Christopher Nolan, director of the Decade?

MrStuffins

Having just been introduced to the excellent trailer for Inception over at this thread, it got me thinking about Nolan, he hasnt made a bad movie.... ever (imo)

Just look at this guy's CV and it's hard to imagine another director who has had more classics in the 2000s than this guy.

Clint Eastwood gives him a run for his money, Mystic River and Changeling are incredible pieces of work. But i havent seen Letters from iwo Jima (having seen Flags... and being underwhelmed) nor have i seen Gran Torino. So until i do, Nolan clinches it for me.

I recently read an article calling Steven Soderbergh the director of the decade, perhaps from a studio point of view where they love watching the money roll in. So i disagree.

What do you guys think? Any other contenders? Is it Nolan/Eastwood/Soderburgh for you?

johnny_ultimate

I don't know if I'd call him director of the decade (I'm not really sure anyone deserves that title) but I think he has made a fairly consistent run of fantastic films - he has brought a bit of class and narrative maturity to numerous genres, and for that he should be applauded.

Soderburgh I think you are underselling a bit - I admire him for embracing both studio films, and smaller independent productions. He had two fantastic films in close proximity with the Informant and the Girlfriend Experience, and they are radically different types of film. I do think his wild ambition can cause problems on occasion though - he has had genuine failures like Full Frontal and Oceans Twelve.

As I said I'd find it hard to pinpoint one director - Michel Gondry would be up there for me (although he did flop with Be Kind Rewind), Park Chan Wook, the Coens (maybe in around 30 years there will be a decade when they aren't contenders!) and many others would be equally worthy of the title. But I think it is unfair to dismiss any of the greats, as a large number of director's have produced consistent gold over the past ten years (although perhaps there is an argument that Nolan has considerably less flops than others).

I would strongly argue that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is film of the decade, mind you, but there is another thread for that :pac:

MrStuffins

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I don't know if I'd call him director of the decade (I'm not really sure anyone deserves that title) but I think he has made a fairly consistent run of fantastic films - he has brought a bit of class and narrative maturity to numerous genres, and for that he should be applauded.

Soderburgh I think you are underselling a bit - I admire him for embracing both studio films, and smaller independent productions. He had two fantastic films in close proximity with the Informant and the Girlfriend Experience, and they are radically different types of film. I do think his wild ambition can cause problems on occasion though - he has had genuine failures like Full Frontal and Oceans Twelve.

As I said I'd find it hard to pinpoint one director - Michel Gondry would be up there for me (although he did flop with Be Kind Rewind), Park Chan Wook, the Coens (maybe in around 30 years there will be a decade when they aren't contenders!) and many others would be equally worthy of the title. But I think it is unfair to dismiss any of the greats, as a large number of director's have produced consistent gold over the past ten years (although perhaps there is an argument that Nolan has considerably less flops than others).

I would strongly argue that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is film of the decade, mind you, but there is another thread for that :pac:

As much as i love all things Gondry (Be Kind Rewind is under-rated imo, it combines my love for Gondry and Mos Def) im not sure he could be lauded as great as the others mentioned.

ESOTSM and Science of Sleep... but thats it really.

I agree about Soderburgh though, maybe i have under-sold him.

But i think Nolan has been so consistant and he gets my vote!

indough

soderbergh is nowhere near as consistent as nolan

kraggy

Alejandro González Iñárritu would be up there for me. Certainly higher than Christopher Nolan.

Just can't see what the fuss is with that guy. Decent movies but the suggestions at the time of its release, by many on here I should point out, that The Dark Night could be the best film of all time were, quite simply, downright ridiculous.

Here's my suggestion:

Alejandro González Iñárritu

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0327944/

At least 2 of his films this decade were better than TDK and a third probably would too.

MrStuffins

kraggy wrote: »

Alejandro González Iñárritu would be up there for me. Certainly higher than Christopher Nolan.

Just can't see what the fuss is with that guy. Decent movies but the suggestions at the time of its release, by many on here I should point out, that The Dark Night could be the best film of all time were, quite simply, downright ridiculous.

Here's my suggestion:

Alejandro González Iñárritu

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0327944/

At least 2 of his films this decade were better than TDK and a third probably would too.

The Dark Knight is actually my favourite of all time... but just for the moment.

Next month it could be Goodfellas. The week after it could be City of God....

