#2 Memento

Fuck The Dark Knight. This isn't a list of the most overrated movies of the decade. Memento is Christopher Nolan's masterpiece.

Memento is all Guy Pearce. Yes, there is a Matrix reunion here with Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss. But Pearce's Leonard Shelby is totally alone. And in the way this movie is filmed, the viewer is seeing everything through a perspective that's unique to Leonard.

Leonard suffers from amnesia. While this may be an overused plot in many stories(such as basic television dramas and RPG's) Memento tells Leonard's plight in a completely unique way. Leonard's form of amnesia is the opposite form that's typically depicted. Instead of having no recollection of events that occurred before he got afflicted with memory loss(such as what his name is and what his family is like), Leonard can't remember things that have happened since.

To me this is a far worse condition. If you can't recall certain memories after having brain damage, you know that you can eventually learn things again. But Lenny(which is what Teddy, played by Pantoliano, calls him) is trapped. He keeps reliving the night that caused his head trauma. The night when his wife was raped and murdered by burglars. And multiple times, every single day, that becomes his most recent memory.

Since Leonard knows nothing beyond that moment, all he can think about is catching the killer. In this way Memento becomes a neo-noir thriller. A private eye story with a radical twist. How do you catch a guy if you can't remember your detective work?

In order to solve this problem, as the movie's title suggests, Leonard keeps mementos. Polaroids, tattoos, and notes scatter his hotel room. Those are the only things that he can trust.

The audience sees everything out of order, just so that we get a small sense of what life is like for Lenny. This isn't like Pulp Fiction out of order. Within a particular setting, time will jump. Leonard will be running and then wonder who he's running away from. Anytime he wakes up in a bed that's not his he has no idea how he got there. Nolan plays with this mechanic so well, and the other characters in Memento play with Lenny. Even an employee of the hotel overcharges him, just because he knows that he can get away with it.

Within this film there is a side story told completely in black & white. Leonard is talking to an unknown person about a man named Sammy Jankis. This story seems completely unrelated to the rest of the film until the end. Or is it the beginning?

It's very difficult to describe what makes Memento so incredible, which is why I've been left to describing the general plot. There is so much that isn't revealed until the end of the movie that its brilliance cannot be discussed without spoilers. This is just one of those movies that must be seen many times to figure it all out.

And yet, no matter how well you analyze the movie, there are still questions that remain unanswered. I will try my best to not mention specific events, but this may contain some spoilers:

-The assumption is that even though it may be out of order, there is a beginning and an end to this story. But the truth is that we don't know how long Leonard has been looking for his "John G" and how much longer after the chronological end of the movie Leonard's story will go on for.

-The connection between Leonard Shelby and Sammy Jankis is debatable. If it is as strong as some may believe, then who was Leonard's actual wife? Was she even really raped and murdered? If she wasn't, then what is Leonard really trying to do with his life?

Just as was the case with Ofelia in my previous post on Pan's Labyrinth, maybe Leonard wants to believe what he believes. Perhaps he purposely leaves clues that are ambiguous just so that it's easier for him to solve his case. If he does catch the killer, how will he remember if he did? If the only thing you could know was vengeance, would you want to convince yourself that you had succeeded, no matter what the cost? And most importantly, if you were going to keep on having that desire forever, and if no one got in the way, would you ever stop? Would you want to?



As a side note, because I had no place in this post to mention this, I'd like to add that this movie has maybe the most incredible DVD box and menu ever.

#3 Pan's Labyrinth

Fairy tales are not always designed for children. They can be very haunting and disturbing. Pan's Labyrinth represents what a fairy tale used to mean.

Pan's Labyrinth is set in 1944 fascist Spain(and is told completely in Spanish subtitles). The main character, approximately 10-year-old Ofelia, is forced to move in with her very pregnant mom to a settlement in the middle of the woods. The mom is marrying one of the fascists leaders, Captain Vidal, who is hiding with his troop seeking out any resistance fighters.

This decade has had some incredible villains. Heath Ledger as the Joker, Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh, and Christoph Waltz seems to be the front-runner to be the third straight villain to win Best Supporting Actor for his performance as "The Jew Hunter". But my favorite villain of the decade? Captain Vidal played by Sergi López in Pan's Labyrinth.

