So we’re almost at the end of the decade and surprisingly there are not a million best/worst of lists floating around (at least not around here). I think this is simply the result of the decade never having a name that caught on, and conceivably we could go from the 90’s to the 20’s without ever really over exaggerating the end of a 10 year period.
If someone mentions the 80’s it immediately conjures up some very specific impressions. Will anyone ever comment on the Oh’s? The 2000’s? It just doesn’t sound right, does it? The aught’s was used in the previous century and sounds about that dated. For example, “In nineteen aught two, men used to wear an onion hanging from their belts, as was the style of the time.”
I was recently listening to a podcast of a sports / pop culture writer turned podcaster that I follow, Bill Simmons of ESPN. He was speaking with Chris Connelly of early MTV for those that might remember, and they were discussing the best movie of the past 10 years.
Simmons claimed Almost Famous was the best movie of the decade based on Excellence, Originality, and Rewatchabilty. He then actually followed this up with a two part article defending his selection. Connelly tried to say that TV series like The Sopranos and The Wire were actually the movies of the decade, but I dismiss that argument. TV shows get the chance to change characters and story lines if they start to lose audiences while films aren't given such a grace period. I can't imagine how bad a movie would do if it had it's characters chase a Russian in the woods for an entire hour and then never refer back to the guy again. (If these were eligible, The Wire would take it in a landslide.)
I was a fan of Almost Famous but this certainly seemed like a stretch for the best overall film. My biggest arguments being: A) Did it reach an audience outside of its target? I’m not even sure everyone reading this blog has seen it. B) While it had some cool dialogue, is the movie ever referenced in real life?
Taking an example from the 90’s, many people that are admittedly not fans of horror / thriller films thought Silence of the Lambs was great. Eighteen years later and people still can’t hear the name Clarice without immediately repeating it in a long drawn out and creepy way. What would you drink with fava beans? I think you get the point and I can’t think of any specific scene or dialogue people go to for A F.
So without much going on and little to write about I decided to glance through the long list of movies that came out over the past nine and a half years and see what really was the defining film of the past decade. And after an initial look I was shocked how few outstanding films there really were. Suddenly A F didn’t seem like such a stretch. There were three themes that stood out as the most successful.
First, while independent films rose to prominence in the 90’s, garnishing Oscar nods for the first time, this past decade they were annually the best group of films represented. Almost every year at least one small film was up for best picture with a realistic shot of winning and there were several others each year that held their own both critically and commercially.
Some of the best were: Lost in Translation, Sideways and Slumdog Millionaire. While others may not be the best films of the year, they certainly topped many of their big budget rivals, like Juno, City of God, Little Miss Sunshine and My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Finally there was still a group that represented the independent spirit of targeting smaller audiences with original screenplays and quirky characters like Once, Memento and Amelie. I’m sure people are naming some other great indys I haven’t listed which is exactly the point.
One of the two big budget genres that really exploded this past decade was the Superhero movies. While they have been being made forever, box office receipts alone can tell the story that these movies have moved into a new realm. I think two in particular sit on top of this category. 2002’s Spiderman which I believe its impact in this film category is now overlooked because of its own sequels and others building off the foundation it laid, capping off of course with The Dark Knight, but more on that later.
The third and final category that seemed to dominate the twenty-oh’s (still not right) was the predetermined sequel / trilogies. The difference between these and other sequels such as Spiderman 2 were that they were budgeted for and filmed before the success or failure of their predecessor. While I think some of these were excellent, I will say now that I do not believe that any one of the individual films stood out on its own as the best picture of the decade, including the Harry Potter series which does not technically fit here but I have included. In best first order these include:
· Lord of the Rings
· Harry Potter
· Kill Bill
· Letter of Iwo Jima / Flags of Our Fathers
· Star Wars Prequels
While this may seem like a good trend and a director like Peter Jackson claims he was much more free to create the stories he wanted knowing he had the support to complete his vision, I also worry that some really bad sequels could be in our future. Prior to these successful franchises Matthew Broderick was contracted and paid to make Godzilla 2 before the original was released and then it bombed so badly the studio just took a loss on his salary and pulled the plug.
Another interesting sequel trend that took place this decade was the “delayed” sequel. In 2006 Basic Instinct and Clerks released sequels a combined 26 years after the original films. Stallone had a similar strategy releasing the next installments in the Rocky and Rambo franchises a combined 36 years after the last films. I would have hoped this proved that going back to past successes was a bad idea, but Rambo V is now in talks.
