THE 13 BEST FILMS OF 2019
A NOTE ABOUT THE ACADEMY AND DIVERSITY
I’ve come to the conclusion that trying to whittle down my list of the best films of the year to just 10 films is stupid and pointless. There are more than 10 films that I hold in slightly more esteem than others. This past week I watched as Twitter lit up with conductive outrage over such-and-such person not getting nominated, and such-and-such person getting a nod over someone else.
Even I made a post with Willem Dafoe’s face from The Lighthouse and Lupita Nyong’o’s from Us with the hashtag, #robbed.
We, who attack the Academy simply because they did not award our particular tastes to completion, would do well to remember this scorching hot take: When there’s lots of great movies and performances in a year such as this and there are (thankfully) varied perspectives and a variety of tastes, it is impossible to please all parties. There are more than just 5 actors who are worthy of an Academy Award nomination. There are more than just 5 directors who are worthy. The Academy system tells us there are 9 films that separated themselves from the pack but there are only 5 nominees in the category for Best Director. Sometimes, they even nominate films for Best Director that do not have a Best Picture nomination. I am okay with the absurdity of all of this because it’s all arbitrary anyway.
We should not get outraged every time the Academy’s tastes varies from our own. But we should be concerned when representation is a factor.
That no women were nominated in the category for Best Director in the year 2020 is a tragedy. That more minorities were not nominated is also a very big problem. The Academy has a sickness, yet it is important to reach the right diagnosis in order to cure that sickness. Personally, I don’t think the answer is for Academy members to go against their gut instincts and push women filmmakers or minorities on their ballots even though they think that a white male filmmaker made a movie they like a whole lot more. An Academy member is certainly entitled to vote this way, but this is akin to stuffing your nose with cotton tissue to fix a nosebleed when the real problem is that you have an iron deficiency. It’s a short term solution to a problem that has bigger implications. The truth is, you may need to inject more iron into your diet.
There needs to be more women and more people of color put in positions to vote. And the best way to get a vote in the Academy is by getting a job in an industry guild. Hiring more women directors doesn’t simply create a “sisterhood” mentality. A woman filmmaker shouldn’t have to feel obligated to vote for someone simply because they are a woman (though they are, of course, at liberty to do so), but it increases the odds of a woman filmmaker establishing themselves enough that they are able to land an elite directing gig that is normally granted to men. If Lorene Scafaria has as much of a chance at landing a great project as a Martin Scorsese, good things can and will happen. The result, in this case, was Scafaria’s Hustlers, one of the more satisfying entertainments I saw this year.
The hiring of more women has long term, positive ramifications that are immeasurable. There are young women who will be empowered simply by watching movies like A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Atlantics, Booksmart — all directed by women; it decreases the potency that culturally-institutionalized doubt imparts on the psyche of young women interested in pursuing filmmaking, a doubt that exists only because they lack a Y chromosome. The more Deborah Chows, Michelle MacLarens, Patty Jenkins, Jennifer Kents there are in the world — and there just aren’t enough right now — the bigger the voting pool becomes and the more choices there are for all of our various tastes, values and sensibilities.
I’ve seen a number of films from women filmmakers this year. I did not love the highly praised Joanna Hogg film, The Souvenir. There are, of course, a ton more films made by men that I liked a lot less. It is not fair to demand that the relatively small number of films directed by women all be exemplary or Oscar-worthy. Jennifer Kent made a good movie this year called The Nightingale, a dark and violent western. I liked it. I didn’t love it. It is not among my 13 best films of the year.
Among those personal 13 favorites, only two were directed by women. And all 13 films were made by directors who are worthy of being nominated for Best Director (Hell, I could even make a case for a directing nod for films well outside of my personal 13. Waves, for example, is not among my favorite films of the year, but I would not argue against anyone who made the case for the extraordinary work by Trey Edward Shults. Waves is a powerful, visually engaging work featuring some of the best acting of the year. How is that not worth Oscar consideration? It’s simply not among my very favorite films).
