Slant Magazine

Two quick corrections:

1. Memories of Murder—although a tremendous film—is Bong Joon-ho's SECOND feature-length work (the first would be Barking Dogs Never Bite). Come on.

2. Mission to Mars is neither a good film nor a watchable one.

Anyhoo, neat list thus far. Hope to see some Tarr, Maddin, Dardenne, and Hirokazu Kore-eda over the next few days. Carry on.

Wow...brilliant and a more "essential" set of choices for #s 60-41. Keep it up, guys!

I am loving the look of this list, pure awesome. Looking forward to the final 40 choices.

A wonderful list so far. It's great to see somebody recognizing Svankmajer's Little Otik on one of these, definitely one of the best films I saw this past decade. I imagine Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire will earn a spot near the top of this list (if not the top spot).

Enjoying the list so far. Love the mentions for Marie Antoinette and Dancer in the Dark, even though neither of their appearances are all that surprising. Wish they were a little higher though.

I'm also pleasantly surprised by Ghost World's high placement. Bravo, Slant!! It's been very disappointing to see the film show up on so few decade lists. Did people just forget about it or what? Had a feeling it wouldn't make this one either, since Ed moved it from #6 of '01 to his runners-up section (according to his top 10 page). Obviously, other contributors must've helped Ghost World acquire it's nice ranking. Will we get to see individual lists eventually?

Anyway, looking forward to seeing how high Two Lovers manages to place, and wondering if The New World will manage to beat out one of the more typical choices to top the list.

Keep up the great work guys!

I thought The Virgin Suicides came out in 1999?

Millennium Actress! Swell call. And finally someone has the temerity to locate Tropical Malady in its rightful place above (if only slightly) Syndromes and a Century.

would be somewhat surprised to see anything but Mulholland Drive at the top (maybe In the Mood for Love?), but if Werckmeister Harmonies, Still Walking, Yi Yi, The Son, or Brand Upon the Brain! make appearances as well, I won't complain.

Yeah, lovely list.

I'm predicting Cache at the top spot.

The Wind Will Carry Us, La Commune and Into Great Silence are way too low but I'll let this slide. Great list anyway.

Calling it now: The New World at number 1.

Love the one-two punch of Mulholland Dr./Inland Empire—I sometimes have trouble choosing one over the other. The top five is basically impeccable—good job guys!

Great list. But come on, guys: The Science of Sleep, Amores Perros, Memento. No place in your minds for these masterpieces?

This list turned more traditional than what I expected from an Slant list.

Most of the films listed are phenomenal "in hindsight". I could say this is probably the more significant list of the two pre-eminent ones you guys have just made in the past two weeks. I imagine Far From Heaven higher than where it is now that I see some of your top 20 choices, but otherwise impeccable is the word, akadaniel.

Great list overall. Props to Slant for picking some of the most underrated/overlooked or critically-panned(i.e. misunderstood) films of the decade and not the typical critically-acclaimed stuff that other lists would have included (Dark Knight, Lord of the Ring anyone?)

Although a few choices (or is it preferances) that bothered me: House of Flying Daggers over Hero? WALL-E over Up? A.I. over Minority Report? Not that those former films are bad but the latter films are way better than their "counter-parts". Any reasons? Oh, and a little disappointed that Requiem for a Dream is only at 100. I was expecting it to be much higher.

I echo everyone's comments; fantastic list, easily the best I've seen. I'd go Inland Empire over Mulholland but no matter, both are masterpieces as you suggest. Keep it up.

A great list. So glad to see In the Mood for Love, one of the loveliest films ever to watch on a rainy night. Would like to have seen Fabian Belinsky's La Aura mentioned though.

No Haneke, Maddin, or Shyamalan? You guys could have taken time out from the Denis love to at least recognize one of them. Other than that, terrific list.

A damn fine list, with uniformly excellent capsules to boot. If I'm doomed to be practically on my own in not really caring for Inland Empire (maybe I should watch it again?) it's great to see several of my favourite films of the decade make an appearance (specifically: Femme Fatale and A.I. Artificial Intelligence). Mission to Mars is arguably the most inspired choice of them all.

@trixster: Which Shyamalan would you suggest? I'm guessing either Unbreakable or Signs, given how poor the rest of his output was.

This is a very fine list. Surprised none of the Lord of the Rings films made it, considering how high they were rated on this site.

@Tom Elce: IMO, Shyamalan's best film of the last decade was The Village. But of course it would never make Slant's list.

@Tom I would say Unbreakable, but it's kind of misguided to call the rest of his output poor, especially as you defend Mission to Mars!

Great list let me however add some comments:

Like Starburst already stated I would put Hero over The House of Flying Daggers.

Russian Ark and Audition should be higher up on the list.

