In the world of film, lists are as common as popcorn at the movies. They spark debates, stir opinions, and sometimes evoke passionate disagreements among fans and critics alike. Recently, The Ringer published a list of the top 101 best movie performances of the 21st century, and unsurprisingly, it has become a focal point of discussion. While many will engage with these choices, one commentator, Matt Walsh, has taken it upon himself to analyze their top ten picks, ultimately finding both merit and fault within them.
Starting off with the list from The Ringer, we have performances ranging from Kirsten Dunst in “Melancholia” to Naomi Watts in “Mulholland Drive.” These selections, while certainly noteworthy, invite scrutiny. After all, every film enthusiast knows that movie performances can be as subjective as the flavors at an ice cream parlor. Yet amidst the varied opinions, Walsh remains steadfast in his assertion that Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance in “There Will Be Blood” is the crowning achievement of the century. This is a stance that many can agree with; it’s hard to argue against a role that is both intense and impeccably crafted.
Walsh also offers a personal ranking to challenge The Ringer’s choices. His number two pick is Philip Seymour Hoffman, albeit pointing out that his portrayal in “Capote” deserves more acclaim than his role in “The Master.” This perspective highlights an important aspect of acting: versatility. In the world of acting, a performer’s ability to embody vastly different characters can make or break their legacy. And Hophan’s talent resonates deeply with both casual viewers and avid film buffs alike.
Interestingly, Walsh takes issue with the inclusion of Javier Bardem, claiming his performance in “No Country for Old Men” lacks the emotional depth present in Day-Lewis’s work. While Bardem’s portrayal is undoubtedly chilling, Walsh raises an essential point—does one compelling character trait, even if executed flawlessly, surpass a multifaceted performance? As audiences, we can’t help but speculate, weighing the dimensions of creativity against sheer intensity. This kind of exploration enhances our understanding of what makes a performance truly “great.”
As with any decent list, there are bound to be notable omissions. Walsh mentions that Ryan Gosling deserves a nod—though interestingly, he finds “Blue Valentine” so dark it may leave viewers in an existential crisis for weeks. This sentiment connects to an undeniable truth: films can leave lasting impressions, be they uplifting or overwhelming. Whether or not one agrees with Walsh, the engaging conversation around these selections is precisely what helps to define artistic merit.
To sum it up, while The Ringer’s list is far from perfect, it serves as a jumping-off point for further conversation about cinema’s emotional power and storytelling depth. Walsh’s commentary does not merely critique but rather encourages readers to explore their perspectives on the films that have shaped the last two decades. The beauty of cinema lies in its subjectivity, where every performance, regardless of consensus, evokes a multitude of reactions. So, whether you’re a fan of dramatic roles or those that showcase staggering versatility, remember that in the vast realm of film, there’s always room for opinion—just don’t forget the popcorn!
