Brodinski's Best of the Year list

[Brodinski]

Seeing as all of you come up with top 100 lists and top 50 characters lists and what not, I figured I’d make one too.

I tried to scramble together a top 100, but found it an impossible task to narrow my favourite films down to a 100, let alone rank them correctly. I then thought about a list that could have a more “definite” outcome. About 3 months ago, the idea of making a best-of-the-year list popped into my head. I find it to be much easier than creating a top 100. Going through the top films of each year made me realize that very few are actually in contention for the # 1 spot of the year. Usually, it’s one film that I found clearly better than the rest and if not, there’s only 2 or 3 films that really compete for that top spot.

I’ve chosen to write reviews on my top pick of each year, knowing fully well that it will probably take me months to finish the entire list. But I don’t care; I plan on sticking around here for a while. I figured it might be nice for you guys to actually see the logic behind my choices instead of just putting up a picture and be done with it.

I’ve decided to do this in a reverse order, thus starting with the noughties. I do this because I’ve seen most of the “relevant” films of the 00s up to at least the 80s. I’m ok as to the 70s, but there are still major holes in my knowledge of 60s and 50s films and let’s not get into the 40s, or 30s anytime yet. So it’s kind of an advantage that it will take me months, maybe years to completely finish this list: I’ll have plenty of time to watch all those terrific films I’ve not yet seen.

Anyway, without much further ado…

[Brodinski]

Before I start rambling about Inglourious Basterds, I’d like to say a few words about the other contenders of 2009. There was the Oscar glutton The Hurt Locker, (500) Days of Summer (proof that a rom-com can be good), the Oscar winner for best foreign language film The Secret In Their Eyes, the spectacularly beautiful Avatar, the insane fun of The Hangover and the intriguing sci-fi sleeper hit District 9. Although I do think that these films are good, I never really considered them to be contenders for the best film of the year. I was very much doubting between Pixar’s sweet, melancholy Up, the terrific French prison drama A Prophet that I’ve already talked about here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=22534&highlight=prophet)and Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds. Initially, I was going to bump A Prophet to the top of the list, but after having re-watched Inglourious Basterds for the second time, I decided that it is my top film of 2009.



http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/2009-IB.jpg


Three years ago, Tarantino made Death Proof. What in Gawd’s name was that? A pack of women cackling about nothing for over half an hour before Kurt Russell helps the viewer out of his misery, only for Quentin to drag in another posse of chattering women. Some critics were then ready to cross out QT’s name on the quality directors list. But in the summer of 2009, he found the mark again with Inglourious Basterds, a WW II epic, which is – to me – his best directorial effort since Pulp Fiction.

The “basterds” are a group of American-Jewish soldiers that are dropped in nazi-occupied France sometime in 1944. Their mission is simple: kill as many nazi’s as they possibly can. Or as their leader, Lt. Aldo Raine, says: We ain’t in the takin’ prisoner business. We’re in the killin’ nazi business. And the business is a-boomin’!” When the entire nazi army command will attend the premiere of a propaganda film in Paris, the basterds obviously find this a chance they can’t miss out on. What they however don’t know, is that the theatre where this film will premiere is owned by a French woman whose entire family was massacred by a nazi colonel by the name of Hans Landa when she was a kid. She thus has her own particular reasons to raise hell at this premiere.

Tarantino has essentially created a film that is not about WW II, but about films about WW II. Not a second of Inglourious Basterds is supposed to take place in the actual nazi-occupied France, but in a fantasy version thereof, inspired by American men-on-a-mission war epics and Sergio Leone’s spaghetti-westerns (and probably a whole lot more influences I’ve not yet noticed). Tarantino has never in his life made a film about actual life, but instead makes films about films.

There are of course limitations to this style, as QT does not have a whole lot to say. Sure, he is great at setting up a story and drawing the viewer into this story, but the red wire running through his body of work is his love for films. He doesn’t care about grand themes, like paternal issues (PT Anderson) or big and small criminality (Scorsese). Quentin only cares about showing his love for cinema, but he does it in such a masterful way that he gets away with it and then some.



http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/2009-IB2.jpg


When it comes to this meta-level in his films, Inglourious Basterds is no different from his previous films. Are there any lessons to draw from this film? Heck, no. Is it another clever, sophisticated, entertaining, ingenious love letter to lady film? A whole-hearted yes. The most obvious references to me are those to Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns. The prologue with the tense verbal exchange between nazi colonel Hans Landa and a dairy farmer who shelters and hides a Jew family. The reference to the way in which Lee Van Cleef’s character Angel Eyes is introduced at the beginning of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is blatantly obvious. QT even announces his homage to Leone’s body of work, as he names this first chapter “Once Upon A Time In Nazi-Occupied France”.

But what distinguishes Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds - and by extension his other work - from being an ordinary homage or parody, is that it actually works as what it professes to be: a thrilling, adventurous war film of a very high calibre. That prologue chapter in which Hans Landa is being introduced is a 15-minute long suspense-packed scene in which Tarantino builds the tension until his audience no longer has any fingernails to bite. So although that you are aware that Tarantino is actually recreating a scene from a Leone classic, that doesn’t take away that this is an incredibly well-crafted, suspenseful sequence. And that’s the case with most of the film’s sequences.


http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/2009-IB3.jpg



The lead parts of the film deliver nothing but solid performances. Brad Pitt is hilarious as lieutenant Aldo Raine, a hick from Tennessee with not very nuanced ideas about the German people or the pronunciation of the Italian vocabulary for that matter. Mélanie Laurent is the revelation as Shosanna, the vengeful Jewish girl. Diane Kruger is mostly used as eye candy in Hollywood nonsense, but finally gets a chance to show off her acting skills here. And then there’s the Oscar-winning Christoph Waltz as the multilingual nazi colonel Hans Landa, who manages to be both extremely threatening and incredibly funny (“That’s a bingo!” is already a classic).

I can however understand that there are people that have difficulty in holding Inglourious Basterds in high regard. Some might say that it’s only sketchily brilliant. I can’t say I completely disagree. But how many films are brilliant all the time? Some might say that it’s once again style over substance. That may be true, but this is Tarantino’s style. By now, you should know what to expect from him.

I can go on for many, many more paragraphs about Inglourious Basterds. I could gush about the absolute highlight of the film: the verbal shootout in La Louisiane or the unforgettable strudel-scene where Hans Landa meets Shosanna (again). But I will stop here and hope I’ve sufficiently elaborated why I like Inglourious Basterds so much. What a return to form for Tarantino after the failure that was Death Proof.


4.5

[Brodinski]

There are two other films that I considered to be contenders for the top spot of 2008. The Dark Knight is my # 2 of 2008, followed closely by Wall-E. Other ones that I think are good, but were never really in the race are Doubt, In Bruges, Frost/Nixon, Entre les Murs, Be Kind Rewind and Waltz With Bashir.



http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/35.jpg


35 Shots of Rum is a French art house flick that revolves mainly around Lionel, a reticent widowed train conductor, and his daughter Joséphine. They live in a cosy apartment in a high-rise housing project of the Parisian suburbs. Their neighbours in this building, taxi driver Gabrielle and adventure-minded Noé, will be gently slid into the story as the film progresses.

The story is very leisurely paced and to some, it may seem like it’s going nowhere. We witness a series of everyday events in the lives of Lionel and Joséphine. For instance, at the beginning of the film, Joséphine buys a new pressure cooker on her way home from a day filled with university classes. She stashes it in a closet in order to most likely surprise her father when he comes home from another day of work. But when Lionel arrives home, he has also bought a new pressure cooker for his daughter, as it is she who does all the cooking around the house. Joséphine genuinely thanks her father, and does not mention that she had also bought a pressure cooker, likely because she thought her father wouldn’t even think of buying one. She subsequently prepares dinner for herself and her father, who takes a shower in the meantime. The two then eat and talk about one thing and another. It’s through simple scenes like these that Claire Denis, 35 Shots of Rum’s director, establishes the close father-daughter bond.



http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/35-shots-of-rum-2-lst064165.jpg


Another ordinary event at the beginning of the film is a party that is thrown for one of Lionel’s co-workers who is forced to go into retirement. The man seems to have very mixed feelings about his retirement, as he essentially has nothing to fall back on, but these are mostly lost in the party bustle. He doesn’t have a wife, his co-workers are his friends and his job is pretty much his life. The similarities between this man and Lionel are plentiful.

Lionel and Joséphine both have a love interest, but either choose to ignore it or are suppressing it. Gabrielle is clearly very much in love with the taciturn Lionel, but her feelings remain unanswered. Noé has reserved a special place in his heart for Joséphine, but has difficulty expressing his feelings. When the foursome goes to a concert on a stormy night, Gabrielle’s car breaks down at the worst of times: it’s late at night and rain is pouring down. The four find shelter in a dim Parisian tavern. It is then that the most magical scene of the film takes place. To the strains of The Commodores’ Nightshift, Noé starts slow-dancing with Joséphine. He finally shows his true feelings for her. With the image of his retired co-worker and friend in the back of his mind, Lionel looks on this sadly for a brief moment. Then, when the female bartender hands Lionel a plate of food, he grabs her hand and invites her to dance with him, as if symbolizing that he also wants to move on with his life, just like daughter is. As Gabrielle casts down her eyes, it is obvious that she wishes she was this woman. This sequence bundles a lot of the themes of 35 Shots of Rum: (unanswered) love, moving on and letting go. This is Denis at her best, a director who does not need CGI, special effects and a 100$ million budget to create an incredibly powerful scene.



http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/protectedimage.jpg


I will leave the rest of the story up to you to discover. This may strike you as a very limited scope to fill 100 minutes. Four people living their lives? Really? That may be so, but it is the depth of the themes that are explored throughout the film that make it so unbelievably good. In essence, 35 Shots of Rum explores the process of self-discovery and decision-making in such a simple, meticulously detailed fashion that I find it to be extremely powerful. Every single scene in the film contributes to its central themes. And all of them are so recognisable. This makes it easy to relate to the characters, because these seemingly mundane events that Denis depicts throughout the film can happen to everyone amongst us, and perhaps already have. I imagine that every parent reflects about the fact that his child is eventually going to leave his/her household and begin a life of her own and what his/her own life will look like then without having your child near you every day. How many people have already had to disappoint someone who was in love with him/her?

35 Shots of Rum is like a mirror for a lot of things that many of us have already gone through in life and will still go through in years to come. Perhaps that is what explains my love for this obscure French film.


4.5

[Fiscal]

Awesome idea, and very great write ups! I haven't seen 35 Shots of Rum but I just moved it to the top of my queue. Keep 'em coming!

[Harry Lime]

Should be an interesting thread. Anyone wanna place some bets on what the Brodinski's favourite from 2007 will be? I'm going with There Will Be Blood.

[Brodinski]

2007. The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/JJ5.jpg


Let me start this off by saying that 2007 is my favourite year of the decade in terms of films. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find a better year in the noughties. There was the Oscar clash between No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood (an almost unrecognizable, Kubrickesque PT Anderson). Furthermore, there was the superb mystery thriller Zodiac, Penn’s best directorial effort to date Into The Wild, yet another Pixar marvel in Ratatouille, Cronenburg’s raw Eastern Promises and the underappreciated and underwatched Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead, Charlie Wilson’s War and The Visitor. And let’s not forget the foreign standouts, in particular 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days and The Diving Bell and The Butterfly. Some people here might also add Juno, Gone Baby Gone and American Gangster to this list, but I personally did not think they were all that.

The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford was perhaps largely overlooked by the audience and award shows because it was such a spectacular film year. It bombed at the box office and No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood tussled it out for the Oscars. Heck, I myself was initially going to bump No Country For Old Men to the # 1 position of 2007. That is, until I re-watched The Assassination of Jesse James and relived what a truly brilliant film this is.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/JJ1.jpg

The Assassination of Jesse James is Andrew Dominik’s second film after his debut effort Chopper. It begins by showing us the James gang that is waiting in the woods near a rail track. The gang consists of the eloquent skirt-chaser Dick Liddle, Jesse’s cousin Wood Hite, Ed Miller (Deadwood fans recognized Francis Wolcott here), long-time member Charley Ford and Jesse’s brother Frank. And then there’s of course Jesse James who is introduced to us as a talkative, good-humoured man. Come night, these men will rob the train that passes there. The then 19 year old Robert Ford is also present. He begs Frank and Jesse to let him participate in the train robbery. Whereas he comes away empty-handed from his talk with Frank, he is more fortunate with his idol Jesse, who allows him to participate in the robbery.

During the train robbery, the ruthlessness of the gang and especially Jesse is established. It has to be said that even though not a whole lot happens, this is the most spectacular scene of the entire movie. There are no action-packed shootouts or Mexican stand-offs in this film. Instead, The Assassination of Jesse James offers us a look inside the head of America’s most famous outlaw and his most ardent admirer. In this sense, it’s a psychological drama in a Western setting.

After the robbery, the other gang members are sent on their way by Jesse, but Bob Ford can stay with him for a little longer. Naturally, Bob is over the moon that he can spend a few days with his idol. Jesse seems to like having the young Robert Ford around for a dual purpose: as a means to boost his ego and as a personal butler. Ford is already hoping to become a permanent member of Jesse’s family, serving as a good-natured cousin to the children. That wish wasn’t fulfilled however, as a few days later, he is sent on his way by Jesse. When he arrives at the hideout of the Dick Liddle, Wood Hite and his older brother Charley, he brags about his stay with Jesse. They do not seem impressed, as Dick Liddle points out that “you [Bob] don’t know him [Jesse] like I do. You do Jesse dirt, he’ll come after you with a cleaver”. Afterwards, Bob discovers Charley and Wood Hite snooping around his room, laughing at his collection of Jesse James memorabilia. It’s clear from these scenes that the other gang members do not share Bob’s idolatry for Jesse.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/JJ2.jpg

As the story progresses, we learn that Jesse was a living legend in the Wild West. His robberies are romanticized, as he is looked upon as a Robin Hood type of figure by the population. However, Jesse’s life is not as glamorous as the pulp novels that are written about him make it out to be. His life as America’s most well-known outlaw takes a heavy toll on his mental health. The viewer, as well as Bob Ford, discovers that there is a dark side to Jesse. He is a cruel, paranoid, unpredictable man, always looking over his shoulder, expecting the men closest to him to do him wrong. As a result, his gang members are scared whenever he drops by. They hardly dare speak their mind around him and Jesse asking them to go for a ride is enough to deeply unsettle them.

Bob Ford learns Jesse’s cruel side the hard way. As Jesse drops by Charley and Bob’s place to grab a spot of dinner, Charley begins making fun of Bob’s idolatry of Jesse to break the tense atmosphere haunting the dinner table. Jesse is amused by it and compares Bob to another man who also wanted to be constantly around him. Jesse ended up killing this man. Bob is deeply insulted by Charley’s and Jesse’s constant pestering. His blind love for Jesse is no more and he instead cuts a deal with the police force, promising to kill the notorious outlaw.

As of then, Jesse and the two Ford brothers play a cat and mouse game. Bob and Charley live in constant fear that Jesse will find out their plot against him, but are in too deep to pull out of it. Jesse seems aware of the brothers’ malicious intentions, but eventually resigns himself to his fate. Perhaps he sees that there can be no other way for him to ever find peace of mind.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/JJ3.jpg

The final 30 minutes of the film deal with Bob’s life after he killed Jesse. He expected to be applauded for his deed, but instead he is frowned upon by the general public. In a cameo appearance, Nick Cave taunts Bob with a belittling song in which he calls him a coward. He lives a solitary life, drinking the days away and reading hundreds of hate letters addressed to him. It is clear that killing Jesse James has not brought him the fame he expected.

