Submit Your
Comedy
List
The deadline for the Top Comedies of All Time list is coming up! Submit your ballot now, or read about it here

The MoFo Top 100 of the 2000s Countdown

→ in
Tools    





A system of cells interlinked
My taste in film would be even worse than it is now if I didn't get to see what some of the more knowledgeable MoFos liked...
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



Apart from a few 'obvious' masterpieces, this is a rote, insipid list, MoFo's worst to date. An equivalent of looking up IMDb's top films of the 2000s. Then, there's the social aspect. But I'm not interested in it anymore. inb4 you haven't even sent a list. True, but it wouldn't have changed anything. The non-English language list was better than this, and my participation had nothing to do with that fact (none of the films from my list made it IIRC).

Yeah, an ugh list. But I guess that's the issue with most accumulated lists. There's hope individual ballots will be more captivating. But I doubt it.
lmao this dude sucks even when i agree with him.



Two films from my ballot.

In the Mood for Love was my #15. Just a gorgeous film from start to finish. Everything about it - the beautiful production design, the melancholy and inevitable feel of the film, and the wide emotional spectrum it creates in the final act - is top notch and very well-realized. Almost tempted to rewatch it, in fact.

As for Memento, I've had my ups and downs with Nolan over the years, but this is my favorite of his films. While the complex plot structures and engineered deception of his films can be hit or miss with me, this is a case where the fractured plot structure is all at the heart of the protagonist's short-term memory loss and inability to solve the mystery of who killed his wife. It's a great gimmick which puts you in the head of the protagonist. It's a real shame that The Dark Knight will place higher on this list, but oh well.

1. The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (#78)
2.
3.
4. Children of Men (#17)
5.
6.
7. A Serious Man (#66)
8.
9. 28 Days Later (#45)
10.
11. Memento (#11)
12.
13. Shaun of the Dead (#20)
14.
15. In the Mood for Love (#12)
16. Requiem For a Dream (#16)
17.
18. The Pianist (#31)
19.
20. Moon (#48)
21.
22.
23. Sunshine (#88)
24.
25. The New World (#99)



Here are the odds that the remaining films on my ballot have of making this list:

1. The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (#78)
2. Will make it for sure.
3. Won't make it. I blame Takoma for this.
4. Children of Men (#17)
5. Won't make it. I blame MovieGal for this.
6. Will make it for sure.
7. A Serious Man (#66)
8. Won't make it. Can't think of anyone to blame for this.
9. 28 Days Later (#45)
10. Won't make it. I blame crumbsroom for this.
11. Memento (#11)
12. This one might make it. If not though, I blame Thief for this.
13. Shaun of the Dead (#20)
14. Won't make it. I blame Takoma again for this.
15. In the Mood for Love (#12)
16. Requiem For a Dream (#16)
17. Won't make it. Can't think of anyone to blame for this.
18. The Pianist (#31)
19. Will make it for sure.
20. Moon (#48)
21. Won't make it. Since I already blamed Takoma twice, I'll blame Mr Minio for this.
22. Won't make it. I can't think of anyone to blame for this.
23. Sunshine (#88)
24. This one might make it. If not though, I blame Stu for this.
25. The New World (#99)

WARNING: spoilers below
Btw, I'm not actually blaming any of you. I'm just being goofy here.



Apart from a few 'obvious' masterpieces, this is a rote, insipid list, MoFo's worst to date. An equivalent of looking up IMDb's top films of the 2000s. Then, there's the social aspect. But I'm not interested in it anymore. inb4 you haven't even sent a list. True, but it wouldn't have changed anything. The non-English language list was better than this, and my participation had nothing to do with that fact (none of the films from my list made it IIRC).

Yeah, an ugh list. But I guess that's the issue with most accumulated lists. There's hope individual ballots will be more captivating. But I doubt it.

Yeah, Juno was a pretty bad call



I don't expect people to like the films I like. As a matter of fact, some interesting lists contain films I'm either indifferent to or downright dislike. But these lists come with an interesting edge to them. Admittedly, these are mostly lists curated by just one person, hence my point about how accumulated lists often come with their issues.

So there's that. Best lists are personal. They allow you to get into the head of their maker and get a better understanding of the maker as a cinephile. Of course, this can lead to misunderstandings, but that's one entertaining side to it! Clearly, if the maker is totally oblivious to film, his list will probably be riddled with uninteresting choices, just a cookie-cutter copy of the most popular films. Mercifully, it can still be saved by write-ups with details on why they find these films personal. (But there's also an issue of the person refusing to say why a work of art is personal, which is totally fine).

