Culture Blues

This is it. The main event. The Top 10. You can catch up with 50-36 here and 35-21 here and 20-11 here. Without further ado...

PRO: Quentin Tarantino’s homage to classic Kung Fu revenge movies. I must admit that I liked the fight sequences better in Volume One and the acting and story better in Volume Two.  This movie begs to be edited, sequenced and shown in its proper order.  Quentin Tarantino’s best work in my opinion.  He tried to make David Carradine relevant and cool again a la John Travolta.  RIP David…don’t worry we all know your suicide was a setup and you are just walking the earth like you did in Kung Fu. Tarantino also shows us that women could kick ass in movies as hard, if not harder, than men.  Uma was badass and she knew it.  The fight sequence of The Bride vs. The Crazy 88 was the best of the decade. (Cheese)

CON: Oh yeah, Kill Bill was a great movie. Quentin Tarantino created an epic, martial arts filled revenge flick with modern Hollywood slickness. Well, we didn’t think it was so great. We lost a lot of good men when that crazy bitch came into our restaurant and started hacking people up. Most of us didn’t even do anything, we just ran over to see what was going on. Then we got stabbed! For us, Kill Bill is like that snuff film from 8mm that freaks out Nic Cage so bad. We will never forget. (The Crazy 88)

PRO: Anyone feeling the least bit pensive about the state of American filmmaking should avoid this one.  It's as vital and challenging as most Hollywood output is flaccid and pointless.  Without giving too much away (we wouldn't want that, would we?) Oldboy isn't what you've heard.  It's not a thriller, precisely.  It's also not an action flick - not exactly.  And it certainly isn't a romance.  Or is it?  In retrospect, this might be the first film since Terry Gilliam's Brazil that really does earn the label of sui generis.  Suffice to say that it's an experience you won't soon forget.  If you were to put a gun to my head (please don't) I'd say that it's a film about love and revenge - and just how far human beings will go to protect and ensure both.  If that sounds a bit like Memento you're on the right track, but I'd argue that Oldboy is vastly superior for a variety of reasons.  Apart from anything else, Oldboy serves as a superb introduction to the cinema of Park Chan-wook, whose body of work is among the finest in recent memory.  He's the genuine article. (Kieran)

CON: I don’t have anything in particular against Oldboy as a film. I guess I’ve just never understood the fuss, nor do I understand its place so high on this list. Oldboy has always struck me as a sort of Asia 101 for film buffs. Haven’t seen a lot of what the Asians have to offer? Just tell your friends you’re really into Oldboy! They’ll think you’re probably pretty cool. Hell, you can probably lie and tell them that you’ve seen all of Chan-wook Park’s Vengeance Trilogy, and they won’t know the difference. Why? Because they’ve only seen Oldboy! This is a solid flick, but it’s strictly entry level. The Host and Infernal Affairs (mentioned earlier on this list) are both superior to Oldboy. If you like teens getting their heads blown off (who doesn’t?) Battle Royale is a lot more fun. Or maybe seek out the woefully underappreciated Save the Green Planet!. It’s time to move on from Oldboy. (Jeff)

PRO: The award for most divisive movie of the decade goes to Richard Kelly’s Southland Tales. Manohla Dargis and Nathan Lee (of the NY Times and Village Voice, respectively) both listed Southland in their Top 10 of 2007. On the other hand, Roger Ebert compared it unfavorably to Vincent Gallo’s disastrous Brown Bunny. The film is so polarizing precisely because it is so mystifyingly unique, so absolutely out of its fucking mind. Kelly’s sprawling Los Angeles epic about an amnesiac movie star, or a terror-cell aiding LAPD officer, or his doppelganger, or, well – it’s hard to describe – but suffice it to say, Southland is a wonderful mess, a boldly incoherent satire on the boldly incoherent American media. From the incongruous casting of SNL alums like Cheri Oteri and Amy Poehler as terrorists, to the bizarre Justin-Timberlake-lip-synchs-the-Killers scene that Kelly argues ties the whole movie together, every element of Southland is a challenge to cinematic convention. Forget the angsty contrivances of Donnie Darko, Southland is the true cult classic and without a doubt Kelly’s masterwork. Here, his unhinged genius is given carte blanche to molest viewers for almost two-and-a-half hours. Southland Tales is a riddle of a movie that rewards repeat viewings and yet never ceases to entertain. You’ll likely never see Kelly fully unleashed again, so treasure the experience. (Jeff)

