The Hunger Games: A Spoiler-Free Recommendation

A Recommendation for The Hunger Games film (2012)

“I just keep wishing I could think of a way to show them that they don’t own me. If I’m gonna die, I wanna still be me.”

There’s been a ton of buzz about The Hunger Games movie, which hit theaters last Friday. The film made $152 million in its opening weekend, making it the 3rd biggest box office opening in history. An impressive feat, considering that it came out in March instead of July. With all the hype, people’s perceptions of the Hunger Games phenomenon are ranging from “Battle Royale ripoff,” to “OMG next Harry Potter,” and the face-palm worthy “is this another emo thing like Twilight?”

Let me put your fears to rest. This is not a teen-romance like Twilight. In fact, trying to frame the Hunger Games as ‘the-next-teen-pop-culture-phenomenon’ is doing the series an incredible disservice. This label removes any expectation that Hunger Games will grapple with serious issues and actually have something ‘adult’ to say to its audience.

I’m here to answer two main questions:

1. Should I see the movie?

2. Should I read the book first?

My answer? – Yes.

1. Should I see the movie?

Yes. Without giving anything away, The Hunger Games movie is quite good, especially for a book-to-film adaptation. In fact, its done the impossible in pleasing both newcomers AND fans of the books. It stays faithful to the original story while explaining, though briefly, the dystopian history of Panem and why the Hunger Games take place. It obviously can’t cover everything and those who aren’t listening to the dialog closely (and especially the opening credits) will be confused about some finer points of the story. (More on that in Question 2.)
The Hunger Games film takes on the role of “show” over “tell.” Instead of featuring long conversations about the poverty and oppression in the Districts in comparison to the vast wealth and privilege in The Capitol, the film simply lets us observe the difference. There’s no monologue comparing the Games to the Roman Colosseum, or comments on the animalistic viciousness the teens resort to, it simply unfolds before us and asks us to make intelligent conclusions. Those who haven’t read the books will probably find its lack of comments bizarre and perhaps even a ‘missed opportunity at saying something profound’. But as a fan of the book, I was moved by its silence; the jarring chaos and striking images carry their own weight.

2. Should I read the books first?

Definitely. You should grab a copy and get in on this.
Before I say any more, I don’t want to cast Suzanne Collins‘ The Hunger Games trilogy as some incredible work of art that will be required reading in schools for the next 500 years. Its not perfect. It has flaws, oversights, juvenile moments, and is somewhat derivative of finer dystopian works like 1984, The Giver, Lord of the Flies, etc. But The Hunger Games is definitely worth checking out. It is not a Battle Royale ripoff aimed at preteen girls. The Hunger Games is an honest look at violence, oppression, justice, freedom, PTSD, and the cost of war.
Collins has mastered the page-turner here, and the series is incredibly hard to put down. I know a number of people who finished the first book in a single day, or even the entire series in one weekend. Its a quick read and you’ll enjoy the film ten times more if you’ve read the book first.

A word about spoilers…

Protect yourself from spoilers on this one. Above all, The Hunger Games succeeds by maintaining suspense over long periods of time and keeping you guessing. So obviously, spoilers should be avoided at all costs. Don’t even read the book cover for the second and third books (seriously, you’ll regret it.) – As usual, Shut Up & Watch The Movie is all about enjoying stories and we take care in handling spoilers while writing our reviews.

Conclusion:

A full review is coming, I promise. But for those of you who are asking “is this worth getting in on?” – our answer is yes, definitely.

Rating:

4 out of 5 Zipped Lips

The Hunger Games movie is excellent, especially for a book-to-film adaptation. In fact, its done the impossible in pleasing both newcomers AND fans of the books. While quite a bit is ‘lost-in-translation’, its a good film and is worth getting into. And yes, read the book first.

John Carter in 3D (2012)

John Carter in 3D (2012)

“When I saw you, I believed it was a sign… that something new can come into this world.”

