I like making lists.

That makes sense, I misunderstood.

2. Mad Men
Seasons: 7 (final split in two halves)
Aired: 2007-present



Don Draper is one of the most incredibly complex characters, if not the most, in the history of television. Don tends to go back and forth between nobility and charlatanism, pragmatism and idealism. That idea is displayed on screen perfectly in the Season 5 finale when, not minutes after arriving at Megan's television set to wish her luck, he finds himself at a bar being flirted with by his next woman of the night (accompanied excellently by a classic James Bond theme). Marital discord plays a large part in the series, but it's certainly not the only dominant theme presented by the show: identity and memory, sexism, white privilege, ambition, racism, addiction, consumerism, counterculture, etc. No one is really who they say they are, and no one really changes. I like that second idea a lot. As film and television fans, I think some of us (myself included) tend to be drawn to stories featuring a lot of personal growth and development, but how many here can say they have really experienced a lot of change in their personality during their life? I mean, some of us were kids who grew up with quiet or loud personas and shed them as we aged, but beyond that I don't think the idea of significant character growth is something that occurs naturally very often. I realized this at some point during Season 6 when Don seemed to be getting back into his bad habits, "He had been doing so well with Megan and the kids, and now he's spending his free time with his attractive neighbor," but that was the point. Don hadn't changed, and it's sort of silly to have expected it in the first place.

The series also features the best writing on television, a very large and diverse cast of characters (which seems to always be growing and rarely diminishing), beautiful set and costume design, etc. I find that I don't really identity with any of the characters in the series, but I think that is one of the show's intentions to an extent. I don't walk around my own office thinking I identify with all of these people, they're mostly strangers once I walk out the front doors. That's how I see the characters on Mad Men as well. We only know what we're shown.

I also appreciate that every episode feels connected in tone and humor, sometimes even the plot as well. The show's creator, Matthew Weiner, had a big hand in the writing of every episode of the series so he is most responsible for that facet. That's somewhat unique in television, a lot of shows will sometimes have an episode here or there that doesn't feel like it belongs ("Bug" in Breaking Bad for example). Mad Men is perhaps less concerned with plot than most shows, but it never veers off course.

With this ranking, obviously I have a lot of respect and apprecation for Mad Men. I think it is one of the best shows of all-time, and was very nearly #1 on this list until I had a change of heart at the 11th hour. I'll round the list off tomorrow.

Scooby-Doo will obviously be number one.

Interesting point on the character development idea. I think a lot of us get hung up on thinking character development means that there needs to be some sort of character growth. When in reality successful character development has more to do with making them complex and being able to relate that to the audience. Its not so much that the characters change, but that we are able to understand them better.

1. The Sopranos
Seasons: 6 (final season split in half)
Aired: 1999-2007



I’ve loved a lot of shows in my life, some have stuck around (a lot made this list), others were forgotten about or moved on from like Smallville, Battlestar Galactica, and Dexter. I’ve even grown to hate a few… like Lost. The Sopranos was more than just a great television show to me though, The Sopranos changed my perception of what television could be and what superb television should be. I have preferred television to film for some time now; television can be used to tell much deeper and complex stories, often running for 70, 80, 90, 100+ hours rather than a standard two hour film. There is no better example of that than The Sopranos (although truthfully, Mad Men might be a better example – can you imagine Mad Men as a two hour film? wouldn’t work, but The Sopranos is a better series and that’s why it’s here).

The show received considerable attention from critics for its mature and artistic content, technical merit, music selections, cinematography, and willingness to deal with difficult and controversial subjects including crime, gender roles, family, and American and Italian American culture. It paved the way for many shows that followed that focused on dark characters and complex stories: Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Wire (which I still have not watched, soon), The Shield, and etc.

James Gandolfini is a miracle in the series, just completely embodying the character in every scene he’s in. The cast is far too large for individual mentions beyond that (although I can quickly mention Edie Falco’s tremendous work too), but it’s a perfect ensemble. Even more impressive than the other shows I’ve mentioned to this point for the same reason.

The Sopranos instilled a trust in me for television that it can be just as artistic and complete a story-telling medium as film or literature can be.

I think Season 9 also had the episode told in reverse chronology, and the Merv Griffin episode. I don't really care for either of those. I'm also not a fan of the finale either... which will play into my next list(s).

Eh, that's true. I don't have a problem with Season 9 at all other than The Maid and The Finale now that I think of it. And even then it's the only "negatives" of the series I can think of.

And Season 1 I'll give you, but Season 2 has some really good episodes that got the style of the show rolling. The Chinese Restaurant, The Deal (ahead of its time subject matter), The Jacket, The Phone Message, those were all really good in my opinion.

Not really. Cheers had already tackled some of that friends-with-benefits stuff. It's not a bad episode. I started watching Seinfeld when it premiered on syndication. 1994. 1995. Around there. And that was the first episode that stood out to me... but... it can't compete with the classics. It wouldn't even be a contender for a Top 10 list. The episode that aired a few years later, the fake orgasm one, now THAT was cutting edge.

It did win the Emmy.

5. Foxcatcher
I love a good true crime drama, although to be fair it is difficult to call it at that as the majority of the film focuses on the wrestling and the drama at the Foxcatcher Farm. Director Bennett Miller does an excellent job here, although I think some of his prior films were better (Moneyball and Capote for example). Foxcatcher is too cold a movie to really enjoy, but that nature is intentional and transfixing.