So if I were an Academy voter, and I had to whittle down my select 13 to 5 worthy directors, that’s two women filmmakers against 11 male filmmakers. Who do you think has a better shot of landing in the top 5 spots? If I’m being honest, I probably employ some bias in favor of at least one of those women simply because they are a woman. But I wouldn’t feel good about it because it is condescending and, more importantly, I shouldn’t have to.
AN EXPERIMENT TO FIGURE OUT WHO — ACCORDING TO MY TASTES — I SHOULD VOTE FOR BEST DIRECTOR
When I’m asked who I’d nominate for Best Director if I were an Academy member, I don’t just take take each director for my favorite 5 films and slot them in. I think there are different aspects to different films that I respond to and it isn’t always the best crafted film that I love the most. This might be inherently stupid, but it’s what I do. I do it this way because I’m trying to avoid bias. But it’s possible I’m selecting based on bias. So, a little experiment…
The director is ultimately responsible for everything in a medium that is largely collaborative and its near impossible to argue how much the director drew from, say, his actors or how much of an awesome actor’s performance is just the actor being awesome. Ultimately, I tend to think the director is often a big part of something like a great performance because great directors tend to get great performances from great actors that aren’t always 100% of the time great (Denzel excluded).
I think there are 4 major criterion for what a director does well.
A. Execution of screenplay (story, action writing and dialogue)
B. Execution of performances
C. Strength of visuals (cinematography, camera operation, costume design, art direction)
D. Execution of mood and atmosphere (the overall feel of the film — probably the most recognizable directorial trait because it is the culmination of all of the director’s decisions in using all of the collaborative work)
I could then calculate on a 5 point system (5 being “excellent”, 4 being “great”, 3 being “very good”, 2 being “good” and 1 being “OK) each of the above criterion. I’m going to give each film a score. I suspect there will be films that score higher that are lower on the list but let’s find out.
1. ONCE UPON A TIME… IN HOLLYWOOD
This has — more or less — remained my favorite film of the year since it came out and after repeated viewings (5 times now), my feelings have only deepened. As I get older, I’ve come to realize that I respond to characters and story more than I do plot, visuals or anything else. And Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood is short on plot, but long on story and character. I love this movie because I love Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth — both as Tarantino creations and the way they are performed by Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt. I love their friendship and their place in the world Tarantino has built. This is a movie I can serve up almost any time and just drink it all in because this filmmaker is just working on another level from almost anyone else.
While the Kill Bill movies are more emotional than they are given credit for (The Bride waking up and assuming she lost her baby is devastating stuff), and while Jackie Brown is certainly a heartfelt movie, Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is easily Tarantino’s sweetest film.
LIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD
A key example: One of the best scenes and sequences of the year is when Brad Pitt’s Cliff Booth visits the Spahn Ranch, in part because it is creepy and suspenseful with some exquisite staging and sound design. Savvy audiences naturally expect the worst, and we feel the shadow of future events threaten Booth’s path, but the worst doesn’t show its face. Not this time. In a lesser film, this is a strong sequence that loses its impact on a second viewing when one is aware the threat isn’t going to surface quite yet. The scene therefore lacks the kind of payoff we were expecting. But Tarantino is a true master of the form and the payoff here becomes Cliff’s stubborn moral fiber and compassion. I am reminded of what Harvey Keitel’s Winston says to Julia Sweeney Pulp Fiction:
“Just because you are a character, doesn’t mean you have character.”
Cliff has it. And it endears us to him as he takes his time to ensure that a grouchy, bitter old blind man is safe and not being taken advantage of by some nefarious figures (well, he does his best to, anyway). Anyone asking what makes Brad Pitt so good in this movie need only watch this scene which he shares with the great Bruce Dern. As movie stars fade from existence in this new era of Hollywood, Pitt’s work reminds us of a lost quality amid a saturated market of method and tortured realism.
