# What do you think of the films 177 critics picked as the best of the 2000s? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 30, 2017, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706 "2017-05-30T06:51:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/41 "2017-06-01T20:40:27Z")
It’s not a justification I’d make, and if it were up to me, the list would probably end up consisting mostly of science fiction (including both recent “individual stranded in space by an accident and must use wits to survive and get back” movies, because both were very good). But it’s a justification that _could_ be made, and often does seem to be, on lists like this. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/42 "2017-06-01T20:49:06Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > And yeah, picking “best of the 2000s” in 2016 is like citing something that happened in 2001 as the “crime of the century”. Are people finding it hard to read this bit? “The best that cinema has had to offer since 2000 as picked by 177 film critics from around the world.” ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/43 "2017-06-01T22:17:13Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Are people finding it hard to read this bit? > > “The best that cinema has had to offer since 2000 as picked by 177 film critics from around the world.” I assume they’re reading it, but feel we should wait until 2100? That seems extreme. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/44 "2017-06-02T02:19:31Z")
I see a list with several movies I was so bored by I didn’t bother to finish (Mulholland Drive, WALL-E, Melancholia, The Return, Ratatouille, Zodiac), some decent movies, many I’ve never heard of, and pretty much my least favorite movie ever, Lost in Translation. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/45 "2017-06-02T03:05:41Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Are people finding it hard to read this bit? > > “The best that cinema has had to offer since 2000 as picked by 177 film critics from around the world.” Even if that wasn’t there, it’s pretty clear that there’s an implied “so far” at the end of the OP. Christ, this place sometimes… ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/46 "2017-06-02T03:28:18Z")
Yeah, it’s not about “The Century”, it’s about “recently”, with the arbitrary cutoff for “recent” chosen at a nice round year. ---
**Author:** ![Tarwater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@Tarwater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tarwater)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/47 "2017-06-02T04:20:09Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > If “Mulholland Drive”'s appearance at number 1 signifies that it was the consensus #1 among 177 film critics, then we need a better class of film critics. I like _Mulholland Drive_, but it’s such an obvious darling among people who work in the film industry. I don’t know how a film critic could call it the best film of the 21st century without feeling just a little ashamed of themselves. ---
**Author:** ![eunoia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eunoia/32/97_2.png) [@eunoia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eunoia)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/48 "2017-06-02T04:43:34Z")
I’ve seen 86. **MovieMogul** mentioned a few omissions I’d agree with, also noticed the clear snub of Academy choices. I suppose they wanted to demonstrate their critical superiority. Any such list will be controversial and potentially infuriating to anyone who loves movies, I remember the AFI top 100 generating much discussion, civil and otherwise 😃 Ultimately lists are nothing to take too seriously. Best case they motivate you to see films you haven’t heard of to try to gut them out to figure out what’s so great about them. Same survey next year sees new favorites “elevated.” Great art isn’t always immediately recognized. Often never. My list might have a Dardennes, a Mike Leigh, definitely some documentaries, definitely some Greek New Wave, definitely a Gus Van Sant, definitely a Naomi Kawase, more (or better!) female directors, definitely a Fabián Bielinsky, definitely my favorite Québec filmmaker named Denis…wait for it…Côté. Most of these I strongly agree with. Generally, if I go to the arthouse I’ll like 7/10 and if I go to the plex I’ll like 3/10 and that ratio has been pretty solid for a long time. I’d never avoid either, though. With that said, it’s no favoritism to fill the list with Coens, Jarmusches and both flavors