This whole story is gift-wrapped in the sumptuous visual style of Roger Deakins. The combined play of light and darkness during the train robbery scene is of top notch quality. The headlamp of the train breaks the nightly darkness and lights the hooded heads of the members of the James gang, as the shadows of the trees shine on their bodies. The scenery throughout the entire film is nothing short of spectacular, as can be seen on the screenshots I posted here. I’ve already expressed my disdain for the Academy earlier, but I feel that Roger Deakins was blatantly snubbed by the Academy, as this institute handed the Oscar for best cinematography to Robert Elswit for There Will Be Blood.

The pacing of the film has been called slow by some, but I prefer to say that Dominik takes his time to tell the story the way it needs to be told. In this sense, this film is akin to the work of Leone and Malick. Some may also argue that the movie drags itself from one scene to the other. I find that Dominik has been able to direct the story from calmer moments of dialogue to tension-packed highlights. There are numerous nail-biting moments throughout the film that can compete with almost any high-class thriller. I’ve also read complaints that the film is too long. It is indeed rather lengthy, but I feel that every scene is necessary to (further) establish the psyche of the two main characters, namely Jesse and Bob Ford.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/JJ4.jpg

I’ve not yet talked about the performances. As this is already getting very lengthy, I will limit myself to saying that Brad Pitt delivers yet another solid performance. Casey Affleck is the standout performance of the film. He portrays Robert Ford as a neurotic, naïve, vulnerable, conniving character in a wonderfully layered performance. Affleck is good in Gone Baby Gone, but he is performing at an Oscar-worthy level in The Assassination of Jesse James.

And to top it all off, there’s Nick Cave and Warren Ellis’ intimate score. It perfectly accompanies the overall tone and feel of the film. I guess I can best describe the film’s soundtrack as quietly epic.

I’m sorry if I was gushing a bit at times, but I needed my time to explain why I love this film so much. I hope I’ve been able to pass on my enthusiasm for this stellar film to the ones on this forum that have not yet seen it. This film absolutely bombed at the box office and was not a success at the many award shows either. But if it counts for something, I _loved_ it. There are only a handful of Westerns I can think of that I’d rank above The Assassination of Jesse James. That’s how astonishingly good I think it is.


5

[Leo_Lover]

Nice list so far, I can't wait to see more of it. :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Such a beautifully painted film, but it is a tad too long.

[planet news]

I'd agree, but the ending is, by far, my favorite part. I guess the middle was the weirdly distended stretch.

[Fiscal]

Loved that review Brodinski, I wish I could give you more than 1 rep.

[mark f]

Yeah, I think you should post a link or just repost the whole thing over here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=15914).

[Brodinski]

2006. Babel

This was a very tough year to determine my favourite. It’s really a toss-up between The Lives of Others and Babel. Ask me again in a month’s time and I might say it’s The Lives of Others instead of Babel. I’m sure that a lot here will go with Children of Men as the top pick for 2006. I think it’s a very good film, but it didn’t emotionally grab me as Babel and The Lives of Others did. Other films that I really liked are: United 93, The Departed, Miami Vice (I seriously considered this for top pick of the year), Pan’s Labyrinth (another one that many might pick as # 1), Letters from Iwo Jima, Perfume: The Story of A Murderer, The Prestige and, for sheer popcorn value, Casino Royale. I think that overall 2006 was a tremendous year for cinema.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/babel.jpg

Babel is the third film in Alejandro González Iñárittu’s mosaic trilogy, after Amores Perros and 21 Grams. Those of you that have seen these films know that Iñárittu’s films don’t exactly cheer you up. I mean: car crashes, drug- and alcohol addictions, mangled dogs, dead children… watching an Iñárittu film is no light entertainment. But with his heavy themes and tragic story lines, he has profiled himself as one of the most ambitious and experimental filmmakers of the noughties. Iñárittu knows how to grab his viewers by the neck and does not let go for the entire 143 minute runtime of Babel.

The director is clearly steadily building on a thematically and stylistically coherent body of work. Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel differ as to the plot and characters, but there are a few recurring elements. For the third time, Iñárittu tells a widely branched story with 4 plotlines that are directly or indirectly linked to each other. And for the third time, he tells us the tragic story of characters that in essence intend to do the right thing but get into trouble due to inherent human weaknesses or just an overload of bad luck.

In Babel, Iñárittu investigates the consequences of a single gunshot, consequences that span over 3 continents. Youssef and Ahmed, 2 Moroccan boys whose father has just purchased a hunting rifle, get bored while herding sheep and decide to fire off a few rounds. They accidentally (well, not entirely) hit an American tourist (Cate Blanchett) in a bus. The lady is severely injured and is brought to a nearby village by her husband (Brad Pitt). There, they wait for help, but the American embassy immediately thinks of a terrorist attack and refuses to let the ambulance pass, and instead opt to send a helicopter.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/babel2.jpg

Elsewhere, we see the Mexican nanny of Pitt and Blanchett’s kids undertaking a desperate action to attend her son’s wedding. She decides to take the two children with her to her son’s wedding, but as she and her nephew (Gael Garçia Bernal) want to cross the border from Mexico to America again that same night, a tragic turn of events takes place. And even further away from home, we see the story of a deaf Japanese girl that doesn’t know where to turn to after her mother’s suicide and is desperately longing for affection. This last story also has a link with the gunshot, although it only becomes entirely clear late in the film.

Iñárittu has always been fascinated by the thought that one split second can completely change a person’s life. In Amores Perros, the story revolved around that fatal second when 3 cars crashed into each other. In 21 Grams, it’s the moment when a man with 2 kids in his car is hit by another car. In Babel, it’s about that one gunshot that is fired, not out of political convictions or hatred, but simply because 2 children are challenging each other.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/b3.jpg

The film’s thematic richness is so vast that it is hard to cover entirely. I believe that Babel is mainly about parents and their children and the responsibility they feel towards them. Iñárittu suggests that sometimes, we simply can’t protect our loved ones. The father of the Japanese girl couldn’t avoid that his daughter was born a mute or that she was confronted with her mother’s suicide. Pitt and Blanchett lost a kid in child birth. The Moroccan father of Youssef and Ahmed couldn’t stop his sons from committing a terrible stupidity. The Mexican nanny can’t avoid bringing her nearly surrogate children into big trouble at that point in time. This is a scary thought for anyone, but the fact is that the ground beneath our feet just isn’t very stable and at times, things can happen that change our entire life, literally at the speed of a bullet.

Coupled to this theme is the connection that exists between people, but that we are at times (mostly) unaware of. One single gunshot resonates across 3 continents; every character is somehow connected to the other if only you look for the connection long enough. And yet, paranoia, racism and a fundamental lack of understanding are ubiquitous. When the tour bus of Pitt and Blanchett stops in the local village, many travellers are petrified, even though the villagers treat Pitt and Blanchett in a kind and caring way. The government turns the stupidity of 2 children into an act of terrorism, simply because it has happened in a Muslim country, and Muslims that shoot at an American tour bus are automatically thought of as terrorists. At the border between Mexico and the US, Mexicans seem to be looked upon as suspect illegals until proven otherwise. In the Japanese story line, father and daughter are barely able to communicate with each other. Everyone is connected, but no one is able to see or find this connection anymore. They’re all kind of lost in a Babylonian emotional, cultural and social state of confusion.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/b1.jpg

These challenging ideas are slowly shaped to completion in a film that is nothing less of fascinating and sometimes even deeply moving. The scene where Brad Pitt breaks down in tears in the hospital as he hears his children’s voices over the phone was so moving and sincere, I felt a lump in my throat. As he did before, Iñárittu plays with his story’s timeline, but he does not overly complicate things, as was perhaps the case with 21 Grams. I think this plays to the advantage of Babel, as it’s easier to emotionally relate to the characters, because the story lines are more linearly developed. The continuous switching between the different story lines also allows Iñárittu to constantly put little cliffhangers into the film. He lets a sequence last just long enough and then switches to another story line to leave us sitting at the edge of our seats in anticipation of what comes next. Babel is a human drama, but there’s quite a lot of suspense worked into it, albeit in a particular fashion that not everyone may find as suspenseful as I did.

Babel is a film about incredibly tragic (here’s that word again) events, but things never get too sentimental. The dialogues are very naturalistic; there’s no monologue explaining everything; the music is subtle and fitting, without feeling manipulative. It’s also incredible to see how naturally almost the entire story flows; completely in contrast with Crash, which felt too forced.

That is not to say that Babel doesn’t have its flaws. To name one, I think that the Japanese story sometimes feels a bit dragged into the other stories, despite the fact that it contains some very powerful and moving scenes. But this is the only thing that “bothered” me. Overall, Babel is a sincerely emotional, deeply human, moving and intelligently put together film.


4+

[Brodinski]

Thanks for all the positive comments so far, guys. I'm currently working on the 90s and have but a few years left to go, so I'll be able to continue posting my reviewed favourite films of the year for quite a few weeks.

[Brodinski]

2005. Syriana

2005 was a tough year to pick a clear # 1. I guess the reason for this is that many good to very good films were released in 2005, but I didn’t see a single great one. In other words, 2005 was a solid year, but not a spectacular one like 2007 or 2004. As a boxing aficionado, I came close to giving the top spot to Howard’s Cinderella Man. It does have its flaws, but Crowe’s and especially Giamatti’s performances are extraordinary. Another film that was a definite contender for me is Spielberg’s Munich. I found it a fascinating film that at its core deals with moral dilemmas while also being an exciting thriller. Other films I liked a lot but were never really in contention are: Batman Begins, The New World, Capote, Brokeback Mountain, Walk the Line, L’Enfant and A History of Violence.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/syriana.jpg

Syriana’s plot can be split up into 4 major parts. To begin with, there’s the story of Bob Barnes (George Clooney) who has been doing the CIA’s dirty work in the Middle East since the 80s. One day, he is assigned to eliminate the prince of a small oil state because he supposedly has ties with Al Qaida. However, the ***** hits the fan – so to speak – and Barnes comes to the conclusion that his own secret agency has lied to him.

Secondly, there’s the plot line of Connex – Killen. Connex is a huge Texan-based oil company that has just lost an important contract to the Chinese. Killen is a young, rather small company that has somehow managed to land a deal with Kazachstan, the biggest source of uncultivated oil wells in the world. Connex now wants a merger with Killen, but before this can take place, an investigation must take place to find out if Killen’s contract with Kazachstan was honestly acquired. Lawyer Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) has to defend the case.

A third story line revolves around Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), an economic wonderboy, who becomes the personal advisor of the same prince that Bob Barnes has to eliminate. A final story line is that of two boys that are recruited by Muslim fundamentalists in the Gulf.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/syriana1.jpg

As is the case in these mosaic films, the plot lines are interwoven during the 126 minute runtime. And believe me, you need to pay attention every single minute, because this is not an “easy” film to watch and fully comprehend. I believe it’s one of those films, much like for example Mulholland Drive (although you can watch that film an infinite amount of times and still discover new things), that you need to watch at least two times to completely understand. You watch it once and you know what happened and why, but the connections between all story lines and characters won’t be entirely clear. Upon revisiting it, you’ll be able to puzzle everything together. Perhaps this is just me though; perhaps you guys managed to understand everything after your first viewing of Syriana.

The complex screenplay is Syriana’s blessing and perhaps also its curse. I say curse, because nowadays people are used to Hollywood films where everything is pre-masticated. As a result, audiences are no longer “tuned” for these kinds of mental efforts when watching a film. Therefore, I see how Syriana can be frustrating for some people.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/syriana2.jpg

However, I was delighted to see a film that actually asks something of its viewer. You have to puzzle things together yourself instead of the screenwriter doing it for you (yes, Paul Haggis, that means you). Besides, the story’s complexity isn’t just gratuitous. In the real world, the corruption between the oil states and the USA is likely very complicated. Syriana shows us a world where you don’t know who to trust and who has an interest in which action. The fact that all loose ends come together perfectly at the ending of the film show that Gaghan has written a great script. After all those complicated twists and intrigues, Syriana ends in harmony, which is a testament to Stephen Gaghan’s screenwriting ability.

During its first hour, Syriana is a film that works very well on an intellectual level, but it remains very distant emotionally. I found it difficult enough to make sense of everything, let alone get really drawn in by it. But as the story gradually progresses and the link between all story lines becomes clearer, a genuine suspense is stirred up. This is what impressed me the most about Syriana: it’s not just an intelligent film; it also manages to (eventually) draw you in emotionally with a final half hour that should be sufficient to leave you baffled when the ending credits start rolling.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/syr5.jpg

Stylistically, Stephen Gaghan is a solid director: he doesn’t unnecessarily whirl about with his camera, but the images are never 100 % stable. The result is that the film is visually pleasant to watch, yet still has a rough edge to it. The acting performances are all around solid, with Clooney and Alexander Siddig that left the biggest impressions on me. Clooney received the Oscar, but it’s really Siddig’s performance as Prince Nasir that’s the standout for me. In a certain sense, he’s the moral center of the film and he shows this in a very subtle, humanistic way.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/syr.jpg

Syriana just falls short of being a grand cru in cinema, but it is a very, very good film: complicated and strenuous – yes – but very relevant, exciting and fascinating.


4

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'm not going to lie, that movie bore me to death.


But I'm still here, so it's okay.

[Leo_Lover]

Even though Babel has not many actors & actresses that I know of in it, I've heard it's a pretty good film. :)

[Brodinski]

2004. Dogville


Before diving into my review of the top film of the year, I want to acknowledge some other films of 2004. Given its prominent position on many MoFo’s top 10, I’m sure that a lot of you will put forward Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. You will get no argument from me, as ESotSM is indeed an excellent choice for # 1. The same case could be made for Alexander Payne’s Sideways, Hershbiegel’s terrific Downfall, Wong Kar-Wei’s 2046, The Incredibles and to a lesser extent, Kill Bill Vol. 2 and The Aviator. In my opinion, 2004 was an absolute banner year for cinema; the best of the decade, second to only 2007.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/dogville.jpg


Dogville is the name of an unsightly town in the Rocky Mountains, which mainly consists of one dead-end street. We’re in the 1930s and apparently, the Great Depression has struck the town residents hard. It seems that they’re all good-hearted souls that would rather be somewhere else, but are stuck in their little town.


One night, an attractive woman, Grace (Nicole Kidman), appears from out of nowhere, chased by sinister-looking men in black cars. Tom (Paul Bettany), the local philosopher (not that every town has one, but you catch my drift) and aspiring writer, offers her shelter and after consulting the others, Grace is allowed to hide in Dogville. In exchange for the townspeople’s hospitality, Grace helps wherever she can: picking apples, weeding, babysitting or simply listening to the stories of an old, blind man. But what the townspeople gradually realise, is that they have Grace in their power. It is clear that Grace is on the run for someone, so they could easily turn her in. It does not take them long to start abusing the power they have over Grace in increasingly disgraceful manners.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/dogville1.png


In making Dogville, Von Trier has said goodbye to the Dogma manifest which typified his earlier work. Dogville is a very artificial, experimental film. The entire film was shot on one set. The sets are limited to a minimum: walls are represented by white lines on the floor; imaginary doors and windows; white light is used for scenes that take place during the day whereas darkness is used for scenes taking place at night. As a result, Dogville feels like watching a filmed theatre performance.


