Cinema Surviving the 21st Century: Five Films and a Generational War

Five films to measure 21st-century cinema

Cinema died in 1999. Or so claims a segment of the audience that still remembers video clubs, the two weekly tapes their father brought, and packed theaters for action, epic, and sci-fi premieres. Fifteen days and 309 responses after launching the question, the provisional conclusion is that the 21st century hasn’t been as bad as some insist, but it hasn’t produced a consensus either. Every list is a trench.

The initial proposal was simple: five titles released from the year 2000 onward. The response included The Departed and The Wolf of Wall Street to Blade Runner 2049, passing by John Wick and No Country for Old Men. The problem arose when someone recalled that The Departed is a remake and Blade Runner 2049 is a sequel. Two capital sins for the most orthodox sector.

Which 21st-century films appear most often in lists

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is the only title appearing on lists with opposing sensibilities. Those defending the classic blockbuster save it; those rejecting contemporary cinema do too. It is the last great consensus, although some note it ages worse than Indiana Jones or Back to the Future, which have been watched fifty times without a second thought.

The second block consists of Mulholland Drive, Children of Men, The Lives of Others, Match Point, and The Great Beauty. These titles carry the label of pretentiousness, yet they withstand time better than many box office hits. Some argue that Mulholland Drive invented a specific technical resource —blurring the camera to imitate foggy eyes— while others reply that silent cinema already did this.

The third way is occupied by Gladiator, Troy, Cast Away, and Pearl Harbor. Here, the conversation breaks down. One sector defends that Pearl Harbor is a good movie despised for its romantic plot, just like Titanic. Another sector replies that after fifteen minutes, viewers are eager for the Japanese to arrive and kill everyone. The disagreement remains unresolved.

Why do they say cinema died in 1999?

The argument relies on a simple idea: 80s and 90s blockbusters are watched fifty times without tiring, whereas 21st-century films are watched once and archived. It is a nostalgic perception, but it has material grounding: the video club brought two tapes a week, forcing reviews. Streaming brings ten thousand, inviting viewers not to finish any.

Against this thesis, the counterargument is that the 21st century has produced works the 20th century couldn’t even imagine: Her anticipated language models, Children of Men turned dystopia into reportage, Nocturnal Animals proved a thriller can have twelve layers without losing tension. Nostalgia isn’t a critical argument, nor is novelty.

Space sci-fi cinema in crisis according to the fandom

A recurring complaint: 21st-century space movies are absolute trash compared to those of the 20th century. Money goes to superheroes, and space is left without a budget. Titles that survive the burn are Interstellar, Oblivion, Passengers, and Ad Astra, the latter with a notable first half-hour that deflates afterward.

The paradox is that Blade Runner 2049 is cited as the opposite: a futuristic movie that doesn’t look cheap visually. What once required models and patience is now resolved with computers, which for some is pogre and for others is a trap. The debate over whether digital effects kill visual poetry remains open.

Cinema predictions fulfilled without anyone noticing

Her has been extremely prophetic regarding language models, to the point that no one doubts what it shows will eventually become real. The Spanish Hablar, from 2015, seems set in the 2020 economic boom in Madrid, and it all fits. Idiocracy is the most cited prediction, but also the most generic.

The exercise has a trap: any dystopian movie hits if you wait long enough. The interesting part is when the hit is about details, not catastrophe. There, Her wins by a landslide because it didn’t predict a collapse, it predicted a habit.

Woody Allen, Scorsese, and auteur cinema after 2005

One question runs through the conversation: why did Woody Allen make Match Point amid so much subsequent mediocrity? The most repeated hypothesis is that financing difficulties after leaving the commercial circuit forced him to film mediocre but sponsored movies. Midnight in Paris escapes the burn, though for others, it’s a cliché seen a thousand times.

Something similar happens with Scorsese. The Departed is a remake, and some argue that since he left the horse, he hasn’t raised his head. The Wolf of Wall Street is read as a movie that makes viewers empathize with narcissic sociopaths, which can be a virtue or a flaw depending on who looks.

Modern Western and European cinema that doesn’t make it

Wind River appears as the modern Western no one disputes, available for free on RTVE Play. La comanchería joins the list. The genre, which seemed dead, has found in the frontier and daily violence a gold mine that the 20th century didn’t exploit equally.

In Europe, French reivindicative cinema has its place: En guerra (2018), Arcadia (2005), Corporate (2017), Recursos humanos (2000), and the Spanish La suerte dormida (2003). These are titles almost no one has seen, supporting the thesis that good cinema didn’t disappear, it just became invisible.

---

The list remains unclosed. Some ask for five titles and receive three hundred. The initial question was simple; the response shows that 21st-century cinema has no canon, it has a civil war between those who see everything and those who see nothing. With these reeds, consensus won’t arrive. And perhaps that’s the most interesting part.