#6: 4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile (2007)

Moving on from a subtle, deft picture about life, to another subtle, but intensely painful and realistic look at abortions in 1980s Romania. The movie chronicles the woman whose abortion this is, and her friend who helps her through the horrific ordeal. Director Cristian Mungiu is a very patient director, and lets whole scenes play out for as long as they need to go.

The camera acts as a third person involved in this abortion, placing the viewer directly in the situation. Editing is spare, and this leaves the actors as the real stars, shaping their own performances and controlling the pace of the movie. In fact, there is one, painful, unbroken 8 1/2 minute shot at a dinner table, as the one girl must leave her female companion to attend a dinner, and Mungiu immerses us in her world, impatiently waiting for this rambunctious party to be over.

But more then the camera composition is how cold this movie feels. Really, once you get through this ordeal, how can you have emotion left? Yes, a fetus is shown in an extended shot, but even if that wasn't there I would still love that picture. That moment alone does not make or break the movie, but it does enhance the gravity of the situation.

To be sure this is an emotionally draining experience, and you won't leave with a grin or a smile. What you will leave with, though, is a sense of what enforcing basic human choices can do to people. I'm not going to make an argument about whether she was in the right to get that abortion, but I will argue that situations like this are the result of governments oppressing their people. More then the message, though, it's a damn fine exercise in nail-biting suspense.

#7: Yi yi (2000)

No one can really thoroughly explore the movies of this decade without, at one point or another, arriving at Yi Yi. As time pushes on we may have to recognize as one of the greatest films ever made, as Sight and Sound did by in 2002 (it was listed as one of the 10 greatest films from 1977 - 2002). My first time viewing this movie, I admittedly dozed off several times, but that was because I had had a tiring day, and not a reflection on the quality of the movie. A subsequent viewing confirmed what my friend had said: it was spectacular.

The movie is about life, it is about people, really living. They make choices not because the plot needs them to, but because they are motivated to. NJ, the protagonist, runs into a woman on an elevator, and simply stares at her saying, "Is it you?" They were once lovers, and he didn't show up one day. NJ is married, has a son, and the movie doesn't force his relationship with this new woman, it grows organically.

So do all the characters, from the mother-in-law, to the son, to his brother and his newly married life. All these characters exist in a practical, tangible universe and are motivated by real life choices. The movie runs 173 minutes, and not a moment of it feels wasted or too long. Edward Yang, the Taiwan director behind this film, has released several others but sadly we here in the States have no access to his other films. I hear his others are incredible too.

I really don't want to say too much more about this movie. It has to be experienced to be appreciated, to be understood. I heap praise on it, but do not raise it higher on my list because though I recognize its greatness, I have a special affinity with the rest of the movies here. Still, any cinephile owes it to themselves to check out this criminally under seen movie. You won't regret it.

#8: Tasogare Seibei (2002)

In this decade, I developed my true passion for movies, my true desire to become a filmmaker. The first major movie I made with my friends was a Samurai trilogy, and through making those movies, I began to see other movies about Samurais, including Kurosawa's great Shichinin no samurai (1954). By the year 2004 I was done with the movie, but The Twilight Samurai (Tasogare Seibei) was released in theaters, and I went with a friend to go see it.

The movie is not blades flashing, or endless gore, or anything that might lend itself to what we expect a samurai film to be today. It is more in the vein of the Kurosawa works of the 50s and 60s, and is a terrific, lyrical masterpiece of loneliness in 19th-century Japan. Hiroyuki Sanada plays Seibei, the samurai of the original title, whose wife has recently died, forcing him to spend his days raising his children. When the woman of his dreams divorces her husband, Seibei takes up the mantle of challenging him.

The movie is a prime example of doing very little with a lot, and is mostly a quiet film, punctuated by brief scenes of violence. There are two sword fights in the whole movie, and one lasts for maybe ten seconds. The movie isn't about the actions of the samurai, it is about how the man lives his life day to day. We are shown his family life, shown what he does to survive, and his resolve at picking up the sword again until he needs to. The movie also doesn't bury itself in mumbo jumbo about honor, the samurai's code, or any of that other stuff. It is simply the character, and what he deems is right.