My opinion on Alejandro González Iñárritu is...... i didnt like 21 Grams and Amores Perros was HUGELY over rated. I haven't seen Babel nor Powder Keg though

krudler

Ridley Scott deserves a mention

Gladiator
Hannibal
Black Hawk Down
Matchstick Men
Kingdom of Heaven
A Good Year
American Gangster
Body of Lies

All solid to excellent movies this decade, Nolan is a great choice though

indough

i love ridley scotts stuff but hannibal was woeful by anyones standards

builttospill

It's funny how you picked a few directors without letting people decide for themselves. What a pointless thread. It's a bit like asking people who the best band of the decade is with the multiple choices being Coldplay, Kings of Leon, U2 and Radiohead. There's a lot more out there.

Anyways, my choice would be Michael Haneke.

youcancallmeal

builttospill wrote: »

It's funny how you picked a few directors without letting people decide for themselves. What a pointless thread. It's a bit like asking people who the best band of the decade is with the multiple choices being Coldplay, Kings of Leon, U2 and Radiohead. There's a lot more out there.

Anyways, my choice would be Michael Haneke.

Agreed! The type of question being asked here does not lend itself to polls unless you could put down 50 or so big name directors from the last ten years.

My choice might have been Paul Thomas Anderson but he hasn't really done much in the noughties except Punch Drunk Love and There Will Be blood, Magnolia was released in 1999. So instead I would go for Danny Boyle.

robby^5

krudler wrote: »

Ridley Scott deserves a mention

Gladiator
Hannibal
Black Hawk Down
Matchstick Men
Kingdom of Heaven
A Good Year
American Gangster
Body of Lies

All solid to excellent movies this decade, Nolan is a great choice though

You're not serious are you? I agree there are 3 classics there, 2 of them are decent enough films and the other 3 are absolutely woeful.

He's a very hit and miss director.

IsThisIt???

Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan have been great but i'd have to go for Danny Boyle, especially for the beach.

Flamed Diving

builttospill wrote: »

It's funny how you picked a few directors without letting people decide for themselves. What a pointless thread. It's a bit like asking people who the best band of the decade is with the multiple choices being Coldplay, Kings of Leon, U2 and Radiohead. There's a lot more out there.

Anyways, my choice would be Michael Haneke.

Fixed.

Flamed Diving

IsThisIt??? wrote: »

Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan have been great but i'd have to go for Danny Boyle, especially for the beach.

Judging by your post count, I must assume you are a troll. That film should be burned at the stake. Quite possibly the worst book to film conversion ever.

builttospill

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Fixed.

Eh...

I don't think you got my post. I was taking the piss out of these lists where people usually name the most popular subjects. I couldn't give a toss about any of those bands in the same way I could care less about Christopher Nolan or Steven Soderbergh.

phasers

I think I'd go for Danny Boyle personally, for Sunshine and 28 Days Later

Flamed Diving

builttospill wrote: »

Eh...

I don't think you got my post. I was taking the piss out of these lists where people usually name the most popular subjects. I couldn't give a toss about any of those bands in the same way I could care less about Christopher Nolan or Steven Soderbergh.

Fixed.

builttospill

So you think I do give a toss about these bands and I do care about Christopher Nolan and Steven Soderbergh? Ok, in that case tell me why I like them...

Vokes

Probably a tie for me between Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven (Directors Cut), American Gangster) and Christpher Nolan (Memento, The Prestige, Batman films). Acutally, Scott probably just edges it for me.

Methinks we need a Director of the Noughties award in the forthcoming Boards.ie 2009 Film Awards.

indough

indough wrote: »

soderbergh is nowhere near as consistent as nolan

He may not be as consistent but he's a far more daring director who isn't afraid to take a chance. Look at his CV and you will see that time after time he's challenged the system to make films his way even going so far as to practically piss off every studio and cinema chain in America with his radical ideas as to how film should be distributed. He believes that a film playing in a theater should be available to purchase in the lobby afterward or that the viewer should be allowed to skip the cinema altogether and watch the film ion the comfort of their own home.