By the end of the movie, there is no smidgen of sympathy that remains for this guy. His level of cruelty somehow finds a way to shock you multiple times. You are wishing the worst possible ending for him, but you know that there is nothing that can possibly be done to him that can account for his atrocities.

While her mother is in intense pain from her pregnancy, Ofelia finds herself wondering alone and stumbles into an alternate reality. Director Guillermo del Toro does an incredible job of designing this world; which manages to use modern effects, makeup and costumes while combining it with traditional fairy tale standards(for example Ofelia must complete three tasks).

Pan's Labyrinth is also a great war movie. The skirmishes between the resistance group and Captain Vidal's army are some of the best gunfights that I've seen in a while. Additionally, the inner effort to overthrow Vidal through the spy Mercedes is incredibly suspenseful.

But what makes Pan's Labyrinth work so well is the way that it seamlessly blends the two seemingly different stories together. Ofelia's world becomes so connected with reality that, especially by the end of the movie, the audience is forced to question if what Ofelia went through was real.

But how can we judge what is real? Well, we know what facts are. The world is flat and 2+2=4. But we can only ever experience life from our own perspective. So facts are just a consensus. Objectivity is just finding a commonality among many different subjective people. It's not a coincidence that reality and relative come from the same root word.

And if your reality differs from the majority? Then the world decides that you are wrong. But what if you are never told? Your reality feels just as real as anyone else's, and nobody is letting you in on it. As movies may say, Santa Claus or fairies or any other magical creatures only stop existing when you stop believing in them. And as cliché of an expression as it is, ignorance is very often the most blissful state to be in.

This is the situation that Ofelia finds herself in throughout Pan's Labyrinth. Her real world is so barbaric that her retreats into fantasy are not only understandable, but perhaps the only method she has of escape. Is she consciously pushing herself into another world to avoid the one she's stuck in? Does it matter? All that is important is that she buys into it and that the world is true for her.

#4 i ♥ huckabees

David O. Russell might be the biggest asshole in Hollywood. Apparently, on the set of Three Kings, he started choking George Clooney. When he heard that Jude Law was leaving i ♥ huckabees (pronounced I Heart Huckabees and it will be referred to as I Heart Huckabees for the rest of this post) for a role in The Prestige, he apparently got Christopher Nolan into a headlock. And during the filming of I Heart Huckabees, he got into a couple of feuds with Lily Tomlin. If you haven't seen it or heard it, I suggest you check it out.

But the craziest people are often the smartest. I Heart Huckabees is a weird movie. But it's just so original that I don't understand how people can't appreciate it.

Jason Schwartzman plays Albert Markovski; the type of ultra-environmentalist who rides a bike to work. Albert is in charge of an "Open Spaces Coalition" and is trying to put a stop to the building of a new Wal-Mart type store called Huckabees. Jude Law is an executive at Huckabees and gets rid of Albert by wooing the coalition with his Jude Law-ish charm, and becomes their leader.

Albert is having a crisis and visits a pair of "existential detectives" played by Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman. They tell Albert that everything in the world is connected and that everything has a purpose. They pair him up with Tommy, an anti-firetruck firefighter played by Mark Wahlberg. Tomlin and Hoffman inspect every inch of their customers lives to find out what will make their clients happier.

Eventually, Albert and Tommy become disenchanted with the philosophy of the existential detectives and meet up with a woman who believes in the glass half-empty approach. After going through both groups of therapy, Albert and Tommy draw their own conclusions about how to deal with their current situations as well as life in general.

In case you didn't realize it based on the cast, this movie has wonderful performances. Everyone is incredible including Naomi Watts, who plays Jude Law's girlfriend and the voice of the Huckabees commercials. But there is something that is so interesting about Jason Schwartzmann. He's not a typical great actor. Maybe what makes him so entertaining is that he comes off as such a nice and innocent guy, despite the seriousness and passion that he puts into his acting. I don't know if Schwartzmann intends for the audience to not take him seriously, but either way, he's so much fun to watch.