Here’s a portion of what I wrote way back when:
Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is, at times, invigorating and thrilling. It’s also a shockingly bittersweet film with an ending that really shook me because of how goddamn moving it is. And it’s stayed with me days later. This movie and it’s ending lingers. Before it fades to black, our cast of characters are all granted a Happy Ending, but there’s no purity to it. It’s also stained with an undercurrent of a deep sadness. It is, in fact, a haunting ending, but one with such beautiful intent. It’s all of those things — happy, sad, haunting and beautiful — all at once. I’ve truly never experienced another ending quite like it.
- Execution of screenplay — 5
- Execution of performances — 5
- Strength of visuals — 4 (I was transported to the 60s)
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 4
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 18
2. UNCUT GEMS
After my first viewing, I knew Uncut Gems was going to be in my top ten. And then I couldn’t stop thinking about it; it kept rising up my ranks. After my second viewing, I knew it was going to land somewhere in my top 5 and here we are.
For a more in-depth look at what I admired about this film, check out my review HERE. Here’s a quick take:
Howard is a shark; always swimming, always moving around or through a cast of colorful characters of whom — once having served their purpose — he has little patience. The world around him, the physics of the real world, the reality of consequence, the superstitions of fate… they have no meaning; they dictate nothing to Howard. He does not recognize them. He can’t, for Howard is operating on the quantum realm. Where we, the audience, can see the walls closing in on him, exit doors disappearing by the second, Howard sees a metaphysical entanglement between his will and his well-being. If he can will it into existence, an escape hatch will appear and therefore his body will be safe. Only it isn’t enough for Howard to will himself an escape hatch. No. The escape hatch must also come with a pot of gold on the other side.
- Execution of screenplay — 4
- Execution of performances — 5
- Strength of visuals —4
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 5
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 18
3. THE LIGHTHOUSE
For a brief period of time, I had The Lighthouse in my number one spot (this was before subsequent, additional viewings of Tarantino’s latest opus and well before Uncut Gems blew my fucking brains out) — that’s how good it is. Here’s what I said in my review:
Anchoring the film are two Oscar-worthy performances by Robert Patinson as Ephraim Winslow and Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake. It is a bleak film, but in these actors’ hands it is brimming with pitch-black, odd couple humor, their diametric approaches as actors working wonders… It is obvious that both men hold secrets, but it is only Winslow who appears weighed down by some mysterious guilt. As he’s driven mad by Wake’s austere demeanor, the toil of chores, repetition, alcoholism and a cancerous psychosis, Patinson’s performance dials up to eleven for something that is darkly funny and rotten.
Dafoe, meanwhile, is both taskmaster and fellow; a superior officer during the day, a highly emotional, scorned caretaker at night — as both men take part in role reversals becoming of their drunkenness. They poison themselves with drink, liquor beading off their beards and mustaches, their shirts damp and flammable. Wake is foul, mysterious and arresting — puffing his chest like some god of the sea made mortal, bellowing curses in between sloppy, liquor-spitting speech.
- Execution of screenplay — 3 (very good)
- Execution of performances — 5
- Strength of visuals — 5
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 5
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 18
4. MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN
I appear to be on something of an island for my love for this film and that suits me just fine. From my review:
And yet Motherless Brooklyn is not about the pursuit of justice. It’s more interesting than that. That life is tough and unfair — that there is no justice or, at the very least, not enough of it — the film accepts at face value. And I guess it helps explain why I feel the way I do about our country in 2019 when I say that Motherless Brooklyn is one of the most American movies I’ve seen this year. The Irishman focuses on guilt, but it is too specific in its American history and is less interested in the gains from that guilt. Parasite’s tale of disparate economic classes within capitalism is too universal to be strictly American. But Motherless Brooklyn is about the fallout of what is often labeled “progress” — all the untold, nameless collection of bodies sacrificed in progress’s name.
- Execution of screenplay — 3 (very good)
- Execution of performances — 5
- Strength of visuals — 3 (very good)
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 4
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 15
5. KNIVES OUT
One of the few movies on this list that I knew I could recommend to absolutely anyone and everyone and look like a goddamn hero. Here’s a sample of my REVIEW:
Johnson’s whodunit is a whodunit that turns into a Hitchockian cat-and-mouse game that then turns back into a whodunit all over again. And yet I’ve spent most of this space not even writing about the film’s thriller aspects because the movie has more on its mind than keeping us guessing. Knives Out was easily one of the best times I had in a theater this year and its last shot is a hell of a satisfying punchline, sending audiences giggling out of the theater every time I’ve seen it. What a movie!