I hated both War of the Worlds and to me AI should have ended 30 minutes earlier I don't think either deserve to be on the list.

The title of the late Fabian Bielinsky's film is El Aura.

Glad to see the brothers Dardenne finally make it to the list. Both great films especially The Son. Also great that you recovered some under the radar masterpieces like Yi Yi and George Washington from the beginning of the decade. I just realized Kill Bill was not on this List, that's F&%?D UP!...

Thanks for the clearup, Rob. Understood.

Will you guys be publishing a honorable mention (Rest of the Best) for this list like the one for the Singles and Albums list?

Of Course I don't mean to start a discussion about every movie I think deserves to be on the list or not, just wanted to add bit of my personal opinion.

Another issue that I have not only on this list but in criticicism in general is that there seem to be almost mo comedies in high regard when making a list of the best movies. I can't count more than a handfull in this list of movies with important comedic tones. I can think of more than a handfull of great comedies over the last decade from different origins, none of which made it to the list. Now I can't really state that these films have are head to head better than other films on the list(I've seen about 40% of the films listed). But I can't help but think that film criticism in general regards comedies at a lower level than other genres. I wonder what others think?

I don't think film critics regard comedy as something lesser, but if a film's most lasting impression, months and years after watching it, is that it provided a lot of laughs, that it was a "great comedy," that's probably just not going to cut it for a best-of-the-decade list...Those films on the list that feature memorable comedic elements are in because they ultimately achieve something thematically richer—that's what's going to keep a film remembered for a project like this.

But I also kind of think you create an unnecessary problem in the first place by using a clear-cut genre to label certain types of films. It's occasionally helpful, even possibly necessary to do I realize, but it limits how we see these selected films, which are more diverse than the way you've phrased your concerns suggest.

Having Mulholland Drive at the top really makes me happy enough not to complain. Plus the top ten also had In The Mood For Love and The Son while other gems such as Before Sunset, Far from Heaven, Ghost World and Spirited Away also featured on the list, regardless of their positions. So overall, its a great list. Just felt there were some glaring omissions; yeah, the Michael Haneke omission—after Cache is one of his best films; 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days was also excellent enough to be on this list and finally some populist choices—almost expected The Dark Knight and LOTR to figure at least somewhere on the list.

I'm slightly amazed and slightly depressed at the presence of Wolf Creek, not to mention slightly appalled by Shager's choice of words in his summary: so the protagonists were "foolish enough to view the world as a playground rather than a hostile battlefield"...? This was the 'subtext' he saw in the film? He makes it sound like an audience is supposed to nod their heads sadly and say, "Well, you have to agree that they had it coming; not from any particular sin, but merely from their innocence, and from being less psychotic and homicidal than the man they so stupidly placed their trust in..." Maybe Shager sees the three tourists as 'arrogant' rather than 'innocent'; is this in fact the case, Nick? Your argument for the quality and worthiness of this film may well even have validity, but I'm not convinced I want to put myself through it again to find out if I agree...until that day comes when I change my mind, I will likely remember Wolf Creek as nothing more than a skilful exercise in empty savagery and nihilism, which in my book makes it a candidate for "Most Reprehensible" rather than "Best"...

Intimacy 91? While there is some fine scenes near the end of the movie, it's still only an average, uneven film which deliberately wanted to create controversy with unsimulated fellatio scene.

Chereau does not look like a totally honest filmmaker to me because of that, more like a sensationalist one.

Me again. Firstly, I feel it is pertinent to point out for clarity's sake that I am a 27-year-old Australian male, but one who has undertaken little-to-no travelling into the desolate inner heart of his own country, and certainly not in the manner, and to the extent, of the protagonists of Wolf Creek. Secondly, sorry about the spelling, NS (as I shall refer to you from now on for simplicity's sake). As to the subject of our disagreement, I've come to realise that Wolf Creek presents a rather annoying conundrum for me in terms of criticism/analysis, because while it's one of those films that I feel compelled to express my negative feelings towards, I am also singularly reluctant to re-watch the film in order to either qualify/validate or revise my initial perceptions, or to assess the validity of arguments put forward by supporters of the film such as yourself; I am grudgingly aware that I shall eventually have to put up or shut up on this subject, especially since I will freely admit to abandoning the film before the concluding minutes, when the extraction-of-wrists-through-nails-in-close-up-mixed-with-savage-dogs scene drove me out of the darkened theatre seeking sunlight and water, for fear of my earlier-consumed snack food being driven up-and-out of my traumatised tummy (I returned once I felt sufficiently nausea-free, only to be greeted by credits...)