Many critics blasted this movie for being too existential, nihilistic, transcendental, or whatever. But the biggest thing they missed is that it's tongue-in-cheek. Yes, the movie does go into many philosophical conversations. But it also mocks them. There is a scene where Albert and Tommy conclude that the answer to everything is smacking themselves in the face with a dodgeball. How could anybody take that seriously?

I Heart Huckabees has incredible performances, an insanely original plot, and even manages to explore the meaning of existence in a humorous, non-pretentious way.

"How am I not myself?"

#5 Donnie Darko

For any angsty teenager, Donnie Darko is an idol. He's a loner, a freak and he has to be on medication because everyone says his crazy. But he knows that he's special. He knows that he is meant for great things.

One night his beliefs begin to come true. In one of his many sleepwalks, Donnie(in a breakout role by Jake Gyllenhaal) steps outside to see a man dressed in a freaky bunny suit. The man in the bunny suit identifies himself as Frank and informs him that the world will end in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds, which is on Halloween. Then, before he goes back into his house, a jet engine crashes into Donnie's room.

From this point forth, things get weirder. Donnie comes across characters such as Grandma Death and his teachers who both seem to hint at him that they can sense that something important is going on. Jena Malone, a crush-worthy teen idol in early 2000's indie films(such as The Dangerous Lives of Alter Boys and Saved!), plays Gretchen, Donnie's love interest . And she must also have a feeling that he's special, because the first time that they talk she says that his name sounds like a superhero.

And Donnie begins to believe it. Frank visits Donnie more and more as Donnie, as well as the viewer, begin to question what is real and what is a dream. Donnie can't figure out who Frank really is and when he asks him "Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit?", Frank retorts "Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"

But this doesn't matter to Donnie Darko. Frank makes Donnie feel invincible as he takes on everyone that he hates in this world. This is where the teenage fantasy comes in. The inspirational speaker who tells everyone how to live their lives? He gets exposed as a fraud and a creep(played wonderfully by the late Patrick Swayze). The self-righteous teacher who does an awful job acting like a sweetheart when she's really a crazy bitch? Donnie develops the courage to speak up and show the class her bullshit. It's very hard to not identify with this movie if you're a modern, unpopular teenager.

But it's not modern. It actually takes place in 1988 and there's no aspect of this movie that captures that period better than the soundtrack. Donnie's younger sister dances to "Notorious" by Duran Duran. And according to the Wikipedia page which constitutes most of my research for these posts, there is also music from Pantera and Joy Division. But the most famous song to come out of this movie is the Gary Jules cover of Tears for Fears "Mad World". Jules specifically recorded his version for Donnie Darko , which suddenly became a big hit a few years ago.

Anyway, Donnie gets more absorbed into Frank's demands as it gets closer to the point when the world will supposedly end. Donnie begins to look into time-travel as a way to reverse the impending apocalypse. Time travel is very hard to pull off in a story for two main reasons. First of all, more so than any other science fiction theme, time travel is maybe the most improbable thing to happen in the real world and the one most subject to paradoxes. Secondly, it's been done so many times, in so many great movies and TV shows and books, that to use time-travel in an original way is not easy. But Donnie Darko pulls it off. And in the way the story ends up, things find a way to make sense.

Well, not exactly. There are many ways to interpret this movie, most of which involve spoilers. But without giving any away, there are still many things to consider. We do know that Donnie is crazy, but how much of this is in his head? If Frank is real, than what is his objective? What do the other characters, such as Donnie's therapists and teachers know?

I enjoy movies that make me think, but not movies that make me feel stupid. You shouldn't have to watch a movie multiple times to have a clue about what's going on, like in Primer, which is another time-travel movie from this decade. But it's definitely nice to see a movie a second or third time and pick up on things that you didn't notice in the first go-around. You don't necessarily feel lost after the first time you watch Donnie Darko, but if you feel compelled to see it again you might interpret the entire movie in a different way. I believe it was after my fourth watching of this movie(and after seeing the Director's Cut), that I felt that I understood everything that needed to be understood.