of Andersons. There are many, many, excellent American movies. Neither am I wistful for some golden past that never was; there have been plenty of duds in every decade of the past 100 years. Films are getting better, not worse. Here’s a few more unranked, let’s call them “worth seeings” for various reasons: 2046 - (2004) Kar Wai Wong Adaptation (2002) Spike Jonze A Man Called Ove (2015) Hannes Holm American Psycho (2000) Mary Harron Amores Perros (2000) Alejandro González Iñárritu Best In Show (2000) Christopher Guest Brick (2005) B12 Rian Johnson Brodre (2004) Susanne Bier Calvary (2014) McDonagh Cave of the Yellow Dog (2005) Byambasuren Davaa Celda 211 (Cell 211)(2009) Daniel Monzón Chevalier (2015) Athina Rachel Tsangari Cloud Atlas (2012) Wachowski-Tykwer Control (2008) Anton Corbijn Curling (2010) Denis Côté Der Untergang aka Downfall (2004) Oliver Hirschbiegel Dogtooth Kynodontas (2009) Yorgos Lanthimos El Aura (2005) Fabian Bielinsky Elle (2016) Paul Verhoeven Enemy At The Gates (2001) J-J Annaud Enter The Void (2009) Gaspar Noë Entre Les Murs (2008) Laurent Cantet Gangs of New York (2002) Martin Scorsese Gascoigne (2015) Jane Preston DOC Gegen die wand (Head-On )(2004) Fatih Akim Ghost World (2001) Terry Zwigoff Gomorrah (2008) Matteo Garrone Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) George Clooney Habemus Papam (2011) Nanni Moretti Happy Go Lucky (2008) Mike Leigh Herb And Dorothy (2008) Megumi Sasaki DOC Hunger (2008) Steve McQueen Insomnia (1997) Erik Skjoldbaerg Innocence (2004) Lucile Hadzihalilovic Irréversible (2002) Gaspar Noé Jagten (The Hunt) (2012) Thomas Vinterberg Juno (2007) Jason Reitman Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) Shane Black Kitchen Stories (Salmer fra kjøkkenet)(2003) Bent Hamer Kontroll (2003) Nimród Antal Krugovi (2013) Srdan Golubovic L (2012) Babis Makridis La Môme (La Vie en Rose)(2007) Olivier Dahan Last Life In the Universe (Ruang rak noi nid mahasan)(2003) Pen-Ek Ratanaruang Layer Cake (2004) Matthew Vaughn Le Grand Soir (2012) Delépine-Kervern L’Enfant (2005) Dardennes Little Miss Sunshine (2006) Dayton-Faris Man On Wire (2008) James Marsh DOC Me And You And Everyone We Know (2005) Miranda July Mogari no mori (The Mourning Forest) (2007) Naomi Kawase Mongol (2007) Sergei Bodrov Monsieur Lazhar (2011) P. Falardeau Moon (2009) Duncan Jones Mortel Transfert (2001) Jean-Jacques Beineix Mud (2012) Jeff Nichols Nanayomachi (2008) Naomi Kawase Night Watch (2004) Bekmambetov Nightwatching (2007) Peter Greenaway Papurika (2006) Satoshi Kon Paranoid Park (2007) Gus Van Sant Polisse (2011) Maïwenn Lobesco Riding Giants (2004) DOC Stacy Peralta Sharasojyu (2003) Naomi Kawase Sieranevada (2016) Cristi Puiu also The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (2005) Cristi Puiu Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) Kerry Conran Somm (2012) DOC Jason Wise Spun (2002) Jonas Akerlund Starred Up (2013) David Mackenzie Steak (2007) Quentin Dupieux Sukiyaki Western Django (2007) Takeshi Miike Super Troopers (2001) Broken Lizard Survive Style 5+ (2004) Gen Sekiguchi Sweet Sixteen (2002) Ken Loach Take Shelter (2011) Jeff Nichols Takva (Man’s Fear Of God) (2006) Özer Kiziltan Tamala 2010: A Punk Cat In Space (2003) Tol Team America: World Police (2004) Parker-Stone The Bothersome Man (Den brysomme mannen)(2006) Jens Lien The Broken Circle Breakdown (2012) Felix van Groeningen The Man Without a Past (2002) Aki Kaurismäki Tim’s Vermeer (2013) Penn-Teller DOC Volver (2006) Pedro Almodovar Winter’s Bone (2010) Debra Granik ---
**Author:** ![eunoia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eunoia/32/97_2.png) [@eunoia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eunoia)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/49 "2017-06-02T05:03:19Z")
Back quickly to credit **Chronos** for pointing out the dearth of Academy noms, and to add to the love for _The Lives Of Others_. I have a mantra for when I’m not manning up enough in life. I retreat to a quiet place and repeat _Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck_ over and over. This gives me great strength for some reason. 😃 Edited to add Jeff Nichols to the “definitelys”, he’s one to watch. (See how quickly things change?) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/50 "2017-06-02T05:31:57Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Yeah, it’s not about “The Century”, it’s about “recently”, with the arbitrary cutoff for “recent” chosen at a nice round year. Exactly. Which is a worthy endeavor! > [@eunoia](#): > > I’ve seen 86. Impressive! > [@eunoia](#): > > Any such list will be controversial and potentially infuriating to anyone who loves movies, I remember the AFI top 100 generating much discussion, civil and otherwise 😃 A Facebook friend commented “Lists are mostly a controversy starter. That’s fine. I still like them.” I couldn’t agree more. > [@eunoia](#): > > My list might have a Dardennes, a Mike Leigh, definitely some documentaries, definitely some Greek New Wave, definitely a Gus Van Sant, definitely a Naomi Kawase, more (or better!) female directors Word to most of that. The lists I linked in the OP contain two Mike Leigh joints (heh). _Another Year_ is #5 of the 2010s, and _Happy Go Lucky_ is #7 of the '00s (both are on my all-time Top 50). And as for female directors, I’m sure I’m missing someone, but on first glance the most egregious omissions I see are Kelly Reichardt’s _Wendy and Lucy_, Lisa Cholodenko’s _The Kids Are All Right_, and Mary Harron’s _American Psycho_. At least they did feature Sarah Polley’s _Stories We Tell_ (although I personally prefer her earlier _Take This Waltz_) and Sofia Coppola’s _Lost in Translation_. I enjoyed looking at your alphabetical list. Some that I want to pick out specifically: _Adaptation (2002) Spike Jonze_ So great. I pretty much worship Jonze and Kaufman both. _Dogtooth Kynodontas (2009) Yorgos Lanthimos_ I loved this so much, it was surprising and very disappointing how little I was able to get into his more recent and much more celebrated film _The Lobster_. _Ghost World (2001) Terry Zwigoff_ Great movie. It’s weird that it’s the only one of his films that he actually wrote. Also strange that his short filmography includes this, the masterpiece _Crumb_, the IMO underrated _Art School Confidential_…and _Bad Santa_. _Irréversible (2002) Gaspar Noé_ Oof. This one went a little far for me. And that’s not easy. _Me And You And Everyone We Know (2005) Miranda July_ Love her! Have you also seen _The Future_? _Take Shelter (2011) Jeff Nichols_ I got into some serious debates on the IMDb boards (sigh, RIP) about the ending of this movie. Do you take it literally? I do. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/51 "2017-06-02T09:01:26Z")
I don’t think that the BBC critics’ list deliberately snubbed Oscar winners. Let’s go through all the Oscar winners which didn’t get mentioned. Again, this doesn’t include _Moonlight_, because at the time the article was written it hadn’t even played at film festivals, let alone in most theaters. I’ve made a note of the rating in the IMDb Top 250 if the rating was below 8.0: _Gladiator_ _A Beautiful Mind_ _Chicago_ 7.2 _The Return of the King_ _Million Dollar Baby_ _Crash_ 7.8 _The Departed_ _Slumdog Millionaire_ _The King’s Speech_ _The Artist_ 7.9 _Argo_ 7.7 _Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)_ 7.8 The people whose votes get counted in the IMDb Top 250 aren’t film critics, but they also aren’t average movie goers. They’re more like film buffs who’ve been going to movies for a long time and have seen a fair amount of movies from before they were even born, but they haven’t seen anything close to the number of films that critics usually have. If the IMDb Top 250 was created using the votes of average film goers, it would be almost entirely films from the past ten years and would include a large number of films that made a lot of money but got no respect from any film reviewer at all. I included the ratings for anything that was below 8.0 because to get into the IMDb Top 250, it takes at least an 8.0 rating. So the films with ratings below that are those that the average film buff would consider pretty good but not remotely classics. Thus what we have left are seven films that won Best Picture since 2000 that didn’t make the BBC critics’ list but might be considered great films by average film buffs. This doesn’t strike me as very interesting. Yes, the favorites of critics are different from those of Oscar voters which are different from those of film buffs which are different from those of random movie goers which are different from those of any other list maker on the Internet or anywhere else. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/52 "2017-06-02T09:07:36Z")
Yeah, those are mostly what I’d consider undeserving Oscar winners, so it’s no outrage for them not to be on the list. The best of that group, for my money, is actually the one that tends to get notoriously (and IMO unfairly) tagged as undeserving of its statuette: _Crash_. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/53 "2017-06-02T12:58:11Z")