This whole set-up perhaps sounds like the work of a pretentious director with a need to prove that he is not just making a film; he is making art. But in my opinion, the minimalist set-up does actually have a purpose. Firstly, it obliges the viewer to look at the actors, simply because there’s basically nothing else to look at. Secondly, it serves a particular content purpose. I know that Von Trier was accused of America bashing, as the townspeople degrade themselves to some pretty repulsive behaviour near the end. This is a short-sighted argumentation. I believe that the utter lack of settings throughout the film means that this drama could have produced itself in every town of every country of the world.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/dogville-7.jpg


This experimental move from Von Trier is especially bold because he filmed Dogville in 2:35 format (for those who don’t know what this is: simply put, it’s as wide as you can film). After all, how do you fill that entire screen if there’s nothing to see, apart from some rudimentary props and the actors? I believe that Von Trier solved this problem by putting the camera on his shoulder (well, not always literally, but most is filmed at shoulder height) following his characters on foot. At first, this style slightly bothered me, because it seemed like Von Trier is just improvising, as if he is running after his actors at random. But on repeated viewings, I started liking it more and more. The style isn’t improvisatory at all. Nearly every shot ends in a perfect symmetry. Dogville is the work of a very good director who always keeps in mind his intended end product.


Content wise, Dogville also offers plenty of food for thought. The idea of an individual (particularly a woman) that is being tread on by society was already present in Von Trier’s earlier film Breaking The Waves. Moreover, there are some biblical connotations in Dogville. Grace (this name itself has Christian connotations) characterizes herself as a sort of martyr who stoically endures all of her trials and tribulations right up to the ending of the film. I did not realise this myself, but a reviewer compared the ending of the film to the differences between the Old and the New Testament. I will not say anymore on this point, because I would reveal the ending. If you’re a bit familiar with the Bible though, you will see the parallels when viewing the film.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/dogville2.jpg


I will however admit that Dogville has its flaws. I myself think that the dialogues sometimes sound a bit pompous, especially near the end. That is not to say that I am overly annoyed by them, but at times, the same point could have been made with less words. Much like many of my selections so far, Dogville is a long film. Whereas I think the long runtime is justified for The Assassination of Jesse James and Inglourious Basterds, Dogville could have been a good 20 minutes shorter. Not every scene is absolutely necessary to the story and as mentioned earlier, the dialogue could sometimes be cut shorter.


But I’m really fishing for faults here. The film’s positive points amply compensate the few imperfections it does have. All in all, Dogville is a unique film that fearlessly experiments with the conventions of the film genre while still having a sensible, compelling story to tell.


4+

[Brodinski]

2003. Lost in Translation

Before diving into my review of Lost in Translation, I have to acknowledge the runner-ups of 2003 and some other films I find to be very good. The runner-up is Peter Jackson’s final instalment of what is rightfully named the greatest fantasy trilogy of all time (not that I know any other…). Although I still think that LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring is the best of the trilogy, Return of the King comes very close. The second runner-up is Clint Eastwood’s dark drama Mystic River. Other films I liked very much, but were never in the race for the top spot: Master and Commander, American Splendor, Finding Nemo, School of Rock, Shattered Glass, 21 Grams and Kill Bill, Vol. 1. Foreign standouts of 2003 are: Old Boy, Memories of Murder, Goodbye Dragon Inn, Swimming Pool and Triplets of Belville.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/lost_in_translation.jpg

Talent apparently does run in the genes. Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation was almost unanimously praised by critics. It got an impressive aggregate rating of 89 % on Metacritic and a whopping 95 % on Rotten Tomatoes. And I concur with those ratings. Lost in Translation deserves all the praise it received, and then some.

In Lost in Translation, Bill Murray portrays Bob Harris, an ageing actor who reluctantly travels to Tokyo to shoot an add for Suntory whisky. Actually, he would much rather be doing a play, but as he says himself: “This gave me the opportunity to get away from my wife, miss my child’s birthday and cash a 2 million dollar cheque.” I’m paraphrasing a bit here, but the general idea is that Bob is a bit cynical about his profession and his life to say the least. But at least the Suntory whisky does its job, as Bob, lonely and sad, often retreats to the hotel bar to drink his troubles away. There, he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Jo), a young newlywed who recently graduated from university and is now looking for something to do with her life. She’s in Tokyo because her husband, a celebrated photographer, is doing a shoot with a famous rock band. Although the two differ 30 years in age, they become close friends. They venture into the city together and talk about very personal things, such as love, marriage and children.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/lost-in-translation-2.jpg

Lost in Translation could be defined as a rom-com, albeit a very sober one. The deep relationship between Bob and Charlotte is so beautiful and moving to watch that by the end of the film, you feel genuinely sorry to say goodbye to these characters. But how does Sofia Coppola pull this off? Well, she spends a good amount of time showing the main characters’ lives when they’re all by themselves. We see a lonely Charlotte staring out of her hotel window or lying on her bed, mostly in a foetus position, as if she’s trying to protect herself from something. Whenever she meets up with her friends, we see her nearly going insane from the banality of their conversations. In essence, Charlotte is alone, albeit mentally rather than physically. The same goes for Bob. Almost psychotic from jetlag, he is overwhelmed by the friendliness of all the Asians surrounding him. But there is not a single person he can really talk to or remotely relate to.

Tokyo does not seem like a very inviting city in Lost in Translation. The Japanese metropolis resembles a giant amusement park, where technology has erased all sense of humanity. Early scenes in the movie show Bob getting beeped awake by his fax machine and struggling to make use of his shower and exercise machine. These are scenes that are quite funny, but at the same time sad.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/lost_in_translation_xl_02.jpg

When the two finally meet, you instantly feel (like Bob and Charlotte probably do too) as if two kindred spirits have found each other. It’s clear that the twosome is uncertain about the lives they are leading, but now, they’ve finally met someone they can relate to. We can feel the strong intensity of their relationship, but Lost in Translation never waters down to being a cheesy romance, which is a testament to Sofia Coppola’s skill set.

Bill Murray was nominated to win the Oscar for Best Actor; an award he most definitely deserved according to me. Murray portrays Bob as a modest person who reacts in an unemotional manner to the often eccentric behaviour of the Japanese surrounding him. Murray really shows that Bob is a man who does not understand the Asian culture and language. At the same time, he manages to be very funny, but in a subtle and subdued way, because of the looks on his face and the pronunciation of certain words. It really is a career best performance for the former Saturday Night Live comedian. Scarlett Jo was only 19 years old when she starred in Lost in Translation and she also turned in her best performance to this day. It is a shame that she is nowadays pissing away her talent in lesser films.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/lost-in-translation-3.jpg

I will not reveal the specifics of the goodbye between Bob and Charlotte, but I have to say that it is one of the most moving and sincere scenes I have ever seen in a film. It’s just a magical moment to top off a special and memorable gem of a film. I would go so far as to say it’s in my top 3 of the decade and most certainly in my personal top 20 of all time.


5

[PumaMan]

2003. Lost in Translation


While I like LIT, I could have done without some of the Tokyo/Japan bashing that the Bill Murray character dished out and was the reason he wanted to leave the city ASAP. Still, it's one of my favorite movies and would definitely be in my top 100 but not my top 10. Just being able to watch Scarlett Johansson in her pensive moods helps a WHOLE lot. :)

[Fiscal]

2003. Lost in Translation

...

5

Great review, this is one of my favorite threads!

I think what really makes this one of my favorite films of all time is the way Sophia Coppola takes advantage of typical cliches formed from similar films.

There is a scene in particular where Bob and Charlotte are laying next to each other on a bed in the hotel room. Surely this is where Bob and Charlotte will kiss, an affair is imminent. Maybe even John (Charlotte's husband) will walk in on the two making love. These are all things that the viewer is thinking, but this doesn't happen. Instead, you see the two's similarities and friendship shine. Their chemistry is all over the room, and it truly makes for a great moment.

Also, after Bob shags the singer from the hotel bar we see Charlotte arive at Bob's room. We all expect that Charlotte is going to see what happened and resent Bob or become jealous. Instead, Charlotte is surprised, maybe a little jealous (but not out of lust), but she lets it go and they continue to enjoy each other through their familiar situation.

Awesome write up Brodinski. I love this film and can truly never get sick of watching it no matter what mood I am in.

[Leo_Lover]

Nice list so far. :)

[Brodinski]

2002. City of God


As is the normal routine in these entries, I will first take a moment to acknowledge the other films of 2002 I particularly liked. I knowingly say “films” and not “contenders”, because City of God absolutely obliterates the opposition. I thoroughly enjoyed Adaptation (Chris Cooper is _brilliant_), LOTR: The Two Towers (the battle of Helm’s Deep is my favourite of the entire trilogy), Almodovar’s deeply moving Talk To Her, Belgium’s very own The Son, Spike Lee’s The 25th hour (his finest work to date imo), Polanski’s The Pianist, Road to Perdition (Mendes’ best imho) and Infernal Affairs. I also mention Gangs of New York here, a film I probably rank higher in Scorsese’s body of work than most here. Some might also mention Irréversible and Catch Me If You Can Here, but I did not particularly care for these.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/cidade-de-deus1.jpg

Cidade de Deus, City of God, is a slum on the outskirts of Rio De Janeiro, where society’s poorest are packed together since the sixties. There, we meet a kid that goes by the name of Rocket. He is a daily witness to the drug trade and the violence that goes hand in hand with it. Just about everyone, including his own brother, is part of a gang. Children (no older than 8 or 9 years old) wander the streets, gun in hand, looking for innocent bystanders to terrorize and rob in order to fund their drug addictions.

Although Rocket does socialize with people involved in the drug trade (it’s almost impossible not to), he chooses to remain on the fringes of criminality, preferring to pursue his dream of becoming a professional photographer while also trying to get intimate with his dream girl Angelica.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/cidade-de-deus011.jpg

It is clear that Rocket is the exception rather than the rule in the City of God. Gang leaders are almost arbitrarily slain and subsequently replaced by even worse maniacs with a craving for power and money. Becoming a druglord is in fact many young boys’ dream. The prime example in City of God is Li’l Zé, a bloodthirsty sociopath who spent his entire childhood idolizing the local gang leaders. He teamed up with his best friend, the mostly calm and collected Benny, to take over the drug trade in the City of God, killing everyone who stands in his way.

The story however is not limited to the main characters, Rocket and L’il Zé. Meirelles has ensured that the Cidade de Deus favela is absolutely gushing with life. Minor characters are given plenty of background that allows us to relate to them. The bus driver, named Knockout Ned (what’s in a name), is a karate expert who will swiftly give anyone who tries to rob him an asswhoopin’. The local bar owner is a snitch for the police, but has a meltdown when he catches his wife with another man. Carrot, a competing drug dealer that Li’l Zé fights a bloody war with, is depicted as a man who rose to the criminal top ranks thanks to his perseverance and loyalty to his former bosses. All these sub-stories are good enough to make you believe that Cidade de Deus could really be a favela on the outskirts of Rio.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/cidade-de-deus.jpg

This is also a testament to Meirelles’ directorial skills. In a film that is well over 2 hours long, he manages to tell an incredibly compelling story without there being one scene too many in City of God. Every single scene contributes to the themes of the film, every minute reinforces the film’s points of view without getting repetitive. Meirelles has clearly paid close attention to great American directors, such as Scorsese and Tarantino (that voice-over is reminiscent of Goodfellas and Casino). The technically outstanding opening scene sets the tone for the entire film. A handheld camera spins around the characters like a madman, continuously breathing down their neck so that our contact with them remains maximal. As a result, the film has quite a realistic feel to it. Furthermore, Meirelles is a very visceral filmmaker, employing many slick tricks in City of God such as freeze-frame, split-screen, flashback, flash forward,…

But what is perhaps even more astounding is that the film is so colourful and stylish while at the same time maintaining a very raw feel to it. Men and children are killed without hesitation. Killing a man seems as easy and natural as preparing a microwave meal. It is clear that for many in Cidade de Deus, crime and brutal violence have become a standard in life. We, being the viewers, get a panoramic view on a world where the police can be bribed and where the media does not care about the body count. Everyone appears to be consumed by this culture of drugs and violence, down to even the smallest children. At one point in the film, a child (and I don’t mean teenager, I mean a child no older than 8 or 9 years of age) says: “I’m not a kid. I smoke, I snort. I am an adult.” There are more such scenes in the film that are extremely powerful, not because of the violence that is being depicted, but because of what they suggest. Cautiously brought on undertones of tenderness and love (Rocket’s love for Angelica) form a nice counter pole for the many atrocities in City of God, but these are largely swept away by the waves of the ocean of blind hatred and rage that runs through Cidade de Deus. After all, how can the love of few beat the hatred of so many?

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/cidade_1.jpg

City of God is not a very cheerful film. At the end of it, you will not start laughing with joy. The film does not offer any answers to the problems brought up along its 2 hour + runtime. Much as is the case in Goodfellas, we get a view on the life of criminals and the consequences such a lifestyle brings with it. City of God is an unforgiving, rock hard head but of a film that will shake you to the very core of your being. I rank this film as my absolute favourite of the noughties and one of my top 10 films of all time.


5

[Brodinski]

2001. Mulholland Drive


I wholeheartedly admit that my pick for the # 1 film for 2001 really came down to a dead heat between LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring and my eventual pick Mulholland Drive. LOTR: TFOTR is my favourite film of the trilogy and I almost feel bad for not picking any of the LOTR films as top films of their respective years. I truly believe that LOTR: TFOTR is a masterpiece of epic proportions. There are so many characters in that film and the scale is so epic, yet Peter Jackson has managed to squeeze all of that into one beautifully shot feature film that draws you in from minute one and doesn’t let go until the end credits start rolling. It took a special film to keep LOTR: TFOTR from the # 1 spot and Mulholland Drive is special to say the least. Other films that I liked a lot: The Royal Tenenbaums, Gosford Park, The Man Who Wasn’t There and Monsters, Inc.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/mulholland-drive.jpg

Mulholland Drive was originally going to be the pilot for a TV series that Lynch was to direct for ABC. Lynch’s screenplay for the 2 hour long pilot was approved, but the end result nearly gave the ABC bosses a heart attack. So the pilot was turned down. However, Lynch decided to reassemble his cast and film some more scenes. The final result is a 145 minute long trip through a dream landscape that makes a strong case for best film of the decade.

As it becomes a real Lynch film, it’s nearly impossible to scrap together a comprehensible plot from the scenes in the film, let alone give a brief outline here of what it’s about. Before trying to summarize the plot here, I warn the MoFo’s that have not yet seen this brilliant film. I think it’s best to go into this film with very little to no information. If you do decide to read any further, know that it is difficult to speak of a Lynch film without giving away key elements. Still, I’ll try to summarize the “plot” here without revealing too much.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/mullholand1.jpg

It begins on Mulholland Drive, the winding road between Hollywood and The Valley (if you don’t think there’s some symbolism hidden here, better think again). Two men mean to harm a mysterious brunette, but thanks to a happy (?) coincidence, she manages to get away unharmed, albeit with severe memory loss, with nothing on her but a purse full of money and a blue key. Subsequently, the brunette seeks shelter in a vacant apartment, where her presence is discovered the following day by Betty, an impossibly cheerful blonde that has come to Hollywood determined to become a star. Averse from all logic, Betty does not call the police when she finds an unknown brunette suffering from amnesia in her aunt’s apartment. Instead, she decides to play detective (as they do in “the movies”) along with Rita, the name that the brunette has given herself to make things easier. Together, they try to unravel the mystery of who "Rita" really is.