This movie made a strong connection with me when I first saw it, and continues to resonant with me to this very day. It, along with Kurosawa's samurai films, take me back to the days when I was discovering my love for movies, and how I ate up every moment of those films. Twilight Samurai is a criminally underseen film, but I also enjoy that aspect of it. The few of us that have seen it can marvel in its glory and wonder. This movie was, more or less, my induction into Art House cinema.

Avatar (2009)

It's nice to know that in this world there are still filmmakers who know how to make a solid action movie. Who know that an action movie isn't really about the action at all, but about the characters who carry out the actions. That Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) become completely identifiable and sympathetic in this movie is one of the only real reasons it works.

The film that took 12 years for Cameron to bring to us, Avatar, has certainly been analyzed as a Dances with Wolves, Smurfs, and Ferngully hybrid, and if you like boiling movie's plots down to essentially what they resemble, then this a fair assessment. But Cameron's picture succeeds because it takes what could have been a very silly story, and makes it believable. Sure, this movie is ridden with clichés, and every moment is predictable, but Cameron spends so much time painting the world of the Na'vi and their indigenous land that you fall for them as Jake Sully does.

The movie takes place some odd years in the future (it is never said, though keen eyed people probably picked up on the dates on video diary screens), where the natives of the planet Pandora reside upon a mineral source that is worth lots of money. So, naturally, corporate fat cats want to buy the land from the people and mine the shit out of that stuff. Problem is, the natives won't budge.

Sully is a paraplegic, and is assigned to Pandora when his brother is killed. A rather expensive avatar (Na'vi look-a-likes) was made for him, and since Sully shares the same Genome, he is the perfect money and time saving candidate for the job. Soon, he inhabits the Na'Vi's body and goes to learn about their people.

A lot of the characters in this movie are more caricature then character; Stephen Lang plays the evil Colonel, though really he is just doing his job. Giovanni Ribisi is the above mentioned fat cat, and Michelle Rodriguez plays the only soldier with enough of a conscious to decide killing innocent blue people is wrong. And on the Na'vi side there are the old, wise clan leaders and the hot head warrior that challenges the outsider.

But the movie stands above most other genre pictures because it marvels at the scenery and beauty that is surrounding them. 60% of the film is CGI, 40% live action, and you really can't tell the difference most of the time from scene to scene. The settings, the small creatures, and plants, trees and textures are so pain-stakingly detailed that they absorb you. The world of Pandora is unfolded to us as it is to Sully, and never overloads you with information.

I was skeptical of this movie, but by the time Sully tames a pterydactol thingy and flies through the air, I was sold on the movie and completely exhilarated. At that point, my brain took a backseat and I just drowned in the imagery and action at the end. I fought and fought the movie, and the movie deservedly one.

Maybe most surprising about this film is how patient it is. This is not an action heavy movie; there are few scenes at the beginning when local wildlife attack the naive Sully. But the Colonel doesn't roll out the artillery until the end, and the final action sequence is so epic it makes up for the "lack" of action and shooting earlier. Really, that is so rare for a movie these days to actually make its audience wait for the big battle at the end.

What's even more remarkable is that this movie is a blockbuster hit now, and is not based on anything concrete. Obviously it is an update of our genocide on the Native Americans way back when, but there is no comic book, novel, or anything else that this was based on. All the characters came from Cameron and his crew, and originality like that is about near impossible to find in Hollywood. Of course, the script could have been injected with a shot of originality too, but the creatures make up for that.

A note on the 3D in this picture: it is quite unlike what I have seen before. It doesn't call attention to itself and make things pop out of the screen to hit you. Instead, it just amplifies the scenery and creates more depth to what is going on. I've become less of a fan of 3D in the past year due to the insane amount of films that come out in the format, but here, the 3D doesn't drive the movie, it only serves to enhance everything. That being said, I also saw this in IMAX, and was quite confused as to why the image didn't fill the screen; I expected bars on top and bottom, but there were also pillars on the sides, so the image didn't stretch across the whole screen. Was it like that at other IMAXes? (and I mean real IMAX, not bullshit new IMAX).

This movie has set the bar pretty high in terms of photorealistic CGI; I've never seen anything so convincing, and wonder when the time will come that a whole movie will be created that is completely CGI, without actors (just voices), that is totally convincing. I honestly hope this never happens; CGI can't replace flesh, and Cameron wisely keeps the real actors in live action scenes instead of replacing them. Cameron and Peter Jackson know that CGI should only be used to enhance your movie, not drive it, and filmmakers like Michael Bay and George Lucas believe that computers can do everything.

