Which decade do you feel has held the best movies?

The Sixties.

the thirties

Very true. Also a few during the late 50s.

Tough question.

NOT the eighties.
NOT the 2000s.

Perhaps the sixties were best, followed by the early seventies.
The early forties had some tremendous films, but I haven't seen enough to judge.

Was "Rebel without a cause" in the late 50s?

Mid fifties: 1955

the 30's

early 40's

1. Citizen Kane, 1941

2. Casablanca, 1942

source -- http://www.cinepad.com/awards/afi_100.htm

The SINGLE best year for movies was 1939. My criteria would be new, groundbreaking plots and storytelling advancements:


Some of the movies released in 1939:
Gone With the Wind
The Wizard of Oz
Stagecoach
Gunga Din
Dark Victory
Goodbye Mr. Chips
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Ninotchka
Of Mice and Men
Wuthering Heights
Beau Geste
You Can't Cheat an Honest Man
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Story of Alexander Graham Bell
The Three Musketeers
Union Pacific
The Women
Young Mr. Lincoln

The revolutionary period of the Sixties marked the real death of the studio system and the birth of the independent production. That period gave us movies that dared to tackle themes in depth that were previously forbidden territory. It created the image of the auteur as directors were no longer "the hired hands." It is true that this began in the Fifties but television and the breaking up of the monopolies of theater chains owned by the big studios really dampened progress in the film industry. Small theaters were being taxed out of existance and it took the politics of the Kennedy years to give the industry a shot in the arm. It's hard to mark a particular decade as the Seventies also brought us some great movies. The Eighties was likely the worst decade for movies. Paulene Kael made the decision to retire from reviewing film as it had fallen into the doldrums.

BTW, the Forties was also populated by a proliferation of B movies, mostly about the war. If one follows film preservation projects, that is the decade where there is the least concern about many films falling into dust. The studio system was really cranking out some mediocrity and we're really not trying for a high aesthetic level. The Sixties was an entirely different story.

The 40`s through to the 60`

I agree with Equus. 1939.

1939 was a great year for film and the Thirties comes in second to the Sixties for great movies but by a very thin hair. Even with the studio system in full gear, there were some film moguls who decided to make a certain number of films where boxoffice wasn't the first consideration. Thalberg and even the rather nefarious Harry Cohn of Columbia Pictures had aesthetic sense that seems lacking these days. Too many films are polished brightly to screen well in the Multiplexes but at their core are shallow and disposible entertainment. Every decade has their share of B movies but they didn't always look this good. Today a film can look good but it's purpose is sometimes not as noble as the filmmaker would have one believe and too obviously made for bringing in the quick buck. A trip to a community live theater is almost always more rewarding than a trip to the cineplex. Not that I don't love movies -- there is just a proliferation of movies that are aimed at a target audience which makes them difficult to embrace. Ebert has given out more three and four star ratings last year and this year than nearly any I can remember. Is he getting lax or are the movies actually getting, on the average, better? Of course, it's almost time for the typical summer blockbuster popcorn movie which if well done can be memorable. I hope "Troy" comes off better than the dubious "Helen of Troy" and other lackluster treatments. Just hope they haven't followed suit to slice and dice Achilles' heel with buckets of blood.