In the meantime, we also meet a director that is forced by some mobsters, represented by an enigmatic cowboy, to cast a particular actress in his new film. We also meet a certain sinister-looking Mr. Roque who is pulling the strings of the Hollywood executives from behind a glass window. There’s also a hitman who kills a man, but during the process, accidentally injures an innocent obese woman in the adjacent room. In a rather funny episode of the film, we meet Billy Ray Cyrus who has an affair with the aforementioned director’s wife. Despite these eccentric characters and weird episodes, you still have some idea of where the film is going. Right up to the moment when Betty and Rita find a blue box that is a match for the blue key that Rita found in her purse when she arrived at Betty’s aunt’s apartment. From there on, the nightmarish, utterly surreal (or is it?) half hour finale begins.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/LynchBlueKey1.jpg

Mulholland Drive is really a monument of uncut weirdness. Some of the characters described above are so far off from what we regularly see in a film that they couldn’t appear elsewhere but in a Lynch film. But whereas in Lost Highway you didn’t get any leads as to how you could make sense of the mystery you had just witnessed, you do get plenty in Mulholland Drive. The last 15 minutes of the film contain a number of flashbacks which allow the viewer to see some light in the darkness, so to speak. But it was the final sequence that gave me the sense that the “truth” was out there to be found. As a result, I enjoy Mulholland Drive much more than I do Lost Highway, as I consider the latter to be a fascinating, well-put together film, but one I don’t want to see again. With Mulholland Drive, I get the sense that if I watch it enough times, I can put together a definitive theory on everything I’ve just seen. Consequently, I enjoy every minute of re-watching it once in a while, as every time you look for new elements that support your theory while also enjoying the splendor of Lynch’s directing skills and the superb acting of the entire cast, especially Justin Theroux’s performance as director Adam Kesher.

But what’s the underlying message that Mulholland Drive tries to deliver? Without revealing anymore plot details, a lot of people like to think of it as a criticism on the Hollywood dream factory. This is a very plausible theory that can be solidly backed up. As I said in the beginning of this essay, Mulholland Drive, the somewhat scary road that connects the ordinary life in The Valley with the dream life in Hollywood, is a first indication of the likelihood of this theory. Furthermore, the two main characters, Betty and Rita, look and act as if they’ve just ran away from the set of some soap series. Rita steals her name from a poster of the noir film Gilda, starring Rita Hayworth. Betty speaks in a sort of soap-opera language and acts overly naïve.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/mulholland_drive_001.jpg

Personally, I think it’s not just a critique on Hollywood. I believe that Mulholland Drive carries a humanistic message about the madness of rejected love. Far too many people have already been at a point in their lives where a dream is more attractive than the reality in which they live. Rejection and humiliation can easily change into the victory, success and love that you dream of.

Mulholland Drive is a film to watch over and over again. Contrarily to Rita and Betty in the film, who have a blue key but not the box that is a match for it, we have the blue box, but not the key that is a match for it. The fun of Mulholland Drive comes from trying to find that key, thus completing the abstract painting that Lynch has so expertly crafted for us.


4.5+

[Leo_Lover]

Nice list so far. :)

[The Prestige]

Hiya Brods

First of all, TERRIFIC reviews. Very clear and interesting perspectives raised in them. I particularly liked what you said about City Of God having a vibrant yet raw feel to it as far as the photography and feel of the film is concerned. I would agree that this is the best way to describe that aspect, and I can't really think of a film that's ever had that combination.

I too almost love this film myself. Not sure why I didn't include it in my Top 100, but it's definitely worthy of a Top 20. One thing I would say, and it's a minor criticism, the film has a bit too much flair. I think a few scenes could have done without the splits and 360s as they because a tad bit distracting. Otherwise it's a high quality film and one I think should be shown to people shy of foreign flicks because it's very accessible, despite it's grim subject matter.

[planet news]

Effing win list.

I absolutely adore each and every one of the films on your list so far, and nearly* all are, in my young and contemporary-leaning opinion, some of the best ever made. Most notably, Lost in Translation, Mulholland Drive and Dogville. And I'm glad to have an ally on the latter.

>Von Trier has said goodbye to the Dogma manifest which typified his earlier work.

Notice, however, that this is one of the SSSSHHHHAAAKKKIIIEEESSSSTTTTT films he's ever shot even by true Dogme standards. Von Trier has a very loose conception of what cinematography is, but in the case of Dogville, the set is so utterly stunning, I just don't care.

>I believe that the utter lack of settings throughout the film means that this drama could have produced itself in every town of every country of the world.

I disagree. I'd actually want to accept the anti-American stance. The lack of historical depth and grounding, the thinness of our existence (especially in that time, in a place such as Dogville) in terms of origin is a very important theme, and Von Trier's impressionistic exegesis of it is impressively consistent with his other films. I don't think we should be afraid to accept that people don't like America around the world.

>That is not to say that I am overly annoyed by them, but at times, the same point could have been made with less words.

Completely agree. Both the camera work and the writing could be called "rambling" at times. It's not influid though, and of course the framework is so hypnotic, dialogue as such takes a completely different turn just in its enunciation.

*with the sole exception of Syriana. I never liked that movie. But this is not about me.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Brodinski, this is currently my favourite thread to go to now.

Great write ups. Keep the awesomeness coming.

[Brodinski]

>I believe that the utter lack of settings throughout the film means that this drama could have produced itself in every town of every country of the world.

I disagree. I'd actually want to accept the anti-American stance. The lack of historical depth and grounding, the thinness of our existence (especially in that time, in a place such as Dogville) in terms of origin is a very important theme, and Von Trier's impressionistic exegesis of it is impressively consistent with his other films. I don't think we should be afraid to accept that people don't like America around the world.

You may very well be right. I hadn't thought of it in those terms.


Thanks for all the support btw guys, it's very motivating. I've only got one more review to write and then the 90s are completed. Unfortunately, that review concerns my top film of 1999 so there might be a delay of a few more days than usual before I start with the 90s.

[The Prestige]

Really wish I responded to this thread earlier as I would like to discuss every film you've listed so far on here. Not thrilled about Lost In Translation being there though to be honest with you, mate. But it's your list and despite that slight dent in it, I agree with the others it rules.

Inglourious Basterds is more than a worthy placement for film of 2009. I liked how you said it was his best effort since Pulp Fiction. I loved it and, for my money, it may have the edge over Pulp Fiction as it's a bit more emotionally engaging, tragic and as hysterically funny too.

I think it's safe to say you are no fan of Death Proof. As aren't many others. But I think it's great. Certainly prefer it over Kill Bill. I would have it a lot lower on my list nowadays, or maybe even just outside the Top 100, but I still think it's high quality entertainment even if it is Tarantino's most self-dulgent flick to date. Question for you though, my friend. Do you think Proof works better as a standalone film or as part of the Grindhouse experience?

[Brodinski]

2000. Traffic

I had originally picked American Psycho as # 1 film of 2000, but could not shrug off the memory of the profound impact that Traffic had on me. So I decided to revisit both films and eventually, Traffic came out on top, but only barely. There were however a number of very good films released in 2000. The first one that comes to mind is Memento, which is highly appreciated by many on MoFo. I found it a fascinating film the first time I watched it, but repeated viewings lessened the impact it had on me. A film I truly love though, is Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge!. I guess there’s really no middle way with that one: you either love it or leave it. Other films I liked very much are: Wong Kar Wai’s visually stunning In The Mood For Love, the Coens’ O Brother, Where Art Thou, Inarittu’s Amores Perros and Ang Lee’s astoundingly beautiful Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

I’d like to say a few words on my # 2 of 2000. As I already said, I came very, very close to giving the top spot to Mary Harron’s terrific adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis’s 1991 novel. I think it’s a remarkable satire on the 1980s materialist yuppie-era. But two elements truly raise this film from being a good film to a great one. Firstly, I find American Psycho to be outrageously funny. Whether it’s Bateman’s outburst on an Asian woman at the laundry works, his constant, impudent ignoring of his girlfriend Evelyn Williams (Reese Witherspoon) or his pompous monologues on Phil Collins, Whitney Houston and Huey Lewis & The News right before he viciously kills someone; it’s all equally funny to me. At the heart of the film is Christian Bale’s tour-de-force performance. In his portrayal of Patrick Bateman, he switches from being an arrogant Wall Street yuppie to a murderous psychopath to a hysterical sissy. The apparent ease by which Bale portrays these different aspects of Pat Bateman’s personality showed for the first time that he is capable of delivering the greatest of performances. For me, it remains to be seen whether he can ever top his magnificent performance as Patrick Bateman.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/trafficposter.jpg

After this digression, it’s time to move on to my top film of 2000: Steven Soderbergh’s 140-minute long Traffic about the drug problem as seen from 3 widely different angles. Firstly, there’s the story line of Javier Rodriguez (Benicio Del Toro), a Mexican cop who tries to follow his moral compass amid a pool of corruption. The second story line takes place in Washington DC where the conservative Robert Wakefield (Michael Douglas) has just been appointed as the new drug-tsar of the USA. It’s his responsibility to set out the official strategy of the US government against the drug trade. Wakefield however is so preoccupied with his job that he doesn’t notice the fact that his daughter is slipping further and further into her crack addiction. Thirdly, there’s the story of two DEA agents, Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman, who are assigned to protect a crown witness in the trial against one of the largest drug importers of the USA. This drug importer’s wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, knew nothing of her husband’s business, but is forced to take over his trade while he is incarcerated.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/traffic.jpg

For each of these 3 story lines, Soderbergh adopts a different colour palette. The Mexican episodes are characterized by a sandy colour with rich shades of brown. The Washington episodes are typified by the colour blue, whereas the DEA story thread is marked by more natural, full colours. I’ve read reviewers saying this was done so that the viewer can easily orientate himself every time the film switches from one story thread to the other. In my opinion, these reviewers couldn’t be more wrong. I can’t for the life of me imagine that a filmmaker such as Soderbergh would think so little of the intelligence of his audience that he felt it necessary to adopt a different colour for each story thread to make it clearer that the film has switched over to a “fresh” story line. Instead, I believe Soderbergh adopted different colour filters to evoke the feel of each place. The sandy, brownish colour of the Mexican episode conveys that this is a place where many things are ominous and where you’re never sure who’s good and who’s bad. The blue of the Washington DC episode denotes the coldness and harshness of politics.

Yet no matter how impressive the visual aspect, no film of this scope could ever work without a great script to back it up. It is Stephen Gaghan’s masterful screenplay that ensures that Traffic’s style is amply matched by its substance. In spite of these 3 story lines, visual styles and a large ensemble cast, Gaghan has managed to build up an emotional consistency throughout the film. There are no abrupt turns or plot twists. Even though we are essentially zapping from one story thread to the other, everything makes sense and nothing feels forced. It’s also impressive to see how Gaghan and Soderbergh have expertly juggled with these 3 story threads. They show us one episode for just a long enough time to keep us emotionally invested before switching to another story line. This lends the film a sense of uncertainty as well as tension, because neither we nor the characters in the film are ever sure what will happen next.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Traffic-Michael-Douglas.jpg

I do however concede that not everything about the screenplay is perfect. Those of you that have yet to see the film might be puzzled about the execution scene in Mexico (why did that just happen?) or the rather drastic change in character of Wakefield near the end that seems slightly unrealistic, even though I can understand it better with each viewing.

The acting throughout the film is nothing short of all-around solid. Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman have a very nice chemistry going that provides some humoristic tones in a film otherwise loaded with heavy themes. Michael Douglas is cut out for parts like that of Robert Wakefield. Even Catherine Zeta-Jones is very credible as the mother turned drug empress who undertakes extreme measures to keep her family together. But the standout performance is that of Benicio Del Toro, who plays a cop who must make a decision about what side of the law he is really on. He is fully aware that the war on drugs cannot ever be won, yet he continues his job in the hope of making a direct impact on the society he lives in. In the beautifully-shot ending scene, we see that Del Toro’s Rodriguez has finally brought that change about in the town he grew up in.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/traffic3.jpg

In spite of the few negative points I brought up about the screenplay, I find Traffic to be a top shelf film that manages to carry a strong anti-drug message without wanting to belittle its audience by banging it in your head. It’s not the most positive of films, as it shows us a corrupt and deteriorating world, yet it ends with a hypnotizing scene that shows us that there’s still a shimmer of hope. It was a beautiful ending to a great film.


4.5

[The Prestige]

Another strong review, Brods. You know, I have actually never seen Traffic. It's one of those films that's just always escaped me. Never been in reach. I imagine it's at least decent, but I have just never had the desire to watch it, despite it having the always excellent Michael Douglas. It sounds like it's paced very well and I do like multiple interlinking storylines, so I may bite the bullet at some point in the near future.

I would be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed that Memento didn't bag this spot, but I suppose I should still give you points for the brief mention of it. Lots of great films that year, though. American Psycho is awesome and would have made a fine entry itself, but you've now made your bed so you have to live with it. I bet you any money you'll wanna change this one the most in the next 4-5 months.

[planet news]

Oh. God yes. I love Traffic, but American Psycho has got to be one of my favorite movies of ever, so I'm biased. I think I'll always take a film like AP over T, since I value great cinematography so much, but there are other aspects that make AP special as well. As you said, Bale's performance is stunning. There is also that unbelievably horrifying ambiguity thrown in at the end with Bateman's lawyer and the clean apartment, which, for me, seals the deal in that the film transforms into something much, much more than just a horror tale, dark comedy or a contemporary allegory, but rather, an examination of what fantasy is and how it functions. I still have yet to gather my full thoughts on what the ending might mean.

But Traffic is a stunning film. Moving, socially important, funny, disturbing, revealing, and exciting. The color tinting works remarkably well despite how "goofy" it seems when you describe it. As if Mexico is just ALWAYS YELLA. And yeah... the final shot combined with that incredible synth music is so great, the rest of the film is almost unworthy of it. And Douglas's final line still gets me thinking about what "War on Drugs" really means. I love how Soderbergh managed to create an ending in which every single person got what they wanted and still make it ambiguous and haunting.

Again... fine choice.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Points for mentioned the greatness that is American Psycho. Not much a fan of Traffic though.

[Brodinski]

Inglourious Basterds is more than a worthy placement for film of 2009. I liked how you said it was his best effort since Pulp Fiction. I loved it and, for my money, it may have the edge over Pulp Fiction as it's a bit more emotionally engaging, tragic and as hysterically funny too.

I think it's safe to say you are no fan of Death Proof. As aren't many others. But I think it's great. Certainly prefer it over Kill Bill. I would have it a lot lower on my list nowadays, or maybe even just outside the Top 100, but I still think it's high quality entertainment even if it is Tarantino's most self-dulgent flick to date. Question for you though, my friend. Do you think Proof works better as a standalone film or as part of the Grindhouse experience?

I am actually in doubt as to what is my favourite Tarantino film. There are days when I think it's my longtime favourite Reservoir Dogs (the first Tarantino I ever saw), yet on others I believe it to be what many claim is his finest hour, namely Pulp Fiction. Recently, I find myself having added Inglourious Basterds to that twosome.

Yeah, I disliked Death Proof a lot. After Kill Bill, I had high hopes of seeing another high-quality Tarantino, but Death Proof was something else entirely. Granted, I do measure Tarantino's work by a different standard than I do Michael Bay's for example.

I have to admit that I've no clue whether Death Proof works better as a standalone or as part of Grindhouse, because I've never seen Grindhouse. It wasn't released in theatres in Belgium because box office numbers were dramatical in the States. And I've never got around to buying the DVD.

I have to say that I liked the first part. I obviously loved the bit where stuntman Mike crashes into Jungle Julia and the other hens. I would of been happy if the film ended right then and there. But the second part annoyed me so much that I nearly didn't finish it. And the ending was ridiculous with that one chick delivering an axe kick to Kurt Russell's face.

