Joseph Lee3 said:It doesn't really matter; at the end of the day, this is your poll. 🙂 You set the rules however you think is best. I was just jumping into the conversation... honestly, I love it when people debate national cinemas like this, even without a formal poll.
Personally, my heart belongs to France. My top three directors are all French—Jean Renoir, Henri-Georges Cluzot, and Jacques Tati—so I'm happy to cast my vote there. 😬 In my view, French cinema has managed to stay at the "top" longer than most when you weigh quality against quantity; they’ve produced more original movements and directors than almost anyone else. They were somewhat of a late bloomer compared to, say, German cinema, but while the German-speaking world essentially scattered across the globe (think Lubitch, Lang, Emmerich, Murnau, Wilder...), the French tend to stay pretty true to their own roots. That said, I’ve struggled to sit through much French film over the last 30 years or so. A Jean-Pierre Jeunet film? Honestly, it was a struggle... though I suppose it's "auteur" driven, which is probably what matters most.
Someone mentioned how similar American and British cinema can feel: 🙂
Historically, the British have fought a bloody battle against American dominance, made even harder by the fact that they share a language. In reality, Americans indirectly cut them down at the root back in the 1920s. Panicked about their domestic industry being completely wiped out, the British passed the Film Law (around 1927) which mandated a certain quota of British films in theaters across the UK. It turned out to be a double-edged sword; in a rush to meet those quotas, studios started churning out absolute garbage. These were the infamous "quota quickies," which the British are still pretty embarrassed about today. Since then, they've been cutting at the heels of American film, though there is a school of thought that thinks it’s great when British movies are made to mimic Hollywood perfectly—like "Weddings and a Funeral" and stuff like that. Though everyone admits that’s basically the only way they turn a real profit.
Regardless, I think the British have a few cinematic gems they can actually brag about: that specific brand of British comedy rooted in vaudeville—back in the 1930s, they were making films that haven't been matched since (just look at "Oh Mr. Porter!")—and that wave of social realism from the late 50s and 60s. That era gave us legends like Mike Leigh and Ken Loach. And I can't forget the unmatched duo of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, or the entire horror institution built by Hammer... the British definitely have things to show for themselves. 😍
If you ask me, that similarity shows up in how much they share the same "pool" of talent. Especially when it comes to actors. So many stars who make it big in Britain end up conquering Hollywood. Sure, that happens with other countries too, but with the language being the same, it feels less like moving abroad and more like just moving house.
I'll just list a few: Alfred Hitchcock, Michael York, Anthony Hopkins, Hugh Grant, Sean Connery, Rowan Atkinson. Honestly, I feel like both Charlie Chaplin and Anthony Hopkins are essentially British staples.
And look at the flip side—just think about the themes, like the whole Bond series!
I feel like they aren't quite specific enough. They’re basically just a mix of American and various other regional filmographies, so it's hard to see anyone actually choosing a Canadian film specifically (unless it's just because of their roots or something). At least, that's my guess...
Joseph Lee3 said:It doesn't really matter; at the end of the day, this is your poll. 🙂 You set the rules however you think is best. I was just jumping into the conversation... honestly, I love it when people debate national cinemas like this, even without a formal poll.
Personally, my heart belongs to France. My top three directors are all French—Jean Renoir, Henri-Georges Cluzot, and Jacques Tati—so I'm happy to cast my vote there. 😬 In my view, French cinema has managed to stay at the "top" longer than most when you weigh quality against quantity; they’ve produced more original movements and directors than almost anyone else. They were somewhat of a late bloomer compared to, say, German cinema, but while the German-speaking world essentially scattered across the globe (think Lubitch, Lang, Emmerich, Murnau, Wilder...), the French tend to stay pretty true to their own roots. That said, I’ve struggled to sit through much French film over the last 30 years or so. A Jean-Pierre Jeunet film? Honestly, it was a struggle... though I suppose it's "auteur" driven, which is probably what matters most.