What cinches it for me, though, is not the dearth of Oscar winners, but the dearth of nominees. It’s not hard to get nominated for Best Picture, but most of these movies didn’t even do that. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/54 "2017-06-02T13:49:59Z")
I think that’s a matter of the nominees for Best Picture being so overwhelmingly American films which most of the time the film critics of the world (and that’s who voted in the BBC critics’ list) don’t think are quite as good as non-American films released the same year. ---
**Author:** ![eunoia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eunoia/32/97_2.png) [@eunoia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eunoia)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/55 "2017-06-02T23:37:10Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Love her! Have you also seen _The Future_? > … > _Take Shelter (2011) Jeff Nichols_ > I got into some serious debates on the IMDb boards (sigh, RIP) about the ending of this movie. Do you take it literally? I do. Absolutely, I even bought her records in the 90’s. … Absolutely! > [@Chronos](#): > > It’s not hard to get nominated for Best Picture, but most of these movies didn’t even do that. It’s even easier since 2009. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/56 "2017-06-03T02:37:11Z")
> [@eunoia](#): > > Absolutely. A lot of people insist that it is not a science-fiction movie at all, and that what we see at the end is still one of his delusions despite it being the only case where others are around. Drove me nuts! ---
**Author:** ![eunoia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eunoia/32/97_2.png) [@eunoia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eunoia)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/57 "2017-06-03T04:28:01Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Drove me nuts! I’m so certain you’re right that I never even considered there might be another camp. As we learn from the movie, being right isn’t always cake and champagne. I took great personal solace from this 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/58 "2017-06-03T05:43:24Z")
> [@eunoia](#): > > I’m so certain you’re right that I never even considered there might be another camp. Oh boy, is there. Online, it appears to be a majority, even. The two blog posts that come up on the first page of Google results to “take shelter ending” are both in that other camp: [First blog post](http://moviefail.com/op-ed-understanding-take-shelter/) [Second blog post](http://www.thisisbarry.com/single-post/2016/04/15/Take-Shelter-2011-Plot-Ending-Explained) [Here’s a Reddit thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/1vhhhj/the_ending_of_jeff_nichols_take_shelter_spoilers/) with lots of people taking the side we think is wrong. I’m not sure whether they are a quantitative majority, but they tend to be so aggressive in their certainty, as in this example: I’m sorry to be late to this thread, but… just to be clear, did you interpret the final scene to be reality? Consensus seems to be that it’s clearly a dream / nightmare / vision, a sort of poetic epilogue to the story. Same as all the other visions in the film, including other visions that also feature his wife and daughter. A friend I watched it with loved it precisely because he thought the ending was a huge twist and that Curtis was a true prophet all along. I had to explain to him for 20 minutes that this wasn’t the case, and that nothing in the film remotely even suggested that. I know I sound like a dick, but I really don’t understand how people can miss this. Obviously you can see how I would find posts like that infuriating. Someone is wrong on the Internet! Aggressively, dismissively wrong! :mad: [Here on the SDMB](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=628547) there was a majority more on our side (along with several people who weren’t sure what to think), but the final post on that thread represents the other side. [In 2011](http://www.ifc.com/2011/09/jeff-nichols-take-shelter-interview), the filmmaker Jeff Nichols said the ending is “specifically designed to be ambiguous.” However, Wikipedia has a distinct section in its article about the movie, discussing the ending, and here Nichols is again quoted, five years after the movie came out: > [@](#): > > “I had a very strict idea of what the end of Take Shelter was. I know exactly what happens, and it’s fascinating to see people respond to it in their own ways.” So I