[Brodinski]

Whoa, lots of love for American Psycho and I am very glad to see fellow MoFo's applaud it. I already knew that Fiscal liked it a lot, but I didn't think others would think of it so highly as him and me.

@ Planet News: Indeed, everyone gets what they want in some way, but they've all lost things in the process. Wakefield seems to have realized that the drug problem is unsolvable, but at least he got his daughter back. The DEA agents lost their key witness, but planted the bug. Rodriguez made the direct impact on his home town, but had to go through a lot before finally attaining this small success. These people had to give up a lot and go through a lot for just a few crumbles on the sidewalk so to speak.

I didn't read that much into American Psycho. As I said, to me, it's just a satire on the 80s yuppie era, but with the economic crisis of the past years, revisiting American Psycho made me think if much has changed nowadays.

@ The Prestige: I knew you'd be dissapointed if # 1 wasn't Memento. I just don't read as much into it as you clearly do. That being said, it still completes my top 3 of 2000. And you should definitely try to get around to watching Traffic. It might surprise you in a very positive way.

[Brodinski]

The noughties have been completed. My ranking of the 10 films is as follows:

1) City of God (2002)
2) Lost in Translation (2003)
3) The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (2007)
4) Mulholland Drive (2001)
5) Inglourious Basterds (2009)
6) Traffic (2000)
7) 35 Shots of Rum (2008)
8) Babel (2006)
9) Dogville (2004)
10) Syriana (2005)

The top 3 is fixed. I've said before in my review of City of God that it's in my top 10 favourite films of all time so that makes it my clear top pick of the decade. The only other film that might slip into my top 10 over time is Lost in Translation for two reasons. Firstly, no other film of this decade managed to move me so much throughout and especially towards the end. It's really one of the most honest and humanistic films I've ever seen. Secondly, there's Bill Murray's performance which is rapidly becoming one of my favourite of all time. The Assassination of Jesse James completes my top 3. I'm almost positive no one on this forum that loves this film as much as I do. I just love every second of it; there's no way of putting it differently.

Then there's a slight drop in quality. The 4 following films (4-7) are interchangable and depending on the day that you ask me, their ranking could switch.

The last 3 films (8-10) are of a lesser quality than all the others. These are the ones I was doubting over the most as top picks of their respective years. I could easily switch Babel for The Lives of Others without thinking it's a drop in quality. The same goes for Syriana, which I could switch for Cinderella Man or Munich. 2004 was of a much higher quality to me than 2006 and 2005, but I had difficulty in picking a clear # 1. I picked Dogville because I have a soft spot for films containing the theme of man's inherent weaknesses. But ask me in a few months or even weeks time and I might say my favourite film of 2004 is Downfall or Sideways.

I have to say though that many of the years in the noughties are sub-par in comparison with the nineties. I think only 2 years of the 00s stand out, namely 2004 and 2007, whereas in the 90s, numerous years produced several of my all-time favourites, yet I had no difficulty whatsoever in picking my top film of each year.

Anyway, the 90s will begin early next week, as I still have to write a review for my # 1 pick of 1999. And thanks again for the support & rep; it's quite motivating to see people responding to my write-ups.

[stevo3001]

Excellent reviews. Mostly really good films too- the four you have as the top 4 of the decade are superb, as is 35 Shots of Rhum. (They're more than good enough for me to overlook the presence of Inglorious Basterds :p ). Lost in Translation affected me far more than any other movie in the decade too (it was number 1 on the top 100 of the decade I did a few months back).

Looking forward to the next set.

[Leo_Lover]

Nice 00's list :)

[The Prestige]

Sorry Leo Lover I know that you are young and stuff but is that all you got to say? You've basically said the exact same thing 3 times. Considering the amount of effort Brods has put into this could you at least go into more detail about what you think of his choice, why you like the film, what you disagree etc.

[The Prestige]

I am actually in doubt as to what is my favourite Tarantino film. There are days when I think it's my longtime favourite Reservoir Dogs (the first Tarantino I ever saw), yet on others I believe it to be what many claim is his finest hour, namely Pulp Fiction. Recently, I find myself having added Inglourious Basterds to that twosome.


I have to admit that I've no clue whether Death Proof works better as a standalone or as part of Grindhouse, because I've never seen Grindhouse. It wasn't released in theatres in Belgium because box office numbers were dramatical in the States. And I've never got around to buying the DVD.

I have to say that I liked the first part. I obviously loved the bit where stuntman Mike crashes into Jungle Julia and the other hens. I would of been happy if the film ended right then and there. But the second part annoyed me so much that I nearly didn't finish it. And the ending was ridiculous with that one chick delivering an axe kick to Kurt Russell's face.


Was never a big fan of Reservoir Dogs, but yeah, both Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds are the ones to beat right now. Jackie Brown is also a bit underappreciated. Didn't realise you were from Belgium, I always thought you from Britain for some reason. Things ya learn eh.

I can see why some people would dislike Death Proof, but StuntMike scenes are enough to redeem any boring conversations the women may have. Lol the scene you mentioned with the axe kick to face was ****ing funny as it was gruesome I thought:D

I think the two films are stronger by themselves, but I know many others who would disagree.

[honeykid]

Yep, I loved the end of Death Proof. Especially when she literally kicked his head in. :D

[The Prestige]

Yeah, and finding out that after all of his Grand Theft Auto antics he's just some little cry baby :D. Kurt was awesome in the role. Favourite girl in it guys??

[planet news]

Death Proof was a very successful film. I enjoyed it immensely. Also, the end credits introduced me to France Gall, now one of my favorite singers. Still... I'd agree that it's his worst film, but that's not saying too much, since all his films are of a very high quality.

===

Indeed, everyone gets what they want in some way, but they've all lost things in the process. Wakefield seems to have realized that the drug problem is unsolvable, but at least he got his daughter back. The DEA agents lost their key witness, but planted the bug. Rodriguez made the direct impact on his home town, but had to go through a lot before finally attaining this small success. These people had to give up a lot and go through a lot for just a few crumbles on the sidewalk so to speak.Right on. I think it's brilliant how that works. Soderbergh manages to wrap up each and every story line and still be ambiguous. Makes me look at uber-pretentious endings like Cache and shake my head---still, I love that film.

I didn't read that much into American Psycho. As I said, to me, it's just a satire on the 80s yuppie era, but with the economic crisis of the past years, revisiting American Psycho made me think if much has changed nowadays.Sure, sure. I'm just saying how the crazy ending put it over the top for me in terms of being the best film of the year and maybe one of the best films of ever.

BUT ENUF ABOUT ME. MOAR U.

[TylerDurden99]

Liked Rosario Dawson & Rose McGowan :yup:. Kurt was nothing short of awesome.

[Brodinski]

1999. Magnolia

And we’re off with the 90s. I can unashamedly say that this is my favourite decade in terms of cinematic masterpieces. I’m still a pretty young guy, so I admit to not having seen many great films of earlier decades (as can be seen from my MoFo lists), but I doubt whether any other decade has produced as many terrific films as the 90s. And 1999 certainly closed the decade with a bang, producing some of the most beloved films on the MoFo.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Magnolia_poster.jpg

My (very distant) second of this year is Michael Mann’s The Insider. I am a huge Mann fan (in any other context, this would come off the wrong way in my case) and The Insider is my 3rd favourite Mann film. He has fallen a little short with his latest efforts, but I absolutely love all of his 90s work. Another favourite of ’99 is Fight Club. Although I don’t consider it to be Fincher’s finest work, it’s still an excellent film. Other films that I love are the mind-blowing The Matrix, The Sixth Sense, The Straight Story, Beau Travail, All About My Mother, American Beauty (Kevin Spacey is _great_), Being John Malkovich, Toy Story 2, Sleepy Hollow and The Green Mile (in spite of its flaws). It is an impressive list and it becomes even more so when realizing that these were all released in the same year. One more film that I’ll add almost purely for its visual splendor is Eyes Wide Shut. I’m still unsure what to make of this polarizing film, but it was a feast for the eyes.

Despite all these films, picking my top film of the year was very easy. There’s no denying the profound impact Magnolia had on me. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

“And Jehovah said to Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith Jehovah: Let my people go, that they may serve me. And if thou refuse to let [them] go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs. And the river shall swarm with frogs, and they shall go up and come into thy house, and into thy bedroom, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy bondmen, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneading-troughs. And the frogs shall come up both upon thee and upon thy people, and upon all thy bondmen.” (Exodus 8, 1-4)

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/magnoliafrogsgosplashinswimmingpoolsteam.jpg

Rest assure, I’m not going to go all religious on you guys, but anyone who has seen Magnolia will understand the relevance of this bible quote. After watching numerous characters try to come to terms with their pasts for nearly 3 hours, Paul Thomas Anderson suddenly treats us to a rain of frogs. Anderson himself claims that he wasn’t familiar with the biblical quote when he made Magnolia. His inspiration came from a story he once heard (or read) about a hurricane in Florida that sucked in hundreds of frogs from a swamp and dropped them miles further. Frogs falling out of the sky like raindrops sounds ludicrous, “but it did happen”.

Whether PTA is telling the truth or not, the biblical interpretation bears a lot of relevance to this film. The Egyptians were plagued by the frogs as a punishment from God for their sins. In return for their sins, the characters in Magnolia get a seemingly miraculous deluge of frogs. And sinful most of these characters surely are. Magnolia tells the story of about a dozen characters who during one day in the San Fernando Valley in LA are confronted with all the wrongs, filth and loneliness of their pasts. The late great Jason Robards is a dying patriarch who once was a successful tv-producer, but is now rotting away in his bed from lung cancer where he is being nursed by the sensitive, but naïve Philip Seymour Hoffman. His much younger wife, Julianne Moore, married him for his money, yet feelings of guilt are surfacing now that her husband is living his last days. His estranged son, the misogynistic male confidence guru Frank Mackey (Tom Cruise), was so disappointed in the way his father left him and his sick mother for that younger woman that he tried to erase his father from his memory through organizing seminars where he teaches men how to utilize their inherent superiority (according to Cruise) over women.

There’s also the presenter of a games show (Philip Baker Hall) who might or might not have abused his daughter (Melora Walters) during her childhood. He too has only a few months left to live and during a live broadcast, he collapses. Also playing a part in this mosaic tale: the young, uncrowned champion of the game show who has some serious father-son issues; the former quiz kid that has seemingly hit rock bottom (William H. Macy) and the god-fearing, but oh so good-hearted police officer who is just looking for a little love, portrayed by John C. Reilly.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/magnolia5.jpg

Paul Thomas Anderson cares for the characters he has created in Magnolia. No matter their faults and flaws, there is always this sense of compassion and pity for the characters in Magnolia. The dominant theme of Magnolia is not world-shockingly original: parents that are trying to reconcile with their children and those children forgive or don’t forgive their parents for the faults committed in their earlier life. In essence: how do you deal with the past and how do you live with the fault you’ve made? On his death bed, Jason Robards gives a monologue on regret during which he says: “And they say you shouldn’t regret anything. Don’t do that. Don’t. You regret what you ******* want. Use that. Use that regret for anything any way you want. You can use it okay.” This old, broken-down, cancer-infected man is pouring out his heart right there. During this monologue, we see glimpses of all the other characters too, as Robards’ monologue also applies for all their lives. It’s just one of the many devastating scenes in Magnolia. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film that had such a profound emotional impact on me.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/magnolia8.jpg

PTA clearly anchors his film in reality with a prologue in which 3 anecdotes on uncommon human behavior are brought up: a robbery that led to the hanging of the 3 perpetrators; a diver that is picked off the water by the undercarriage of a plane and ends up in a tree and a man that tries to commit suicide by jumping out of a window, but is shot to death during his fall by his own mother. A voice-over clarifies the meaning of these 3 sequences, claiming that this can’t all just be a coincidence; something that “just” happens. According to the voice-over, these strange events happen all the time. And from this point of view, PTA begins his 3 hour long rollercoaster ride about all the aforementioned characters whose lives are not any more special or memorable than any of the people from the prologue chapter of the film. But that does not make their stories unworthy of being told. These feelings of remorse and forgiveness are everywhere around us. Yet Anderson is not afraid to burst the bubble of reality with a few surrealist scenes: all of the characters that are suddenly singing the same song for example. That doesn’t mean however, that this scene is without meaning. When listening to the lyrics, you hear that “it’s not going to stop, till you wise up”, meaning that the characters’ feelings of unhappiness, guilt and remorse will never stop until they come to terms with their pasts.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/magnolia1.jpg

I will limit myself to saying that literally all of the performances range from very good to downright awesome, most notably those of Robards, Seymour Hoffman and Cruise. In his last full-fledged movie part, Jason Robards lies in bed all the time, yet still manages to evoke strong emotions. Robards sadly passed away in 2000, but his talent will forever be remembered. Philip Seymour Hoffman has one of the most moving scenes in the entire film where he breaks down in tears over the dying Robards. His part is yet again a testament to his outstanding acting skills. And then there’s Tom Cruise. By Gawd, he should’ve got all the supporting actor awards for his portrayal of Frank Mackey. His non-verbal behavior in that scene where he is being interviewed in some of the best I’ve ever seen. It was also a delight to see him transform from his high-energy misogynistic persona to a man that was scarred for life by what his father did and yet still finds the strength to ultimately forgive him for what he did in one of the strongest scenes of the entire film. It's far and away Cruise's best performance and I wish he would do more drama roles, because he has the skill set to pull them off.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/magnolia.jpg

This was a bit of an atypical review, but then again, Magnolia is an atypical film. I’ve heard complaints that Magnolia was a bit too much of everything: too emotional, too pretentious, too long and too forced. It may be so that the people who think this can amply back up their point, so I won’t argue with you. I’d probably be fighting a losing battle. All I can say is that Magnolia is the film that made me think of film as more than entertainment. I cannot further explain my love for this film, because words would fall short of describing it. All the superlatives in the world wouldn’t suffice to aptly show my appreciation of it. Perhaps I can give an indication of how highly I think of it. It’s in my top 5 films of all time and there are days when I believe with all my heart that it is the finest film I have ever seen.


5

[Fiscal]

Hell. Yes.

[Fiscal]

And then there’s Tom Cruise. By Gawd, he should’ve got all the supporting actor awards for his portrayal of Frank Mackey. His non-verbal behavior in that scene where he is being interviewed in some of the best I’ve ever seen. It was also a delight to see him transform from his high-energy misogynistic persona to a man that was scarred for life by what his father did and yet still finds the strength to ultimately forgive him for what he did in one of the strongest scenes of the entire film. It's far and away Cruise's best performance and I wish he would do more drama roles, because he has the skill set to pull them off.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/magnolia.jpg



So true, this was Cruise's performance of a lifetime!

Awesome write up, not many people I've conversed with like this film at all, mainly for reasons you described. One of my all times, though.

[Brodinski]

1998. The Big Lebowski

Before diving into my review of The Big Lebowski, I’ll acknowledge some other films from 1998. I’d like to clarify beforehand that my # 1 pick for this year was a no-brainer, as I consider The Big Lebowski the funniest film I’ve ever seen. Anyway, I really liked / loved: The Thin Red Line, A Simple Plan, The Truman Show, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (insane fun), Festen, Saving Private Ryan and Happiness. Many on the MoFo also consider American History X to be very good, but it left me unengaged. Overall though, I think 1998 was a very memorable year for film.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/bigleb.jpg

The Big Lebowski revolves mainly around The Dude (Jeff Bridges), who is basically a walking anachronism from the 60s: a hippie who fills his days by blowing, bowling and downing White Russians. He is described as “the laziest man in Los Angeles”, a man devoid of any form of ambition or wishes, save one: that everyone leaves him the heck alone and minds their own business.