Synopsis: “A Confederate cavalry officer turned frontiersman cowboy, John Carter is mysteriously teleported to the planet Mars. Armed with incredible strength due to Mars’ low gravity, Carter must choose between fighting another war and returning home to Earth.”

John Carter is a classic sci-fi romp. I’ve never read the seminal science fiction series by Edgar Rice Burroughs, but from what I can tell the movie was a ‘faithful attempt at re-imagining’ his first book, A Princess of Mars (published in 1917). The 2012 film has been criticized for being “derivative” of other sci-fi/epic works, which seems highly unfair considering that its source material predates Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek, George Lucas’ Star Wars, Frank Herbert’s Dune, Isaac Asimov’s robots, Robert E. Howard’s fantastical Conan the Barbarian, and pretty much everyone else I could think of (except for Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, of course). Burroughs wrote his ‘Barsoom’ series back when people still thought there were alien civilizations on Mars. So calling John Carter ‘derivative’ of the stuff n’ junk we see today on the SyFy Channel is nonsense.

See this? Turn of the century astronomer Percival Lowell saw some weird shapes on the planet Mars, which he thought were canals built by the Martians to harvest water from their polar ice caps. - This was the kind of 'scientific' information Burroughs had while working on his John Carter series.

Old School Science Fiction: “Why Not?”

Most ‘modern’ science fiction spends a lot of time explaining “why”: Star Trek explains why they traveled through time, Inception explains why their dream machine works, Avatar tries to explain why everything is so blue. But John Carter takes a much more old-school approach, asking “why not?” Can Mars have ships that fly on light instead of sailing on water? – Why not? – How about a nomadic race of green Martian people? – Why not? – Giant, blind, six legged white ape’s in a gladiator pit? – Sure! Why not!
Its this fantastical approach to storytelling that made me love John Carter. It reminded me of being a kid and watching Star Wars: A New Hope for the very first time. I was introduced to an alien world where the possibilities are endless. The good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, the aliens are goofy, and the whole story carries an undeniable charm.

John Carter: A Timeless Hero

John Carter is an iconic hero. He comes from a time when men wanted to be MEN instead of painting their fingernails black and crying about being too fat to fit into their girlfriends skinny jeans. When John Carter arrives on Mars, he realizes that Earth’s superior gravity has given him incredible strength on this alien world. Instead of whining about how overpowered he is compared to everyone else (as the modern hero would do) John Carter just beats the crap out of everybody. There’s some pretty sweet scenes with Carter leaping incredible distances, fighting off tons of enemies, and laying dudes out in one punch (for more on the iconic awesomeness of John Carter, I refer you to this website. – careful, NSFW language).
In addition to being the toughest warrior on the planet, John Carter acts with honor and integrity. I won’t go into detail here, I’ll just let you watch the movie for yourself.

Conclusion: Some forgiveness required.

John Carter has received fairly mixed reviews (currently 51% at Rotten Tomatoes) and this is not without reason. The characters feel stamped out of an archetype cookie-cutter, the dialog borders on the contrived, its predictable, and ultimately, its become a well-trodden genre. Between 1917 and 2012, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ ideas have inspired hundreds of books and movies, and by now we’ve “seen it all before.” – So once again, it comes down to you. Will you appreciate this seminal work and all it went on to influence and inspire? Or will you be the next ignorant fanboy who says “this ripped off Phantom Menace!” (don’t worry, John Carter has no Jar-Jar Binks.)

I truly, honestly, had a great time watching John Carter. It reminded me of being five years old and sitting in my basement, watching Star Wars for the very first time: amazed at the lightsabers that could cut through anything, laughing at the way Yoda talked, staring with wide-eyed horror at the Rancor… And something about this nostalgic wonder made me forgive John Carter’s weaknesses. Its not like Star Trek and (dare I say it) Star Wars didn’t have their own weaknesses in their debut’s to the big screen. If I were still ten years old, John Carter would probably be one of my favorite movies. It has ‘classic adventure’ written all over it.
Now, I don’t want to oversell John Carter. This won’t be the next Star Wars or Harry Potter film series, but despite its problems, its a nostalgic return to the sweeping epics of a more innocent age.

