What is the defining movie of the 2000s? PART 8: 2007

Want to catch up?

If you haven't been following, but would like to catch up now, here are the earlier parts...

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

As always, the disclosure/definition: this is not a list of good/great/your personal favorite movies. This is a list to see if we can find what the definitive movie is of the decade. The criteria, as with most internet lists is subjective and vague in its definition. It has to be recognized by a majority of people (that means no art house films), and has to have a positive buzz. It has to be considered by the mainstream and have cultural significance.

Maybe it's me maturing, or maybe because not enough time has passed, but I feel that 2007 doesn't have too many contenders to be a defining movie. And that's ok, because I feel treating this like the Baseball Hall of Fame accepts members is a good thing.

Regardless, let's take a look at what 2007 brings to the table...




Remember, this is not a list of good/great/your personal favorite movies. This is a list to see if we can find what the definitive movie is of the decade. The criteria, as with most internet lists is subjective and vague in its definition. It has to be recognized by a majority of people (that means no art house films), and has to have a positive buzz. It has to be considered by the mainstream and have cultural significance.


First up - the Oscar nominated films:

No Country For Old Men
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
There Will Be Blood

Of this list, I immediately see 2 contenders. So let's break it down. Atonement? I have no idea what that was about and it was only 2 years ago. I bet in another year it will be the Trivial Pursuit question that stumps everyone when they try to name the 2007 Oscar contending films.

I loved Michael Clayton, but do understand why others might not. Long, meandering, and purposefully ambiguous, I think Clooney and David Bowie both did bang up jobs. I loved that it had a 70s cinematic feel and wish more movies took risks like this one did.

There Will Be Blood? Daniel Day Lewis fantastic. "I drink your milkshake!" Pop culture significance. Seriously, you can't order a milkshake with friends without getting a bunch of terrible impressions of that line. And I'm never going bowling with Daniel Day again.

But is the movie defining?

I don't think so. I think everyone got caught up in the performance and kinda forgot about the movie. Is it still a great film? Absolutely. Is it defining? Nah. It's historical and cool and a great accomplishment, but not special at the end of the day.

That leaves No Country For Old Men and Juno...



(spoiler if you haven't seen the movie. This is the ending! Not that it would mess you up too much)

No Country For Old Men has a lot going for it. Based on a novel from arguably one of the best living writers. Directed by arguably the best directors working in Hollywood. Won the best picture. Things against it? A rather vague and open ended conclusion to the whole thing that left some scratching their heads. While I think the ending is a little jarring, I can also appreciate that it is something different, in that it forces the viewer to interpret it. That's rare and also a little refreshing. I definitely believe it's a good contender for defining movie of the decade.

As for Juno, if you remember it receive ridiculous hype before and during the first two weeks it came out. And that inevitable hype inevitably damaged it. It also put hipsters at war with one another and questioning their values. On one side you had the hipsters who saw it first and created the hype; on the other side you had hipsters who refused to see it because of the hype. Yay hipsters!

Regardless, this film is a smart, edgy teen comedy with a female protagonist - something were not used to. Is the dialog a little over the characters' heads? Possibly...but didn't we all know slightly pretentious teens in school that at least tried to speak like this?

It also doesn't hurt that the writer was a former stripper and broke into Hollywood the way all struggling writers would like to. That the film now is a measuring stick for other indie comedies (_______ is this year's Juno!) doesn't hurt it either. I feel confident choosing it as a contender.

With the Oscar's out of the way, let's turn our attention to the mainstream releases...

300
A small little movie about a bunch of Greeks that hold off the Persian hordes...oh yeah and it was pretty much done all in front of a green screen. Stylish and gory, this movie turned people's both in Hollywood and across the country when it opened so big. Birthing (eww) a number of lines that have become cliche, glorifying hyper violence and yelling, this movie is the rallying cry of a contender for defining movie of the decade. It even has the honor of being the focus of a spoof movie, "Meet the Spartans," something that can't be overlooked.