The Dude’s peace is disturbed when two thugs invade the privacy of his home, shove The Dude’s head into his toilet and urinate on his rug. The twosome is looking for another Lebowski, the “Big Lebowski”, whose wife is indebted to the wrong people. As soon as the thugs notice that The Dude is not the man they’re looking for, they leave. The Dude however, now has a urine stain on his beloved rug.

So, The Dude pays a visit to the Big Lebowski, an arrogant millionaire who thinks of The Dude as a bum living off other people’s backs. Shortly after this encounter, the Big Lebowski’s wife is kidnapped, most likely by the same people who peed on The Dude’s rug. Seeing as The Dude is the only one who could recognize these people, he is hired by The Big Lebowski to deliver the ransom.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/biglebowski1.jpg

This is the gist of a plot that is so convoluted it would take me many more paragraphs to fully explain. But to me, the plot isn’t the real focus of the film. The joy you get from watching The Big Lebowski comes from following the adventures of The Dude and by extension, his bowling pals: Donnie and Walter. Donnie, portrayed by Steve Buscemi, a regular in Coen films, is a bit off mentally, but is a loyal friend of The Dude.

And then there’s Walter. I dare say right here that Walter Sobchak is one of the best characters created in the history of film. The funniest moments in the film are those involving Walter, whether it is his tirade on how he doesn’t roll on Shabbos, him dropping off the ransom with The Dude, arguing with a fellow bowler on whether he made a foot fault or not (“OVER THE LINE!”), his outburst in a diner which shows him a very staunch supporter of freedom of speech or him showing a kid what happens when “you **** a stranger up the ass”. John Goodman has truly turned in the finest performance of his career to date, portraying Walter as a quick-tempered Vietnam veteran turned devote Judaist whose temper can go from 0 to a 100 in a matter of seconds. I’m still amazed at how subtly funny Goodman’s facial expressions are. I find myself laughing whenever I look at the guy and then he’s not even spoken up yet.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/big1.jpg

But it’s not just Bridges’, Buscemi’s and Goodman’s performances that are great. John Turturro, another regular in the Coens’ films, is nothing short of hilarious as showstopper Jesus Quintana. He is only in a few scenes, but his mimic and gestures are of such high quality that Turturro manages to turn the foul-mouthed, pedophile bowling legend Jesus into one of the most memorable characters of the film. Philip Seymour Hofmann delivers a hilariously subtle performance as Brandt, a sort of butler for Jeffrey Lebowski. Julianne Moore is delightful as Maude, the fast-speaking artist with the New England accent. And David Huddleston’s Jeffrey Lebowski is as arrogant as he is irritating. His tirade on how bums are living off of hard-working people’s backs is nothing short of hilarious.

The Big Lebowski doesn’t have a clear-cut theme that runs throughout the film. Or perhaps it does, namely the utter pointlessness of all attempts to exercise some kind of influence on the world. The interactions between the characters are doomed before they’ve even started, as the involved parties aren’t listening to each other, haven’t the slightest idea what the other person is talking about or are simply lying because the truth can have ugly consequences. Not a single conversation in the film actually leads to the resolution of a problem. Either the situation remains the same, or it deteriorates due to the added confusion. I often got the sense that Waiting For Godot wasn’t far away and am wondering whether the Coens drew any inspiration from it.

The same goes for when the characters undertake any kind of action. Think of when Walter tags along with The Dude for the delivery of the ransom or when he smashes a kid’s car (or is it someone else’s? hmm…). These are examples of someone undertaking a course of action when he had better stayed at home in the first place.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/big.jpg

Nowadays, the Coens are frequently named by critics and fans as being up there with the very best directors working today. Fargo and No Country For Old Men are their two most critically-lauded pieces of work. The Big Lebowski doesn’t have the thematic richness of these films, but when it comes down to sheer entertainment value, these 2 can’t hold a candle to The Big Lebowski. It really is my favourite Coens’ film and I’m always amazed whenever I hear someone say that they didn’t find it funny. Although I won’t go so far as to say that you have no sense of humour if you don’t find The Big Lebowski to be funny, I will say that you have a weird sense of humour.


5

[planet news]

Needless to say, but nice work, Bro(dinski).

Other films that I love are the mind-blowing The Matrix, The Sixth Sense, The Straight Story, Beau Travail, All About My Mother, American Beauty (Kevin Spacey is _great_), Being John Malkovich, Toy Story 2, Sleepy Hollow and The Green Mile (in spite of its flaws). It is an impressive list and it becomes even more so when realizing that these were all released in the same year. One more film that I’ll add almost purely for its visual splendor is Eyes Wide Shut. I’m still unsure what to make of this polarizing film, but it was a feast for the eyes.The only films of your list here that I might rank against Magnolia are Being John Malkovich and Eyes Wide Shut. I'll only say about your comment on visual splendor that, though it is---like all Kubricks after Lolita---one of the best shot films of all time, the most impressive thing about it is that drowsy, sinister mood that permeates all of its scenes. Just a general excess of pitch-perfect creepiness, I suppose...

Frogs falling out of the sky like raindrops sounds ludicrous, “but it did happen”.I love how the camera tracks in on that phrase. So Altman-esque I couldn't take it!

On his death bed, Jason Robards gives a monologue on regret during which he says: “And they say you shouldn’t regret anything. Don’t do that. Don’t. You regret what you ******* want. Use that. Use that regret for anything any way you want. You can use it okay.” This old, broken-down, cancer-infected man is pouring out his heart right there. During this monologue, we see glimpses of all the other characters too, as Robards’ monologue also applies for all their lives.Dat Monologue... ;__; Pure genius in every way. I especially love his line "life isn't short; life is LONG god-dammit!"

I’ve heard complaints that Magnolia was a bit too much of everything: too emotional, too pretentious, too long and too forced.Too emotional I'd disagree with. There's a lot of crying at the end, but the build up is so long that I'd expect it, no, NEED it to happen. Just like the frog scene and the musical scene. They show up at the perfect time to dispel the film of any excess.

Too pretentious I can't even see. It's probably a bit more GRIMDARK than Altman's Shortcuts---the film's closest relative I'd think---but most of the scenes move at a decent pace and the experimentation is really kept at an absolute minimum.

Too long... wtf...

Too forced I can see. It's definitely a melodrama in every way, but that doesn't have to be bad. Like I said, I think it really restrained itself from being something even more forced.

[Brodinski]

Needless to say, but nice work, Bro(dinski).

The only films of your list here that I might rank against Magnolia are Being John Malkovich and Eyes Wide Shut. I'll only say about your comment on visual splendor that, though it is---like all Kubricks after Lolita---one of the best shot films of all time, the most impressive thing about it is that drowsy, sinister mood that permeates all of its scenes. Just a general excess of pitch-perfect creepiness, I suppose...

Yeah, all of his films are so beautifully shot. My favourite is Barry Lyndon, followed by The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange.

Dat Monologue... ;__; Pure genius in every way. I especially love his line "life isn't short; life is LONG god-dammit!"

Yeah, what I loved about it, is how naturally it came off. In some films, monologues come off as gratuitous or to evoke a feeling of "**** YEAH, LET'S DO THIS" (insert football,basketball,ice hockey movie name here). That's not the case at all in Magnolia. Robards' character knows that his end is near and admits to his nurse that he's made lots of errors in his life. He regrets having cheated and ultimately left his wife. What's interesting is that he doesn't confess this to his son, Frank Mackey; he was too ill to speak at the time when Mackey finally got to his place. It's like he just NEEDS to get it off his chest and throws it all out to Philip Seymour Hoffman's character.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I absolutely love Big Lebowski and Magnolia, both excellent choices. Glad there are other fans of the, in Kevin Smith's words, pretentious Magnolia.

My favourite Tom Cruise performance as well.

[The Prestige]

In essence: how do you deal with the past and how do you live with the fault you’ve made? On his death bed, Jason Robards gives a monologue on regret during which he says: “And they say you shouldn’t regret anything. Don’t do that. Don’t. You regret what you ******* want. Use that. Use that regret for anything any way you want. You can use it okay.” This old, broken-down, cancer-infected man is pouring out his heart right there. During this monologue, we see glimpses of all the other characters too, as Robards’ monologue also applies for all their lives. It’s just one of the many devastating scenes in Magnolia. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film that had such a profound emotional impact on me.



I really need to watch this film all over again because I think I only caught bits and bobs of it but the scene you described above sounds incredible and it's a philsophy I whole heartedly agree with. Your review was awesome for lack of a better term, I can definitely get a sense of how much of an emotional impact the film had on you. I remember liking Magnolia enough to want to sit down and watch it properly, but just never got around to it.

I think I saw most of the Tom Cruise scenes and yes, he was beautiful in it. Cruise has always been an underrated actor and it's nice to see him get some respect because despite his whole movie idol status, he can be a world class performer when he allows himself to. The scene you refer to when he is being interviewed is masterful and intense. He conveys a lot with his eyes.

At this point, Boogie Nights is still my favourite PTA film, but will definitely give this another shot.

Read the Mofo 100 thread for my thoughts on Big Lebowski. Again great review.

[Brodinski]

Thanks again for your input and support, guys. I'll have my review of the # 1 of 1997 online tonight (girlfriend is here atm). I can unveil one thing though, you won't see this one coming. I don't think anyone of the MoFo is as passionate about it as me. And it's not L.A. Confidential.

[The Prestige]

:( @ it not being L.A. Confidential . I was almost certain that would be next. I'm intrigued though...

[Brodinski]

1997. As Good As It Gets

I have to say that 1997 was a very solid year for film lovers, albeit a notch under most of the other years of the 90s. L.A. Confidential is a true neo-noir classic that I rank among the best I’ve ever seen. It can certainly hold its own against timeless noirs such as Out of the Past, The Killers, The Maltese Falcon, Touch of Evil and Double Indemnity. This is about the highest compliment I can give to such a film. Completing my top 3 of the year is Good Will Hunting, which really drew me in and has that beautiful Robin Williams performance. Other films that I really like, but fall just short of greatness are: Donnie Brasco (another grand Pacino performance), Jackie Brown, Karakter, Boogie Nights (although I consider it to be a lesser PTA, don’t shoot me Prestige!), Life is Beautiful and Amistad. Yet despite all these films, my # 1 pick is a romantic comedy; a choice which might surprise some (if not all) of you.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/AsGoodAsItGets.jpg

As Good As It Gets can boast off one of the funniest opening scenes ever. A jolly elderly woman opens the door of her apartment and says she’s going to buy some flowers. However, her facial expression goes from happy to filled with resentful disgust as she sees the man across the hallway. This man is trying to lure a dog that is about to pee on his doorstep, towards him. As his coaxing words have no effect, he leaps forward and grabs the dog. As he picks up the (cute) dog, it starts urinating. The man, full of bottled-up anger, then shoves the dog down the garbage shoo while uttering: “This is New York: if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.”

This man is Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson), a highly intellectual, cranky, obsessive-compulsive novelist. He has a certain way of filling his days in order to not let his disorder get the better of him. One of these daily routines includes eating breakfast at a specific diner at a specific table where he is served by a particular waitress, named Carol (Helen Hunt). What appears from his visit to the diner is that Melvin is a man seemingly devoid of any empathy, friendliness or compassion. He is very rude to the other customers and is an absolute terror to the waitresses. It is clear that Carol is the only one that can tolerate him, but only barely. Carol has problems of her own and they’re named Spencer: her son who suffers from terrible asthma. Carol is unable to pay decent doctors to look after him and as a result, she has to rush her kid to the hospital on a weekly basis.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/as_good_as_it_gets.jpg

I’ve already talked about Melvin’s rude behavior towards his fellow man, but the primary target of his dislike is his neighbor, the gay artist Simon Bishop (Greg Kinnear). This becomes apparent from the first encounter we witness between Simon, who is then looking for his doggy, and Melvin. Melvin makes highly inappropriate, yet hilarious racial and homophobic slurs and concludes the “conversation” by saying “are we done being neighbors for now?”

Melvin’s life is turned upside down when Simon ends up in the hospital after he was attacked by burglars. Melvin is forced to look after Simon’s dog he so loathes, but he unexpectedly begins to take a liking to the dog. This is a pivotal moment in Udall’s life, as he begins showing touches of humanity one would not expect of him. A semi-forced car trip to Baltimore with Carol and Simon will turn these unlikely road trip companions’ lives around completely.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/as3.jpg

I will be the first to admit that the story of As Good As It Gets seems very straight-forward. There is this man that hates the world and vice versa and we are witnessing his emotional progress as he grows towards being a better man. Director James L. Brooks goes about this in a conventional way, having Udall take one small step at a time. First, he starts liking animals, then children, then women and finally the man that is his antithesis, the gay Simon. There’s the troubled woman and the gay artist that serve as the means of his transition. As Melvin says himself, Carol makes him want to be “a better man”.

It is however the fabulously written dialogue and performances that build and sustain the momentum throughout the 2 hour + runtime. This film rides from one comedic highlight to the other, while also making time for moments of honest emotion. Much as it was the case for The Big Lebowski, I find it impossible to choose my favourite scene, but it’s certainly one with Jack Nichsolson in it. Is it his vicious first interaction with Simon? Perhaps it’s his irate tirade when Simon dares disturb him when he’s in the middle of an important passage of the novel he’s working on. Another fine choice would be his faux-intelligent intervention in the car when Simon is in the middle of pouring his heart out to Carol. Or is it his outburst at Simon’s Mexican cleaning lady whose accent all of a sudden begins annoying him? Or should I pick a more emotional scene such as the one where Melvin is trying to explain his feelings to Carol? There are simply too many good ones to pick from.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/as4.jpg

The main performances as are good as any I’ve ever seen. Helen Hunt is terrific as the often-rambling Carol. She manages to portray Carol as a woman that is juggling her job as a waitress with being a mother to a permanently ill son. The nervousness that is attached to this hectic life is captured perfectly by Helen Hunt. Greg Kinnear plays a career-best role as the gay artist Simon. He makes Simon come across as a very sensitive man with a passion for art and a naïve love for all things human and animal, who unfortunately has to get through a big slump in his life during which he feels unable to draw or paint. It is a joy to see him cast aside this dark period of his life through sheer coincidence and some much-needed help that comes from an unexpected corner. Luckily, Kinnear doesn’t fall into the trap of making Simon have overly gay traits which would have made a caricature out of the character.

In spite of two fabulous performances by Hunt and Kinnear, the man who steals the show is of course Jack Nicholson in his portrayal of the gay-hating, obsessive-compulsive novelist Melvin Udall. The way he delivers his lines is just otherworldly. His intonation and changes in voice pitch and loudness are outstanding. It’s so good that you can just close your eyes and enjoy this film just by listening to it. But that means that you would miss the splendor of Nicholson’s non-verbal behavior, which is just as funny as the way he delivers his one-liners and punch lines. The way he looks whenever someone touches him is priceless, as is beholding his panic fear of stepping on the side of tiles and his nosophobia. What’s even better is how he conveys his emotions (or lack thereof) just by his facial expression. Think about his scene in the diner at the beginning of the film when Carol asks him if he understands what she’s saying, or his reaction when Simon and Carol don’t agree “at all” with his (inappropriate) assessment of the situation during their travel to Baltimore. Nicholson’s performance could serve as a masterclass on acting. Although I am aware of the gravity of my following words, I’ll still utter them. I think it’s Nicholson’s best performance ever. I’ll even go one step further and claim that this may very well be my all-time favourite performance. That is how highly I think of it.


http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/as2.jpg http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/as.jpg

And then there’s the quirky, cynic dialogue that is up there with the best ever. I’ll limit myself to a few select quotes as this is getting very lengthy, but know that there are many more great ones.