CON: What I don't understand about this movie is this movie. I'm not so obtuse as to bash a movie simply because it’s confusing or, in this case, confounding, however, unlike other filmmakers who dabble in the art of confusion (see:  David Lynch), Richard Kelly’s Southland Tales leaves me with no real desire to rewatch. The images are certainly stunning, but lack the beauty and wonder found in Kelly’s Donnie Darko. As a comparison, Mulholland Drive was in my personal Top 20 of the Decade and that movie doesn't make any sense either. So why does Southland suck? It is horribly miscast, features thoroughly annoying dialogue, and perhaps does too good a job at showing the gratingly annoying aspect of our crass commercial politically inept society. (Carl)

PRO: Based on the Robert Graysmith non-fiction work of the same name, Zodiac is a 2007 David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club) film that tells the now legendary story of a series of San Francisco Bay Area killings that took place in the late 60s and early 70s. Meticulously crafted by Fincher (it is rumored that some scenes required upwards of 70 takes), Zodiac is an enthralling and gripping crime drama that weaves a riveting tapestry of intrigue in a pre-technological, more "naive" era. Immaculately shot using state-of-the-art digital cinematography, this movie will have you appreciating aspects of directing that one does not normally consider; its amazing shot selection and colors truly give the feeling that you are watching a visual achievement. There is an underlying sense of tension in this movie that keeps you engrossed from the opening scene wherein the fate of two clandestine young lovers plays out in grim and real barbarity. From that scene forward we are taken on a dark journey full of subterfuge, ciphers, and obsession, all through the practically mind-shattering perspective of what crime solving was like before the internet and C.S.I. There are scenes in this movie that still play out in my nightmares; there is a downright harrowing murder sequence involving a young couple sharing a moment by Lake Berryessa that you will never forget, and also a scene where Graysmith visits the home of a suspect that will have you forgetting to breathe. A moody gloom and pall hang over this movie, but neither manages to obscure it's greatness. (Giovanny)

CON: I had to IMDB Zodiac before writing this piece. Why? Because this movie is so forgettable. Average at best, and a clear example of a great filmmaker, David Fincher, on an artistic decline that has lasted the whole of this decade. See Panic Room and that lumbering turd The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for further proof. This film is also horribly miscast with Jake Gyllenhaal giving yet another uninspired performance. I don’t see the Jake Gyllenhaal appeal. He looks and acts if he came from the same cloven-hoofed family as Sarah Jessica Parker. I bet he can eat a whole apple in one bite and his “acting” skills don’t surpass stomping his hoof on the ground four times when asked, “what is 2 + 2?” (Carl)

PRO: How’s this for some lofty praise? Children of Men is the best science fiction movie since Blade Runner and, in fact, surpasses it. Alfonso Cuaron has crafted a dystopia to end all dystopias, a world where society’s worst qualities are realized. As an everyman navigating this bleak landscape, Clive Owen is brilliant, playing a put-upon schlub of an action hero, doggedly protecting the last hope of a justifiably doomed population. Owen is someone we tragically overlooked during our countdown of the decade’s badasses, and in Children of Men he turns in an exhilaratingly heartbreaking performance, his finest of an excellent decade (a decade where he also got to call Julia Roberts a cunt). Enough cannot be said for Cuaron’s direction; the oppressive atmosphere, the breathless terror, the set pieces. The long takes! They’re at once beautiful and harrowing, a testament to a filmmaker at the pinnacle of his abilities. I still remember the visceral feeling of the film’s climax; the breathless unblinking excitement of Owen dashing through Cuaron’s madly constructed battleground. Children of Men is utterly remarkable. (Jeff)

CON: Here’s what some jerk from the otherwise reliable AV Club thinks of Children of Men, and why you’re a dumbass for liking it. Blah. (Jeff)

PRO: If all of art is nothing more than storytelling, then movies (with their inherent combination of sensory stimulation) are one of humanity's highest forms of expression. That being said, it has been over a hundred and twenty five years since The Horse in Motion, and in that time we have been exposed to an almost infinite amount of movie permutations; naturally, it is becoming increasingly difficult for filmmakers to create compelling and distinctive works that aren't derivative. Memento is a unique, disorienting, and absorbing movie that captivates its viewer not just with its story, but with its telling as well. Directed by Christopher Nolan (of current Batman fame), Memento is the mind-bending story of Leonard Shelby, a onetime insurance fraud investigator who is "suffering" from anterograde amnesia (his brain is unable to store new memories). Shelby's condition is a result of a severe head trauma that he received during a home invasion which he believes resulted in the rape and murder of his wife. The movie's events unfold in two separate narratives; one in black and white that is told in chronological order, and one in color that is told in reverse; this story-telling device is used superbly and really illustrates the confusion and "disadvantages" of Shelby's condition. Distilled to its essence, this movie is about Shelby's investigation into the events that transpired in his home, and his search for revenge- to say that it is more than that is beyond an understatement. There is a point in Hamlet when the reader becomes aware of the Danish Prince's awareness of his own madness; what was merely a maudlin security blanket/tactful ruse was actually becoming his reality. Hamlet feels remorse for the consequence of his actions to a certain degree (Ophelia), and even begins to worry about his own mental state, providing the reader with a complex and profound insight into insanity... Well, that is the level of masterpiece that this movie reaches. As the viewers start to unravel the truth of Leonard's life, and his condition, they become cognizant of a madness of convenience, an unsolvable riddle that is of Leonard's making, of lucidity that is stifled and ignored. This is, without a doubt, my favorite movie of this decade and would probably make my top 5 all time. (Giovanny)