Nolan while he's a fantastic director plays it very safe. While I look forward to each of his film's I don't think that he will have as much an impact on the industry as Sodenbergh.

indough

do you seriously consider the likes of memento and the prestige as playing it safe? and now just because soderbergh casts a porn star in a movie in a deliberate publicity stunt he seems to be considered edgy or something

the man made oceans twelve, for that he will never be forgiven

ive yet to see a bad movie by nolan on the other hand

plus its director of the decade, we're not going by their entire career just the films theyve made since 2000, also i dont really think ability to piss off the industry or views on distribution methods* come into a discussion about directing capabilities as in this instance

*i do agree with him on this though

indough

indough wrote: »

do you seriously consider the likes of memento and the prestige as playing it safe? and now just because soderbergh casts a porn star in a movie in a deliberate publicity stunt he seems to be considered edgy or something

the man made oceans twelve, for that he will never be forgiven

ive yet to see a bad movie by nolan on the other hand

plus its director of the decade, we're not going by their entire career just the films theyve made since 2000, also i dont really think ability to piss off the industry or views on distribution methods* come into a discussion about directing capabilities as in this instance

*i do agree with him on this though

Memento is the only Nolan film which doesn't play it safe and while it's a fantastic film it was his first proper film and one which was made for a limited budget. The Prestige plays it safe, sure the idea is a little out there by Hollywood standards but it was far from a risk for anyone involved.

The reason Soderbergh is considered a risk taker has nothing to do with whom he casts. It is the way he conducts business. Sure he made Oceans 12 but in doing so it allowed him to make a number of features he wanted to but otherwise would never have been able to raise funding for. He's also made 13 films and a 10 episode tv series in the past decade, a far more impressive output than most directors. Nolan has only managed 5 films in the same time.

Soderbergh's batting average of 1 dreadful film out of 13 is far superior to most and while Ocean's 12 is a poor film it looks absolutely fantastic and is shot with immense style and skill, not Soderbergh's fault that the script is utter muck.

indough

Deleted User wrote: »

The Prestige plays it safe, sure the idea is a little out there by Hollywood standards but it was far from a risk for anyone involved

completely disagree, what does risk taking have to do with the issue in this case? if we're equating director of the decade with greatest risk takers then surely richard kelly would be the director of the decade

we all know he isnt but the point im making is being considered director of the decade is primarily about consistently making great films within that decade and not making any crap films

Deleted User wrote: »

He's also made 13 films and a 10 episode tv series in the past decade, a far more impressive output than most directors. Nolan has only managed 5 films in the same time.

quality over quantity any day of the week

Deleted User wrote: »

Soderbergh's batting average of 1 dreadful film out of 13 is far superior to most and while Ocean's 12 is a poor film it looks absolutely fantastic and is shot with immense style and skill, not Soderbergh's fault that the script is utter muck.

of course a major part of it is his fault, presuming he read the script before filming it which of course he did

indough

indough wrote: »

completely disagree, what does risk taking have to do with the issue in this case? if we're equating director of the decade with greatest risk takers then surely richard kelly would be the director of the decade

I'm not saying Soderbergh is the film maker of the decade. My initial post in the thread was about how daring a film maker Soderbergh was in comparison to Nolan. You seem to have misread my posts thus far.

Kelly is certainly one of the film makers of the decade, Southland tales is largely despised by all but as far as I'm concerned it's one of the decades best.

indough wrote: »

we all know he isnt but the point im making is being considered director of the decade is primarily about consistently making great films within that decade and not making any crap films

So that counts out a whole number of great film makers who have made a bad film this decade. there are very few if any film makers who don't have a bad film on their CV. To many people Insomnia is Nolan's biggest mistake. While I enjoy the film many people hate it with a passion.

indough wrote: »

quality over quantity any day of the week

Every filmmaker will slip up at some mistake and out of 13 films Soderbergh has 10 fantastic films, 1 poor and 1 mediocre film. A pretty damn impressive batting average for any film maker.

indough wrote: »

of course a major part of it is his fault, presuming he read the script before filming it which of course he did

Once the studio and cast were happy with the project then it was unlikely Soderbergh was going to walk away simply because he wasn't entirely happy with the film. Making Ocean's 12 allowed him to make a number of films he would otherwise been unable to do so. As it stands Ocean's 12 is still entertaining nonsense which is easily digested.

indough

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying Soderbergh is the film maker of the decade. My initial post in the thread was about how daring a film maker Soderbergh was in comparison to Nolan. You seem to have misread my posts thus far.

this is a thread about the director of the decade

Deleted User wrote: »

Kelly is certainly one of the film makers of the decade, Southland tales is largely despised by all but as far as I'm concerned it's one of the decades best.

no he isnt, and i liked southland tales as well but its not even nearly one of the best films since 2000, not by a country mile

Deleted User wrote: »

So that counts out a whole number of great film makers who have made a bad film this decade. there are very few if any film makers who don't have a bad film on their CV. To many people Insomnia is Nolan's biggest mistake. While I enjoy the film many people hate it with a passion.