- Execution of screenplay — 5
- Execution of performances — 4
- Strength of visuals — 3 (very good)
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 4
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 16
6. JOJO RABBIT
This year’s heartwarming, very funny tearjerker is also one of the year’s riskiest efforts. And it pays off. From my REVIEW:
Jojo Rabbit will likely make you laugh and it will make you cry. Its lessons are simple, but its subject matter is not. I understand the concerns of those who believe humor is no way to deal with what happened last century. But this is not a callous film, not in context (I’ve seen some people on social media try to use scenes out of context as commentary against the film). It has no allusions that love defeated hate in Nazi Germany. This is not a film about Happy Endings. But it is a film about love defeating hatred for at least one boy, one child out of a million, and it will make you feel better about being a human being; it inspires you to want to be a better human being. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
- Execution of screenplay — 3 (very good)
- Execution of performances — 3 (very good)
- Strength of visuals — 4
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 5
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 15
7. THE IRISHMAN
I wrote at length about The Irishman already if you’d like my expanded thoughts, click HERE.
Scorsese’s fastball is just fine. Too many people make the mistake of assuming all of Scorsese’s films are fast-paced movies about organized crime, as if movies such as The Age of Innocence, Kundun, The Last Temptation of Christ, Hugo or Silence didn’t exist. His 2014 entry, The Wolf of Wall Street (on my list as one of the 11 best films of the decade) is one of the greatest comedies of the last 30 years and it moved at the breakneck speed appropriate for a film about excess. His 2016 entry, Silence (also on my list as one of the best 11 films of the decade) is more artful, slower and lacks much in the way of humor. They are two masterpieces that move at very different paces. The Irishman is just using other pitches from his arsenal that he doesn’t typically use in one of his crime films. And the opening tracking shot announces to the audience: This is a knuckleballer’s movie.
- Execution of screenplay — 4
- Execution of performances — 5
- Strength of visual look — 3 (very good)
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 4
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Get andre rivas’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Score: 16
8. PARASITE
I would have liked to write even more than I did in my REVIEW but it was the last review I had time to post before the Oscars on Sunday. Here’s a taste:
Parasite is a sharp, observational essay on human nature and the default operating systems that develop within a democratic capitalist society. The film is so loaded with architectural, geographical visual metaphor (you could write an entire piece about the use of Native American imagery and iconography), and it even has fun about this at its own expense (one of the characters humorously remarks how “metaphorical” something is more than once). The Parks home (pictured above) is an architectural marvel the filmmaker uses to his narrative and thematic advantage.
- Execution of screenplay — 5
- Execution of performances —4
- Strength of visuals — 5
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 4
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 18
9. LITTLE WOMEN
I didn’t have time to write up a review for this one so I will try to lay out my thoughts as briefly as I can here. In short: this movie is a delight. I couldn’t imagine it being one of my favorite films of the year, despite my huge Greta Gerwig crush — a crush that begin when she appeared in Greenberg (she tapped into something in that role that was really special). After all, the story was familiar enough and I remembered really enjoying the Winona Ryder adaptation. What good can actually come of this?
How about one of the most enjoyable, most entertaining and likable films of the year? This is a hell of an adaptation by Gerwig. Instead of telling the film chronologically, we begin at both the beginning and the halfway point, shuffling forward through both timelines and culminating in one of the most brilliant endings of any movie this year.
- Execution of screenplay — 5
- Execution of performances — 4
- Strength of visuals — 3
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 4
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 16
10. FORD V FERRARI
When I saw Ford v Ferrari back in November, I figured James Mangold to be a lock for a Best Director nomination. Mangold always gets great performances out of his cast and, as expected, Matt Damon and Christian Bale are both fantastic. Bale has the more showy, more Oscary role and is his usual excellent self. Damon turns in more of a movie star performance but — make no mistake — he is every bit Bale’s equal. Either one of these guys could have landed a nomination in a lesser year.