And really I think that's it for 2007. I thought about Superbad and Knocked Up, and I think they are comedies that people will remember from the decade, but I don't think they have enough staying power to be considered a defining movie. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it. I think both Old School, Anchorman and Wedding Crashers are all funnier and more iconic, and will stick with that.

Of course we can't ignore the the now time honored tradition of looking at some of the other movies Hollywood trotted out for us to consume...

Transformers
"_________raped my childhood" has become a cliche on the Internet, probably going back to when Lucas released Phantom Menace. People became so outraged because the movie didn't closely adhere to their childhood memories of the original trilogy, so they took this mantra as their battle cry. Ok, so maybe it wasn't the biggest thing in the world, but I've heard it enough that in my head it's a cliche. It's used ad nauseum to describe something that doesn't fit perfectly with the memory of something.

That said, I'm pretty sure Michael Bay is raping all of our childhoods with his Transformer movies.

I understand that it's not so much a movie as it is a really long and loud commercial, and that we sorta as a society are ok with that, but that doesn't mean the movie doesn't have to make sense.

Of course, the joke's on me, because Michael Bay is rich enough to live on a bed made of explosions, while I sit here and write this in a poorly lit cubicle. So he wins. (Apologies if the Fox image I used is from the sequel. I really didn't care enough to figure it out, and really, it's a Megan Fox picture so you shouldn't be too upset.)

Ghost Rider
Nicholas Cage is apparently going broke. I like to think it's because he made choices to star in movies like Ghost Rider. Based on the comic about a motorcycle rider that turns into a flaming skeleton. What? You don't like my plot synopsis? Fine, wiki it, it's a ton more confusing, non sensical, and silly. And yes, I understand anyone could have written that, but I doubt even Tom Wolfe has the writing chops to make it any more coherent. I will give Ghost Rider one little bit of credit - it had the foresight to cast Eva Mendes. While that won't get me to watch the movie, it will get me to linger on it a bit if I sstumble across it on cable.

Grindhouse
This splits people a lot of ways, and with good reason. Comprised of 2 movies that pay homage to the experience of watching a 70s drive-in movie (complete with bad audio and missing reels, which, ok do we all realize these were bad things that people hated?) directors' Robert Rodriguez and Tarantino take slightly different routes to get to the same place.

Rodriguez tackles a zombie movie, and pretty much follows a standard 70's horror movie script note for note. There's the occasionaly wink to the audience, but for the most part he plays it all honest. So what we're leeft with is...a purposelly made mediocre zombie movie - which, yeah I really can't get too enthused about.

Tarantino went a slightly different way, and the results are...mixed. First of all, while the template of a 70s movie is all right there on screen, Tarantino just couldn't contain himself. And that's a good thing. So what we got is a patchwork quilt of all the 70s genres he loved so much, blended with a 2007 Tarantino sensibility. It's interesting to watch it unfold, and that's with absolutely nothing happening for the first 40 minutes. By the time we get to the car chase, we're exhausted from having to deal with the main characters chat about nothing. This would have made a fantastic 30 minute short; I think 90 minutes was just too much.

The other thing Grindhouse had going for it are the "trailers" of made up movies. Speak to a Grindhouse fan and he/she will most likely suggest this is the best part of the movie. While some of them are kinda clever, (Machete looks awesome!) the others definitely are only a gimmick and start to drag.

But don't take my word for it, take a look yourself! (be careful of the violence and nudity - there's a lot of both)



So that leaves us with just 3 contenders for 2007:

No Country For Old Men
Juno
300

Stay tuned for part 8...

What is the defining movie of the 2000s? PART 7: 2006

If you haven't been following, but would like to catch up now, here are the earlier parts...

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Something tells me people aren't going to be happy with this part. Well, less happy than the usual unhappiness these posts generate. But I tried, people, I really tried. I even dropped my standards a bit and was open to letting in a few borderline movies.