Rating:

3.5 out of 5 Zipped Lips

Based on the book series that began in 1917, John Carter is a return to the old school, epic science fiction of a more innocent age. While it has some weaknesses and won’t be replacing Star Wars anytime soon, don’t let that prevent you from enjoying what John Carter has to offer: good, clean, nostalgic fun with a goodhearted message.

Cowboys and Aliens (2011)

“Only two kinds of men get shot: criminals and victims. Which one are you?”

Synopsis: – Seriously. Its called Cowboys and Aliens, you don’t need a plot synopsis for this.

Cowboys and Aliens is a surprisingly good movie; it has a fantastic cast, skilled directing, beautiful scenery, and plenty of gun-slinging action. In fact, its so good that it may lure you into thinking its a decent adventure movie about real people and the western frontier. And just when you’re starting to take it seriously, it’ll slap you in the face with a juvenile action-cliche and remind you “hey, what are you doing! Are you actually expecting this to make any sense!? Its called COWBOYS AND ALIENS!!!”

Even though Daniel Craig is definitely not playing 007 this time, there’s enough action movie cliche’s and contrived gadget-saves to make you wonder if this character is really a time traveling James Bond. Once again, remind yourself, “this is a cowboy movie… with aliens…” and all will be put right. This won’t be making anyone’s top ten list, no matter how much they love cowboys and/or aliens. But besides the handful of western and science fiction cliche’s, there’s some genuinely good moments here.

What makes it good?

Westerns have a way of rounding up a star-studded cast, and here Cowboys and Aliens is no exception. Daniel Craig is sufficient as the archetypal amnesic anti-hero (see what I did there?) who can out-gun, out-ride, and out-brawl anyone despite not knowing his own name. His look and demeanor lend itself to this role well, though at times you can tell he’s struggling to subvert his English dialect and replace it with a sandpapery western one.
Harrison Ford is perfect as the semi-antagonist ranch owner with a dark past. Part of me wishes the aliens hadn’t shown up and stolen his villainous thunder. Ford’s screen presence brings a unique gravity and emotional depth to the film, not something you’d expect in a movie about aliens. (… and see what I did there?)  The supporting cast gives noteworthy performances which I’ll summarize briefly: Sam Rockwell (hilarious), Adam Beach (impactful), Clancy Brown (king of the one-liners), Paul Dano (who we love-to-hate), and Olivia Wilde (meh?)

Themes: Redemption

Pretty much every Western ever told is about redemption. Lone hero with a troubled past, father with an estranged son, pretty girl looking to avenge those who killed her family, etc. Its all been done before (well, at least without aliens). In one way or another, they’re all looking to redeem themselves and their relationships. There’s a strong theme of valuing life, relationships, and virtue, because we don’t know how much time we have before death.

Conclusion: “What you see is what you get.”

This is a cowboy movie. And its a sci-fi alien movie. But whether or not its greater or less than the proverbial ‘sum of its parts’ is up to you. You can get frustrated with its plot holes and disregard for basic physics, or you can enjoy it for what it is. Cowboys and Aliens follows a similar formula as the Indiana Jones films: “Take a B movie action-adventure and give it an A-level director, cast, and special effects.” The result is an enjoyable popcorn flick featuring the New Mexico desert, gritty cowboys, and of course, aliens.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Zipped Lips.

Cowboys and Aliens does exactly what it sets out to do: tell an old fashioned cowboy tale with aliens in it. In fact, its so well done that you’re in danger of taking it seriously and ruining all the fun.

Predators (2010)

Predators (2010) – Review by Isaac

“This planet is a game preserve, and we’re the game.”

Synopsis: A ragtag group of Earth’s elite warriors awaken in a strange jungle, abducted to be the prey of a merciless alien race known as the Predators.