The thing I love about Mangold’s film is the effortless way it delivers information. I don’t know the first thing about cars. But Ford v Ferrari gives you just enough information about the race car they’re building (including its flaws and potential problems), allowing you to key in on certain words just enough to give them meaning. When the car races, we understand the stakes better, we understand what it means when those keywords pop up. The information becomes plot points within the narrative of a race.
The other thing I love about this film is how thoroughly you come to understand these two men. It makes the choices they are given and the choices they make that much more interesting and climactic. This is, perhaps, the best car racing film I’ve ever seen.
- Execution of screenplay — 4
- Execution of performances — 4
- Strength of visuals — 3
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 4
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 15
11. QUEEN AND SLIM
Here’s part of what I wrote in a recent review:
The same could be said for Melina Matsoukas who is as important to the film’s artistic success as Waithe. Matsoukas has a poetic eye and a clear understanding of the power of iconography. The famous depiction of Queen and Slim (we don’t learn their real names until much later), the characters, the icons (headlining this piece above), is something else. It doesn’t come close to defining who these two individuals really are, but it nails the fantastic — the sexy, anti-authoritativeness the two came to symbolize. And to a degree, they start to become those people. In this, I mean, they begin to live the lives of legends, their normal behavior transmitting as the sort of things that become legendary.
- Execution of screenplay — 4
- Execution of performances — 4
- Strength of visuals — 4
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 3
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 15
12. THE TWO POPES
One of the great surprises when the Oscar nominations were released was the inclusion of Jonathan Pryce for Best Actor (the other great surprise was the equally worthy Antonio Banderas for Pain and Glory… I thought both would be on the outside looking in). I think Hopkins is great and his performance really picks up in the second-half of the film so it was also nice to see him land a Supporting Actor nomination. But Pryce kind of blew me away here. He has the more difficult role. It’s not easy making a character of (seeming) absolute goodness interesting or compelling but he manages to do both.
The film has surprising humor, mining the different energies and cultural backgrounds between Pope Benedict and his eventual successor, Pope Francis. It’s also a really interesting peek at the political process of choosing a pope within the Catholic Church. But where it really flies is the theological and philosophical debates between two men who believe in two very different visions for the church: conservatism versus progressiveness.
We come to learn, during two extended confessions, that neither man is a saint. Between them, they have committed unspeakable sins. But — in this film’s world — they somehow, as different as they are, find some common ground with one another: football.
This is the second best film of Fernando Meirelles career , ahead of the excellent The Constant Gardener, but behind City of God (one of the best films of its decade). It is more entertaining than it had any business being and it ends with an infectiously spunky closing credit sequence. Love this one.
- Execution of screenplay — 4
- Execution of performances — 5
- Strength of visuals— 3
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 3
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 15
13. 1917
1917 is one of the great cinematic achievements of the year. It blew me away. Sam Mendes is deserving of the Oscar nomination and the win he is likely headed for in the Best Director category. It’s one of the better war films ever made and Roger Deakins’s cinematography is — as always — spectacular. I was caught up in it emotionally. I’d easily see it again in theaters given the time and opportunity. And yet here it is, at the “bottom” of my list for the best films of the year. How can that be?
It is emblematic of the artistic output of 2019. I would say I couldn’t be that certain or definitive of the rankings of these films after Knives Out. Those top five films — as of today — feel pretty definitive. I’m sure in 5 years my opinions will change (The Irishman has grown in my estimation with each viewing and I’ve seen it 5 times already). Everything from numbers 6 through 13 are equally great in my eyes. The idea of a top ten is a good starting place but the number is arbitrary. Sometimes there are only 8 clear standouts. This year, for my money there were at least 13 and then a ton of really, really good movies afterwards.