CON: An obvious gimmick picture concluding with a soulless twist, its paralleling reverse-time fragmented narrative structure renders it a useless absurdity and paean to homicidal badassery. Defenders will praise its editing for allowing the viewer to properly get into the character's head, but let's get real: Selby isn't experiencing his creation story in forward time simultaneous to the film's main events, nor does he witness action outside of his own experience.  It's not expressive: it's Final Cut 101.  Looking back, I can see that it remains better than anything else in the banal filmography of Christoper Nolan, probably because of its absence of attempted wit--its Big Film Ideas couldn't be lazier. From the Jankis MacGuffin to Carrie Anne-Moss's embarrassing vomit of swears, the film frequently sidesteps its own misdirection to let the audience wallow in its ass backward bolstering of personal corruption. (Sven)

PRO: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a fantastical story powered by the emotions of loss and regret that most everybody can relate to. It’s a special effects bonanza in the best possible way, full of striking images, innovative techniques and an earnest sense of wonder. It’s a movie that offers a drastically different experience on first viewing, second viewing and third viewing. Eternal Sunshine is anchored by two tremendous performances from Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet that don’t get enough recognition. Through all the craziness, they never allow anything to overtake the emotional aspects of the story. A story about a very believable kind of love. A love that is unsure and risky and painful and perhaps doomed, but one that the characters are willing to pursue anyway. (Jeremiah)

CON: First of all Jim Carrey just sucks. Whether he’s playing an animal detective, Andy Kauffman or Harry S. Truman, it just doesn’t matter because his donkey smile and cornball delivery make every bad movie he’s in even worse. But Sunshine isn’t all his fault. Charlie Kauffman wrote another seemingly interesting script that becomes a meaningless masturbatory exercise in building moments and themes on top of one another until the viewer becomes so confused they don’t realize they are watching a piece of shit movie. All that aside, my main problem with this story is that it fails to accomplish what is most important to a viewer when watching a love story. The viewer has to want the couple to be together. The two main characters are so painfully annoying to watch and honestly the type of people you would try to avoid at all costs in real life that I couldn’t care less if they fell in or out of love. Therefore, leaving me with no interest in the un-climatic climax in this orgy of mediocrity.  (Carl)

PRO: They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So where does parody lie on that paradigm? In this instance an absolute joyous homage to the zombie movie genre. As a guilt free fan of zombie movies I enjoyed every second of Shaun of the Dead as a hilarious parody and, simultaneously, a genuine and fantastic addition to the genre. Writers Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright obviously love zombie movies as much as I do and their sincere adoration is evident in every scene. The serious themes of zombie films incorporate the un-winnable grind against death and society’s destruction, as well as the fight for one’s sense of self in an ever-conforming world. What Shaun of the Dead adds to these themes is the necessity to find moments of laughter while our inevitable and imminent demise lies outside the pub doors. Ahhh… life, you bitch. This movie ranks along side of the best of George Romero’s zombie work and is my pick for best movie of the decade. (Carl)

CON: As we got further along with this list, it became harder and harder to come up with cons for movies our panel universally appreciated. Sometimes we went with a joke (see #2) and sometimes we resorted to thin devil's advocacy (see #1), but for Shaun of the Dead, we are simply breaking the rules. There is no con for this movie. It is charming and frightening, hilarious and touching. It manages to be both a pitch perfect love letter to the zombie genre and also a film which transcends it’s genre. It is damn near perfect. So if someone out there legitimately dislikes this Shaun of the Dead, please tell us why. By the way, you're probably a zombie. (Jeff)

