The (Now-Overrated) ILX Top 100 Films of the 2000s Poll Results

india still do the commonwealth games? in bruges wouldn't

The British Are Coming! (Obliquely)

In Bruges- cast drunk, fighting at awards ceremony- 'Irish' movie

Finding Nemo - we don't animate

https://employee.ewashtenaw.org/Members/schraderk/gromit.JPG/image_preview

Were-rabbit was on my extended list but i think i dropped it in the end ;_;

ey guys come back i promise i'm not going to plant c4 under shaun of the dead.

How is Together "reasonably British"? It's as Swedish as a movie can get!

british = european

the brits are backsliding

only colonise places we can impose our language on tbh

the swedes and dutch (maybe the danes too) are sorta british rly.

works better as the britishes are sort of dutch and danish and to a slightly lesser extent swedey.

No, actually I think Songs from the Second Floor is even more Swedish... I was surprised to find out that many American/British ILXors like it, I thought its particular critique was aimed so strongly towards the Swedish society and the Nordic welfare state that it might not make much sense outside this area.

(xxxx-post)

i voted for all three richard kelly films.
― the highest per-vote vag so far (history mayne), Friday, February 5, 2010 10:52 AM (48 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

:O

didn't vote btw so will try keep it posi

not sure that historians have properly figured out what "Jutland" was supposed to be yet tho

Guys, youre only making this thread more British than even before.

Sorry for that, we'll be off for lunch soon

tuomas we have a welfare state too!

i didn't like SFTSF but it was pretty british.

i wonder how this thread is meant to stay us-centric during GMT AM tbh.

The Lives of Others - forget the stasi, we had thatcher, so much worse

waht

ha covering irish seperatism, ethnic britishness and now thatcher this is gonna be awesome

i wonder how this thread is meant to stay us-centric during GMT AM tbh.

I apologize for my country's people being generally too lazy to get up before 5:30 a.m.

I think Eric finds In the Loop 'surprising' in part bcz I'm the only Sl*nt writer who put it in his top 20 for this year? Too funny, not "cinematic" at all.

Alfred, you mentioned Musil -- how is Young Torless?

i think i'm 6 or 7 for 30 so far.

I mostly just think it's odd that very few movies from the last five years have posted at all yet, and that's one of the few.

(Granted, the There Will Be No Zodiac Blood For Old Children of Men glut is obv still forthcoming.)

i think that today, for each movie, everyone should post 1 thing they liked about it, and 1 thing they disliked!!!!

maybe i'm overestimating the kiarostami bloc. it helps that it's his only movie in contention

Pretty sure The Wind Will Carry Us wasn't released in Europe (and certainly America) til 2000. So it counts.

btw, You the Living > Songs from the Second Floor

i think that today, for each movie, everyone should post 1 thing they liked about it, and 1 thing they disliked!!!!

― max, 05 February 2010 12:24 (1 minute ago)

real talk

The Lives of Others - forget the stasi, we had thatcher, so much worse

waht

― Inculcate a spirit of serfdom in children (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, February 5, 2010 12:07 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark

a lil english joke. it's a commonplace that thatcher RUINED EVERYTHING.

without her we'd have a booming coal industry and other great things.

waht a bitch

best supporting actress in hunger

ireland's coal industry hadn't even really gotten off the ground when she invaded in 1603 ;_;

I'm taking up Max's challenge. Let's see what today's selections bring.

http://www.saskatoonkartracers.com/GP/rotax.max.challenge.canada_logo.jpg

Pretty sure The Wind Will Carry Us wasn't released in Europe (and certainly America) til 2000. So it counts.

ah ok. missed that on the noms list. everything online about it says '99 so i had it mentally as a '90s movie. (those of us who mostly see these things on video don't pay attention to niceties like theatrical releases.)

Alfred, you mentioned Musil -- how is Young Torless?

Very much worth a read – and short!

those of us who mostly see these things on video

This got me wondering...

Of the 307 movies from last decade that I've seen, the ratio is about 2:1 cinema to video (201 to 106). On my ballot, however, it's 37 to 3. This can be explained partially by the fact that the movies I see in the theater are the ones I'm most excited by and most strongly suspect that I'll be into (and I'm often right). However, I think I'm also more likely to feel more intensely about a movie when I see it on the big screen, because of that sense of immersiveness that can't quite be replicated at home. I wonder, for instance, if one of those three movies I've only seen on video would've landed higher on my list if I'd been able to appreciate its lush cinematography in the theater.

definitely i think seeing something in a theater makes a big difference, and there are a lot of things on my ballot i wish i'd seen on a big screen. but looking at what i actually voted for, it's not determinative for me. like, the only weerasethakul movie i've seen in the theater (tropical malady) wasn't one of the two of his that i voted for. i did see 6 of my top 10 in theaters, but i also saw 5 of my 31-40 in theaters, so i ranked lots of video-viewings ahead of lots of big-screen viewings.

and i'm sympathetic to the "you ain't seen it if you ain't seen it in a theater" line, but it's just been less and less of an option for me this past decade, with having kids and working evening shifts. i will admit to a gross consumerist fantasy of having a really ginormous tv sometime in the future.

(overall i only saw 16 things on my ballot in a theater.)

Yeah, I've never had a particularly great TV, so that probably exacerbates the difference for me.

hmm. i don't think i've voted for anything i've _only_ seen in a cinema, but many of them i did see first in a cinema.

a gross consumerist fantasy of having a really ginormous tv

http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_03_img1394.jpg

i saw most of my picks on dvd, probably. even master and commander. wd love to see that properly but idk had other stuff going on. one of my big regrets of the 00s is seeing so many mediocre films in the cinema.

the movies i'll want to catch in the cinema are usually of a completely different type than those i will watch on dvd- if something's drama/dialogue intense then i'll probably wait to catch it where there are no disgusting savages, but if part of the attraction is going to be aesthetic/visual then i'll make more of an effort to catch it on the big screen.

Since I started writing about film semi-regularly 3 years ago, I have seen more awful films on the big screen than I'd ever imagined existed. Worse than the dhit in this poll. Plus I had to see everything halfway good that opened in NYC, at least til the recession came for me.

Kinda depressed that FX movies are what ppl think of re "visual appeal."

i meant, increasingly...

wasn't necessarily referring to FX though.

and sometimes, you just want to go to 'the movies' as an event, and maybe not for most of you but where i'm living you're not gonna get a great selection of high movie art or w/e

I understand