Someone mentioned how similar American and British cinema can feel: 🙂
Historically, the British have fought a bloody battle against American dominance, made even harder by the fact that they share a language. In reality, Americans indirectly cut them down at the root back in the 1920s. Panicked about their domestic industry being completely wiped out, the British passed the Film Law (around 1927) which mandated a certain quota of British films in theaters across the UK. It turned out to be a double-edged sword; in a rush to meet those quotas, studios started churning out absolute garbage. These were the infamous "quota quickies," which the British are still pretty embarrassed about today. Since then, they've been cutting at the heels of American film, though there is a school of thought that thinks it’s great when British movies are made to mimic Hollywood perfectly—like "Weddings and a Funeral" and stuff like that. Though everyone admits that’s basically the only way they turn a real profit.
Regardless, I think the British have a few cinematic gems they can actually brag about: that specific brand of British comedy rooted in vaudeville—back in the 1930s, they were making films that haven't been matched since (just look at "Oh Mr. Porter!")—and that wave of social realism from the late 50s and 60s. That era gave us legends like Mike Leigh and Ken Loach. And I can't forget the unmatched duo of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, or the entire horror institution built by Hammer... the British definitely have things to show for themselves. 😍
I'm with you on that. I love French movies. Though, I'll admit, I haven't watched a ton of them. When it comes to movies, I'm more of a casual viewer—just watching whatever's put in front of me—rather than some hardcore cinephile... But what I do watch, I really enjoy. Recent American indie films feel pretty similar to the French style, and I find both styles hit the spot for me. French films because they're so original, and American indies because the vibe just feels closer to home.
So, if we're talking about the absolute best cinema on the planet... This poll will close on 16-05-2010 at 05:55 American 5 38.46% French 2 15.38% British 0 0% American 0 0% American 1 7.69% Mexican 2 15.38% Other 3 23.08% Voters: 13.
Joseph Lee3 said:Using "would someone vote for it" as a metric isn't exactly a heavy hitter for an argument, is it? I usually find myself in the minority whenever people start "voting" on movies, so that doesn't really bother me... but I don't think you can just gloss over Neorealism as a movement. It’s a different story with German cinema; I’d almost say it barely exists as a cohesive entity, even though 1920s Expressionism basically laid the groundwork for film as an Art form. But unlike the Italian scene, German film hasn't really evolved along a single, meaningful trajectory since then.
As for the Spaniards, they have a distinct style that definitely appeals to some, and they aren't short on talent either: Fernando Trueba, Bigas Luna, Victor Erice, Alex de la Iglesia, Carlos Saura, Julio Medem, plus the transplant Alejandro Amenabar... oh, and of course Luis Bunuel...
Look, wouldn't it be fairer if every single country in the world got its own option, even if 99% of them ended up with zero votes? Usually, even in real statistics, the options with tiny numbers of votes are either ignored or lumped together. That's why I just grouped them all under "others."
Jerry Martin19 said:Honestly, this poll would actually be fair if we just stuck to the three most accessible continents for cinema. I'm talking North America, Europe, and Asia. That's the only way there's anything real to debate here...
See, I wasn't looking at whole continents, I wanted to get down to specific nations...
Which of these countries' movies do you guys think are the best? If we’re talking about the heavy hitters on the global stage, I’d say the top three are definitely the US, France, and the UK. Let's just set India aside for now, shall we? I'll go ahead and list our two local ones—one American and one American. The strongest one in this part of the country? Definitely the American one.
Even with all the debates about what counts as American or what’s just leftover American stuff, you gotta wonder, right? Is everything filmed in that old American territory considered a local production? Everyone's basically just American after '91, right? Same goes for the other side too.
Thriller. Police drama. Crime. A psycho killer. Alaska and polar day. Insomnia! Al Pacino is at the top of his game here. Honestly? Better than the movie itself. It’s a killer thriller that hits all the right notes, but the plot, logic, and tension put it way above your average genre flick. It really breaks the mold.
It starts with an impossible setup. An experienced, seasoned cop finds everything spiraling out of control. There's no easy way out. His whole existence is on the line, but not in the way you'd expect from a typical crime story. He's stuck in a total lose-lose situation. No matter what he does, he's already lost.