PRO: This entry will begin as a retraction—nay—an acknowledged omission. Where was Li’l Zé (or better yet Lil’ Dice, his younger incarnation) on Culture Blues’s badasses of the decade list? That crazy muthafucka showed us how the law is laid down in the Brazilian favelas, and director Fernando Meirelles brought it to us through stunning footage. The movie is so beautiful, even the yellow subtitles give me chills. In decade’s-end retrospect, you could say Slumdog Millionaire tried to be CoG, but all its bullshit kitsch got in the way. Sorry India, my sympathy remains with Rio’s poverty struggle and the transitions of their ghetto dwellers. The visuals, cuts and music of CoG’s opening sequence foreshadow the brilliance of the two hours that follow it. Clanging knives, running chickens and two factions of weapon-toting hoodlums, and you know you’re in for some insane shit.  From there, CoG craftily mixes folklorish storytellling with guns-and-drugs wildness. The Brazilian film skillfully plays with time, place and history, while the highs and lows of innocence and evil are showcased through a set of memorable characters. We could all find ourselves in that movie somewhere. You’re either L’il Zé or you’re Buscapé. Or you’re Benny and don’t know what the fuck you are. Or you’re all of them. CoG is one of those movies that came out of nowhere and hit you so hard that you can still remember today exactly where, when and with whom you experienced the cinematic masterpiece. (Zach)

CON: Man, I hate this movie. This was a PR nightmare for us. Our country is supposed to be synonymous with beautiful beaches and beautiful women.  Not little fucking kids with guns who’ll shoot anybody without a thought. Who get their jollies by robbing, torturing and murdering people. You know who that scares? Everybody! Man, this was bad. And totally unfair. So what, we have a little drug trade. We have a little problem with poverty in some certain well segregated areas. Look, we even mark them on your map with a gun, as in “don’t go here, you’ll get accosted.” Well, it’s all behind us now anyway. See you in 2016 for the Olympics! (Murilo Santoro, VP of the Rio Board of Tourism)

PRO: The Royal Tenenbaums represents Wes Anderson at the height of his considerable powers. The tale of three brilliant siblings, who have become a neurotic, a recluse and a failure respectively, and how they deal with the reappearance of their scheming, ignoble dad is, ultimately, about reconciliation. That theme is woven into every character’s arc in a way that always seems earned and organic rather than trite and contrived. That’s no small feat in a film as meticulously crafted as this one. Visually, it is crisp, clean and colorful. The songs are infectious and perfectly utilized. The character designs are like something out of a comic book – iconic and larger than life. And Gene Hackman and Anjelica Huston keep everything centered with subtle touches that offset some of the film’s exaggerated aspects. Their quiet moments are among the film’s most indelible. When they take a walk, and Royal tells her that she has more “grit, fire and guts” than any woman he has ever met, Etheline smiles and remarks on these “little expressions” of Royal’s. This brings a look of great contentment and pride to his face. Her amusement, and the premium he places on her opinion of him goes a long way to explaining their romance, which at times is nothing more than a distant memory.  This film’s ability to match such well executed character dynamics with all the humor and quirk that Wes Anderson is known for makes it a film we will be enjoying for decades to come. (Jeremiah)

CON: Don't get me wrong, I love The Royal Tenenbaums. It would likely be one of my all time desert island movies. Pretty much any Wes Anderson movie makes me happy, but this one most of all. And yet, when naming it Movie of the Decade, we have to examine the damage it has done to our society. Wes Anderson, with his obsessive attention to detail, disaffected dialogue, and quirky characters, became the progenitor of hipster douchebag cinema. It hasn't been good. In fact, the imitators (and they are numerous) are an affront to everything that is smart and original in film. Directors like the abominable Jared Hess (creator of the horrific Napoleon Dynamite and the recently panned Gentlemen Broncos) exist because of Wes Anderson and The Royal Tenenbaums. Other turds in the hipster douchebag filmography that deserve our scorn? Garden State, Igby Goes Down, Smart People, Broken Flowers, etc. The myriad imitators have only served to tarnish Anderson's reputation and water down his style. Not to mention he did that fucking Visa commercial. I'm glad that Tenenbaums exists, but in the grand scheme of cinema, was it worth all the shit that’s come since? (Jeff)

With our massive countdown complete, we’d like to give credit to everyone who helped out with this list. If someone contributed to Culture Blues this year, then they contributed to the writing of this series, and if you like them, you should seek them out elsewhere on this website. Thanks to everyone.

Editors:  Jeff Hart and Jeremiah White

Panelists:  Giovanny Caquias, Carl Alter, Cheese, Bill Magee, John Burgman, Kieran Walsh

Contributors:  Zach Falk, Jason Arican (sorry about Hero), Sven Svensson

Next decade we hope to have a woman on our panel. Sorry, Angela.

Now please proceed to the comment section to rip us all new ones.