But maybe movies aren't supposed to be like that. Maybe they're supposed to be like paintings. Sure, the artist may have had some message that he/she wanted to get across, but it doesn't matter. Art should be for the public and not the artist, and Donnie Darko is a great example of that democratic ideal. Maybe Frank's comment about Donnie being in a stupid man suit is a statement that Donnie's life is a facade for his true self. Maybe it means absolutely nothing at all.

But who cares? Either way, it's a great line.

#6 Adaptation.

Adaptation is written by a man who writes himself as two men, one of which is writing about the writing process involved in writing an adaptation about a book written by a woman about a man.

While that previous sentence may have been a bit of a spoiler, it is probably so nonsensical to someone who hasn't seen this movie that it doesn't matter anyway. So let me try this again.

Adaptation is written by twin brothers Charlie and Donald Kaufman and staring the characters of Charlie and Donald Kaufman, the latter of which isn't a real person. Okay, this still doesn't make sense but I'll keep on going.

Nicholas Cage plays both twins in his most critically acclaimed performance outside of Leaving Las Vegas. Donald is an idiot, but happy, popular, and very successful with women. Charlie is a renowned genius in Hollywood as the mind behind Being John Malkovich(as he is in real life). But he is depressed, very self-critical, bitter, a loner and despite his talent with the written word, he can barely talk to a woman that he finds attractive.

Charlie is working on his next script, but he has an incredibly bad case of writer's block. It's an adaptation of the book "The Orchid Thief" written by Susan Orlean(once again, a real book and a real person). Charlie loves this book and the way that Orlean goes into the beauty behind orchids as well as the oddity behind the main person she profiles, John Laroche. But he just doesn't see how he can make it into a movie. There's no explosions or murders. No steamy love affair and not even a real conclusion. The story is too much like real life, and no movie studio wants that.

The movie within the movie is the actual adaptation of "The Orchid Thief" itself. Meryl Streep who, despite being 60, might just be the most prolific actress in the world right now, gives a soft performance as Susan Orlean. At least at first. Chris Cooper won an Oscar for his portrayal of the orchid thief himself. He's a dirty hick and the last person who you would expect to be a genius when it comes to flowers. But his passion for plants and the way that they adapt(Ah! Now you get the play-on-words in this film's title) is so contagious that you can see why Orlean finds him so fascinating.

But that's it. Nothing happens between Orlean and Laroche, and both go back to their old lives. How can Kaufman fill up a movie with a story like that? Well, within the movie itself, Kaufman decides that in order to fill up more pages, his "Orchid Thief" adaptation should also include the story behind the writing of "The Orchid Thief". There is then an incredible scene where we see the Kaufman character narrating the exact actions that he was engaging in at the beginning of the movie. This movie is sometimes so self-referential that you feel like your brain is going to explode.

In the meantime, Donald decides that he too would like to become a screenwriter. Donald starts writing a story about a criminal, the person he kidnaps, and the cop. And the twist at the end turns out to be that they're all one person suffering from multiple personality disorder. Charlie criticizes Donald for not only coming up with such a used up twist, but for the logistics of one person kidnapping and chasing himself. In this way Adaptation is not only about Charlie Kaufman's writing process, but a great movie about the writing of movies.

While Adaptation is critical of movie stereotypes, it also acknowledges its own hypocrisy. For example, despite the Charlie Kaufman character being critical of Donald for writing such a cliché plot, the real Charlie Kaufman has written himself into the movie as two people. Eventually Charlie becomes so desperate to finish his screenplay, that off of Donald's suggestion he attends a screenwriting class(which is the epitome of everything Charlie hates about screenwriting). During a lecture the speaker informs the crowd that they should never use voice-overs. This is all of course going on in the middle of a Nicholas Cage voice-over.

Afterward, Charlie meets the speaker, played by Brian Cox, in person. By this point Kaufman has already gotten "The Orchid Thief" part of his screenplay done, as well as the part of the screenplay which described his adaptation of "The Orchid Thief" done. But as was the case with "The Orchid Thief", real life doesn't have conclusive endings. It doesn't have the stuff you see in movies. And how can Charlie adapt this book, as well as his life, in a fair way if it's not real?