The way they used Alaska and polar day was brilliant. They leaned into those specific vibes to make sure this didn't feel like just another cookie-cutter movie.
Even if the genre usually keeps movies like this from being "classics"—since they often lean into being unrealistic, shallow, or just mindless entertainment without much real-world weight—this one still stands out.
The movie kicks off with this raw naturalism; it touches on the history of species (usually bringing up Darwin) and even features a birth scene—something I haven't seen handled quite like that before, whether on screen or just in general.
It’s from the creators of “Being John Malkovich,” which is pretty obvious from the vibe alone. Even Malkovich makes a cameo playing himself, and watching him act as himself in that other flick 😉 is wild. I actually share a similar critical outlook on Hollywood and the film industry in general with both the main character and the director. Plus, I deal with those same writing struggles—you know, those mid-term essays and stuff—as well as his issues with just getting started on a draft. It’s basically a film about streams of consciousness. Nicolas Cage always picks these intense, high-caliber roles where he can really flex his muscles. As for his roommate, it’s never totally clear if he’s just a regular guy, a manifestation of a split personality, or maybe some imaginary figure like you'd see in A Beautiful Mind. The whole thing is soaked in paranoia, where the line between reality and delusion gets super blurry.
Funny enough, the roommate starts appearing as himself (meaning Nicolas Cage plays him) right when he suggests adding a split-personality character to that orchid movie. Honestly, the protagonist doesn't have much respect for his roommate—not as a writer, anyway. The roommate is just some guy who doesn't even have a real career. He decided he was going to be a screenwriter overnight after reading some "Screenwriting for Dummies" type book and hitting up a weekend crash course. Of course, that leads to those cookie-cutter Hollywood scripts that appeal to the masses but have zero soul or originality. He definitely doesn't think his roommate is particularly bright, let alone a talented writer.
It’s a movie about a movie. And not just any movie, but a movie about *this* specific movie. He wanted to make a film about orchids (which is how the final version we see begins), but he’s running out of steam. There’s no plot if he sticks strictly to the literary source material—a story written by a journalist following an orchid hunter that our lead is trying to adapt into a script.
His imagination has hit a wall. Total creative block. Pure confusion. The roommate suggests throwing in some predictable tropes, but he shuts him down. On top of the mental instability, the lead character is dealing with some serious sexual instability too. He just can't seem to shake this roommate. The guy is driving him crazy. He keeps looping back to the beginning of the film. There’s even a bit of jealousy there. The roommate is so shallow and petty. It’s gotten to the point where he’s talking to him about his script, and he even wrote himself into the screenplay. That’s how bad the writer's block is. But then again, you wonder: is this actually a movie about orchids, or is it about him? About the flowers, or the script itself? In the script, he follows his stream of consciousness so closely that while listing types of orchids, he accidentally starts describing types of women. It says a lot about where his head is at regarding the subject matter.
While he’s struggling with his project, the roommate writes his own script—it's formulaic and honestly pretty bad, but the agent absolutely loves it. Unbelievable, right? The agent actually suggests he ask his roommate for help with the orchid script, basically telling him to sprinkle in some standard conventions.
In the end, he actually goes to that beginner's screenwriting seminar his roommate recommended. Talk about a blow to the ego! His confidence is totally shot. He feels like he's hit rock bottom creatively.
And sure enough, he ends up adding drama and violence to the film just because the instructor told him to. He throws in violence, a shootout, and drugs—stuff he had flat-out rejected earlier because he thought it was such a cliché Hollywood trope!
So, it’s a movie about a movie. A film about a screenplay. A film about moral dilemmas. Artistic struggles. Writing. Creativity. Clichés. Psychological self-analysis. A film about evolution. About evolutionary changes and adaptation. About social conformity and rebellion. About the essence of biological species. And ultimately, a film about orchids.
This flick is perfect for anyone who hates predictable movies—you know, the art lovers, the deep thinkers, the amateur psychologists 😉, and even nature buffs, though maybe don't expect a National Geographic special unless you want to be disappointed.