The Predator alien has had a rocky ride since his explosive debut alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1987. Predator 2 followed in 1990, adding further depth and mystery to the creature. Tragedy struck in 2004 and 2007, and the Alien Vs. Predator franchise threatened to sink our favorite hunter forever. …and then came Predators.

Predators is not a reboot of the franchise, but sequels the original two Predator films (sorry fans, Danny Glover is still part of the canon). Returning to its roots, Predators features a jungle setting, a tough group of characters with a full arsenal, and of course, a hunt. The title “Predators” fulfills a double meaning; the alien hunters, and the violent humans who have been “predators” in their own world. In fact, its the human “predators” who carry the film.

“We were chosen.”

I was very impressed by the casting here. From the Yakuza to the Spetsnaz, each character is believable and iconic. The notable leader of the bunch, Adrien Brody, is fantastic as the tough, no nonsense mercenary. I was very surprised that this thin and serious actor was chosen to follow in the footsteps of Schwarzenegger, and it had the internet asking “Where’s the Beef?”

Adrien Brody and Topher Grace did a terrific job. But this poster was just too good to pass up.

Thankfully, Adrien Brody steps up to the challenge and delivers an ending even Arnie will be proud of. Alice Braga and Topher Grace also make memorable performances and are a welcome addition to the cast. Robert Rodriguez took a lot of flak for his casting choices, but the end result was excellent.

“Similar, like the difference between wolves and dogs.”

As Aliens opened up a world of possibilities with the Alien Queen in the Alien franchise, so Predators gives us a new take on the Predator. Apparently, there are two separate races or “clans” of the Predator species, the “Classic” Predator and the “Black Super Predator“. They are similar yet different like “the difference between wolves and dogs” (see photo above) and the bigger clan hunts the smaller. These Super Predators (which I think is the dumbest name ever, mind you. At least that name wasn’t spoken in the movie.) are bigger, stronger, faster, and seemingly more intelligent than the “classic” Predator we’re accustomed to. We’re treated to the Super Predators tactics, with land mines, bait and trap, and some really freaky alien hounds. This obviously opens a whole can of possibilities: Tougher Predator foes on Earth, warring Predator clans, the option for new (and good) Alien Vs. Predator films… Fans of the “classic” Predator may find themselves mourning his “dethroning”, but I’m excited about the new possibilities. (As long as they come up with a better name than “Black Super Predators”. Ugh.)

In summary, this movie is pretty good. I’d even call it great. But its not awesome. The plot is pretty simple, and the pacing plods along a little too slowly for how much the trailers revealed. I wish I’d never seen the trailer and just walked into this movie with zero knowledge whatsoever. The trailer established anticipation for dozens of Predators and a mysterious survivor (played by Laurence Fishburne). Fishburne’s role ends up being pretty small, almost underused in my opinion. I won’t spoil anything, but don’t go into this movie expecting 15 Predators (as the trailer depicts) because most of the time there’s only three. Which is fine, but I hate it when trailers promise things the film won’t deliver.

This one right here? Lies. There's only one targeting laser in the actual movie.

Rating: 3.5/5 Zipped Lips

Every bit as good as the original, Predators takes things to the next level. With fantastic casting, chilling pacing, and an ending Arnie himself could be proud of, this is a true sequel to the Predator franchise. I strongly recommend it to fans of the action/sci-fi/horror genre, but don’t get your hopes too high. Because after all, it’s only a Predator movie.

Renaissance: Paris 2054 (2006)

Renaissance: Paris 2054 – Review by Isaac

Synopsis: Paris, year 2054. A young female scientist named Ilona Tasuiev (Romola Garai) is kidnapped, and a controversial policeman, Karas (Daniel Craig), must find her as quickly as possible. Karas discovers that Ilona was a top researcher for Avalon, a megalithic corporation who deals in life and beauty longevity (*cough* Umbrella Corporation ripoff). Seeking help from Ilona’s sister, Bislane (Catherine McCormack), the two stumble upon a terrible mystery dating back to 2006. After several suspects are found murdered, it appears Karas isn’t the only one trying to find the missing scientist. Karas must investigate missing files, stolen identities, uncover the motive, outrun a group of assassins wearing invisible suits, and above all else, find Ilona before someone else does.

