The Best Movie Since 2000?

A reflection of the New York Times' list "The 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century"

What is the best movie of the 21st century? It’s a daunting question but the New York Times — along with more than 500 directors, actors, and other “notable names” — tried to find an answer, compiling “The 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century.”

However, the end results are mixed — with questionable rankings and exclusions of critically and financially successful films, once again exposing a gap in taste between Hollywood elites and the average moviegoer.

This is partially exemplified by the top prize going to Parasite, Bong Joon Ho’s 2019 Academy Award Best Picture recipient. Though a good movie in terms of its craft, is Parasite the best movie in the past 25 years?

Personally, no. However, unlike Sight and Sound’s confounding top pick Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, Parasite is not a totally illogical selection. But as this The New Yorker headline aptly states, the film “falls short of greatness” — although reviewer Richard Brody praises Bong’s “messaging to wreak a devastating twist on a dark truth of capitalism.”

I suspect other Hollywood insiders still agree with Parasite’s anti-capitalist themes, hence its number one status, which is ironic for an industry prone to kowtowing to foreign regimes, from Nazi Germany to China, for a meager dollar. (Remember Disney’s racist decision of shrinking John Boyega’s Finn on the Star Wars: The Force Awakens poster to appease Chinese audiences? That’s only one instance.)

Beyond its class commentary, Parasite’s storytelling and filmmaking failed to captivate me as much as other movies on the list like There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Spirited Away, or The Social Network — all of which cracked the top ten. Daniel Day Lewis and Javier Bardem’s performances as oilman Daniel Plainview and sociopathic hitman Anton Chigurh, respectively, are tour-de-forces. Hayao Miyazaki’s classic anime is a wonderous fairytale, filled with a cavalcade of fascinating characters and singular settings. Despite the artistic liberties, David Fincher’s depiction of Facebook’s origin story is, nevertheless, an interesting examination of the then new social media landscape.

No doubt, these movies reach moral conclusions more aligned with progressivism than conservatism. That is not the point. Yet one element that defines a movie as “great” is the ability to transcend its celluloid and/or digital bounds, imbuing itself in the popular culture and lexicon. In short, there is something memorable — a special distinguishable quality audiences can identify and latch on to. Has Parasite done that? Certainly not as much as Plainview’s “I drink your milkshake” monologue or Chigurh’s haunting coin toss threat.

Nor did Parasite capture the zeitgeist like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, which is within a similar genre (satirical thriller) with overlapping themes.

Moreover, Parasite wears its social cause on its sleeve; so does Get Out. However, even though the latter tackles heavy themes like American racism, the film is less nihilistic — and has a likable protagonist who the audience is ‘rooting’ for. Meanwhile, Parasite lacks both subtlety and, by the end, sympathy for its literal basement dweller main characters. Ultimately, as a viewer, it’s distracting knowing I’m watching a movie about the “dark truth of capitalism” rather than first admiring the story or supporting the protagonists.

Overall, to paraphrase Russell Crowe’s Maximus Decimus Meridius, I was partially entertained. (More on Gladiator in a moment.)

A great film also inspires others to join the industry as directors, screenwriters, boom operators, etc. Raiders of the Lost Ark is the prototypical example in this regard; but there are 21st century models like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which provided an exemplary, in-depth behind-the-scenes documentary to do just that. Parasite’s legacy, on the other hand, still remains to be seen since it does not have the luxury of time, as is the case for other films on the New York Times’ list.

Apart from the top selection, there are considerable lapses from the top 100. Notably, Esquire offered “glaring omissions” like Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Lincoln, Casino Royale, and In Bruges. Yet Esquire too misses other snubs like The Incredibles, Drive, Belfast, The Pianist, Shaun of the Dead, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Team America: World Police, Pirates of the Caribbean, Mission Impossible: Fallout, Spiderman 2, Frozen, or Ford v. Ferrari, among the many. Even Shrek — which won the first Best Animated Feature category at the Academy Awards — was absent from the New York Times’ list.

And how could Lord of the Rings: Return of the King — one of only three films in history to win 11 Oscars — miss the cut entirely? Nor the Two Towers? Only The Fellowship of the Ring placed and at 87th. For context, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy finished 85th overall. Perhaps more harsh, Anchorman beat Gladiator, which ranked 92nd. No offense to Will Ferrell’s comedy (which is good), but Ridley Scott’s sword-and-sandal epic is one of the greatest movies ever made, let alone in the past 25 years. (Although, for the list to include Anchorman is refreshing.)

Lists are subjective, and I can generally accept the list’s top 10. Thankfully, plenty of good movies made the top 100 like Mad Max: Fury Road, City of God, Grand Budapest Hotel, The Dark Knight, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Moneyball, Up, and 12 Years a Slave, to name a few.

But these lists serve as a window into Hollywood’s perception of art and entertainment — and it showcases a lack of cohesion between what resonates with industry insiders and the general audience. Granted, not every box office success is deemed ‘great’ simply for amassing huge tickets sales — like the Avatar and the Fast and the Furious franchises, or even the Transformers movies (if they can be called that).

Creatives should try to achieve art — but they also should craft entertaining tales, which is why most people go to the theater in the first place. We come to be entertained. We don’t come for ideology or to be bombarded with, as the Critical Drinker calls, “The Message.” We come to escape, to explore new worlds, to connect with characters, and even learn more about the human drama and/or comedy that we all experience.

The New York Times list is not a travesty or eccentric compared to past compilations like Sight and Sound; in fact, there are many good movies mentioned. And lists like these also exist to generate interest in artistic movies once bypassed by the general public, which in turn helps elevate the independent film industry, thus providing a space for up-and-comers to prove themselves.

Yet the list still reveals a consistent chasm between the films that unite us. And that, in and of itself, is not a necessarily good indication if the industry wants to rebound from the effects of Covid, labor strikes, wokeism, and the streaming wars.

Everyone loves a comeback story, though. With F1, Superman, and others coming out this summer, maybe 2025 can mark a turnaround. Time will tell.

***

In case you don’t have a subscription to the New York Times, here are the top 25 movies on its list:

1. Parasite

2. Mulholland Drive

3. There Will Be Blood

4. In the Mood for Love

5. Moonlight

6. No Country for Old Men

7. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

8. Get Out

9. Spirited Away

10. The Social Network

11. Mad Max: Fury Road

12. The Zone of Interest

13. Children of Men

14. Inglourious Basterds

15. City of God

16. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

17. Brokeback Mountain

18. Y Tu Mama Tambien

19. Zodiac

20. The Wolf of Wall Street

21. The Royal Tenenbaums

22. The Grand Budapest Hotel

23. Boyhood

24. Her

25. Phantom Thread