I’ve shared a ton about this movie. I could go on forever, but I promise I haven't dropped a single spoiler. I didn't focus much on the plot itself, but rather on how all those events mess with the main character's head. And hey, I'm not trying to talk you out of watching it; if anything, I'm trying to get you hyped. If you fit any of those groups I mentioned earlier, you seriously can't miss this. It’s definitely one of those films that sticks with you, but let's be real, it might not become an instant classic in Hollywood history since, from what I can tell, some parts are just plain weird!
More than just a great movie. That ending alone makes it better than Scarface. Still, it doesn't quite touch Traffic, since that one feels way more complete.
It’s really a movie about society and how people interact. It breaks everything down into specific segments, dissecting how everyone is tied to and drugs.
You've got guys from the inner cities and then these spoiled rich kids who—thanks to their schooling rather than actual life experience—start seeing the hypocrisy and paradoxes of the world. They see their parents as the elite pillars of society and realize they are just the heirs, slowly stepping out of their palace bubbles and into the real world.
Just like society is split into groups with different ties to the system, you have two sides fighting the war on drugs: the boots on the ground, like local cops, and then the high-level government and politicians.
Then there's the third layer: the street dealers versus the top-tier cartel bosses.
The situation in Mexico feels a bit different when viewed through an American lens. It’s split between the cartels and the street cops, who might be corrupt over small stuff but stay clean for the big plays, while the very top of the police and military is deeply entangled in the drug trade.
Beyond that, the drug mafia itself is divided between American and Mexican leadership. In Mexico, it’s that classic, old-school, "Escobar-style" organization. In the USA, it’s much more sophisticated and hidden; the leaders are embedded within the "white-collar" crowd—golfers and businessmen. They live perfectly normal lives among the elite, and none of their neighbors in those gated communities have any clue what they actually do.
This isn't a movie about characters, or the mafia, or the cops, or justice, or corruption, or addicts, or dealers, or poverty, or teens, or families, or careers. It’s more like an almanac of all those themes, all connected by one single thread: drugs. Sure, the dark characters and plots had to link up to make a story, but this is basically a cinematic study of the relationship between society and drugs.
The strength of the film isn't just the drama—though the plot is tight and moves without any holes or logic gaps—it's the serious, realistic way it handles the analysis. It stays far away from your typical cop story of good guys vs. bad guys. Instead, it’s a brilliant mix of a heavy, intellectual film with a real message that's still easy to watch.
I also thought the credits were interesting. They chose to list the actors in order of appearance, which is pretty rare for Hollywood. I think they did it to avoid playing favorites, making sure no specific subplot, mafia segment, or enemy group got more spotlight than the others, even though we all know who the biggest stars are and which characters drive the story.
How did you guys feel about the ending and the message? For me, it felt like prevention is way more important than treatment. It's like they're saying the police, the courts, and the politicians can't do much if nothing changes at the foundation. Big wins are impossible; no matter how many dealers you take down, or even the heads of a cartel, the demand and the massive amounts of money involved mean the problem just keeps coming back. Drugs are like a hydra—you cut off one head, and another grows right back. That's why fighting it at the base level is more effective, where everyone fights against drugs within their own families. We need to focus on lowering the demand rather than just trying to stop the supply. Demand is like blood in the water attracting sharks; as long as it's there, there will always be enough predators to come feeding. Everyone needs to heal their own wounds first. That's my take on the message.
No, you're totally missing my point. I'm talking about cinematic lighting. It’s just too polished, you know? Not like "luxurious" gorgeous, more like... hmm, actually, never mind! 😎
Terry Gray60 said:He also did the score for Goodbye Lenin. I recommend it too, though you eventually realize everything follows a similar pattern. Not that it matters much to me—whenever I hit one of those manic, romantic moods, I'll listen to just about anything.😈
So, you care more about the packaging than the actual movie? !
Hmm, I have my doubts that life was actually like that. Maybe they hit those standards, but it feels a bit too perfect to me. It’s basically just a movie made to show how people back then wanted to see themselves.