its my least favourite of his films as well, but on average its liked more than disliked going by reviews and ratings

Deleted User wrote: »

Every filmmaker will slip up at some mistake and out of 13 films Soderbergh has 10 fantastic films, 1 poor and 1 mediocre film. A pretty damn impressive batting average for any film maker.

i dont know what films you are referring to but the che films were boring, i actually fell asleep during my first viewing of the first movie, and thats the only time that has ever happened to me in my life

i watch a hell of a lot of films as well

also i dont think any of the oceans films can exactly be described as fantastic, they are ok but are all about style over substance for one thing

edit: also forgot to mention when i said not making any bad movies was a part of it, what i meant is you should really keep a great average standard of quality in movies, ie lots of good movies with minimal bad ones

oceans 12 brought down soderberghs average by a lot because it is an abysmal movie

Deleted User wrote: »

Once the studio and cast were happy with the project then it was unlikely Soderbergh was going to walk away simply because he wasn't entirely happy with the film. Making Ocean's 12 allowed him to make a number of films he would otherwise been unable to do so. As it stands Ocean's 12 is still entertaining nonsense which is easily digested.

no its absolutely crap, i like his films in general but that movie was unforgivably ****, it doesnt matter whether other people had agreed to it either, if he had both artistic integrity and the sense to know it was a **** script he should have turned it down until it was reworked rather than just selling out for the dough

indough

indough wrote: »

this is a thread about the director of the decade

And with that in mind then surely a director whom has repeatedly tried to reshape the way cinema is viewed should certainly be a prime candidate.

indough wrote: »

no he isnt, and i liked southland tales as well but its not even nearly one of the best films since 2000, not by a country mile

That right there is why this entire thread is pointless, it's all subjective. You say Kelly isn't a great director and I disagree. Much like for every person who views Nolan as fantastic there is one person who will disagree.

indough wrote: »

i dont know what films you are referring to but the che films were boring, i actually fell asleep during my first viewing of the first movie, and thats the only time that has ever happened to me in my life

i watch a hell of a lot of films as well

I found Che parts 1 and 2 to be superb viewing. I've watched them a number of times since and enjoyed them immensely every time. Just because you fell asleep during a film does not mean it was the films fault. I fell asleep during the Dark Knight the other week, I thought it was because I was tired but perhaps it was the films fault.

indough wrote: »

also i dont think any of the oceans films can exactly be described as fantastic, they are ok but are all about style over substance for one thing

The first one is certainly fantastic fun and part 3 isn't bad either. No one expects substance from the Ocean's films, they expect to be entertained and by enlarge all three films do entertain.

indough wrote: »

edit: also forgot to mention when i said not making any bad movies was a part of it, what i meant is you should really keep a great average standard of quality in movies, ie lots of good movies with minimal bad ones

oceans 12 brought down soderberghs average by a lot because it is an abysmal movie

So one bad film colours a directors entire CV. Seems like Scott and Spielberg are in trouble then given how both of them in the past decade have made one absolutely dreadful film apiece.

indough wrote: »

no its absolutely crap, i like his films in general but that movie was unforgivably ****, it doesnt matter whether other people had agreed to it either, if he had both artistic integrity and the sense to know it was a **** script he should have turned it down until it was reworked rather than just selling out for the dough

It's crap but it entertains. He could have turned it down and the studio could easily have found someone else to do it and all those films he had wanted to make may never have gotten made. Many directors and stars have made films they did not want to in order to make something they cared for.

MrStuffins

builttospill wrote: »

It's funny how you picked a few directors without letting people decide for themselves. What a pointless thread. It's a bit like asking people who the best band of the decade is with the multiple choices being Coldplay, Kings of Leon, U2 and Radiohead. There's a lot more out there.

Anyways, my choice would be Michael Haneke.

youcancallme>al wrote: »

Agreed! The type of question being asked here does not lend itself to polls unless you could put down 50 or so big name directors from the last ten years.

My choice might have been Paul Thomas Anderson but he hasn't really done much in the noughties except Punch Drunk Love and There Will Be blood, Magnolia was released in 1999. So instead I would go for Danny Boyle.

Lads, this is a discussion forum, te thread is designed to give my opinion, which i did, and throw it open to other's opinions, which i have. You have given your opinion as have others.