Anyway before I get on with my pick for the movie of the decade let me just say that much like the celebrity death of the decade, I hope one sneaks in under the wire (I may be watching Inglourious Basterds with my fingers crossed). Most years I could not remember what five films would have been nominated for best picture, particularly in the middle of the decade, and it makes me wonder if anyone actually did so before making the decision to increase the Oscar nominations to 10 Best Pictures, or just looked back to the 40’s when this worked.
And in no particular order, the losers are:
ANCHORMAN
While the Academy refuses to honor comedies I will not make the same mistake. I cannot think of a more rewatchable or quotable movie from the past decade. I don’t think I have the ability to change the channel during the street yard fight scene or the following recap back at the studio. Many of you may argue that other films in this genre were better like Old School, Wedding Crashers, Pineapple Express or the recently released and very funny The Hangover. But the bottom line is that you would be wrong. I realize it may fall a little short on the Excellence and Acting scales to be movie of the decade, but it certainly deserves to be mentioned. And if you’re wondering about its global appeal, Nike is releasing a Ron Burgundy sneaker, only available in Beijing (we may need to make a trip back). I’ll admit I’m a little worried about the recent buzz to create a sequel and have had some bad Clerks II flashbacks.
No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Mystic River, Gangs of New York
All well acted, well written, well directed and extremely intense films. All deserving of the Oscar nods they received as well as being mentioned on this list. I honestly could not tell you which one was better than the other, but I can also say I really have no desire to see anyone of them again.
Lost in Translation
A personal favorite that I could easily go on about the subtle genius of Bill Murray and the official introduction of Scarlett Johansson as a Hollywood starlet. However I realize that there is a large contingent of people, with good taste and respectable opinions, which either do not get or simply do not like this film. And I get that. I think I have a similar reaction to many critically acclaimed Cohen brother films. It’s my list and I could just pick this as best picture but I’ll respect the majority here.
Almost Famous
Previously discussed. A great film that is easily rewatchable and Kate Hudson’s pinnacle acting performance, having men around the country crushing on Penny Lane. Personally I think her performance and a more interesting topic made this film only marginally better than Wonderboys which I would include in the same category.
The Departed
Maybe it’s not fair to compare this to Marty’s other fantastic work, but I’d dig the Goodfellas DVD out 9 times out of 10 before popping in The Departed.
The Dark Knight
It may be that I’m just too old to think this could be the best film of the decade. It may be that its direct completion is just too close to say this film was that much better (specifically than Spiderman and Ironman). But it was a thoroughly entertaining movie that concentrated more on acting and storyline as well as action than any of its predecessors. Would Heath have been nominated if not for his untimely death? Probably. Would he have won? I’d say definitely not.
Gladiator
A much more entertaining film than A Beautiful Mind which was the picture Russell actually should have received the Oscar for. Rewatchable and quotable in the same mold as Braveheart of the previous decade. But not as quite as inspiring and not topping The Dark Knight for action movie of the decade.
And the winner is:
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
I’m disappointed myself. I was not trying to be deceptive earlier, I had made the above choices while writing and as much as it kills me to pick a movie with no ending, at the end of the day this was the best that the decade offered. I take solace in the fact that the sequels were predetermined and the movie had every right to not offer a tidy conclusion. It was well made, fun to watch and if you have 9 hours to kill, completely rewatchable. Will anyone ever refer to “the Return” and have everyone understand what they mean in the same way when they hear “the Empire” or “Jedi”. I doubt it, but only time will tell.
It’s very disappointing that I had difficulty picking a handful of movies and not honestly believing any of them were really worthy of a “best of the decade” billing. While if I did this for the 90’s I would have had trouble narrowing down my selection. Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs, There’s Something About Mary, Life is Beautiful, Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Good Will Hunting – and that is all just off the top of my head.
Burumpt! Burumpt! Burumpt!What are those trumpets?
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
"As by order of the Queen herself a last minute decision has been made that the 2002 re-release of Monty Python's The Holy Grail in theaters has made it eligible for competition in best film of the decade."
And the New Winner of the best movie of the first decade of the 21st Century Is:
1977's Monty Python's The Holy Grail
A proven champion, completely rewatchable, extremely quotable, and fondly referred to 32 years after the original release.
My suggestion would be to break The Grail out of the DVD cabinet and give it another go - or if you need something more recent, try one of the smaller films for entertainment and hope the "teens" offer something better. But I don't remember anyone ever referring to the teens of the last century, so we may be in for the long haul until the roaring 20's come back.
For now I leave you with this double blog for missing last month and we're off to Korea, hopeful filled with some exciting stories and photos.
Blog ya' later...





