Renaissance unfolds like a beautiful graphic novel, giving the film a unique edge. The beautiful cityscapes are a cinematic wonder. Whether its an establishing shot or intense car chase, there’s some really stunning visuals here. The style allows Renaissance to be incredibly dark and eerie, supporting the futuristic detective story (think Minority Report and not Star Trek here). The producers used computer graphics and motion capture to create an entirely black and white film, and it works well… – But it has some downsides. Because its entirely in black and white and uses a lot of shadow, its difficult to tell some characters apart or remember their specific faces. I know people who can’t keep characters straight in normal movies (I’ll never watch Quantam of Solace with my parents again), so I can’t even *imagine* what Renaissance would be like (no no, that’s the *other* guy with the short dark hair and shadows on his face!) I spent half the opening scene severely distracted because I couldn’t keep the two sisters straight (that’s possibly because I was also folding laundry at the time).  Thankfully, the voice acting is especially good (Daniel Craig! Ian Holm!) and the voices associated with each character become very familiar. (This is a French film, so make sure you switch the DVD audio over to English. Not doing so makes the opening scenes pretty confusing.)

I’m not gonna lie, I picked up Renaissance because it starred Daniel Craig and promised to be an intriguing sci-fi/action detective plot. Renaissance delivered in both areas. The action is ‘fairly’ realistic, using simple gunfights and chase scenes to keep the film exciting but not bloating itself to a ridiculous level. The sweeping shots over the city while characters chase after one another to an intensifying (though generic) soundtrack are thrilling. The hitmen wearing invisible suits are cool too. There’s a number of scenes that unfold to an almost entirely black screen, making the eeriness all the more intense. With that said, some critics could really tear this film apart. Daniel Craig hardly has to act, the script plays nicely to the strengths we saw in Casino Royale. The plot feels more complicated than it needs to be, winding in and around for a good 15 minutes or so before getting remotely interesting. Renaissance relies on A: the unique design, and B: the unique setting to hook you in the beginning. The story itself didn’t really grab me until about 30 minutes into it. So I understand why some people didn’t enjoy Renaissance, its too close to the well-trodden genre of futuristic-detective-dramas that all take themselves too seriously.

Renaissance isn’t the best science fiction, animation, or detective movie ever. But here’s why I liked it: Renaissance is unique. The animation grabbed my attention, the story is good, the plot engaging and subtley creepy. By the final act, I had quit folding laundry, closed my laptop, turned all the lights off, and sat glued to the screen. It wasn’t just that I wanted detective Karas to find the scientist, I was completely engulfed by the world of Paris 2054. When it comes down to it, Renaissance isn’t a “must-see” movie, but I enjoyed it. That’s right, screw you world of critics, I watched a movie that Rotten Tomatoes gave a 43%, and I LIKED IT.

Who I recommend this to: An adult who appreciates unique animation styles and likes a good sci-fi mystery.

Who I don’t recommend this to: 1. Kids. 2. People who get creeped out by stories about genetics. 3. People who only like mainstream animation. 4. Snobby movie critics

Rating: 3.5/5 Zipped Lips

I definitely enjoyed Renaissance: Paris 2054. Its dark and gritty plot isn’t accessible to mainstream audiences, and the rewatchability is pretty low here. Still, it was memorable and worth watching. If you give Renaissance a shot, check out the “making of” documentary, its quite interesting.

Review: Avatar (2009)

James Cameron is a legend among directors. Having made his mark with Aliens, and The Terminator, and made history with Titanic, Cameron returns, over a decade later, with Avatar, which has proved to be an almost unparalleled box office phenomenon, having already made more money than any other film in history, save Cameron’s own Titanic.