Having considered your reply as best I can, I have concluded that your interpretation is valid, plausible, and clearly the work of a sharp and thoughtful mind, one that seems to consider the film to have the worth and power of a 'tragedy' rather than a mere 'thriller'...Maybe the difference in our opinions of Wolf Creek stems from this basic disagreement; while you are generously willing to give in-depth consideration to aspects of the film such as thematic concerns, morality, etc, I came away from the film thinking that it hardly deserved such analysis and thought expended on it, and dismissed it as 'talent and ambition and energy and skill applied to worthless and unrewarding material that no amount of talent could redeem' (I imagine that the late/great Gene Siskel's feelings on The Silence of the Lambs upon its initial release could be accurately summed up that way as well, yet I consider Silence one of my favourite films; I'm sure it could be interesting to discuss and speculate on how/why I can praise one and not the other, but I'm aware that I'm babbling on as it is!)

In the end, I suspect my reaction to the film can be attributed to my nervous system (rather than my intellect or sense of morality) telling me to reject the experience of Wolf Creek and to run (and stay) far away from it...This is one of the reasons I know that I could never be a professional critic, regardless of ability and despite my enthusiasm & love for cinema & writing, because I recognise that my personal tolerance levels, where violence & horror are concerned, have long been surpassed by many of today's directors, and I doubt that anyone could pay me enough to sit through even the likes of Hostel...I recognise that this type of reaction will inhibit my ability both to analyse & consider the film (and potentially other films of its type) in the manner in which you, NS, have done and are able to do...On that note, thank you for your reply, and for allowing me and others the opportunity to comment here in the first place!

And hey! Even though it gives me little joy to do so, at least we can agree about Avatar. :-)

No Children of Men in the top 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50? Slant Magazine is losing it.

ATTN: Tom Elce!

Just wanted to provide you with some evidence that you're not alone in your feelings about Inland Empire: http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s2081564.htm

This is a link to the reviews by David Stratton and Margaret Pomeranz, Australia's two most prominent senior film critics on television; their show is basically the equivalent of the American At the Movies (and it sometimes feels as though these two have been around almost as long as Siskel and Ebert were!) Bear in mind that the text is a transcript of the televised conversation between the two of them about the film (maybe one day the ABC will get around to archiving the visual/audio versions!)

I'm so glad you placed A New World near the top of the list! I love Terrence Malick, and wish his film would have gotten more attention when it was released.

Check out my reviews on of some of your other picks on my site Carly's Critiques: Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man, Wendy and Lucy.

What about Ramin Bahrani's films: Man Push Cart; Chop Shop; Goodbye Solo

There's good reason Ebert has called Bahrani the great new American film director.

Much like Altman and Kiarostami, Bahrani focuses on character development.

"not loving Mission to Mars seems like not loving life"

I created an account just so that I could say THANK YOU! and EXACTLY!

and I'm going to quote you on that. I usually just say "y'all hatas don't deserve Mission to Mars."

Love the list. Special thank you for putting in The Gleaners And I (Ed, you didn't happen to watch that on *my recommendation, did you? .. *blush). DL going 1-2 is adequate compensation for relegating Russian Ark to #84

I wish there were some way to just make this page my Netflix queue.

I think Ed was just teasing us with that post. I'm willing to be we'll never see the rest of the Top 250.

i know that every comment herein is a variation on the "can't believe you put this here, not there," but, let me say: impressive, impressive list (well, only really on considering the work of your competition), sure, but here's my own one personal query:

you have 'rachel's getting married' (embarrassing benetton-rainbow hipster-fantasy-wedding with sub-festen revelations/camerawork), 'the fountain' (an enjoyable debacle powered by genuine hubris, not a great film), 'the pledge' (hamfisted hoo-ha acting that mistakes condescending slumming for social conscience), 'best of youth' (a tv mini-series, in both conception and artistry), 'in the city of sylvia' (a loving shrine to stalking, leering, "the muse", and other forms of rank misogyny), 'wolf creek' (another witless scary-movie in which an invincible-to-the-point-of-omnipotence serial killer terrorises semi-clothed women), and the utterly reprehensible 'tarnation' (in which a talentless hack makes music-videos out of his mother's suffering) on your list. these are really, really bad selections.

to only make matters worse, you left out three undeniable works of something close to genius: steve mcqueen's body-as-artwork resistance masterpiece 'hunger', cristian mungiu's faultless '4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days', and marina de van's auto-cannibalistic ouroboros-as-body-horror provocation 'in my skin'. show me the man who thinks 'tarnation' is superior to these films, and you'll show me a rank fool.

I completely agree that this is an ad hominem block of comments, but let me remind you, sir what's-your-name: a ballot system was utilized for this decade-end composite list and not a particular person but a cluster of critics helped envoy Tarnation to its 71st place. I haven't seen the film so I wouldn't come up with a legit argument. I could argue, however, that if some of the films you've mentioned are bad selections and are not bad movies per se, most of the choices ranked higher than Russian Ark may be considered as such. With respect to your description of Rachel Getting Married, I sincerely think it is "embarrassingly human".