That's BS, Cox tells him. In real life, everyday, people are born and they get killed. People fall in love and fall out of love. And what follows from that point on I will not spoil, but to suffice it to say, indicates that the real life Kaufman decided to follow that advice. Which means that he was either acknowledging the validity of it or making a mockery of it.

That is if anybody has any idea what the hell Kaufman is ever talking about.

#7 American Splendor

Biopics are definitely one of my favorite genres. Profiles of real life individuals are often Oscar bait because they begin with a story people are already interested in. But American Splendor is probably my favorite biopic of the decade, and it was about somebody I had never heard of.

That somebody is Harvey Pekar. But it's hard to say if it's strictly a biopic. Harvey Pekar is played by Paul Giamatti, but the movie also features interviews with the real Harvey Pekar. It's a story about an incredibly sad man and Giamatti's amazing performance makes this man's woes hilarious. So in a way American Splendor is a sad, funny, fictional documentary.

The movie starts off with Pekar being a depressive file clerk in 1970's Cleveland, Ohio. And it ends with Pekar as a depressive file clerk in 2000's Cleveland, Ohio. This everyman persona is exactly what makes this character so interesting. Harvey must have known it himself, because he started writing comics based off his monotonous existence. Originally drawn by legendary comic artist Robert Crumb, Pekar facetiously titled his comic book American Splendor which were just boring stories based off of his boring life. Yet somehow people found these tales very interesting.

But it's not hard to tell why. The movie American Splendor takes many scenes that occur in the American Splendor comics, and lets Giamatti bring it to life. His bitter, complain about everything attitude, is somehow hilarious in a Larry David-esque sort of way. You know that both characters are good deep-down, but they're both so honest that they come off as assholes. For instance, when a fan(who would later become his wife) flies out to meet Pekar, he introduces himself by saying "You might as well know right off the bat, I had a vasectomy."


It also does a great job of showing American life throughout the past few decades. In the 80's Harvey's friend Tobey (an insanely funny character played by Judah Friedlander) sells out at as he gets swept up in the MTV generation. Harvey himself can't handle his mild celebrity as his frequent appearances on Late Night with David Letterman as Letterman's punching bag eventually blow up in Pekar's face.

The movie constantly breaks the fourth-wall, as Pekar will go into soliloquies about life in general. There is one scene where he attends a play which is based on his life and he comments about what a weird sensation that is. And how it will be even weirder to see the movie that's based on his life. Now consider how weird it is for the real Harvey Pekar, who is featured within the movie, to see an actor in that movie playing Harvey Pekar, who is watching a play based on his life and remarking what it will be like to see a movie about himself.

And while that might not be the best ending to this particular post, I think it segways perfectly into my next film...

#8 City of God

What's more important when watching a movie, the amount that it gets to you or the amount that it entertains you? Schindler's List is certainly one of the most acclaimed movies ever, but is there enjoyment to be had out of watching it? The same can be said about a book, a TV show, or even a painting. Some people don't enjoy roller coasters. Why would they want to do something that frightens them?

If you fall amongst those who would rather avoid being disturbed, I highly suggest that you avoid seeing City of God. You think the "Slumdog" kids had it bad? At least they could get by just by stealing. There are only two businesses that are profitable for the characters in this movie: You can deal pot or you can deal coke. And, oh yea, there's probably more kids getting murdered in this movie than in anything I've ever seen.

City of God is obviously a sarcastic title. But it is a real place. The City of God(Cidade de Deus in Portuguese) is a district inside of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. As the narrator explains at the beginning of the movie, the government systematically moved the favelas (slums) out of the center of the city, so that the world would see the main part as a safer place. Even though this movie takes place decades ago, this makes me really concerned about having the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

The protagonist in City of God sort of disappears in the middle of the movie, but it's probably because there are so many other characters in this movie that are well developed. And they all go by nicknames. Li'l Zé, Carrot, Knockout Ned. Even though you're reading subtitles throughout the movie, these are names that stick with you.

I obviously don't think this movie is great strictly because of its violence(which is probably the only reason people think The Boondock Saints is a good movie). But there's no question that the violence adds a tremendous amount of tension. There's one scene in which a kid is forced to choose between shooting one of two people. Was it incredibly disturbing? Yes. Would I say that I "enjoyed" watching it? Certainly not. But was it suspenseful, well filmed, and jarring? Definitely.

