My 10 Best "Oscar Nominated as Best Picture" Films of the 2000s

I was originally going to do this list by excluding all of those films that actually won, but I realized that would really only preclude one obvious pick, one third of a solid pick , and eventually a bubble slot. So, I will give you both lists, my 10 best overall, and then the 10 best that didn't win. NOTE: These are the best "I have seen!" Two films I haven't seen are The Pianist and In the Bedroom, which I understand are pretty decent films.

My 10 Best "Oscar Nominated Best Picture" Films of the Decade:

1. No Country for Old Men (2007): I went back and forth over the top two films of the decade, but the easiest part of this list was placing No Country and TWBB at number 1 and 2. Even a few days before I started this list, I probably would have put TWBB as the number 1 film. I think I might personally like TWBB more. I have also seen No Country once more since they were in theaters, and No Country was better on that second viewing than I had originally remembered. I haven't seen TWBB since theaters, and part of me wonders if it would hold up as well as I remember it (I know I will still love it, but would it still be "the best?"). I think No Country is close to perfect in its execution. It doesn't aim for the heavens, but it tells a good story as well as the story could be told, and it doesn't hit a false note anywhere. Everything works exactly as it should, it is tight, lean, cold, haunting, and determined, and in this way it is definitely the Coen's best effort. (cont. below at #2)

2. There Will Be Blood (2007): TWBB, on the other hand, shoots for the stars and nearly achieves them. I think it was a much more ambitious film, with amazing set pieces, larger than life characters, a haunting score, and just pure, in your face film power from Paul Thomas Anderson. That said, its a little to long, I'm still divided about the ending, and it is far from "perfect" in execution as No Country is. Personally, I love films that shoot for the stars and maybe fall short (think just about any Herzog film, specifically Fitzcarlado), and I often forgive rough patches in films that try this hard, as I definitely did with TWBB when it came out. I'm sure that on any other day I would list TWBB over No Country. But, today, I have to admit, the pure perfection that the Coen's achieve in No Country is slightly edging out TWBB, if for no other reason than I think that great ambitious films that miss (Apocalypse Now) are perhaps a tiny bit more common than films that are near perfect (Casablanca). Of course, I also think No Country was an extremely ambitious project, and TWBB is an absolutely amazingly executed film, but coming down to the wire, its No Country by a nose, then TWBB with a respectable lead over The Queen, and all three of those films a couple lengths ahead of their peers.

3. The Queen (2006):

When I started this list, I knew the Queen was going to be on it, but I was actually amazed at how easy it was to place it at number 3. I don't know if I recognized how good it was when I first saw the film in theaters, and I really should see it again to see how it holds up, but while many movies slowly fade in my memory as time goes by, The Queen has remained indelible. Helen Mirren is fantastic, and I will not take anything away from her performance, but I think it often overshadows the rest of the film. In brief, this is a tight, sophisticated screenplay that doesn't waste time or go for easy answers, and Frears brings it all home so effortlessly its easy to forget how deftly he constructs the film. With a story that was made for over the top dramatics, The Queen stays completely grounded, feeling much more like a documentary than a Lifetime movie, and might be the best example of the "neo-realist" revival that has cropped up over the last few years. A great film.

4. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2004): The most ambitious movie project ever? Perhaps. The films with the highest expectations from the harshest fanbase (outside of the Star Wars prequels) ever? Probably. A ten to twelve hour fantasy epic masterpiece that was also a faithful adaptation of some of the most beloved novels of the last century? If not a yes, than closer to a yes than any of us thought possible until entering the theaters that cold wintry day in 2001. These aren't perfect films, but all you need to do is mention the Star Wars prequels to remember how bad Lord of the Rings could have been, to see how amazingly good these films actually are.

5. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000): Ang Lee wanted to make the best martial arts / wire fighting story ever told. He succeeded. Zhang Yimou might have surpassed CTHD's beauty and visual style with Hero and other later films, but the striking visuals are only half of CTHD's success - underneath it all is a sincere love story between older, wiser, mature characters intertwined in another love story of youthful abandonment. When you add probably the best martial arts film with possibly the best Ang Lee film together, you get number 5 on this list.