But I have to say, this year was a terrible year for defining movies. And I think I came up with 2. 3 if I want to add what people will probably consider a "controversial" one. But I'll let you judge...



Remember, this is not a list of good/great/your personal favorite movies. This is a list to see if we can find what the definitive movie is of the decade. The criteria, as with most internet lists is subjective and vague in its definition. It has to be recognized by a majority of people (that means no art house films), and has to have a positive buzz. It has to be considered by the mainstream and have cultural significance.

Based on that, I have to say 2006 sucked nuts. For example, let's take a look at the Oscar nominated films:

The Departed
Babel
Letters from Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen

Ok, taking nothing away from the quality of these films, do any of them strike you as a memorable film that people continue to bring up? The Departed felt like a pity Oscar given to Scorsese after his masterpieces kept getting beat out. No one wants to bring up Babel in conversation because the next phrase uttered will be, "I want to slit my wrists." Letters from Iwo Jima isn't even the best Eastwood film about World War II from this YEAR; The Queen is quaint but I doubt too many people are arguiing it defined a decade.

And that leads to Little Miss Sunshine. Aside from a genuinely funny dance number, the movie lived on the hype generated from the people who saw it early. What could have been a nice little cult favorite blew up way too much and couldn't live up to the expectations that were heaped upon it.

So where does that leave us? Looking for crumbs really. I came up with these 3 candidates for defining movies...

Borat
I know it has a longer title but I can't be bothered. This is the one movie from 2006 I feel is a legitimate candidate. A movie that blended a documentary style with a mad cap comedy, Borat scoffed at the conventions of PC comedy and gave us an original piece of art that also had a social commentary. Difficult to do, it caught like wildfire and created cliched catchphrases that people still use.

Casino Royale
Now we're getting a little reachy. Made for the times to "update" the Bond franchise and compete with the Bourne series, Casino Royale on the surface looks slick, but falls apart a little when held up to the traditional Bond movie formula. And yes, I get that they were trying to move away from that, but I don't know why they had to. The slick stunts and gritty realism they introduced could have lived civilly with meglomaniacal bad guys wanting to take over the world and seemingly indestructible henchmen. Regardless, Daniel Craig did a great job taking Bond in the direction they wanted to take him and the movie looked cool. And it got the press it so desperately wanted.

Children of Men
Children of Men seems to be one of those barometer movies; people use it to gauge one's opinion of film. An interesting movie that no only introduces themes and concepts few current movies do, it also is technically ridiculous in places. The car chase in particular is just crazy.



Still, I'm not sure I can consider it a candidate for a defining movie of this decade. While I think the content of the film speaks a lot to the current global political climate, unfortunately not enough people enjoyed it and so it's destined to become a cult movie in the future.

But I'm also not sure I can completely rule it out, so I'll leave it to everyone out there. If you have an opinion one way or the other about the movie Children of Men, let me know. I'll consider all opinions.

Unfortunately, whereas 2006 didn't have a lot of potential defining movies, it certainly had a plethora of other movies...

The Pink Panther
Some of my earlier memories were of watching Peter Sellers deliberately butcher a French accent and fight with his butler Kato. So the Pink Panther series has a special place in my heart. So call me a hypocrite for bashing Steve Martin's Pink Panther movie without seeing it, but I just can't bring myself to do it. The specialness of the Sellers' Panther movies was that everyone else played it fairly straight, allowing Sellers' Clouseau to be the highlight of the movie. Of the previews and commercials of the new Pink Panther didn't really give me the same vibe. In fact I'd suggest it was one sight gag after another, loosely tied together with a non coherent plot.

Ultraviolet
Speaking of non coherent plots...I mean, c'mon. It's obvious the director of Ultraviolet wasn't concerned with the plot, choosing to make an extended music video with a hot Milla Jovovich in a billion diffferent skin tight outfits kicking ass. Need to masturbate and this is on TNT? You're good to go. Want the movie to do anything else for you? Uh, good luck.