The violence in this movie isn't random. There are gangs. And they are organized. And they have plans. The rivalries that exist between the groups gets more fleshed out as the movie moves along, and in some ways City of God becomes a gangster movie that rivals a Scorsese picture.

That's not to say that the only great scenes in this movie are the violent ones. The opening scene involving the chicken is just so well shot and, after a movie filled with flashbacks, it's amazing that they manage to bring the story back to that scene.

There's one part where the protagonist(his nickname is Rocket) picks up a woman's phone number in a convenience store. He then, with his friend throughout the movie, gets a ride from a stranger. This stranger asks them if they wanted to smoke, and the main character proceeds to roll up the piece of paper that had the woman's phone number on it. He remarks that he was never good at picking up women, but he was always great at rolling a joint. This is simultaneously funny, bad ass, and very revealing about Rocket's life. In the City of God, children need to learn skills that aren't taught in school in order to thrive or survive.

There's a point in this movie where you realize that there can't be a happy ending. In fact, it would be hard to find an ending at all because every generation ends up repeating what happened in the previous one. However, somehow, the movie ends up finding a way to come to a conclusive ending with Rocket that doesn't seem unrealistic. But it should seem real. It is based on a true story after all.

#9 Grindhouse

There's obviously an incredible amount of subjectivity when it comes to coming up with any "best of" list. However, when it comes to movies, there are certainly things that professional critics and scholars tend to view as being among the more important factors in deciding a film's "greatness". For example, a story may have a so-so plot, but if the movie is paced well, has great camera shots and a fitting score, a critic may deem such a movie as an example of "good filmmaking".

But another factor that should be used in determining what makes a good movie is the actual experience of watching the movie. Obviously, it wouldn't be fair to say a movie is bad because you burnt your popcorn or you just got into a fight with someone before you started watching it. But a good movie maker should look outside of the movie itself and try to take into account the setting it is being viewed in. In this regard, there are certainly some movies that are meant to be seen in theaters. Many might think it's absurd to spend $10 to drive out to see something with other people, instead of staying at home and watching a movie over cable or Netflix. But, in many cases, you won't do a film justice if you see it at home.

Grindhouse epitomizes that type of movie.

It is a movie about the movies. A send-up of the days when people didn't go to movies at midnight because they had to be the first person to see something that will be playing at 4,000 screens the next day. They went to movies at that time because it was the only time that such perverted and gory material would be shown. And these midnight showings wouldn't be in megaplexes outside of a mall where teenagers would meet up to see the latest big-budget blockbuster. They were weirdos or creeps who would go into small, independent, and dirty theaters and watch some cheap trash.

Grindhouse relishes in that. It's a double feature with Planet Terror by Robert Rodriguez, and Death Proof by Quentin Tarantino. There are fake trailers directed by Edgar Wright, Rob Zombie and Eli Roth. There is acting that is (except in the case of Fergie) intentionally awful, fake cigarette burns and complete scenes that are missing.

Planet Terror is as B-Movie as you're going to get. It's a cheesy 70's style zombie fest. Freddy Rodríguez, (who may be my favorite Hispanic actor) is El Wray, which I believe, when translated into English, means "The Fucking Man". Rose McGowan is hot as always, and Naveen Andrews make his torturous Sayid character on Lost seem like a wimp as he plays a guy who collects people's testicles. There are also appearances by Bruce Willis and of course Tarantino.

Planet Terror may not be what the aforementioned scholars would refer to as a "good movie", but it's certainly awesome in it's awesomely bad way. However, it's biggest problem may be the setup it gave to the follow up feature, Death Proof.

I remember some of the people I talked to after seeing Grindhouse were much more pleased with Planet Terror than with Death Proof. Maybe because Planet Terror was a B-zombie movie, people expected something similar with Death Proof. That being said, Death Proof may go down as Tarantino's most underrated film.

Death Proof is about a stuntman who goes by the name Stuntman Mike. Now, Stuntman Mike gets off in an unusual way. Whenever he finds women attractive, he feels like murdering them with his car. In this way, Death Proof is half a serial killer horror film, and half an homage to the movies it specifically mentions within the story, such as Vantage Point and the original Gone in 60 Seconds.