wonder if he was being a little disingenuous in his earlier comments? He’s still being coy five years later, clearly not wanting to turn off either segment of his audience: because you and I can read that and think “yeah, he obviously meant it the way wee see it” and those on the other side will think the same about their interpretation! But if you go back to that 2011 quote and expand it for context, there’s a little more that can be teased out: [spoiler] > [@](#): > > It’s specifically designed to be ambiguous. That really riles some people and some people really love it. What’s funny and interesting to me — and not to sound too cocky about it, but I really do think it worked — is everybody talks about the specifics of what’s happening in that scene. And to me, the specifics don’t matter that much. And I’ll explain. > > What is happening, what is going to happen, all that is just fun to talk about. But what’s important to me is that these two people are on the same page and are seeing the same thing. There’s several interpretations of where they’re at. And that’s great. But as long as they’re seeing the same thing I think there is a resolution and the possibility of hope in the film. > > Some people get it, some people don’t. But by God, we’re the ones making independent films here. We’re the only ones that get to do this. So my first reaction is to say that if “these two people are on the same page and are seeing the same thing”, how can it not be real? The idea that they are experiencing a shared delusion is way too far out there (one thing I agree with one of those blog posts about). OTOH, “the possibility of hope”? Sure didn’t look like it–as you said, no champagne or cake. How would you interpret that part?[/spoiler] ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/59 "2017-06-03T13:27:14Z")
Those statements don’t look inconsistent to me. He knew exactly what he meant, but he didn’t want it to be 100% clear exactly what he meant. ---
**Author:** ![eunoia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eunoia/32/97_2.png) [@eunoia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eunoia)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706/60 "2017-06-03T17:23:28Z")
Lists like this latest top 100 will sell you a consensus to support the reality they posit, but that consensus is fragile at best and always subject to review. The consensus also will vary among your co-workers, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, your local movie club, among professional critics, among film study teachers, and at Karagarga, hence the “reality” will be different too. Some critics are in high school and there are even experienced critics that will bluster about walking out of a film, which never inspires confidence in their opinions. Siskel and Ebert watched thousands yet often one (or both!) was “wrong” 😃 (That was the real power of that show.) The only thing I presume about pro critics is that they’ve seen a lot of movies. What makes their opinions interesting is that they occupy the spaces between the Dunning-Kruger certainty of my letter carrier and the sphinx-like “I know one thing; that I know nothing” of the artists themselves. No surprise to see artists be ambiguous or let the work speak for itself. It’s our job to interpret, not theirs. Like any award or critique (including this!) the subtext is always “look how much I know” which is of course the opposite of what the truly knowledgeable say. Re: Take Shelter (spoilers, obviously) > [@SlackerInc](#): > > [Second blog post](http://www.thisisbarry.com/single-post/2016/04/15/Take-Shelter-2011-Plot-Ending-Explained) This isn’t outrageous (other than the insulting 6/10 rating!) if the entire finale takes place in his imagination while hospitalized, it’s actually kinda interesting. In any case, it’s courageous enough for Jeff Nichols to mirror prophets with the mentally ill without taking a categorical stand. There are any number of movie directors I’d love to sit down and ply with a few beers. It can be maddening (heh) to not find a single critic that interpreted, for example, Paranoid Park the way I did. So yeah, bring me Gus Van Sant and some sodium pentothal. I might’ve walked out of his film after 25 minutes, but having gutted it out, I’m pretty sure that’s the effect Van Sant crafted. Paranoid Park is my dark horse to be the next Citizen Kane of critical opinion. Who knows? Nobody, I guess… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-the-films-177-critics-picked-as-the-best-of-the-2000s/787706.md?page=4)