The MoFo Top 100 of the 2010s Countdown

I'll gracelessly use this as an excuse to link to my essay on the other film, as well:

Boyhood, Bears, and Roger Bannister

I did the first and I had a different response, but I would, wouldn't I?

If you watch anything on a moblie phone you get what you deserve.

That's right, I've only gone and seen a film. Not only that, I put it on my list and so Gravity is the first (and probably only) film to show up. I had it at #9. I wondered where to put Gravity. I didn't greatly enjoy it (it's ok) and my experience in the cinema wasn't good, but it was the last film I saw at the cinema and the only one which would qualify for this list. Plus, for all the negatives I had with it, it did give me one beautiful cinema experience which no other film can and for that I felt a top 10 place on my list was deserved.

The negatives were mostly to do with the cinema and the perils of 3D. I'd not seen a 3D film since the 80's and after hearing so much about Gravity it really did feel like if I was going to see one, I really should make the effort to make this film that one. Now, the effect was technically really well achieved, not really necessary, but well achieved and it did work well for the kind of film it is. So what were the problems? Firstly, I don't wear glasses (or didn't then, I'm getting old now so to read I have to now) so having them on my face was annoying and I was always aware of them. Secondly, light loss. I'd heard that you had 22% light loss with 3D (I think that's the right %) but I was really surprised just how much that mattered, especially with this film. I'd wrongly thought that as much/most of the screen was dark/black much of the time it'd matter less, but I guess it matters more. This meant lifting the glasses fairly often to see if I could see any better withouth them (obviously not as it was 3D) so now I can't see properly and the glasses are annoying me. Thirdly, it was too light in the cinema (IMO) which obviously didn't help with the light loss and further distracted me.

The film itself is fine. An incredibly small film which could quite easily be put on as a play with a few people and couple of sets, writ large as a cinematic rollercoaster inventing the tech it needed to allow you to see it the way it wanted to be seen. Everything else is down to the individual and what they bring to the party. I felt that was the point. Once you get past the whizz-bang effects, it's a small, personal film so if you give it nothing, you'll take nothing because there's nothing else there and vise versa, as many of you have already demonstrated since its reveal.

I think the only part that didn't work for me (in the film as opposed to the cinema experience) was that being alone and isolated in space isn't terrifying to me at all. It's quite comforting in fact and, back when I saw this, almost the ideal.

Ah, I almost forgot. The beautiful experience it gave me was the scene when she's crying. In the cinema, she starts crying and, suddenly, I noticed that the tears were no longer on the screen. They were floating out over the audience and towards me and I sat there in utter disbelief and complete joy at it. It's about the only thing in the film which I remembered really well until I saw it again on tv about 5 or 6 years ago. For the record, I liked it more then as I could see the bloody thing but it wasn't an experience in the slightest.

WTF does that even mean?

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Haven't seen Boyhood. The Irishman is about the most Scorsese thing anyone can watch. HOWEVER... there's not enough Joe Peeci or Anna Paquin. 9/10.

Seen 42/70. So exactly 60%.

One vote. The Irishman was my #21. Not in any danger of becoming Scorsese's masterpiece of either this decade or in general, but at the same time it's hard not to think that if this were to be the final film (which, knock wood, it doesn't) then it reads like the ultimate statement from one of modern cinema's ultimate elder statesmen. Maybe it's easy to regard certain aspects - the considerable length, the de-aging effects, the familiar mobster narrative - as flaws that drag the film down, but at the same time it's hard not to see them as features rather than bugs when it comes to telling the strange and terrible tale of Frank Sheeran and his mindlessly mechanistic approach to serving the Mafia up to and including how he handles conflicted loyalty to Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. As a result, it's tempting to treat this as Scorsese's absolute final word on the matter with which he has become so closely associated and therefore something resembling an Unforgiven for mob movies. As for Boyhood, I do like Linklater and this film in particular, but the sizeable runtime and largely uneventful narrative do make it hard to think of as a major achievement outside of his notorious plan to shoot the whole thing over the course of 12 years. His capacity for making something out of nothing has served him well over the past 30-odd years, but even on his most major film it still leaves room to question whether he really made the most of it.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Boyhood is the kind of film where I enjoyed the craft more than I enjoyed the film. The production/ambition is impressive, but as a story, I found it rather bland and dull to sit through. On one hand, I appreciated that the film didn't try to go for numerous big story elements and instead unfolded the way you'd expect for the average person's childhood to unfold, but on the other hand, I haven't felt the urge to revisit it at all.