Melvin: Never, never, interrupt me, okay? Not if there's a fire, not even if you hear the sound of a thud from my home and one week later there's a smell coming from there that can only be a decaying human body and you have to hold a hanky to your face because the stench is so thick that you think you're going to faint. Even then, don't come knocking. Or, if it's election night, and you're excited and you wanna celebrate because some fudgepacker that you date has been elected the first queer president of the United States and he's going to have you down to Camp David, and you want someone to share the moment with. Even then, don't knock. Not on this door. Not for ANY reason. Do you get me, sweetheart?
Simon: [clears his throat] Uhm, yes. It's not a... subtle point that you're making.
Melvin: Okay then.
[Shuts door in Simon's face]

Simon’s cleaning lady: Open his curtains for him, so he [Simon] can see God’s beautiful work. And he’ll know that even things like this happen for the best.
Melvin: Where did they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama city sailor wanna-hump-hump bar? Or is this getaway day and your last shot at his whisky? Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here.
[slams door in her face]

I can go on for hours about As Good As It Gets, but I’ll stop here, hoping I’ve made my point about its greatness. This is naturally a personal choice as I think few (perhaps no other) MoFo’s would pick As Good As It Gets as the top film of the year. I just cannot fault anything in this film, which does not happen often at all. I can barely think of a film that I enjoy more and that I could re-watch an infinite amount of times and still enjoy it as much as the first time. As a result, it’s one of my favourite films ever and there are days when I think I should place it in my top 10 of all time. If this is really as good as it gets, then consider me a happy man.


5

[honeykid]

I'll never understand why anyone even likes this film, let alone loves it. Were it not for the crush I have on Helen Hunt, I'd have bailed on this crap. Even for a Hollywood comedy this is unfunny.

At least you get a lot out of it, though, Brodinski. :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

I don't get the love for this one either. It's decent, but I didn't find it better than L.A. Confidential, Donnie Brasco, Boogie Nights, Jackie Brown, Good Will Hunting

[mark f]

Well, I like it better than all of those except for L.A. Confidential, although I enjoy them all. I'm happy to see more "light-hearted" movies on the list because some of the other ones seem almost dour to me.

[Brodinski]

@ HK: I am confident you will like/love at least one of my picks for the 90s. 1/10 is a pretty good average in your case, right? ;)

@ mark f: There's more light-hearted/action-packed ones coming. At least 3 more for the 90s and there's some laughs in my 1996 pick as well. I might have given it away now, but oh well...

[honeykid]

@ HK: I am confident you will like/love at least one of my picks for the 90s. 1/10 is a pretty good average in your case, right? ;)


I love The Big Lebowski, so I guess you're already doing well. :D Just one more decent film to bust the average open wide and, as we're talking 90's films, you're bound to do that, even if I don't think it's the best of that year.

[Brodinski]

Rest assured then, because I think there's going to be 2 more that you love / like a lot. I almost feel special now that even HK likes a minority of my choices.

[honeykid]

I almost feel special now that even HK likes a minority of my choices.
:laugh:

I don't know you should feel special. Considering it's me that likes them, I think there's more than a few people around here who'd be more likely to consider you 'special' for having too many choices that I agree with. :D

[The Prestige]

Yeah must admit, it is a bit surreal to see HK agree with something here :D

But I am with him on Good As It Gets. I saw that film abou 2 times and I didn't really feel for it. The second viewing was actually a lesser experience for me. I did enjoy your write up of it though and it's nice to be kept on the toes. You best have Michael Mann's masterpiece coming up though..

[Brodinski]

1996. Trainspotting

Much as it was the case for every year of the 90s so far, picking my favourite film was a no-brainer in an otherwise solid year, albeit without any other great films imo. In comparison with numerous other years of the 90s, 1996 is a lesser year. I suppose that many here think very highly of Fargo, but I find at least 5 other Coens flicks to be superior. Other films I liked are: Secrets & Lies, Scream, Luhrmann’s Romeo & Juliet, Lone Star and Mission: Impossible.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/trainspotting.jpg

Trainspotting is based on the book by Irvine Welsh, which is a collection of stories about a group of junkies hailing from Edinburgh. I found the book to be a sensory experience more than anything. Gathering a coherent plot from the book is not easy, as it consists of a series of events that give the reader an impression of the lives of Scottish drug addicts. For the film, Welsh’s novel was reworked to be more of a coherent experience. Renton (Ewan McGregor) is now clearly the main character, whereas in the novel he didn’t have any more lines than for example Spud or Sick Boy. The book’s message and tone however, are still very much alive and kicking in the film. Director Danny Boyle and scriptwriter John Hodges refuse to raise an admonishing finger to the drug users. On the contrary, they show us that hard drugs are in fact very nice! And of course, they are right. If drugs didn’t provide a superlative sensory experience, there wouldn’t be a drug problem.

Humor and good fun are certainly not avoided in Trainspotting. Nearly every scene that features the now legendary ill-tempered, professional pub row instigator Begbie (a fantastic Robert Carlyle at his most manic) is nothing short of comedic brilliance. But even without Begbie, there’s plenty of laugh out loud moments, such as Spud’s job interview when he’s high on speed or when he sh!ts all over his girlfriend’s sheets.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/train12.jpg

People that think however that this film glorifies or glamourizes drug usage couldn’t be more wrong. Showing how junkies let a baby die because they’re simply too stoned to look after it is not glorifying drug usage, and neither is Renton’s horrific detoxification. And even though the junks depicted in this film are relatively pleasant characters, their sense of honour and camaraderie disappears like snow in summer when they see a means to double-cross each other for either drugs or money.

To me, the film’s visual style also reflects the novel’s boisterous atmosphere that allowed Welsh as well as Boyle to switch from drama to pitch black humor in a matter of seconds. The quick editing, the soundtrack that is dripping with coolness (Underworld, Primal Scream, Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, Blur and Brian Eno among others) and stylish visual tricks, such as freeze-frame and titles that indicate the names of the main characters. We often see the same style nowadays (Guy Ritchie anyone?), but rarely have I seen it as well executed as it was by Boyle in Trainspotting.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/train123.jpg

In the end, Trainspotting paints quite a distressing picture of a society that has become entangled in a sort of blind alley boredom that things like drug usage are inevitable. When you see Renton’s vacuous look when he’s at a bingo night with his parents, you understand his feelings of total indifference and boredom towards the banality of existence. Why would you “choose life” if it has nothing to offer but this? The proposition put forward by Trainspotting seems to be that the drug problem is a symptom of a deeper problem in society.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/train1234.jpg

Trainspotting manages to bring across a serious message while at the same time containing many pop culture references and good laughs. It shows that a film about a serious subject doesn’t have to be serious all the time. It’s my favourite film on drugs and one that I would rank in the upper echelon of my top 100


5

[nebbit]

Great list Brodie :yup: the only one i don't like is Dogville I know a lot of people like it but I just couldn't get into it :nope:

[The Prestige]

Excellent write up again, mate. Love Trainspotting and very happy to see it on this list. Completely agree that it doesn't glorify the drugs culture, only shows the harsh realities of it, which is nice unlike other films that deal with the same thang. I did like your analysis of the scene with Renton's parents, though I would say that his lack of euthusiasm for hanging out in such mundane situations is the result of drug addiction rather than a potential catalyst. I do see how you can interpret it the way you have though, and perhaps that was actually the filmmakers aim.

So we have 1995 up next. And I am thinking it's a no brainer.

[Harry Lime]

So we have 1995 up next. And I am thinking it's a no brainer.

http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1010/369952.1010.A.jpg

[The Prestige]

Heh, I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry if that came up..but I do reckon it'll be between Seven, Toy Story and the other film that i'm very convinced will take it.

[Leo_Lover]

Cool 90's list so far :)

[TylerDurden99]

"What are you talking about?"
"Football. What are you talking about?"
"Shopping."

Love Trainspotting. Funny, yet thought provoking.

[honeykid]

Hated Trainspotting. Watched it twice, hated it twice. I agree that it doesn't glamourize drug addiction, though.

[Brodinski]

1995 was actually a tough call to make. I like heist films a lot and one of the very best was released in 1995. Furthermore, those Pixar puppets first saw the light of day in the same year. And a dude named David Fincher made a little film on the 7 sins.

But perhaps most notably, it was the year in which HK's favourite film of all time was released, namely Braveheart.

I'll put up my review of my #1 pick of 1995 up tomorrow.

[honeykid]

If Braveheart gets the nod, I may have to stop reading these. :D

[Brodinski]

1995. Heat

1995 was a very good year for film. My runner-up is (close your eyes, HK!) Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, which is a powerful and compelling story that is well-directed and well written. Completing the podium for this year is Scorsese’s Casino. Although not as good as Goodfellas, it’s a beautiful film about a corrupt system that somehow worked until the people in it were consumed by their greed, which, ironically, is also what was exploited by the system in the first place. Other films that I really liked are: Se7en, Toy Story, Babe, Leaving Las Vegas and Sense and Sensibility. Two films that I did not care for are The Usual Suspects and Before Sunset. Films that I haven’t seen that might make my runners-up list are: Apollo 13, Dead Man Walking and Dead Man.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/heat.jpg

Neil McCauley (Robert DeNiro) is a world class criminal who works with a crew of consummate professionals to pull off major heists. These men don’t deal in the quick robbing of diners or liquor stores. They deal in bonds, jewelries and banks. They don’t execute a heist until they’ve planned everything meticulously. McCauley and his crew want to know what security they can expect, how they’re going to deal with this security and how much time they’ll need to pull off the job. Every little detail has to be taken into account in their plans so that they minimize the risk of getting caught or even identified. McCauley is fanatically committed to his work. He lives by the creed: “Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.” The men he works with are no pancakes either. Chris (Val Kilmer) is an explosives specialist, Trejo (Danny Trejo) is the wheelman and Tom (Tom Sizemore) is a longtime companion on all of the crew’s heists.

These men’s lives get complicated when they recruit an additional man, named Waingro, in order to pull off a heist on an armored truck. During the heist, this man shoots one of the security men for no apparent reason, prompting McCauley to take drastic measures to get rid of this renegade. However, this attempt fails and the man on the run is a liability to the crew.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/heat1.jpg

As a result of the killings on the crew’s armored truck heist, Lt. Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino) is put on the job. Although Hanna does have a wife and kid to take care of, he is essentially McCauley’s reflection on the other side of the law. He’s devoted almost entirely to his job and as a result, his family life is a mess. As Hanna uncovers more and more about McCauley (and vice versa), a mutual respect grows between the two men. When McCauley and his crew decide to take on one more lucrative job before retiring for good, Hanna does everything in his power to stop them.

This is the main plot. There are various sub-plots, such as Chris’ tumultuous relation with his wife Charlene (Ashley Judd), negotiations between McCauley’s crew and the original owner of the bonds they stole during the armored truck robbery, McCauley’s relationship with his new girlfriend Eady and an ex con’s attempts to stay on the right side of the law.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/heat3.jpg

What struck me once again is what a great visual stylist Michael Mann is. This appears most notably from the two spectacular robbery scenes, especially the bank robbery. Mann manages to show every step that McCauley and his crew take in robbing the bank while Hanna and his men do everything possible to arrive in time at the scene and stop them. This is all filmed in a very vivid, visceral way that is further aided by precise editing and energetic camera movements.

The action erupts as soon as the crew leaves the bank. In an exhilarating scene, Chris (Val Kilmer) spots the cops as he exits the bank and he doesn’t hesitate for a second to open fire. Mann really is among the best in the business when it comes to putting together action sequences. As a viewer, you always have a good sense of what is happening amid the confusion of the robbery that got out of hand. It all looks very simple, but it must be a nightmare to film and edit such a meticulously detailed action sequence.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/heat2.jpg

Another brilliant moment in Heat is of course the much-discussed diner scene between Pacino and De Niro. Although both have been tango dancing with each other for quite a while now – they know exactly who they are and what they do -, they decide to take a little time-out and talk over the matter at hand over a cup of coffee. What’s really remarkable is that they’re more honest to each other about their lives and ways of thinking than they are to their partners.

The acting performances are all around solid. DeNiro plays the consummate professional in a perfect manner. He reminded me a lot of Jeff Costello in Melville’s Le Samouraï. Val Kilmer plays his best role to date, second only to his part as Doc Holliday in Tombstone. Ashley Judd is impressive as Kilmer’s wife. The only performance that I’ve got issues with at times is Pacino’s. I understand that his Hanna’s energetic personality is part of his whole ultra-dedication-to-his-job persona, but there are limits to Pacino’s antics and sometimes they are crossed.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/heat4.jpg

I guess I can conclude my review by saying Heat is just the perfect film for a guy like me who adores a good crime film à la Le Cercle Rouge. I’m sure there are people that find some of the storylines to be clichés and while I don’t disagree, I simply don’t care. Heat is riveting, excellently filmed and contains great dialogue and ditto performances. I concede that it has its weaker moments, but at its best it’s as entertaining as any film I’ve ever seen.


5

[The Prestige]

Boy, you've reached a new high with Heat. This was the one I thought coming but I wasn't 100 percent sure. Now that you mention it, though, there were some excellent films that could easily take this slot, though i'm not too keen on Braveheart myself and would have been gutted had Heat been the runner up, so good call on that one as there would have papped up, blud. :D

You are one of many who's not that fond of Pacino's Vince Hanna, and I suppose one could call it overacting to an extent, but what I got from it was Mann really wanted to contrast the notion of the "good cop" and sort make him arseholish, loud and a bit obnoxious. More I think about it the more I reckon Hanna was supposed to be a bit unlikeable, and I think Pacino's performance reflects that well. Robert DeNiro's Neil McCauley felt to be the hero most of the time. He felt more heroic and more diplomatic. Both are interesting though but I feel DeNiro's laid backness and subtle menace often steals the show.

Agreed about Mann's action direction. Very few can stage elaborate heists like him and his all out style has inspired films like The Dark Knight, not just in the action but the way the city is used. Mann's highlight reel and one I don't think he'll top. Great inclusion, son.

[planet news]

Hmmm... I ought to see this film then.

[The Prestige]

Hmmm... I ought to see this film then.


I think that comment belongs on the Film's You Are Ashamed To Admit You Have Not Seen thread! :p
It's a masterpiece, check it out.

[honeykid]

As Prestige and a few others on here know, I like this film without really having any reason to, other than I like watching it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I love Heat and agree about Kilmer being really good in it. Although, I wouldn't call it his second best performance. Definitely top 3 though. I think his performance in Wonderland edges this one out a little bit. Still have yet to see The Doors.