Avatar is the tale of an ex-marine paraplegic named Jake Sully (played by Sam Worthington) who is offered a chance to take his recently deceased brother’s place on an expedition to the alien planet of Pandora at the behest of ‘The Corporation.’ Pandora is a tropical planet with a toxic atmosphere, and is home to an exotic menagerie of dangerous fauna and fantastic plant life that puts the Amazon Rainforest to shame (including mountain-sized trees that practically drip awesomeness), and an native alien race called the Na’vi, who are humanlike but are ten feet tall, blue, and have tails and glow-in-the-dark freckles.

The flora and fauna, and the natives, are naturally all peripheral to what The Corporation is really after on Pandora, which is a wildly valuable ore, that unfortunately lies in massive deposits beneath the ancestral home of the Na’vi. Jake Sully and a team of human scientists, led by the gruff Dr. Grace Augustine (played by Sigourney Weaver) are tasked with “winning the hearts and minds” of the natives through the avatar program. The Corporation synthesized human and Na’vi DNA and grew avatars, which are Na’vi bodies that the scientists can synchronize brains with, using their Na’vi bodies to explore Pandora and interact with the natives, while their human bodies lie safe back at the base. Jake’s task is to integrate into Na’vi society, and convince them to relocate, so that The Corporation can strip-mine the area for ore. However, the more time Jake spends with the warrior princess Neytiri, and becoming one of the Na’vi, the more he begins to questions his loyalties.

First things first: Avatar is a spell-bindingly beautiful movie. It really is an astonishing visual achievement. Cameron and company have lovingly crafted the best-looking alien world of all time. The forests and inhabitants of Pandora are a visual treat, and the two thousand foot trees and floating mountains (oh! the floating mountains!) are some of the coolest environs I have ever seen. While the CGI is impressive (and it is), the cinematography is equally pretty, no doubt influenced by some of the impressive technology that allowed Cameron to have essentially limitless control over camera placement and movement. Avatar is indeed one of the best-looking movies of all time.

Sadly, it is not one of the brightest. This movie really is primarily about the spectacle, and it is plain to see that the script took a backseat to the visuals.  Which seems all the more odd because of all the work that otherwise went into creating the world.  (Like creating the entire Na’vi language!)  Anyone who has ever seen a movie will know exactly what’s going to transpire after the first 10 minutes. Character-wise, everyone is pretty boilerplate. You have the money-grubbing, power-hungry corporate bureaucrat. The scorched-earth commander with a chip on his shoulder. The awkward science geek. The quiet, elderly chief. The hot-headed brave. The beautiful native warrior-princess. Sigourney Weaver‘s Dr. Augustine is an oddly uneven character. Evidently, a significant amount of the film was cut to achieve the 160+ minute runtime, and perhaps some of the scenes that were cut would have helped Dr. Augustine’s scene-to-scene progression seem smoother. Jake Sully on the other hand is likeable enough, with motivations that are generally both compelling and realistic, and watching him get his legs back through his avatar is one of the film’s highlights.   Michelle Rodriguez‘s pilot character steals every scene she is in, (not enough!) and may have been my favorite character.

The script isn’t bad, for the most part, just unremarkable, but it gets the job done. Every so often something will surface that seems almost lazy: like naming the precious ore “unobtainium.” Really? That’s the best you could do? And some lines are just plain inept: “why me?” “because you have a strong heart.” Come on. That’s pretty hokey, even for the Na’vi; who are, incidentally, a little bit creepy. What with all the hissing, “interfacing” with their mounts, their odd loincloth/thong/tail-bridle clothing, and mild-but-ever-present blue indigenous nudity. But I didn’t care at all, because the visual scope was otherwise so magnificent, and watching it all unfold was just so pretty.  The story is a pretty clear-cut good vs. evil affair, and the evil corporate mercenaries are evil enough that it’s easy to cheer for the Na’vi.