Credit must be given to all three leads: Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, and Mark Ruffalo. Ruffalo probably the least of the three, but that comes more from a place of expectation than anything else; he's still very good. Carell and Tatum though are both playing characters that we're not used to seeing from them, both a little disturbed and dark, and both excel in these roles, especially Carell. John du Pont very well could be a career-changing performance for Carell. Miller aimed for maximum creepiness, and with his loathsome and piercing stares Carell delivered.

The film's climax does not bring with it a motive, and because of that feels much more real (this film was based on a true story, but the film manages to avoid feeling too dramatized). Great movie.

4. Nightcrawler
Jake Gyllenhaal is dynamite. This is probably his best performance to date, playing a cold obsessive who has lost his grip on sanity. He doesn't let anyone get in the way of his American dream. There is no character building or a big surprise coming with him; we just see the character unraveled more and more throughout the film until his complete sociopathic charm is fully known and on display. Obviously there won't be a sequel or a prequel or anything, but I found myself really wanting to know more about him. How did he get to be this way? He was chaotic, a force of nature that just tore through everything in his path. The director and cinematographer made a wise choice to focus so much on Gyllenhaal's haunting eyes. This is definitely one of the best films of the year.

3. Gone Girl
The tenth film from David Fincher does not disappoint. This seems to be a common theme in other reviews I've read, but it's hard to talk about the film without delving into spoilers and I think this is a film best walked into unaware. Instead, I'll talk about the things that can be.
 
Gone Girl is what I've come to expect from David Fincher. Perfectly shot cinematography, a haunting score, terrific writing, dark humor, excellent direction, etc. It is a technically brilliant film. Fincher is a tried and true perfectionist, and that is definitely on display here.

Ben Affleck (sporting St. Louis Cardinals attire throughout the movie, must have been hell for a die hard Red Sox fan) is a very interesting choice for the lead. Throughout his career, Affleck has been joked about for delivering a lot of wooden performances... and that was what was on display here as well. But, that's who the character was. In that regard, Affleck was an inspiring choice for the film as he has plenty of experience being painted negatively in the media (obviously not for murdering women... I don't think anyway). Rosamund Pike was also very good, showing different sides of the same woman at every turn (of which there were plenty). She is deserving of a nomination from the Academy come awards time. The rest of the cast, Tyler Perry, Neil Patrick Harris, Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens, Patrick Fugit, all used to their fullest (and in some cases, surprising) potentials.

Dark, thrilling, engaging, twisting and turning throughout its entire run-time (which is quite lengthy, but never really felt), Gone Girl is another home run from David Fincher. What's next?

2. Interstellar
I sat and stared at this white box for a long time before starting to write, trying to fully make sense of what I just watched. I'm trying to not get lost in hyperbole, but at the same time I find myself drinking the Kool-aid now too. I've obviously been a fan of Christopher Nolan for a long time, but after the reviews started pouring in I thought there was a genuine chance this would be his first misfire.
 
Interstellar is definitely not that.

Beautiful. Bold. Engrossing. Visual. There are a lot of power words I could use to describe Interstellar, none of them negative. Nolan travels through time and space to show us something as deep and profound as he ever has while delivering a spectacle of intergalactic proportions from a solid human point of view. Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway are both tremendous, as is Michael Caine, Jessica Chastain, everybody. McConaughey won't see any Oscar nominations because this is just not the kind of film the Academy will honor like that, but he's deserving.

There have been a lot of comparisons to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I think some of them are definitely deserving. I don't think the film is necessarily better, but it achieves similar things albeit in a very different manner. It's impossible not to see parallels, even homages here and there, especially in a scene that recalls Keir Dullea’s “white room” dual existence sequence from that film.

In my opinion, the true mark of a great piece of science fiction is that it tells a story that can exist without that element but is made better with its inclusion. Interstellar is certainly that story. Nolan has managed to improve himself with each passing film; each Batman film being better than the last (in my opinion), each drama also being better than the last. Nolan has proved himself to be one of the most ambitious directors working today, not afraid to go for broke every chance he gets. 'Interstellar' may be his most complete and complex work yet, and I can't wait to see what he does next.

1. Boyhood
Masterpiece. It's a word thrown around a lot, sometimes about the most random of things, and when I heard it used over, and over, and over again about Boyhood I assumed it was probably accurate to some extent but mostly hyperbole.

This was far from that. I do think the film should have had more of an arc to it, but at the same time I feel like that's asking a lot. Did your life have an arc to it when you were a teenager? Mine neither, so to expect anything more dramatic than what we got from Linklater in that regard was pushing it. Brilliant on a sheer technical level, and the idea that there will likely never be another film quite like this is a little awe-inspiring. It's a film more about life than perhaps any film I've seen in the past decade.

I was a few years older than Mason at these times in his life, but it still rang true in a lot of ways. My parents weren't divorced, but both of his folks reminded me a lot of mine. It was neat to see Mason's conversations with his dad mature more and more as he grew older. My relationship with my dad grew the same way, so it's a touching thing to feel like what I have with him is represented on screen here.

I just don't know what else to say. I think it's legitimately the best film of the decade so far, and quite honestly one of the best I've ever seen. It's a masterpiece in the truest sense of the word. This is what a film is supposed to be, and what the medium is capable of.

Thank you.