6. Milk (2008): Its too early to really tell how this one will hold up, but even 5 months into 2009 it is pretty easy for me to see that Milk was the best film of its group. It sometimes succumbs too much to the standard biopic fare, but Gus van Sant (one of the most underrated directors around, especially for those who only know his more Hollywood films) nails the look, era, energy and importance of the man and the time, which puts this film ahead of Ray and the other biopic films of the decade. NOTE: Writing this, I realize I don't even consider The Queen a biopic, which again is one of the reasons I think The Queen so deserves its spot on the list.

7. Finding Neverland (2004): Monster's Ball is a very good film. Stranger than Fiction was a film I liked when I saw it, but strangely enough, has somehow continued to rise in my esteem as time goes by, and I have a strange suspicion it might slowly become one of my favorites. That said, I still think Finding Neverland is Marc Forster's best film, and arguably the most underrated "Best Picture Nominee" of the decade. It seemed like nobody saw this film, but what they missed was (1) one of Johnny Depp's best performances (and Kate Winslett, as always, in top form), (2) some of the best imaginative production design and effects work of the decade (it might be more Gondry than Gondry has ever managed to achieve in films), (3) a tight story with great pacing, and (4) a story about childhood wonder that isn't preciously charming or cynically jaded in its view of a man who really does love the fantasy world of boyish youth. Having not seen this film since it was in theaters, it is easily the film I feel least certain about placing on this list, but the film has held up in my mind, so on it goes.

8. Good Night and Good Luck (2005): An understated film, about a very important man in a very important time, released in theaters at a time when audiences needed to remember Edward R. Murrow, and by association, how much we had lost since his time. Like Frears with The Queen, Clooney grounds this film into reality so effortlessly that its easy to overlook how well constructed this film is. Strathairn, a longtime favorite of mine, deserved all his recognition, but in the end I think GNGL will go down as the best effort of the decade towards the classic, ensemble films of the studio era, where everyone, from director and lead actor down to gaffers and extras, pulled together to make a seamless, transparent film, and where nothing is done to draw attention to anything, or anyone, but the story.

9. Gosford Park (2001): One of America's finest directors, in the twilight of his years, decides to remake (or at least noticeably rehash) Renoir's beloved Rules of the Game and set it in England during World War II. Many people don't realize that Rules of the Game is one of the most critically praised and revered films of all time. Sight and Sound's "Ten Best Films of All Time" list is considered the gold standard for any "best film" list - every decade the poll a number of critics and filmmakers around the world to come up with one cumulative list from everyone's individual selections - and Rules of the Game has been consistently listed as number 2, right behind Citizen Kane (it was listed number 3 in the most recent 2002 poll). So, to truly understand where Altman was going with this film, picture someone deciding to update Citizen Kane, Casablanca, or The Godfather into a new setting with new characters, and imagine what your initial response would be. The fact that Altman pulls it off at all is reason to consider Gosford Park one of the best films of the decade. When you consider that, since its release, Gosford Park is now considered one of Altman's best films and his last true masterpiece, you can realize that not only was this just a successful adaptation of Rules of the Game, but a great film in its own right, and lasting tribute to one of our best, and most influential, directors. There would not be a TWBB if it wasn't for films like this. NOTE: Paul Thomas Anderson was actually chosen by Altman to be the backup director, for insurance reasons, on Altman's last film.

10. Slumdog Millionaire (2008): This could have been Gladiator, Master and Commadner, Traffic, The Aviator, or probably a few other films. Its way too early to tell how this will hold up. I already doubt putting it here at all, but it was a blast to watch and one hell of a crowd pleaser, which has to go for something. NOTE: I said the same thing about Milk, but I'm pretty sure that Milk will always be considered a good movie, if not a great film. I'm not sure I'm ready to say the same thing about Slumdog.