So don't be internet d1cks, just join in the discussion and lets have a Happy New Year!

indough

Deleted User wrote: »

And with that in mind then surely a director whom has repeatedly tried to reshape the way cinema is viewed should certainly be a prime candidate..

no because talking about distribution methods has nothing to do with directing, its just movie politics

Deleted User wrote: »

That right there is why this entire thread is pointless, it's all subjective. You say Kelly isn't a great director and I disagree. Much like for every person who views Nolan as fantastic there is one person who will disagree..

sorry but subjectivity only goes so far in explaining these types of things

there are plenty of movies i love but understand why most people hate them and id never even attempt to promote them as top films

Deleted User wrote: »

I found Che parts 1 and 2 to be superb viewing. I've watched them a number of times since and enjoyed them immensely every time. Just because you fell asleep during a film does not mean it was the films fault. I fell asleep during the Dark Knight the other week, I thought it was because I was tired but perhaps it was the films fault.

which is why i specified it was the first time id seen it, falling asleep on the couch watching a movie for the nth time is not comparable to falling asleep watching a movie for the first time...in the cinema

Deleted User wrote: »

The first one is certainly fantastic fun and part 3 isn't bad either. No one expects substance from the Ocean's films, they expect to be entertained and by enlarge all three films do entertain.

i actually preferred the 3rd out of all of them, the 2nd isnt even slightly entertaining though, getting teeth pulled is more entertaining

Deleted User wrote: »

So one bad film colours a directors entire CV. Seems like Scott and Spielberg are in trouble then given how both of them in the past decade have made one absolutely dreadful film apiece.

of course it affects the average quality of their filmmaking from a critical perspective, you do not disregard a moviemakers poor attempts just because overall they are good otherwise, every movie they make is part of the package from which you judge their talent

if inception or whatever its called turns out to be crap next year then ill say the same for nolan as well, but he has yet to make a bad film

Deleted User wrote: »

It's crap but it entertains. He could have turned it down and the studio could easily have found someone else to do it and all those films he had wanted to make may never have gotten made. Many directors and stars have made films they did not want to in order to make something they cared for.

yes i understand this but he still made an extremely poor movie regardless of the motivations behind it and it still tarnishes his reputation for movies made in this decade

and i have to disagree that it entertains, i thought it was just plain old crap

indough

indough wrote: »

no because talking about distribution methods has nothing to do with directing, its just movie politics

No it's an example of a director trying something new and radical.

indough wrote: »

sorry but subjectivity only goes so far in explaining these types of things

there are plenty of movies i love but understand why most people hate them and id never even attempt to promote them as top films

Then obviously you don't love those films. For example I love Crank and while I can understand why some people dislike it I will still constantly promote it as a top film which is deserving of more acclaim than it gets.

indough wrote: »

which is why i specified it was the first time id seen it, falling asleep on the couch watching a movie for the nth time is not comparable to falling asleep watching a movie for the first time...in the cinema

I fell asleep the first time I watched Kingdom of Heaven but loved it when I sat down and watched it the next day. Just because you fall asleep during a film does not mean that the film is at fault.

indough wrote: »

i actually preferred the 3rd out of all of them, the 2nd isnt even slightly entertaining though, getting teeth pulled is more entertaining

See this is why this is all subjective, you despise the film whereas many find it entertaining. No one is every going to classify it as a classic but they will agree that it's trashy fun while it last.

indough wrote: »

of course it affects the average quality of their filmmaking from a critical perspective, you do not disregard a moviemakers poor attempts just because overall they are good otherwise, every movie they make is part of the package from which you judge their talent

if inception or whatever its called turns out to be crap next year then ill say the same for nolan as well, but he has yet to make a bad film

But one bad film does not mean that you reevaluate their entire CV. Look at Spielberg, clssed as one of the greatest living directors yet he has more than his fair share of critical flops. Does Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls inherent cheapness make Raiders any less of a classic or mean that Spielberg's other classics are any less impressive?

indough wrote: »

yes i understand this but he still made an extremely poor movie regardless of the motivations behind it and it still tarnishes his reputation for movies made in this decade

and i have to disagree that it entertains, i thought it was just plain old crap

What ne dreadful film out of 12 means is that out of 13 film he made one dud. That's a hell of a lot better than most directors manage.

johnny_ultimate

Michael Haneke would definitely a contender (but again, I don't think anyone deserves the title). The Piano Teacher, Hidden and the White Ribbon are among the greatest of the decade - powerful, stylistically adventurous, and socially relevant.