Of all the films on this list, I’d argue 1917 is the one where it is the most essential to be seen in theaters. The big screen is always going to be the superior film experience. It’s the reason I try to see everything I can (within reason) in theaters. Certain films, however— like 1917, like Dunkirk, like Blade Runner: 2049, like The Revenant—they offer something unique to the big screen. You can enjoy them at home just fine, but you can only get that unique experience in the theater, especially on larger IMAX screens.
It isn’t the 13th best film of 2019. It is among the 13 best films of 2019. This is why, more and more I try not to get too upset about what films the Academy does or does not nominate.
- Execution of screenplay — 3
- Execution of performances — 3
- Strength of visuals — 5
- Execution of mood and atmosphere — 5
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 16
A RETURN TO DIVERSITY
Based on the tallied results in order of score:
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood — 18
Uncut Gems — 18
The Lighthouse — 18
Parasite — 18
Knives Out — 16
The Irishman — 16
Little Women — 16
1917–16
If I used this point system to base my Director nominations, Quentin Tarantino, Benny and Josh Safdie, Robert Eggers and Bong Joon-ho are shoe-ins. After that I’d have the impossible task of choosing one of the following: Martin Scorsese, Greta Gerwig, Rian Johnson and Sam Mendes. I’d also be ignoring the fact that I happen to enjoy Edward Norton’s Motherless Brooklyn (which scored a 15) more than all of the remaining films (which I get and am OK with).
But here is where it gets really interesting. Below are my Runner Ups.
RUNNER UPS (in alphabetical order):
Avengers: Endgame
Ad Astra
Booksmart
Dark Waters
High Flying Bird
Hustlers
Marriage Story
Midsommar
Us
Waves
As you can see, one of Runner Ups is the aforementioned Trey Edward Shults film, Waves. Let’s rate the film using the same scale.
- Strength of screenplay — 4
- Strength of performances — 5
- Strength of visual look — 5
- Strength of mood and atmosphere — 5
5=excellent 4=great 3=very good 2=good 1=okay
Score: 19
Waves and Trey Edward Shults received a higher score of any movie in my top 13! It is a masterfully crafted melodrama that really seems to understand its subject matter. It’s powerful as all hell. But it’s also a really tough watch. And for whatever chemical reason, I have it ranked 18 on my Letterboxd list. My criterion may be flawed or it could just mean the other films are more than the sum of their parts to varying degrees.
The real point is this: it is absurd to suggest there are just five worthy directors for the Best Director category. There’s probably more like 20–25 at least, especially in a year like this. No one is ever going to convince me that whoever wins Best Director did an objectively better job than Trey Edward Shults. The Oscars are a good springboard for discussions about movies but they are also fraudulent in terms of evaluating for any objective truth. And somehow we end up arguing about how one person didn’t get in, as if there weren’t 10 other people for which arguments could be easily made. Again, I’ve been as guilty of this as anyone. But when we step back, we can really look at these things as they truly are.
And this is why diversity of opportunities is important. According to womeninhollywood.com, of the top 200 grossing films between 2018 and 2019, only 15.1% were directed by women. Only 17.4% were written by women. And only 18% of all studios were headed by women.
Of those top 200 films, only 14.4% were directed by people of color. People of color wrote only 13.9 of films and comprised only 9% of the studio heads.
Improve in these areas and I suspect the number of people we argue are snubbed will only increase. And maybe this increased diversity will lead to more diverse awards being handed out. The Oscars have become awfully predictable. Everyone knows Joaquin is going win Best Actor, Renee is going to win Best Actress, Pitt will win Best Supporting Actor, Dern likely wins Supporting Actress. We know this because the same actors are winning the BAFTAs, the Golden Globes, the SAGs, the Critics Choice Awards, the National Board of Review etc. etc. etc.
Increase diversity and the awards might prove diverse as well, potentially making Oscar night a bigger deal. Perhaps more people will tune in, no longer jaded by the otherwise predictable process. Diversity is a win-win for everyone.
If you enjoyed this post, please be sure to hit the APPLAUD ICON below as much as you wish!
And feel free to follow me on Twitter!