The 10 Best "Oscar Nominated for Best Picture Without Winning" Films of the Decade:

1. There Will Be Blood
2. The Queen
3. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
4. Milk
5. Finding Neverland
6. Good Night and Good Luck
7. Gosford Park
8. Master and Commander
9. The Aviator
10. Traffic

Overlooked scenes that make a movie: Dazed and Confused

The completely unnecessary throwaway shot of the baseball players shaking hands after the game. "Good game, good game, good game, get bent, up yours, good game." This scene does nothing for the plot or story. It focuses on completely peripheral characters (Mitch isn't show, and its an entire team shot anyway, not on particular characters). But, it makes the movie because it's so right. You need that anticlimactic shot after the game. Even if Mitch et al are scared to death, they still have to follow the rituals of teenage life - shaking hands and soullessly congratulating the other team was just what you did - rituals like going out drinking, playing football, being in a band, joining the cheerleaders, and paddling the freshmen.

By focusing on the small details like this, the film shifts its viewpoint from characters to environment, an important distinction. This is ultimately what takes D&C above the average teen film and places it instead as more of a cultural study of a time, place and era, but also a commentary on how tiny details of a specific era are familiar and common among everyone's shared history. I have said "good game" more times than I can count - I rarely ever meant it, or even thought about what I was actually saying (I have also said "get bent" a few times). I'm sure everyone reading this has as well. Its the same with the characters: I was part Mitch and part Anthony Rapp (I don't think I was ever as bad as Adam Goldberg in the film), and every other character in the film reminds me of people I grew up with. Its even the same with the setting, the music, the cliques (and the interchangeability for some people to move between cliques, an aspect most teen movies NEVER get right). Despite being set in Texas in the 1970s, there simply is no other film that captures my memories of high school (the big ideas as well as the day to day details) as well as Dazed and Confused. I felt this way when I saw the film in high school, and I feel this way even more now.

It's no secret that Dazed and Confused is my favorite film, but the after-game handshake is a perfect example of why I love it so much.

2 Issues with Sugar as a "Neo Neo Realist" film

Here is an email response I sent into the amazing podcast Filmspotting, which was actually featured on the cast following their review of Sugar. It might be cheating, but the hell with it, I've got to get some content up here. Consider this a plug for their amazing podcast, the "neo neo realist movement" (a stupid, if perhaps descriptive, term for an awesome American film movement), and the film itself:

Massacre Theater was perhaps my favorite baseball movie, Major League (and the beginning of my crush on Renee Russo).

I say perhaps because, after seeing Sugar this last weekend, I might have a new favorite. While I am usually on Adam's side of your reviews, I completely agree with Matty on Sugar - this film hits all the right notes as far as baseball movies, but its the character story itself that I truly fell in love with. I think Matty is right - this is a coming of age story where Sugar realizes that baseball, as a profession, is not his dream, and is forced to come to terms with his own happiness in an alien world (that was beautifully shot - seriously those shots of the field in Iowa, and the Yankee Stadium reveal on the subway, are some of the best baseball shots I have seen in a long time). Yes, I would love to see a documentary about Dominican ballplayers as well, but I think it credits the film that we were so interested and invested in what was, in the end, a run of the mill ballplayer, and watching his story unfold, whether fictional or not, was simply a pleasure.

I'm not getting into the Neo-neo-realist debate, except to say that: (1) I loved this film, perhaps more than Chopshop or Man Push Cart, because of its honesty to the character without sacrificing what, I believe, is the filmmakers hopeful, humanist optimism towards their characters - a rare, welcomed feeling when leaving the theater after so many other recent, independent films either fall into bleak fatalism or over-the-top "cute and quirky" fantasy. I have no idea what will happen with Sugar after the film, but I believe that it will all work out, and even more I believe that both the filmmakers, and Sugar himself, do to. (2) What sort of self-respecting neo-realist would have a TV on the Radio montage (which I personally loved, both because I love the band and because you can't have a sports movie without a montage). Have we already progressed to Hawks and Sparrows where the neo-realists are purposefully revolting against the label? Speaking for someone who loves these new films, and doesn't care for the Neo-Realists, all I can say is I hope so.