The Irishman didn't make my ballot, but it's definitely among Scorsese's best films. The way it starts off aping the beats of Goodfellas, only to gradually digress to a more solemn and meditative tone as Sheeran's lifestyle begins to take a tole on his family and lifestyle makes for a truly impressive feat.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

34. Gravity (2013, Alfonso Cuarón) 165 points
33. Interstellar (2014, Christopher Nolan) 165 points
32. Boyhood (2014, Richard Linklater) 169 points
31. The Irishman (2019, Martin Scorsese) 170 points

All good films. I really admire Gravity for its visuals, concept and score. Interstellar I need to rewatch, I remember thinking it was too ambitious on 1st watch and was a bit of a second rate 2001. Boyhood is simply brilliant and a tremendous accomplishment. It just missed out on my ballot. I read that Linklater is doing a similar project following a character played by Paul Mescal the course of 40 years !!!!! Can't wait to see it.

The Irishman is an epic but not top tier Scorsese.

No votes.

It had not occurred to me that anyone might like The Irishman enough to put it in their top 25, let alone enough people to get it this high. All bets are off for the top 30. What I mostly remember about it is that it was too long with terrible CGI deaging.


In contrast, Boyhood goes for real time aging. I liked aspects of it but was a little disappointed that it never really goes anywhere in the end from a story perspective. It doesn't really do or say anything more than the real-time conceit and that wasn't enough for me.

I'm not sure which emotion is stronger: admiration for you for noticing this, or disappointment in myself for not.

I haven't seen either of these.

__________________

Never made it through "The Irishman". Felt like I've seen this film before in other Scorsese vehicles.

Oh, and " Boyhood" was my number one. Also one of my favorite films ever. Was hoping it would be top ten, at least.

I haven't seen Boyhood.

The Irishman is my second-least favorite Scorsese (after The Wolf of Wall Street), a person whom I champion much more as the patron of the arts than as a director. Scorsese's revilings spitefully adverted to Marvel are not altogether beside the point, though the American director's flagrantly hazardous choices are closer to what he hates so much than he may think.

Scorsese's control over the cinematic mold is apt, albeit superficial, topped by the use of repellant CGI-generated uncanny valley geriatrics that cover Eastwood-like senile nagging. Expository and inept, the film attempts through aesthetic engineering to obviate the literalism of the violent mob picture, rather than resigning to otiose decadence like in The Wolf of Wall Street.

In spite of this, Scorsese has seasoned his blend of post-gangster kino with the unveiling of dasein by way of ambiguous moral codes. In an articulate cinematic design, which has endured its own impetuousness, Scorsese builds a monument to nobody else but himself. Ironically, computers manage to seemingly cheat time by removing or adding wrinkles but woefully, they fail to de-age other effects of senescence.

Though I hated this film, I have some respect for what Scorsese was trying to do here. Still, to me, this is a completely failed effort. Oh, and something to ponder on: In the final scene, Scorsese keeps the door a little bit open, unlike the door of Mizoguchi that had been entirely closed in his ultimate film, Street of Shame.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

This is a very good review and sums up the film perfectly.

Boyhood was impressive! To me that's what cinematic art experimentation is like. Seeing people for real grow up and grow older as they change and mature is in itself a worthy endeavor for any cinephile...I'm not a cinephile I'm just a regular run of the mill movie fan and yet I still could appreciate the very unique opportunity that Boyhood afforded me. Glad it made the countdown!

And when are the mockumentaries going to show up? I've got four of those bastards on my ballot.

The Irishman Not seen it, don't plan on it. I'm not a Scorsese fan. I do think he's an excellent director I'm just not into the type of subject matter he usually puts on film.

Never seen Boyhood and never had any real interest to, I find the 7 Up documentary series far more appealing and let's face it I've still yet to bother with seeing any of that. Watched The Irishman this month but after the deadline, it's decent enough (as you'd expect, it's hardly Scorsese breaking new ground is it) but the de-ageing was distracting at times and it wouldn't have figured on my ballot.

Seen: 55/70 (Own: 34/70)

Both great movies and contenders for my ballot. I think I cut each of them because I have no yearning to see them again in the near future.

To be fair, we did have What We Do in the Shadows already.

Ah, never even heard of this film.

Linklater:





https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...years-1235414/