So what we're left with, most of the time is just the films. And way too many people only watch the absolute surface level cinema. This is boring. This leads to no new discoveries. This leads to no appealing, personal lists. Because to get below the surface, one needs to invest a lot of time into both finding and then watching films outside of the IMDb Top 250. Without this, we get another list with The Godfather, Taxi Driver, and The Lighthouse, if we're lucky. That's fine. These are good films. And it's fine to have them on the list if one really loves them, but had one delved deeper into the art form of cinema, one would have discovered there are better, and definitely potentially more personal, films out there begging to be discovered. But unanimously sticking to the 'canon' (whatever that is) won't lead anybody into discovering them. To make it clear, obscure films (however you define that) are not the aim of film-watching itself but rather the by-product of getting deeper into cinema, and it's only natural that some of them will turn out to be as good (if not better) than the ubiquitous canon (whatever that is).

And that's twice as true with accumulated lists. By the sheer law of statistics, the more lists you combine, the less interesting the final list will be. That's a ranking of popularity rather than quality. The most interesting choices are cut off during the process. That's why the list of one-pointers is more interesting than the final list. And that's, maybe, why I'm bound to be disappointed with a list of the best films of the 2000s. People probably haven't had enough time to discover great films from that era. Or haven't had enough other people to tell them what films are worth discovering (incidentally, many film critics somehow get into the retard mode once we're talking about post-2000 cinema and often choose total garbage even if their older film choices were better, so it's a universal problem). Yes, lots of commercial cinema is garbage but not because it's commercial. And lots of obscure cinema is garbage, too. Trust me, I've seen enough fancy raters on Letterboxd that only watch obscure films and whose shtick is to watch and rate films nobody else has rated before (and unsurprisingly, these films are impossible to find, they're mostly not that good either, by the way).

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.

I think most people watch films but they don't know why they watch films. But that's fine.

It'd be very interesting to see what everyone liked--movies, music, books, whatever--in a world where nobody got to see what everyone else liked first
Sounds good on the surface, but comes with some issues. For one, if you never saw what anybody else liked, you'd be cut off from thousands of potentially wonderful works of art. That's how one discovers new favorites, by looking up other people's favorites. That's what searching on your own implies, too. Even many members of MoFo discovered great films thanks to looking up the "Rate the last film you saw" or personal list threads. If one was to be cut off from that, one would have to be forced to stay at the mercy of local theatres and unimaginative TV broadcasts. That, on the other hand, would contribute even more to cookie-cutter, boring, uninteresting lists of favorites.

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. But since our time is limited, we must make choices as to what to watch, which inevitably implies some form of discrimination. I like the idea of tabula rasa you were probably suggesting here, but this is simply impossible to achieve. Even our previous watches inform future ones and form our taste.

lmao this dude sucks even when i agree with him.
Well, nobody's perfect!



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
Here are the odds that the remaining films on my ballot have of making this list:

...
I will happily take blame for numbers 8 and 17. Mybad there. =\
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



I don't expect people to like the films I like. As a matter of fact, some interesting lists contain films I'm either indifferent to or downright dislike. But these lists come with an interesting edge to them. Admittedly, these are mostly lists curated by just one person, hence my point about how accumulated lists often come with their issues.

So there's that. Best lists are personal. They allow you to get into the head of their maker and get a better understanding of the maker as a cinephile. Of course, this can lead to misunderstandings, but that's one entertaining side to it! Clearly, if the maker is totally oblivious to film, his list will probably be riddled with uninteresting choices, just a cookie-cutter copy of the most popular films. Mercifully, it can still be saved by write-ups with details on why they find these films personal. (But there's also an issue of the person refusing to say why a work of art is personal, which is totally fine).

So what we're left with, most of the time is just the films. And way too many people only watch the absolute surface level cinema. This is boring. This leads to no new discoveries. This leads to no appealing, personal lists. Because to get below the surface, one needs to invest a lot of time into both finding and then watching films outside of the IMDb Top 250. Without this, we get another list with The Godfather, Taxi Driver, and The Lighthouse, if we're lucky. That's fine. These are good films. And it's fine to have them on the list if one really loves them, but had one delved deeper into the art form of cinema, one would have discovered there are better, and definitely potentially more personal, films out there begging to be discovered. But unanimously sticking to the 'canon' (whatever that is) won't lead anybody into discovering them. To make it clear, obscure films (however you define that) are not the aim of film-watching itself but rather the by-product of getting deeper into cinema, and it's only natural that some of them will turn out to be as good (if not better) than the ubiquitous canon (whatever that is).

And that's twice as true with accumulated lists. By the sheer law of statistics, the more lists you combine, the less interesting the final list will be. That's a ranking of popularity rather than quality. The most interesting choices are cut off during the process. That's why the list of one-pointers is more interesting than the final list. And that's, maybe, why I'm bound to be disappointed with a list of the best films of the 2000s. People probably haven't had enough time to discover great films from that era. Or haven't had enough other people to tell them what films are worth discovering (incidentally, many film critics somehow get into the retard mode once we're talking about post-2000 cinema and often choose total garbage even if their older film choices were better, so it's a universal problem). Yes, lots of commercial cinema is garbage but not because it's commercial. And lots of obscure cinema is garbage, too. Trust me, I've seen enough fancy raters on Letterboxd that only watch obscure films and whose shtick is to watch and rate films nobody else has rated before (and unsurprisingly, these films are impossible to find, they're mostly not that good either, by the way).