I hope Cameron doesn't take another 12 years to make another movie; though he knows how to utilize CGI, he also lets the script for the most part take a back seat to it. But this is a smart movie; it doesn't say anything new, but it reiterates what we know, and there is a certain poignancy in watching a line of humans being marched onto a space ship and sent back home, defeated, in the end. "They killed their mother," one spiritually in-touch character says. It's a kick-in-the-pants reminder that we can't continue winning forever, and that eventually, the human race will lose.

#9: Minority Report (2002)

This decade saw a huge leap into the Sci-fi genre by mega-director Steven Spielberg, where 3 of the 7 movies he directed fell into that genre. The first was A.I. (2001), a movie he took over after Stanley Kubrick's death, and though it is a fairly decent movie, it suffers from Spielberg's touch. The second, Minority Report (2002), is named here as the ninth best of the decade. And finally was Spielberg's weakest attempt, War of the Worlds (2005).

Minority Report stands head and shoulders above anything else he made this decade (Catch Me if You Can (2002), The Terminal (2004), Munich (2005), and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)) as a great entertainment and a great story. It's one of the few movies that I can continuously pop into the DVD player and be completely mesmerized for, from the opening to the end.

Tom Cruise plays John Anderton, a futuristic cop in the year 2054, where new technology has allowed cops to catch murderers before they actually commit the crime. The movie sets us on the eve of the program, which is only in D.C., being taken national. Colin Farrell plays Danny Witwer, who is investigating the unit, dubbed Pre-Crime, to find any flaws. Of course, a flaw is discovered when Anderton himself is named as a future killer, though the doesn't know the man he is supposed to kill. Much of the rest of the time he is on the run.

The film is a terrific sci-fi parable of our times, and uses technology that scientists actually believe could exist in the future. The film has a desaturated look, and is quite frenetic during some of the crazier scenes. The overall Production Design is outstanding, from cars that run on autopilot to a really awesome sonic boom gun thingy. Everything about is great.

But what really makes the movie work is its mythology. The future is seen by three individuals, known as Pre-Cogs (Samantha Morton is one of them), who are kept in a water tank at all time and isolated from the cops. How they work, why they work, and why Agatha (Morton) got there is all compelling and really makes you want to know more about this world. Tom Cruise's character is given an admittedly somewhat hammy backstory (his son was taken at a public pool), but Spielberg thankfully never gives us any closure on that thread, which makes it more powerful and more true to life.

My roommate Ben brought up on interesting theory about the ending: when Anderton is eventually apprehended, he is put into Tim Blake Nelson's holding cell, and is he lowered into the catacombs, Nelson says, "All your dreams become reality." (something along those lines) After that, everything is in Anderton's head, as the person who set him up kills himself and dramatic improbable things happen.

Whether the ending is in Anderton's head or really happens is irrelevant to me; its still a thrilling conclusion that I love seeing played out again and again. What does matter is that Spielberg crafted one of the greatest entertainments of our time, and a movie I know will hold up for years and years to come.

#10: The Lord of the Rings (2001 - 2003)

If there's one thing we are going to remember this decade by, it's going to be the chart of the American blockbuster: from its heights as a Best Picture winner, to its fall after LOTR 3 won the top prize in 2003. Think about it, the last time an epic, big budget Hollywood movie won Best Picture was LOTR; since then, its been smaller budget pictures all around, with little box office.

I honor LOTR not because it simply won Best Picture, but because the film is also an amazing feat in filmmaking in general. This movie defined Super-deluxe DVDs, with each one detailing hours and hours of exhausting production. I myself only delved into the Fellowship's special features, but anyone who wants to get a very good idea of what kind of heart and suffering it takes to make a movie, this would be a good one to watch (also Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse).

LOTR details the struggles of young Hobbit Frodo (Elijah Wood) to destroy the Ring of Power before the evil Sauron can fully posses it and return to domination. He is aided by Gandalf the Grey/White (Ian McKellen), Sam (Sean Astin), Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), among a wide host of other characters. After Part One, the movies separate into a sprawling saga of Frodo's quest to destroy the ring and Aragorn's quest to less interesting but still awesome and exciting things.