Technologically and visually, Avatar is a masterpiece, and that’s what really matters in this case, because it really is all about the spectacle.  If you have a chance to see it while it is still in theaters, go, because if there were ever a movie made to be seen in theaters, this is it.

4 out of 5 zipped lips.

Luke Eddy’s Top 25 Films of the Decade (It will be Epic)

Well, here it finally is: my ‘Top 25 Films of the Decade.’ Now, this list is inherently subjective. In the first place, I certainly haven’t seen every single film that’s come out in the last ten years, for the most part I’ve seen films that looked good to me, so my sampling pool for this list is already skewed. So really, this is my top 25 films, my favorites of the decade. Treat this list as my recommendations to you. Now obviously not all of these films are appropriate for everyone, but if a film on this list sounds interesting to you, then check it out. But before I start counting down films, I thought I’d briefly explain what I looked for in the films that I chose to include in this list. Here, summarized in four points, is what I looked for:

Stunning Visuals: I like films that surprise me with how good they look, whether that means the special and visual effects, like V for Vendetta, the cinematography, like in Mongol, or simply how the scenes are shot and edited, such as in Hot Fuzz.

Exceptional Acting: This should be a given, and I don’t mean above average acting, I mean exceptional acting.  I mean acting that really stands out, such as Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, or that connects you emotionally to the character, like Bruce Willis in Unbreakable, or that leaves you in stitches, just like George Clooney in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, or in the case of an antagonist, such as Christopher Lee in The Lord of the Rings, acting that gives you a villain that you love to hate.

Something Meaningful to Say: Not all films need to have a complicated message, sometimes the simplest messages are the best. But a film with an interesting premise, like Sunshine, or an inspiring story, like The Lord of the Rings, have a lot more going for them. Now, not all of the films on my list are particularly strong in this area, at both ends of the spectrum  in fact (X2 and Hot Fuzz namely), but they make up for it by being remarkable in one or more of the other areas.

Entertaining: A film has to be entertaining. Duh. But really, that’s the point of a movie. If I didn’t enjoy watching it, it’s not on this list. And conversely, if a film was lacking in a couple of the other areas, but was nonetheless extremely enjoyable, it can still find itself in my top 25. I wouldn’t call Death at a Funeral ‘visually stunning’ nor does it have anything particularly meaningful to say, but it was so much fun to watch that I couldn’t help but include it.

So, all that said, I hope you enjoy my ‘Top 25 Films of the Decade.’

Isaac’s “Top 25 Must See Movies of the Decade” (2000-2009)

In developing ‘My Top 25 Movies of the Decade’, I knew there was no way I could rank my movies from 1st to 25th.  Any attempt would be futile.  How do I pit my favorite comedy against my favorite Pixar? Kudos to my friends who were able to achieve this, but for me it wasn’t possible. I instead organized them by year of release. Not only does this relieve the pressure of ranking each one, but emphasizes the time and context of its release.  I also included a number of honorable mentions to round out what I could not cover with just 25 titles.  (Also, just because I enjoyed and recommended it does not mean that it is appropriate for all ages.)

I know that this list is completely subjective. It is not the ’25 best ever’, it is simply my favorites and recommendations. Chances are, there are a couple films here that you disliked or were greatly disappointed in. But know this, I chose each and every one for a reason. Perhaps my review will bring something to light, some theme or value you might have missed before. In the end, these are just my recommendations. My goal is to champion movies worth remembering, challenge you to see something new, and recommend some great movies you might have missed.

1. Memento (2000)

Before Batman Begins and The Prestige, Christopher Nolan got warmed up with Memento. A rather under-watched film, Memento is the mystery thriller of a man who can’t make new memories. Most writers would consider this premise to be captivating enough, but Nolan doesn’t stop there. Oh no, he puts all the scenes in reverse order. When each scene begins, you have no context for what is going on just as the main character has no memory of what has come before. Nolan effectively simulates memory loss for his entire audience. The intriguing plot and unique storytelling lands Memento solidly in my list for the top 25 movies of the decade.