My main issue with picking a specific director though is that very few films caused a revolution like they did in earlier decades. You had people like Godard and Truaffuat completely dismantling cinematic form in the 50s and 60s. The likes of Scorcese, Spielberg, Coppolla and Lucas heralded in whole new styles of mature cinema in the 70s. Say what you will about Tarantino, but he did introduce the hyper pop culture literate and stylistic cinema of the 90s. I genuinely can't think of anyone who had the same effect this decade. But there is no such loud-and-clear voice of the 00s, IMO. Plenty of good directors, plenty of good films, but none that defined an era.

Duggy747

It's pretty impossible to give a director the accolade of being the best in a decade. Depends really what you mean by best; Overall grossing, critical acclaim, acclaim from the public, consistent quality, etc.

He is definitely one of the best this decade and I have great respect for him. His understanding and philosphy towards cinema is inspiring as he always aims to push the envelope in terms of film-making and story-telling.

I wouldn't call him THE best, though, as nobody can really be given that title.

I'm looking forward to Inception, that trailer looks well slick. :pac:

budgemook

The batman films aren't that great. They are very overrated, especially on boards. For director of the decade I'd go for Danny Boyle simply for tackling so many different genres and doing them excellently. And if not Danny Boyle, Martin Scorsese - Gangs of New York, Aviator, Shutter Island and the best film of the decade - The Departed.

indough

budgemook wrote: »

the best film of the decade - The Departed.

:eek:

magma69

You really didn't put up enough directors to choose from in the poll. Four directors from an entire decade of cinema. I really couldn't choose one tbh. It is difficult to choose as some directors have been more prolific making some great movies and some turkeys (Coen Brothers). Then you have directors who made only a couple of movies but they were really good (Paul Thomas Anderson).

Anyway, if I was force to choose one I would probably go to Darren Aronofsky. Requem for A Dream is one of the greatest movies of the decade (and all time). The Fountain whilst not everyone's cup of tea was an amazingly crafted and visually astounding movie. The Wrestler is another awesome drama where you really become immersed in the story and characters. There are three completely different movies which shows just how versatile Aronofsky is.

Honourable mentions:
Christopher Nolan
Clint Eastwood
Wes Anderson
David Lynch
Martin Scorcese
Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu
Richard Linklater

Wreck

Peter Jackson deserves a mention for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the defining movies of the decade for many people. King Kong may have been underwhelming, but pretty much every director mentioned has at least one poor film this decade. Danny Boyle, Christopher Nolan and Ridley Scott are the other top runners for me, hard pressed to choose between them.

Liam O

indough wrote: »

:eek:

what's wrong with that? It's definitely in my top 5 and way ahead of the Dark Knight...

Handsome Bob

Tie between Nolan and Eastwood for me. Gran Torino, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby are all favourites of mine. Ditto on Nolan with Memento, BB and TDK.

blaablaablaa

kraggy wrote: »

Alejandro González Iñárritu would be up there for me. Certainly higher than Christopher Nolan.

Just can't see what the fuss is with that guy. Decent movies but the suggestions at the time of its release, by many on here I should point out, that The Dark Night could be the best film of all time were, quite simply, downright ridiculous.

Here's my suggestion:

Alejandro González Iñárritu

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0327944/

At least 2 of his films this decade were better than TDK and a third probably would too.

Totally agree. 21 grams is the best movie of all time.

Retr0gamer

budgemook wrote: »

the best film of the decade - The Departed.

Not when the far superior Infernal Affairs that the Departed was based on was out in the same decade and even then Iwouldn't callit film of the decade.

blaablaablaa wrote: »

Totally agree. 21 grams is the best movie of all time.

Found it to be a simple and rather poor film with good performances whichwas edited to make it pretentious. Babel was also terrible imo.

Hank_Jones

Page 3 of this thread and nobody has mentioned Chan-wook Park?
For shame...

Joint Security Area
Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance
If You Were Me
Oldboy
Lady Vengeance
I'm a Cyborg. But That's OK
Thirst

I'd say at least 4 of these films are top class.
Better than Nolan imo.
Plus, Park is not working a franchise that's been flogged to death, regardless of how good the films are.

nyarlothothep

I don't like any of Nolans films, especially the batman ones, definately not director of the decade in my book, in fact I can't think of any one director who would warrant that accolade, 00s films were mostly ****.

johnny_ultimate

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Page 3 of this thread and nobody has mentioned Chan-wook Park?

Ahem, post 2

As I said I'd find it hard to pinpoint one director - Michel Gondry would be up there for me (although he did flop with Be Kind Rewind), Park Chan Wook, the Coens (maybe in around 30 years there will be a decade when they aren't contenders!) and many others would be equally worthy of the title.

