ONLY ONE QUESTION: Why do you want such a list?
As for the one you've collated here, my comments now follow.
1. All the 70s movies listed are fine movies that can make a creme de la creme list. I've no problem with any of them.
2. The 80s is virtually the same. I have to watch Drugstore Cowboy, however, it already being in my stack.
3. The 90s list is also excellent. In that one, my ownly disagreement is Miller's Crossing. I simply do not like it.
4. The 2000s. If you want Memento, I can live with it. I liked Equilibrium a lot, rating it 8/10. I only left it off because it's sci-fi. If we allow sci-fi into the list, then are you going to add Blade Runner back? I left Insomnia off, although it's quite good with Pacino and the late Robin Williams, but I recall the foreign version being better. So, I can live with this.
We have a lot of consensus here between us.
5. The 2010s. Most okay by me, some not. I disliked Inception in my 5-year old review:
Long, slow, indifferent action movie interspersed with tedious explanations, 29 October 2014
This movie has lots of special effects, if thatís what turns you on. I mean lots. But as for the rest of what makes a good movie, itís not there. The basic story is maudlin. There are no characters one can root for. The story doesnít draw one in. The dialog is way, way too heavy on tedious explanations, or else the way that itís done makes it tedious. After awhile, I could care less about 3 levels of dreaming. I disengaged from seeing intercutting between the three levels, and I completely lost track of what the risks were. The movie has tons of action, but it feels like many other action movies.
Dream sequences actually can be very engaging, and a number of great movies have them. "Wild Strawberries" has a great dream sequence. Gregory Peck has dreams in the Hitchcock movie with Ingrid Bergman the psychiatrist in "Spellbound". There are lots of ways to make dreams be unreal. "Inception" had this opportunity but despite the special effects or because they became chases and shoot-em-ups, they largely failed. Some of it succeeded but not enough.
At the 112 minute mark, I began to fast-forward through some of the battles. The film was very tedious. It said almost nothing. I watched "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" running 135 minutes and was completely engaged the whole time. The characters were real people. In "Inception" I got the feeling I was watching someoneís idea of people constantly spouting exposition about dream mechanics. It was like people had become technicians or robots.
Looper is more sci-fi. I am quite critical of it in my 6-year old review.
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Old Joe (Bruce Willlis) has a lot more charisma than young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), 8 February 2013
Time travel involves paradoxes that cannot be resolved. Time travel is impossible. That doesnít stop entertaining time travel stories from being concocted, but they will always have plot holes and impossible inconsistencies. I like these stories as much as the next person.
In this one, criminals from the future (2074) send their enemies back to the past (2044) to be executed by "loopers". Sometimes they send back the future looper, who is then executed by his present looper self. Clearly impossible, but who really cares? Sometimes a present looper does not carry out his contract, and then heís hunted down and punished.
Bruce Willis (in 2074) manages to escape the criminals who are binding him up to send him back. He goes back on his own and manages to escape being executed by his young self (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Willis is intent on killing the young version of a future nemesis named the "Rainmaker".
This is all more than ample of a plot to build an action movie upon. The actual screenplay, however, is sadly defective in at least three ways. First, it fails to elaborate on the time travel aspects. Second, the story grinds to a halt and focuses on a woman living on a farm whose son has telekinetic powers and who will become the "Rainmaker". Third, the script jumps right into scenes and doesnít use enough "small" scenes and points of view to generate suspense. The director is probably also responsible for this major omission. Was budget-cutting involved in these omissions or simply ignorance of how to create tension? When I see scenes moving slowly in one set and being dragged out for no dramatic reason, Iím inclined to think that the film makers literally do not know how to make a movie. Countless old movies would show them how to film and edit movies in order to keep the story going, while also building character and interest simultaneously.
Thatís not all thatís wrong with this movie. Basically, itís a "cold" and uninvolving picture, with the exception being Bruce Willis and some good settings at times. We know almost nothing about the bad guys in 2044, and even less about them in the future. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a junkie executioner. His character is cold and unsympathetic to begin with, and his portrayal does nothing to relieve these characteristics. Only when Willis shows up does the film come more to life. Otherwise, the film makers seem intent on showing us one person after another being blown away by the looperís blunderbuss.
The net result of all this is a mediocre film, not intelligent, not earth-shaking, not profound in any sense, and not even average.
My 3rd and last objection is to Sicario. I watched that rather recently, I believe. As a thriller or crime story, it's okay. I always like Del Toro's work very much. As a neo-noir, I don't see it as anything special. If memory serves, I didn't particularly buy into the story.
Altogether, we have significant agreement on this list, and it's a good list even without further additions and tweaking.
ONLY ONE QUESTION: Why do you want such a list?