Warning: this CoM special contains some spoilers, so please, if you haven't seen the movie, don't watch it. And then go watch the movie. And then come back!

Superman Returns
2006 did have a finished Superman film, something that had been in the works for over 20 years. The story of this film finally making the big screen is a movie in and of itself, filled with weird Superman choices, A-list directors and a giant spider.

So when this movie came out, there was a certan level of anticpation usually held for things like presidential elections, the Olympics, and Terrance Malick releases. And people saw it and...

eh.

Of all the things it could have been, a touching movie that was seemingly directed by Death Cab for Cutie, was not at the top of the list for most fans.

Snakes on a Plane
So much potential; so much failure.

On the surface, the experiment of going directly to the internet for input and suggestions is a great idea and probably a peek at the future. I mean, what is the internet if not a huge test audience? The problem, as I see it, is "tapping" into the internet seemed to be the gimmick, and instead of taking some of the comments to heart to create a great spoof and parody on action/thriller/monster movies, the producers took a few token suggestions, threw them in, and hoped.

The movie was bad. Not in a good bad way either, which is obviously what they were going for. Unfortunately, they couldn't find the line and made it too inconsistent. The ingredients were there, the recipe may have even been there, but the chef wasn't. And that's too bad, because they had a chance to do something special. What we got was a big budget disaster movie of the week.

The Fountain
Oh boy. Give a crazy director complete control to film his own vision and you get something like The Fountain. I hate to bring up the word pretentious when critiquing an artist, because we all have a vision and who am I to suggest something like that, but still...To suggest you are unlocking the keys to life's meaning? Yeah, I gotta plead pretentious.

Anyway, here are the candidates from 2006:

Borat
Casino Royale
Children of Men?

Up next: 2007.

What is the defining movie of the 2000s? PART 6: 2005

Let's do this!

Quick summary so I can renew the laserbeam of hatred toward me - I'm trying to define what the defining movie of the 2000s is, and going year by year to find the perfect candidates.

If you haven't been following, but would like to catch up now, here are the earlier parts...

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

It's the year 2005. We're past the halfway point. We've uncovered a lot of potential movies. We've also covered some ground on some truly abysmal cinema. And we're not stopping here.



First - the Academy Award winners...

Crash
Seems to be one of those love it/hate it films. Also a bit Altmanesque, without the Altman wit. Though not including wit in a film about race might have been a director's decision, so we can let that one slide. The movie goes a long way to try and show the viewer that regardless of race, we're all racist. We're also all human. We're also all hypocrites. It's life man, up there on the big screen.

As I said, this film seems to be polarizing, and while I'd argue Haggis set out trying to make the defining movie of the 2000s, I have to give him credit for possibly succeeding. So it has to be a candidate.

Brokeback Mountain
I guess 2005 was the year of the critically acclaimed minority movie. Are gays considered a minortiy? Let's scratch that and go with hot button groups. I feel this conversation quickly spiraling down the drain, so let's move on.

This movie is a powerful story about love. That the love happenes to be between two cowboys should be beside the point. Of course it isn't, which undermines the message a little, but we have to crawl before we can walk in this hypocritical society, so...

For this movie to simply have been made is an accomplishment. Because of that alone I'm going to have to put it on the short list of defining movies. While it probably won't win, it should be noted that it's a benchmark movie for bringing homosexuality to the mainsrteam without the main characters having to talk with a lisp or wear bright colors. Bravo.

Capote
Sorry, doesn't make the list. I mean, it was so good they went and made another Capote movie later on.

Good Night and Good Luck
It was in black and white! It's 2005. You'd think black and white would have been outlawed by now. Hopefully Turner can get his hands on it and bring some much needed color to it so I'll watch it.