I agree though, one of the most undervalued directors of our time. I just watched JSA for the first time last night, which is another fantastic film from him. He's one director who constantly makes brave, ambitious films and while they aren't always entirely successful - Lady Vengeance, for example, is interesting but flawed - are consistently entertaining, subversive and socially aware.

blaablaablaa

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Not when the far superior Infernal Affairs that the Departed was based on was out in the same decade and even then Iwouldn't callit film of the decade.



Found it to be a simple and rather poor film with good performances whichwas edited to make it pretentious. Babel was also terrible imo.

Well for my money performances are what make a great movie. Name a movie that 3 actors gave better performances than 21 grams.

Renn

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't like any of Nolans films, especially the batman ones, definately not director of the decade in my book, in fact I can't think of any one director who would warrant that accolade, 00s films were mostly ****.

Okay, I may have dismissed the first five months of this year but I don't think anyone in their right mind can write off an entire decade. Here's some that I'd rate 7/10 or greater (for those that like lame, pointless rating systems)

9
[Rec]
21 Grams
24 Hour Party People
25th Hour
3:10 to Yuma
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
À l'intérieur
A Prophet
A Serious Man
A Very Long Engagement
Adaptation
American Pyscho
American Splendor
Amores Perros
Antichrist
Anvil! The Story of Anvil
Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, The
Atonement
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans, The
Bad Santa
Before Sunset
Big Fan
Bigger Stronger Faster*
Blood Diamond
Blow
Bourne Identity, The
Bourne Supremacy, The
Bourne Ultimatum, The
Boy A
Broken Flowers
Brothers Bloom, The
Caché
Chop Shop
Cidade de Deus
Cinderella Man
Clerks II
Collapse
Control
Cove, The
Crazy Heart
Dark Knight, The
Das Experiment
Das Leben der Anderen
Dead Man's Shoes
Dead Snow
Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father
Death of Mr. Lazarescu, The
Departed, The
Der Untergang
District 9
Drag Me to Hell
Elephant
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fall, The
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Fish Tank
Four Lions
Friday Night Lights
Frost/Nixon
Funny Games U.S.
Funny Ha Ha
Gladiator
Gone Baby Gone
Goodbye Lenin!
Hostel
Humpday
Hurt Locker, The
Im toten Winkel - Hitlers Sekretärin
In Bruges
In Search of a Midnight Kiss
In the City of Sylvia
In the Loop
In the Shadow of the Moon
Inland Empire
Into the Wild
Jackass Number Two
Jackass: The Movie
Jesus Camp
Joy Division
Kabluey
Keane
Kick-Ass
Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Kill Bill: Vol. 2
King of Kong, The
Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut
La Noche de los girasoles
Låt den rätte komma in
Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain
Leaves of Grass
L'Enfant
Lilya 4-ever
Little Miss Sunshine
London to Brighton
Lonesome Jim
Looking for Eric
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The
Lust, Caution
Machinist, The
Man on Wire
Man Who Wasn't There, The
Marie Antoinette
Martyrs
Me and You and Everyone We Know
Memento
Micmacs à tire-larigot
Million Dollar Baby
Mist, The
Moon
Mulholland Drive
Murderball
My Summer of Love
My Winnipeg
Mystic River
Notebook, The
Obcan Havel
Oldboy
Pledge, The
Prestige, The
Puffy Chair, The
Quiet City
Ratatouille
Red Road
Rescue Dawn
Revanche
Road, The
Roger Dodger
Science des rêves, La
Serenity
Session 9
Shortbus
Slumdog Millionaire
Snatch
Snow Angels
Somers Town
Sophie Scholl: The Final Days
Standard Operating Procedure
Star Trek
Station Agent, The
Superbad
Sweeney Todd
Sweet Sixteen
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
Synecdoche, New York
Tales from the Golden Age
Taxi to the Dark Side
Terribly Happy
There Will Be Blood
This is England
Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, The
Trick 'r Treat
Tyson
United 93
Up


I've probably left a load out but hey ho.

JP Liz V1

I would put Nolan as director of the decade

Paul Greengrass deserves a mention also I know he didnt make many films but the two Bourne movies and United 93 were very good and also Wes Anderson

johnny_ultimate

blaablaablaa wrote: »

Name a movie that 3 actors gave better performances than 21 grams.

