental in my falling in love with the movies. The fact that you could see such things which were impossible has a big effect on a youngster. I think it's a classic and that everyone should watch it. My rating for it is
. However, I don't lionize it as others do. Willis O'Brien's stop-motion effects are incredible and a lot of fun, but the acting in the film isn't really A-quality. I mean, Fay Wray is beautiful and can scream with the best of them, but her co-stars aren't all that hot. Armstrong can play a big producer OK, but it's superficial, and Bruce Cabot is on the wooden side as the hero. Another thing is that the beginning is a little slow-moving. Yes, I realize that many viewers complain that Part One of the 2005 version is slow and irrelevant, but I actually enjoyed the added time to get to know the characters. Even if many of the characters and their relationships don't "pay off" in the context of the plot, they do add depth and mystery to the film. I realize that some people today will just find the acting and FX of the original too hokey, but it's a real movie-movie, and I keep finding plenty of hokey acting and FX in today's films.

I'll even give the 1976 update a break and recommend that one too. Although it's more sexually aware than the original, it actually isn't as sexy, but Jeff Bridges brings some seriousness to his role as an animal rights activist to help balance out Charles Grodin's broad, but amusing, turn as a Snidely Whiplash-ish oil tycoon. Jessica Lange's screen debut is worth seeing even if the FX are laughably bad. So, all-in-all, a mixed bag, but still entertaining enough for me to give it a low
.

My List

1. The Incredibles
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
3. King Kong
5. Ratatouille
7. Downfall
8. Up
9. The Dark Knight
10. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
11. Everything Will Be OK
12. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
15. WALL·E
16. Children of Men
19. The Pianist
20. A.I. Artificial Intelligence
21. Pride & Prejudice
22. Hotel Rwanda
25. City of Life and Death
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



A couple of reveals that had no shot, but still considered my favorites of the decade.


My Ballot:  



Have seen so far: 54/ 94
Put on list for future viewing: 13
My list that ended up on the cutting room floor (dammit!): 6
Put on "meh" list : 22
Zero chance of ever watching: 14
1 Ptrs: seen 8



As I said when the last LOTR film was mentioned in this countdown, my memory of the trilogy is too poor to say anything substantial about it. I'll have to rewatch the trilogy someday.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



Gotta say it's been particularly painful to see my No.1 go at No.53 and The Dark Knight, a film that would not make the consideration list for me, go No.10.
I feel so alone.
My #1 was at 78 so you got me beat.



Meant to reply to this days ago, and replying "fully" would derail the countdown, which is no good, so I'll cut it in half and focus on the key points and if anyone wants to go more in depth, I'll save the rest of what I wrote for awhile just in case:

I don't expect people to like the films I like.
I think this sentiment is clearly inconsistent with the act of replying and expressing disappointment over and over. And that's the thing--not the desire itself, when properly articulated--that people bristle over.

I think you'll find expressing a sentiment positively, as an aspiration, lands very differently than the exact same concept expressed as disappointment or disdain. Which is why when someone chooses the latter, it's hard not to think their real goal is, in fact, the disdain (and concomitant expression of superiority).

Mercifully, it can still be saved by write-ups with details on why they find these films personal.
I agree...and that's what we're seeing all over this thread. The list itself is almost secondary to the outpouring of personal testimonials that show up almost every day, when something someone loves shows up. If you're just skimming the titles you're obviously not going to see that, even though you're right here, talking about how it can make ostensibly "bad" lists still meaningful and interesting.

That's a ranking of popularity rather than quality.
I've touched on this before, but I think this is a false dichotomy. I think appealing to large numbers of people--breadth rather than depth, to put it simply--is a form of quality in and of itself.

There's a weird blind spot here for some cinephiles, I think, where they agree quality is subjective, but still think of "quality" as only existing along that one axis. It's kind of like agreeing everyone has different taste in food, but still using taste as the only measure of judgment and disregarding how much it costs, how long it takes to make, or what kind of nutritional content it has. It's not just the worth of the thing itself that's subjective, it's also which things to use to measure worth in the first place.

A film is not better by the sheer virtue of being less known. But it's often much more interesting because of that. And a more interesting film is more interesting to check out. And by checking out more films, the possibility of discovering new favorites increases. But then you stumble upon a top of films that only contains the most tedious set of films you see everywhere. And what's there to get from it? Totally nothing.
It's long been my belief that getting very deep into an art form is not a purely positive thing. There are upsides, most of which are obvious and which you've already described: you gain a better appreciation for the form. You become more discerning. You understand influences, homages, allusions. It's great! I am 100% for it.

But it also has downsides. One of them is boredom. If you absorb enough film, I think it's very difficult not to be become jaded, to the point where it's exciting (titillating, even) to see anything extreme or unusual even if it's not good. You kind of say as much when you talk about "bad" lists that are still interesting because they're weird.

I'm not sure that's a good thing. I think, in a sense, it is just as exploitable as people mindlessly consuming cookie cutter entertainment. Liking something just because it's different is basically liking something for what it's not, which is a reactionary posture towards art that, if not checked, drives us towards the extreme and away from even the most basic storytelling principles.

So, unless, in the aforementioned world, we all had equal access to all works of art there are and unlimited time to experience literally all of them (or rather could experience them all just like that, in a second), then yes, it'd be cool.
Aye, but the thought is more like: would we like the same things? It seems clear to me that we would not. Your average moviegoer would probably like more weird things, as you want them to...but you would probably like more mainstream things, as well.

We're all human. There's no way for us to listen to a song or watch a film, or hell, even see a film's marketing without immediately thinking of what kind of person it's "supposed" to appeal to, and if we don't think of ourselves as that kind of person, it will influence our reaction to it.