While I've always liked how you all champion fine films that tend to get dismissed by mainstream critics, I get dismayed at how often you balance out those good deeds by praising drivel. I am happy that some smaller and generally neglected movies end up on your list here (Munich, Two Lovers, The Wind Will Carry Us) and surprised to see the absence of Hong Sang-soo. Well.

Inglourious Basterds is a sadistic, stupid movie with a stupid title made by a man who never stopped being a wannabe-cool 17-year-old who thinks that REVENGE is the most splendid thing in the whole wide world (he makes movies and is famous, his revenge on all his wee grade school bullies, one assumes), who doesn't get much fresh air from all his B-movie viewing, and who feels kind of bad that all the bad Nazi men killed those Jews fifty or a hundred years or so ago.

But most depressing and, sadly, most unsurprising, are the continued hosannahs flung at Mr. David Lynch, another great poseur, whose aw-shucks-'50s-suburban-boy-who-makes-dark-movies-about-his-subconscious schtick is repeatedly lapped up by just about every film critic under the sun. Mulholland Dr is fairly watchable, and though insanely pretentious and vacuous at least has the decency to include a couple fairly good lesbian love scenes. On the other hand, the excruciating Inland Empire is proof positive that any turkey with enough acclaim under him can take a three hour-long dump onstage and his fanboys will applaud it as the most significant statement of our times. Peace.

Rob, thanks for the welcome. I don't like to come in and be critical. If I could have not seen Tarantino and David Lynch for the thousandth time grace someone's "Best of" list I would have rested marvelously. As it stands I still rest marvelously. But sometimes you get a pebble in your shoe, you know?

And it's nice to see several movies that I really like—"The Son," "Tropical Malady," "In the City of Sylvia," "Two Lovers," to name a few—here. But to put a great and underrated movie on the list—"Munich," Spielberg's best film—one that really takes revenge and its repercussions seriously, and does so with enormous sympathy, and treats none of its characters as caricature, or as a stuffed duck to be blown away at its creator's whim—with Tarantino's glorified cartoon, just seems a little tragic to me. I will admit that the man has talent. I will admit that the opening scene of "Basterds" is indeed impressively done, though the movie goes well downhill from there. And though we can agree that drivel about striped pajamas and whatnot can be safely ignored, that can't be used to prop up Tarantino's lazy, teenage boy view of history and the world. The violence in "Munich" isn't glorified, and each time leaves a stain on its avengers, while the giddy fight-fascism-with-fascism, which seems to be the moral of Tarantino (and George Bush, among others)—like all the director's work—is hard to take seriously. Applauding the movie just because the "good guys" win in Tarantino's "alternative history" does the actual events a disservice (I have a plot for Tarantino's next smug yawner: a band of Hiroshima survivors parachutes into Washington and blows away Harry Truman).

The Nazi era is one of the 20th century's darkest stretches and has been treated a number of times with genuine artistry and intelligence in literature and in film—that the reductive, nasty, "Basterds" is mistaken for art or intelligence by the majority of film critics today is worrying.

So happy to see my favorite movie, Ghost World, included. I saw it the year I graduated high school; stirring up obvious feelings. Also happy to see Wendy & Lucy on the list.

You guys must have compromised with each other- I doubt whoever picked War of the Worlds, Miami Vice or Big Fish also put in votes for GW or W&L.

Great list. Too much Spielberg. Munich is sucker art; the dumbest, most deceitful, most superficial "terrorist" movie out there (we are all family, we are all the same, but oh, that's only because the film is too chicken to show Israeli colonisation!). War of the Worlds is 9/11 exploitation. Lynch in the top two may irk some, but is arguably deserved. 35 Shots of Rum and Wendy and Lucy? Brilliant inclusions. As is Ghost World, an offbeat but good choice. Nice to see The Son, Mission to Mars, Platform and Pulse. Crimson Gold is arguably too high. The New World is weak Malick. Put it lower. Femme Fatale? Good film, but seriously? Where's Tarr, Kiarostami or Godard? Inglorious Basterds is good, and better than many of the films on this list, but still not top 100 material. Miami Vice? Brave choice, underrated film. Big Fish is tripe. Eternal Sunshine is overrated. Boarding Gate? Genius choice. Wall-E? Horrible. Hurt locker? Horrible. A Serious Man? Horrible. Still Life? Genius. Loving the Claire Denis championing. Overrall, a good list.

In Audition she says she did ballet not ice skating. Great list though, although No Country For Old Men should be much higher.

Hammer, you're a cliche