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.

I think most people watch films but they don't know why they watch films. But that's fine.


Sounds good on the surface, but comes with some issues. For one, if you never saw what anybody else liked, you'd be cut off from thousands of potentially wonderful works of art. That's how one discovers new favorites, by looking up other people's favorites. That's what searching on your own implies, too. Even many members of MoFo discovered great films thanks to looking up the "Rate the last film you saw" or personal list threads. If one was to be cut off from that, one would have to be forced to stay at the mercy of local theatres and unimaginative TV broadcasts. That, on the other hand, would contribute even more to cookie-cutter, boring, uninteresting lists of favorites.

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. But since our time is limited, we must make choices as to what to watch, which inevitably implies some form of discrimination. I like the idea of tabula rasa you were probably suggesting here, but this is simply impossible to achieve. Even our previous watches inform future ones and form our taste.

Well, nobody's perfect!



@Mr Minio

You know what, I agree with almost everything you wrote on that big long post above. I just don't understand why you always try to give that snobby ass initial impression.

It's not just about the accumulated lists, though, but (IMO) a weird desire for many to try to make objective "best films" ballots instead of personal favorites. The former always leads to canonized, boring lists with little individuality or discovery. That's why I also, at least to a degree, agree with @Siddon on his desire to make more focused and narrow lists where the suppressing canon wouldn't have as much effect.

And yeah, you also managed to put to words what I was just planning to reply to @Yoda about not knowing what others think. With the sheer volume of movies out there, it would be almost impossible to find the stuff you like if you couldn't use the existing reviews/opinions as a reference. Maybe in a magical perfect world, we could forget those other opinions the moment we start watching the film?
__________________



Here are the odds that the remaining films on my ballot have of making this list:
3. Won't make it. I blame Takoma for this.
Hey now!

14. Won't make it. I blame Takoma again for this.
Okay, that one is fair. The product of two prime numbers? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FILM #14?!



In The Mood For Love didn't resonate with me at all when I had watched it, but this was nearly a decade ago well before I was ever in a relationship , who knows maybe it'd tell me something now.

Memento is a really good film but it's truly one of those one time magic movies, I don't think I'll ever watch it again. I prefer Following, a much less known Nolan film
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it



The trick is not minding
I think it’s worth nothing that one shouldn’t take a countdown seriously as any sort of definitive list. And one definitely shouldn’t complain in one lengthy post about what is included and what isn’t included in a rather dismissive manner.

Especially when said individual has already listed Star Crash among his top 300 films of all time. 😏



In The Mood for Love didn't even make the millenium list? Wild that it almost cracked the top ten this time around



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
In the Mood For Love was my #9. One of those films in which the look of the film and the mood of the film complement each other perfectly. The colours in this film are great. As is the melancholy almost-love story. I am pleasantly surprised to see it this high, especially since it wasn't even on the millennium list.

That leaves 2 more from my list still likely to show up for a total of 17.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
My guess for the top ten:

1. Fellowship of the Ring
2. There Will Be Blood
3. Spirited Away
4. No Country for Old Men
5. Return of the King
6. Pan's Labyrinth
7. Zodiac
8. The Dark Knight
9. Mulholland Drive
10. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind



The trick is not minding
Fro the record, I understand Mr Mobil’s post, and agree, somewhat. With the caveat that it’s not some requirement for anyone here to have to watch every film possible to get a good idea on what said individuals like or don’t like.*
It’s largely why I have done a deep delve into the labyrinth of cinema, so I get more familiar with the various film movements and the various subgenres that exist in specific countries. It isn’t for the sake of being a completionist, mind you, but rather just for the knowledge and enjoyment. But not everyone is expected to live up that standard.
You like Super Hero films? That’s great! You love Giallo? Perfect! Slashers?
Poliziotteschi? Yakuza (both borderless action and actual record version)? Have at it!

But I must draw the line with pink films. One must have standards, after all.



In the Mood For Love is a film that I haven't seen yet. Again, one of the joys of lists like this. Movies that have slipped by me that I put on "to look for" lists. Memento is one I've been meaning to see for a long time since my movie-fan sister watched it years ago and raved about it. Then again, I've got several DVDs that have come out since then that she bought for me for Christmas or my birthday and I still haven't cracked the plastic wrapping and it's been a few years. Oh dear. Sometimes I get distracted by other...




#4. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 15
#5.Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl 63
#8. Unbreakable 62
#10.Million Dollar Baby 57
#15. Shaun of the Dead 20
#18. The Royal Tenenbaums 35
#20. Iron Man 83
#21 Finding Nemo 44
#22. Fantastic Mr. Fox 70
#23. The Descent 80
#25. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang 76
__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."



I very much enjoy Memento every time I watch it, but I never think as highly of it in retrospect.

In the Mood for Love didn't do much for me but I've only seen it once.