Probably one of the most impressive things about this movie is how wrong it could have gone; most movies dealing with ogres, orcs, elves, and the like are really lame and stupid, and the fantasy genre really ever breaking the mold is unheard of. Yet this movie rose head and shoulders above the rest, and though it is not without its flaws (Liv Tyler, for one, and the six endings of part 3), it still is a masterpiece of filmmaking.

For instance, watching the movies again last year, I was struck by how detailed and precise Peter Jackson, the director, was in keeping scale and frame of reference in mind. Though the Hobbits and Dwarf are played by actors who are average in height, camera trickery and little people are cleverly used to make the "normal" people seem like giants. Of course, now that you know to watch for it you realize the little people in the wide shots really aren't the actors, but it still works.

That, and the movie's perfection of the motion capture technology for the character of Gollum: even six years later, he seems as lifelike and convincing as when he first hit that screen to take the precious. There very few moments in history of true revolution in technology, but this was one, and it convinced James Cameron that computers were advanced enough for him to make Avatar.

The effects work because Jackson doesn't let them dominate the scenery, he uses it to enhance them. This is counter to George Lucas, who instead created most of the sets in his last two Star Wars pics digitally, on Green Screen. The majesty of the mountains, fields, and forests of New Zealand could not be replicated by a computer, and by seamlessly blending special effects with locations, the way they SHOULD be used, he creates a convincing Middle Earth.

And though the movie is long, and I myself have criticized it for its repeated battles, it can't be denied that the films, as a whole, together, are one solid, magnificent piece of filmmaking. True vision like that is hard to find in movies today.

My Top 10 of the 2000s: Introduction

Going back and reviewing an entire year is quite a hefty task; sometimes more then 200 movies can come out, and there is now way for any human to feasibly see them all (unless they are of course paid to see all those movies). Now, expand that to a decade, where there are thousands upon thousands of movies to take from all over the world.

Creating a top 10 list for any decade is impossible, for sure. I have a severe lack of seeing a lot of the international films that came out this year, especially some films Rainer has seen by Thailand filmmakers that sound incredible. It is quite a monumental task to make any list of ten movies (though Ebert has shattered this tradition and makes lists of twenty) that are supposed to represent the best of what the decade had to offer.

And what did come out this decade? Well, it can be remembered as the decade of the superhero movie, for sure, for it was Bryan Singer's X-Men (2000) that kindled the fire of the superhero franchise, and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (2002) that brought the flames to a dull roar. Since then, we've had 3 Spider-Man movies, 4 X-Men movies, 1 Superman movie, 2 Batman movies, 2 Fantastic Four movies, 2 Punisher movies, graphic novel adaptations (Sin City, 300, and Watchmen), 1 Iron Man movie (next one due out in 2010), and 1 Daredevil movie, among countless others that I can't remember off the top of my head. 2007 was also the year of threes, with Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Ocean's Thirteen, Rush Hour 3, The Bourne Ultimatum, and Resident Evil 3 all coming out in a four month period. Some fun things to remember.

In following Ebert's tradition, I have comprised a list of 20 films. Numbers 20 through 11 are unranked and listed alphabetically, but numbers 10 through 1 are ranked. I'll start by releasing that second list of 10, and then tomorrow will start with the unveiling of number 10 on my list. You may ask, "How are you ready to release a top 10 list, when so much of 2009 remains unseen by you?" I have been readily trying this past year to see the rest of the films from this decade, and now I fear that I will just be trying to find the next masterpiece to put on my list, and not pay attention to the movies at all. If something in the next couple of weeks does come out that needs, absolutely needs to make the best of the decade list, then I will modify it and update you all. But really, 2009 is going to get the shaft because you don't get enough time to take in these movies. I, however, have made the judgment, based on what is coming out, that nothing else could possibly crack my top 10.

And so, without further ado, numbers 11 through 20 (ranked alphabetically) of my best of the decade:

The Dark Knight (2008)

Entre les murs (The Class) (2008)

Kill Bill (2003 - 2004)

El Laberinto del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth) (2006)

Memento (2000)

No Country For Old Men (2007)

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Wall•E (2008)

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001)