Munich
I love Munich. Slightly long, it still tells a gripping story with no real heroes. The end shot might be a little heavy handed, but no one has accused Spielberg of being subtle. Still, while I think it's one of the top 10 or so films of the decade, for whatever reason it gets overlooked. And overlooked is bad for a film that wants to be considered the defining movie of the decade. Sorry. It gets left off.

Time to take a look at the rest of the movied from 2005...

40 Year Old Virgin
Long, meandering and yet still funny in a lot of places, 40 Year Old has to be considered for no other fact that it brought back the raunchy comedy. Not necessarily an "adult" comedy, it still dealt with issues in more realistic settings that the average moviegoer is accusstomed to.



That Judd Apatow paved the way for many imitators (including himself, really) is both a positive and a negative depending on how you feel about the imitations. And it's also very easy to hate on this film 4 years later, but I think it still has to be considered a contender.

Batman Begins
I'll be honest. I didn't like Batman Begins. I felt it telegraphed the main villain. Any movie where the protagonist, early on, simply assumes his mentor-turned-evil-guy died because there was an explosion, really should be taken to task.

That said, I understand why people enjoyed it. After the last movie in the Schumacher Batman series (Batman & Robin), we all assumed Batman was gay and enjoyed cosplay. So, going back to the beginning and creating an origin story about how Batman became Batman and grounding it in reality was a stroke of genius. It immediately gave everyone involved a new universe to play in, and let everyone know this wasn't your dad's Batman. Because think about it, even though Superman is the one with all the powers, everyone knows Batman is cooler. Why? Because he's gritty, unpolished and not necessarily always good. These themes are things directors kill to explore in their movies.

So, while personally, I don't think it was great, it needs to be considered a candidate.



Sin City



Cool to look at, started the Mickey Rourke comeback in earnest, but at the end of the day, not all that interesting. The stories, after the shock of the violence, were nothing to write home about. Visually, incredible, but one cannot hang a hat on visuals alone. Unless you're watching porn.

Syriana
Not a defining movie of the decade. Though I nominate it as the "defining movie with a bunch of Hollywood stars that you have to watch 75 times to understand 10% of what is going on" of the decade. I assume this is what politics is really like in Washington D.C. So it was sort of like watching C-Span. Only with an explosion mixed in. And George Clooney after he visited Old Country Buffet one too many times. And forgot his razor. He's still dreamy to me though, dammit!


I'd be remiss if I didn't look at some of the other, "interesting" choices of the year. Remember, none of these titles are be considered for defining movie of the decade. I just figured they should be noted for their awfulness.

Bewitched
Is this where Will Ferrell's career took the nose dive? Seriously. He plays such a tremendous dick in this, I wonder if people, even subconsciously, started to hate him after this movie. I'm not sure if anyone really watched this, but the whole meta movie-within-the-movie is tough to pull off if you're not Charlie Kaufman. And whoever wrote Bewitched, is not Kaufman. I'm a Kidman fan, so sure I'll linger on this if I stumble upon it on tv longer than the average person, but still. It's just not good. And since I mentioned Kidman, that gives me an opportunity to give you a picture of the lovely Aussie.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
In 10 years, will we remember this movie for being a crappy sequel or an accurate portrayal of Michael Jackson?

Elektra
And we thought Daredevil was bad. Well most of us did. I'm assuming the people that greenlit this atrocity saw Daredevil, thought the plot was too simplistic and linear, and chose to turn one of the characters into a super ninja wearing pirate stuff. Sexy pirate stuff. Oh and she has boobs.



Hey, I love Jennifer Garner, and I love her in weird, tight fitting costumes. But that's why I sit through the nonsense of Alias.

So that pretty much wraps up 2005. Here is the short list:

Crash
Brokeback Mountain
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Batman Begins

Agree? Disagree? Feel I should go to film school? Want to accuse me of not seeing Lost Highway? Tell me about it in the comments!