criterionforum.org

Just wanna slide in and say that I was in early on Inside Llewyn Davis and everyone is copying me.

Oh, and Lady Bird is hilariously high on that list.

Lost me at Luhrmann, but given that no list is going to represent me perfectly, meh especially when I've seen less than 90% of it.

I salute the high position of "experimental work" such as Certified Copy (3), Holy Motors (6), Uncle Boonmee (12), Tree of Life (13), Leviathan (14), Dogtooth (15), even Under the Skin (2), but that ranking is a mess! It's not an eclectic taste, this is a lack of direction...
Akerman, Wiseman, Tarr, Farhadi should be higher than Moonlight or Mad Max Fury Road!

This is a 2010s list I feel will truly stand the test of time

Inside Llewyn Davis really is that good though.

Swipe left

It's good to see that our own (former member) swimminghorses is still getting steady illustration work:

Spoiler

They Shoot Pictures run all-time lists that they base off of a formula that amalgamates all (or a lot of) the best-of polls out there. They annually update their Best Films of the 21st Century list every year. While by no means a last word on a films quality, I find it a useful tool to see broad critical consensus.

Anyways, the highest charting 2010's movies on their list so far are:

1. The Tree of Life
2. A Seperation
3. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
4. The Turin Horse
5. Melancholia
6. The Social Network
7. Boyhood
8. Amour
9. Mad Max: Fury Road
10. The Act of Killing

This Top10 is more credible than that Top100, for the most part. But still, ranking itself is random because of the consensus...
It's showing they compiled IndieWire in their algorythm.

That top ten is actually fundamentally flawed (for now) as it is going to privilege older movies that have had the opportunity to be on more lists. Note how none of the films are from past 2015, and all but two are from the first three years of the decade.

But that's why we should never rank movies before a decade has passed, to move past the zeitgeist and begin to feel the test of time. Well that's my rule of thumb anyways.
Though I realise that I only judged the quality of the titles on the list, not their larger extensive competition (of titles absent from the list).

I don't care much for Indiewire's premature ejaculation of their poorly expressed opinions. However, comparing a movie from this year and a movie from 2010 is no different than comparing a movie from 2009 and 2000. They're always going to be relative, whether the distance is one year or ten. L'avventura in the '62 Sight and Sound poll was startlingly fresh, and although it no longer figures in the top ten, its merits are still as fresh today as then.

World cinema in the 1960s was producing far more instant classics than modern cinema could ever dream of, though

It is possible to compare a movie from 1909 and one from 2009, even if production quality has evolved (which is taken into account). A good number of silent films stood the test of time and rank better than most regular fare of 2000s (notably on the S&S poll). This is an easy call to make.
But there is something with judging the currency from within its fresh context that fails to mark the test of time.
There are countless examples of masterpieces that did not make the yearly top10s.
L'Avventura was booed in Cannes I believe...

domino harvey wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:08 pm World cinema in the 1960s was producing far more instant classics than modern cinema could ever dream of, though

I make no claim for the equality of all things, only equality before the viewer!

BenoitRouilly wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:14 pm It is possible to compare a movie from 1909 and one from 2009, even if production quality has evolved (which is taken into account). A good number of silent films stood the test of time and rank better than most regular fare of 2000s (notably on the S&S poll). This is an easy call to make.
But there something with judging the currency from within its fresh context that fails to mark the test of time.
There are countless examples of masterpieces that did not make the yearly top10s.
L'Avventura was booed in Cannes I believe...

And I assure you, it's very likely to be booed by some today. (Don't Cannes crowds boo things rather frequently?) I don't think that there is a true test of time, only a relevancy to the judge's disposition. Casablanca, for example, remains popular not because it has some mysterious aura to it, but because it has the things that are prized and desired among audiences and has lost very little to cultural circumstances.

The big silent winners in the last Sight and Sound poll were Sunrise, The Man with the Movie Camera, and The Passion of Joan of Arc, if I recall correctly. All three are formally audacious in very apparent ways, and that is the reason, I think, for their continued success among cinephiles. That, in addition to their relative accessibility, and the self-perpetuating structure of canons.

World cinema from 60’s is probably the greatest decade for film output by the world as a whole. It will never be topped.

I always think these lists are fluid. Every 10 years or so you can go back and these lists change, especially the order. Would love to see a list that came out in 1970 and then to have the decade the 60s re-ranked.

As for the Indiewire top 100, it is a mixed bag for me. Not a fan of Moonlight but love that Inside Llewyn Davis made the top 10.

FrauBlucher wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:38 pm I always think these lists are fluid. Every 10 years or so you can go back and these lists change, especially the order. Would love to see a list that came out in 1970 and then to have the decade the 60s re-ranked.

This is the flipside of my point. I'm in complete agreement.

If anyone cares about Moonlight in a decade, I'll buy everyone reading this a Coke

"The picture that actually won Best Picture after Faye Dunaway inaccurately said La La Land."


It's going to hold more water in a decade then other Oscar winners.

Make mine a 7up.

I just finally clicked the link and ignoring the rankings it's not a bad list, but why did they put that awful blue/red filter over all the stills? I mean, this seriously makes me want to throw up:

domino harvey wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:44 pm If anyone cares about Moonlight in a decade, I'll buy everyone reading this a Coke

This has got to be the most hyperbolic hyperbole ever hyperboled on this forum since I’ve been here.

I doubt it's even the most hyperbolic thing I've said today

FrauBlucher wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:38 pm World cinema from 60’s is probably the greatest decade for film output by the world as a whole. It will never be topped.

I agree with you there, except that I do believe it may be topped... I have faith in the future of cinema. I do think there will be a NEW New Wave, like the golden age of the 40ies followed the golden age of the 30ies, and the fans of the 50ies made films themselves even greater...
Well the New Age is taking its time.

The consensus is "fluid", but the canon shall be engraved in stone. Only greater recent films could squeeze out masterpieces of the past from the top100.
But there are occasional revivals, where overlooked gems from a niche get masterpiece status long after their due. And the canon shift a little.
We should know by now what are the great films of the first century. I'm not saying the S&S consensus is an accurate representation of the canon though (it took a long time for Ozu to reach its deserved place in the top10!). THE "Canon" exists outside the various polls.

I agree that L'Avventura could be booed today by certain audiences. Man With A Movie Camera (as well as La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc) are quite experimental visually... I doubt such formalism can be consensual even among cinephiles.