While not as twisted as Stuntman Mike, Tarantino himself certainly has some weird sexual idiosyncrasies, like his obvious foot fetish. But his female characters in Death Proof are extremely entertaining, and their dialogue is as well written as any other Tarantino personalities. They are silly yet smart. Girly yet strong. Sexy yet independent. They act and talk in a way that I'd like to think women act and talk like when guys aren't around. And the second group of girls final showdown with Stuntman Mike has got to be one of the most female empowering scenes I have ever seen.

Unfortunately, Grindhouse was a disaster at the box office. Warner Brothers believed that this happened because people didn't want to see long movies in theaters, and reportedly cut the length of the 5th Harry Potter movie because of that reason. Now, I know that studios don't always act in the smartest way, but that has to be the dumbest rationalization I have ever heard. So The Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Carribean movies were unsuccessful? At least, I really hope that Warner Brothers was wrong. I can't understand how audiences are able to sit through eight hours of Johnny Depp being a pirate who fights zombies(and they're making another one!), but not be able to enjoy something as original as Grindhouse.

Whatever it was, Grindhouse wasn't that successful. And the powers that be now only air the movies separately on TV or sell them individually on DVD. So even though it will be impossible to replicate that movie watching experience, if you haven't seen either film I urge you to go out and check it out. And even if you have, you should see them again. Because there is plenty of extra material added that they didn't have time to show in theaters.

Two words for you: Lap-dance.

#10 Knocked Up

Due to his first name, I might be partial to the films of Judd Apatow. But I think that what he has done for comedy in the 2000's is comparable to what Kevin Smith did in the 90's. Yes, there are many "dick and fart" jokes in both Smith and Apatow movies. But what makes both of them great comedic filmmakers and screenwriters is that they don't rely solely on dirty jokes or "guy gets hit in the nuts" type humor. What distinguishes them both is the superb dialogue and interactions which captures their apathetic characters perfectly. And that is something that is instantly identifiable to an apathetic generation.

Although many people still prefer The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up is not only my favorite Apatow film, but definitely among my favorite comedies of this decade. The concept of the "romantic comedy" has been butchered down to what it was when Annie Hall was released. Producers realized it would be much more profitable to take out the "comedy" part of it and market their films for their star power. All you need to do is take some British guy(Hugh Grant, Gerard Butler, Jude Law) and put him with some American Sweetheart(Kate Hudson, Sarah Jessica Parker, Drew Barrymore), and now you have a romantic comedy.

But Knocked Up is what a romantic comedy should be. It is very much a love story. While it may not be a "chick flick", there should be no reason why women who love a great love story wouldn't love this movie. Yes, it does have the typical theme of a slacker guy who needs to change for his woman. But it actually feels real. You can see how both Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl manage to find ways to work it out. This plot line would normally seem very thin, but it's not. Things aren't exactly happily ever after at the end. Paul Rudd's character sort of resolves that his existence with his wife and children may not be wonderful, but it's what he has.

However, there are certainly a ton of very humorous moments throughout this movie. The Apatow crew of Jonah Hill, Jason Segal, and Bill Hader are always insanely entertaining. Leslie Mann is always fun to watch and her children in Knocked Up(which are her real kids with Apatow), are so cute when they talk about things like "Googling murder".

As much as I hate the typical romantic comedy, I get more upset by the way that people buy into it. That they believe in these silly fantasies. That's why I'm amazed that Knocked Up would've received criticism from the press and Heigl herself for being sexist. It seems that if a love story isn't specifically geared towards women it's sexist. I also recall reading a review saying that the story in Knocked Up is so absurd because a guy like him can never get with a girl like her.

To me, THAT'S sexist. To suggest that an attractive, successful woman is too shallow to get with a less attractive and successful(yet sweet) man, is incredibly offensive. Knocked Up is one of those movies that when I see on TV I end up sitting through the whole thing, even if I only wanted to watch one scene. But when I'm watching it, I'm not thinking about the impressions it leaves of men and women.

I'm just laughing.