I can think of a bucketload off the top of my head. Some random examples:

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: Mathieu Amalric (who manages a hell of a lot using only eye blinks), Emmanuelle Seigner, Marie-Josée Croze, Max von Sydow

Saraband: Liv Ullman, Erland Josephson, Julia Dufvenius, Börje Ahlstedt - stunning and powerful performances, especially from the first two aging veterans.

Royal Tenenbaums: Gene Hackman, Angelica Huston, Ben Stiller, Bill Murray, Gwyneth Paltrow, Luke / Owen Wilson etc... - a great ensemble cast full of actors who usually aren't very good either

Synecdoche, New York: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Michelle Williams, Catherine Keener, Samantha Morton, Emily Watson, Dianne Weist - best female ensemble in years!

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Jim Carrey, Kate Winselt, Tom Wilkinson, Elijah Wood, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo

Mullholland Drive: Naomi Watts, Laura Harring, Justin Theroux, Monty Montgomery

Hidden (Caché): Juliette Binoche, Daniel Auteuil, Maurice Bénichou

Revolutionary Road: Kate Winslet, Leonardo Di Caprio, Michael Shannon

Again, though, it's all subjective, which is why I'm not a fan of picking 'bests'. I have favourites, but I find it hard to define decades by one or two films, directors or performances. Some decades - as I said in an earlier post - did have general trends, but in 00s it wasn't as prevalent.

Sanjuro

Nolan's definitely one of the few directors I feel safe knowing they'll consistently deliver. Director of the decade? I dunno if you can lay that title on any one director. Some directors have had mis-steps, but everybody's allowed slip up now and then. But for me, the most consistent director, who have delivered some of the best films of the last ten years would include Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson, Alfonso Cuaron, Wes Anderson, Paul Greengrass, Wong Kar Wai, and Shane Meadows. They've produced some outstanding films.

sham69

Not a fan of nolan to be honest, liked the first batman but TDK had nothing in it for me apart from heath ledger.
Coen Brothers are in a league of their own.
Wes Anderson -loved fantastic Mr Fox.
Clint is a legend and could be listed in the last decade aswell.
Ki-duk Kim deserves a mention for the fantastic Spring, Summer Autumn, Winter, 3 iron and Samaritan Girl.

I also love Park Chan Wook for the vengeance trilogy alone.
Jim Jarmusch is another favs of mine but he doesnt make enough movies for my liking.

Spike Jonze- Adaptation, Being John Malkovich and where the wild things are- 3 Classics imo

Sorry if my list is a bit mainstream but each to their own.

Renn

Ugh...had a long list typed up there and also a comment mentioning my dislike for all that Eastwood has done, oh well

Anyway, I find this whole 'best' thing reminiscent of those primary school days of trying to figure out who's the bestest player in the whole wide world. There's loads of director's doing good stuff out there and most have been mentioned in this thread. Jeunet has had a couple of good ones, Lynch has created two masterpieces, Haneke has directed as many as Clint but there's a massive gulf in class there, Herzog has had a few gems, Meadows is another one, as is Mungiu, we're also forgetting about Guy Maddin, Penn has done The Pledge and Into the Wild, Nolan as well, Audiard...Duplass bros (:) )...Ken Loach...Lukas Moodysson...Zvyagintsev...Greengrass...PTA...

loads.

ricero

i think the coen brothers deserve that title

johnny_ultimate

Renn wrote: »

Ugh...had a long list typed up there and also a comment mentioning my dislike for all that Eastwood has done, oh well

Duplass bros (:) )...Lukas Moodysson.

I'm surprised so many have voted Eastwood in the poll, whatever about his classics his films after 2000 have definitely not being amongst his strongest work. I'd go into it more, but people get really annoyed when I do.

Duplass Bros. are fantastic, it's a shame they aren't better known. Puffy Chair is wonderful, and I'd love to see Baghead released over here. Plus, they act in some other great independents like Hannah Takes the Stairs and Humpday.

Lukas Moodysson I don't know about. If I had only seen Together and Lilya 4 Ever, I'd be inclined to agree. But then I watched A Hole In My Heart which is an altogether dreadful film. I have Container to watch, but not as bothered after seeing AHIMH. Plus, his American debut Mammoth isn't meant to be all that great either. Show Me Love is meant to be amazing though, shame it's only available as part of a boxset and I already own his other films (bar Together).

I agree with whoever said Spike Jonze though, who had pretty much three home runs with three films. Again, impossible to say 'best', but another one who had a fantastic decade. Charlie Kaufman was definitely one of the writers of the decade though.