[Brodinski]

1994. Pulp Fiction

Knowing how well loved this film is around these parts and what a cliché it would be to pick it as # 1 of the year, I figured: I’m going to surprise my fellow MoFo’s: I am NOT going to pick Pulp Fiction as my favourite of 1994. So, I went looking for a film that could supplant Pulp Fiction from the top spot. I revisited a number of 1994 films I hold in high regard. The first one of those was Zemeckis’ Forrest Gump. In spite of its flaws, I still love that film. Next up was Darabont’s The Shawshank: Redemption. It’s a bit of a naïve, sentimental feel-good story where the prison guards are portrayed as being more dangerous than the prisoners. That being said, it’s a very well-made film that doesn’t bore you for a second and by the end, despite noticing the overly sentimental tone, I couldn’t help but be completely engaged by it. And that makes it good enough to be a part of this runners-up section. Another film I love is Burton’s Ed Wood. I suppose I can best describe it as a modest masterpiece that is thematically rich while also packing a lot of emotion.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/pulp-fiction-best-movies-ever.jpg

Next, I watched some critically-acclaimed films I hadn’t seen before, most notably Kieslowski’s White and Red and also Wong Kar-Wei’s Chungking Express. After being disappointed with Blue (it left me cold and unengaged), I liked White and think highly of Red, though not highly enough to put it in my runners-up section. As for Chungking Express, I didn’t care for it. Maybe I’m missing something, but I feel no need to revisit it in the immediate future.

Special mentions here go to Once Were Warriors and The Lion King. I hold Once Were Warriors in very, very high regard. For those of you not familiar with it, at heart, it’s a drama centered in New-Zealand about a family of Maori heritage. It comes off as very sincere and raw in its approach of domestic violence. As a result, it’s a devastating film and by the end, I felt like I had experienced something special. This one came closest to knocking Pulp Fiction off its throne, but fell just short.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/pulp1.jpg

I know I’m repeating myself, but much as is the case in just about every year of the 90s, it’s an impressive list of contenders competing for the top spot of 1994. But “competing” is a poor choice of words here. In spite of all my searching for a film to supplant Pulp Fiction, I haven’t found it. Pulp Fiction is just too well-written and too much fun for any of the abovementioned films to unsettle it.

I’d be wasting my type trying to jot down a full plot synopsis. It’s suffice to say that Pulp Fiction’s story is told in a non-linear way, with various plot lines that are interwoven and backward and forward jumps through time. Throughout its two-and-a-half hour runtime, we follow two low-level gangsters (Vincent Vega and Jules Winfield), a fading boxer that was supposed to throw his final fight, a crime boss that gets double-crossed, that same crime boss’ wife, two petty criminals who rob a diner and some more characters. It seems impossible that these characters go through so much in such a short time span, but that’s not the point. To me, the events that take place are secondary to the characters and the dialogue.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/pulp3.jpg

The dialogue in this film is extremely well-written. I know these kinds of superlatives are often used almost gratuitously when reviewing a film, but in the case of Pulp Fiction, the praise is well-deserved. Tarantino’s dialogue is cynical, vulgar, packed with punch lines and cool one-liners. What strikes me is how naturally it seems to be in the universe of Pulp Fiction. It’s not very common to say the least to have lengthy conversations about foot massages, the differences of McDonald’s in France and the USA or taking the boss’s wife out on the town. The fact that we find these interactions to be so cool and funny instead of annoying and superfluous, is a testament to Tarantino’s writing skills. It’s one of those rare films where you can just close your eyes and listen to the dialogue for the entire runtime and still think: “two-and-a-half hour well spent!” It’s just that good.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/pulp4.jpg

What I also liked is that you get to know the characters through what other characters are saying about them during their conversations. We learn from Jules and Vincent’s visit to the apartment of the young dealers that Marsellus Wallace is clearly a high-level criminal that is not to be messed around with. Another example is Vincent explaining why he’s hesitant to take Marsellus’ wife out on the town. Of course, not everything that is said about someone is true. After all, the film’s title is Pulp Fiction. A lot of what we hear is just rumors, innuendo and gossip.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/pulp.jpg

I think nearly all the performances in the film are all-around solid, but a big part of why I love the film so much, is the chemistry between Travolta and Jackson. Travolta puts on a fabulous performance as the clumsy, heroin-addicted hitman Vincent Vega who seemingly cares about little, but is loyal to his companion Jules. After accidentally killing a man, he – mildly antagonized -simply explains that the car hit a bump that caused his finger to pull the trigger. And what’s to say of Samuel L. Jackson’s performance? His portrayal of Jules Winfield is now the measuring stick of all of Jackson’s roles and I can see why. He’s just terrific as the quick-tempered but professional hitman who decides to turn his life around after being part of a “miracle”. Following the adventures of these two longtime partners, we witness some of the most hilarious moments of the entire film.

If I have to name a small point of criticism, it would be that I find the episode with Butch to be a little slower than the others. It kind of lessens the momentum built up by the other ones. I also think that Bruce Willis’ performance isn’t particularly good, but perhaps that’s because I have a general dislike of the guy as an actor.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/pulp2.jpg

These points I’m noting here do bother me somewhat and without them, Pulp Fiction would’ve got a perfect score. I will however call Pulp Fiction arguably the most influential film of the 90s. It has spawned far too many cheap imitators of its style (Guy Ritchie anyone?) and substance matter, but I haven’t ever seen it so well-written or so well-directed as Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction.

4.5+

[The Prestige]

Another masterfully written review, Brods. Must admit I was cringing a bit when you mentioned Forrest Gump as I don't like it and would have been extremely disappointed had it been included. Needless to say that your tasteful nature dominated and you chose what's arguably the best film of that decade. Nice that you gave a shout out to Kieslowski's Three Colours Trilogy. I love those films more and more each year I watch 'em. I see what you mean about Blue, but I do think that in the end is sort of inspiring and optimistic. It's between White and Blue as to which is my favourite. A lot of other MoFo's seem to like Red the most.

Probably leaning more towards the latter right now, I think. I completely forgot about Chungking Express. We had critique it for a module at uni and I remember really really liking it. I must revisit it sometime soon. Maybe pick it up this on fri. Man, loads of films to check out this week. But yeah, I think that would have been a very respectable entry.

Would it be fair to call you a mark for ol' Quentin, Brods? You do seem to like a lot of his films generally. Don't blame you though, Fiction is as brilliantly scripted as you said and I like approach too. I think Fiction may have been the first non linear film I ever saw. At least the first non linear film I remember ever seeing first. I remember thinking how odd and just jarring it was at first, but ultimately loved it for that.

I do hope Reservoir Dogs doesn't make the list. I don't like that film, Brods :(

sex

[mark f]

I certainly think that Pulp Fiction is the best flick of 1994. I will have to admit though that there were a crapload of really good movies that year. I guess "new agers" probably believe that 1999 is the be-all (it's obviously the end-all) of the '90s, but "old farts" (look at that, a whole frickin' five flippin' years!) like me (if any) ... WTF?

Lookin' at your entire wonderful list, the other two which most closely resemble my number ones are that other Tarantino thingy which started off this thread and As Good as It Gets. Hey, I may be quiet much of the time, but when I have something to say, I say it. :cool:

[Brodinski]

@ Prestige: Red is my favourite too, but I was dissapointed with the trilogy. Perhaps they are films that require multiple viewings to really get into them.

And yeah, I'm a big Tarantino afficionado. I like / love all his films, except Death Proof. He brings something special to the screen and I can't wait to see Kill Bill 3.

@ Mark: 1999 isn't my favourite year either, although I must admit that it's on in my top 3 of the decade. My favourite 90s year is hands down 1992. There's so many films released during that year that I really love.

[honeykid]

Except Death Proof? Are you mad? I love that film. In fact, atm, I like it more than Pulp Fiction, making it my #2 Tarantino film. Of course, I love Blue more than White or Red, so we'll not agree on too much, I'm sure. :D

Congrats on this thread, though, and I always look forward to your next choice and write up. You've really done a good job with these. Even the ones I completely disagree with.

[Brodinski]

Hey, at least we agree on Heat. And thanks for your kind words; appreciate it a lot.

[Brodinski]

1993. Schindler's List

1993 stands out as one of the finest year of the decade, although my top films of the year will probably be different than most MoFo members’. My first runner-up is De Palma’s terrific Carlito’s Way. It’s a masterful crime drama with another hall-of-fame performance by Al Pacino. The final half hour is extraordinarily exciting cinema with that brilliantly orchestrated chase. Other films that I find to be very entertaining are: Mrs. Doubtfire (it’s funny and I’m a big Robin Williams fan), Tombstone (Val Kilmer’s best performance), True Romance, Naked, Groundhog Day (one of the finest comedies I’ve ever seen) and Jurassic Park. Two films that are held in high regard by many cineastes are Kieslowski’s Blue and Ivory’s Remains of the Day. Both films left me unengaged, although I did enjoy Anthony Hopkins’ fine performance.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/schindlers-list-373-982.jpg

The true story that Schindler’s List tells is that of Oskar Schindler, a German industrial and playboy who at the beginning of the war sets up factories in Krakow. Rich Jews finance the company without the hope of ever seeing something in return for their investment; the remaining Jews of the ghetto do slave labour in the factory while Schindler lives it up. The real hero of the first part of the film is Schindler’s accountant Ithzak Stern who tries to save as many Jew lives as possible by offering them a job in Schindler’s factories.

But then a change takes place. The ghetto of Krakow is “cleaned up” by the semi-mad Nazi commander Amon Goeth. The Jews are transferred to a nearby concentration camp. When news reaches Schindler that they will later be sent to Auschwitz, he drafts his infamous list of 1100 Jews whose lives he is literally buying from the Nazi’s.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/schin2.jpg

Liam Neeson manages to bring across a perfect mix of arrogance and deep-seated humanity. We see him in a conversation with Amon Goeth - cigarette between his fingers, eyes fixed on a spot in front of him - and we believe that this is a man who can take advantage of other people in a brilliant manner; who is well-beloved by the people he abuses and yet isn’t a bad man. Neeson and Spielberg keep the mystery of Schindler intact, as it remains relatively uncertain what brought about this change in Schindler from being a war profiteer to a ministering angel. The suggestion made in the film is that the fundaments of Schindler’s change came about by witnessing the clearance of the ghetto. Amid the chaos in the ghetto, Schindler sees a girl in a red coat. To us, she stands out from the crowd, because she’s the only colour-effect in an otherwise black-and-white film, and just like Schindler, we remember her. There is no fuss made about the fact that we see her again later in the film, this time as a boney corpse. The point that is being made is not reinforced by dramatic music and what not. But just like Schindler, we do notice her. Spielberg thus suggests that it’s probably at that pivotal moment that Schindler’s outlook on life changed.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/schindlers-list-sale-3.jpg

Much like Neeson, the other actors also deliver impressive performances. Ralph Fiennes could have very well turned Goeth into the cliché of the inhuman Nazi. But Fiennes turns him into something else entirely. Goeth’s cruelty and madness stem from his humanity: we see him get very drunk; pestering one of his girlfriends; complaining upon entering the concentration camp that his house is too small and especially that he is attracted to his Jewish housekeeper. According to Fiennes’ interpretation, Goeth is someone who doesn’t belong in his environment and therefore lapses into madness. A madness that “makes” him shoot Jews from the balcony of his villa.

And then there’s of course Ben Kingsley as Ithzak Stern, Schindler’s conscience. He’s probably the most courageous man in the entire film. Kingsley plays a very subdued part here based on looks, gestures and brief dialogue.

But the real star of Schindler’s List is its director: Steven Spielberg. He’s taken some creative risks in constructing the film. In order to evoke an emotional response from his audience without getting too corny, he uses some special techniques: the girl in the red coat for example; and also a scene in Goeth’s basement, where Schindler is talking to Hirsch, Goeth’s housekeeper. That sequence has a very documentary-like feel to it, as Hirsch is sitting in a chair, telling her story and Schindler is just listening. When she’s done, he leans towards her and tenderly kisses her on the forehead. The German playboy has certainly come a long way.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/schindlers-list-movie.jpg

Here and there, people criticize Spielberg for picking one of the few Holocaust stories with a happy ending and make a film about it. Those people criticize him because, instead of gas, there is water flowing from the shower heads and that the ending is too corny and cheap. You can argue a bit in favour of that last critique. In reality, Schindler had to flee like a thief in the night so as not to get imprisoned by the Russians as a member of the Nazi party. In the film, he bursts into tears because he wasn’t able to save more Jews. Spielberg most likely included this scene to give the viewer some kind of emotional pay-off. The question is whether this ending is justified. In my opinion, it surely is. You need something to end your film with and I’m unsure if I’d have been equally satisfied with Schindler disappearing without a trace. Did Spielberg have other options? Yes. Is this choice valid however? Absolutely.

At the ending of the film, there is one scene that struck me as extremely powerful. We see the Schindler Jews (for lack of a better term) step into the daylight after a hard night’s work. A huge chain of people, that probably wouldn’t be alive anymore were it not for the moral decency of one man, is walking from black-and-white into colour; from the past into the present, accompanied by the moving tones of a Jewish song. Some might think it’s all a bit too melodramatic and fairy tale-like, but I can’t for the life of me be so cynical about such a beautifully crafted scene.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/schin.jpg

Schindler’s List is an unbridled masterpiece, stylistically as well as substance-wise. Seeing it again is fantastic every time around. But someone who has yet to see it for the first time? Now there’s someone I am envious of.


5

[MovieMad16]

Havent seen it yet , but will do soon.

[mark f]

Uh oh. That's two years in a row where I agree with your choice for Best. :cool:

[Xanatos]

I agree with this one, and with most of your choices so far: awesome list! Although there's one thing I've noticed since joining this site, and it's confused me a bit. Why do people knock "happy" endings? Take The Shawshank Redemption for example (my favorite movie). People seem to love to criticize it for being too sappy or emotional. I love dark, violent, depressing movies as much as the next film fan, but sometimes you need something that just makes you love movies and life. That's Shawshank for me. :cool:

[Brodinski]

Crap, I just realized that I haven't included La Haine in my runners-up list of 1995. That is an unforgivable omission, I love EVERYTHING about that film. I'm even in doubt if it isn't better than Heat and considering that Heat is a movie that was simply tailor-made for my tastes, this is saying something.

La Haine is truly a towering achievement. Matthieu Kassovitz managed to find a balance between raw realism and filmic poetry. On the one hand, you have hyperrealistic dialogue (I can't help but remember how the main characters' mothers were chronically insulted) and characters that look like that literally just walked out of a Parisian slum. On the other hand, there are a number of elements that draw the characters (and the story in general) away from the banality of their surroundings.

I don't really know why I forgot to include this fabulous film. Just... wow. I might write my thoughts on it later as a way of redeeming myself.

[Brodinski]

@ Mark: I'm pretty confident you're going to agree on one more pick of mine for the 90s. And 3 out of 10 is a pretty good average in my book. Heck, you'll probably agree on more of my 80s top picks.

[LuDiNaToR]

great list so far Brod, ive only seen 5 of your list so i will have to try few of those.

[Brodinski]

Sorry for the delay, guys, I've had a lot of schoolwork on my plate this weekend + I stayed up till like 6 AM local time Sunday morning to watch the Pacquiao - Margarito fight (totally worth it).

I'm putting up my # pick of 1992 this afternoon or at the latest, this evening.

[Brodinski]

1992. Unforgiven

I think 1992 was the best year in the 90s in terms of cinematic masterpieces. Quentin Tarantino burst onto the scene with Reservoir Dogs, which ever since I first saw it has been an all-time favourite of mine. There’s also Mann’s Last of The Mohicans that really shows his directorial prowess and can really boast off one of the best climactic scenes of the entire decade. I don’t think it’s Mann’s best though; that honour predictably goes to Heat, my # 1 film of 1995. Another 1992 favourite of mine is Glengarry Glen Ross with Jack Lemmon’s hall-of-fame worthy performance and Mamet’s exquisite screenplay. Other films that I really liked, but fall just a tad short of greatness are: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Keanu Reeves’ casting is inexcusable though), Scent of a Woman, A Few Good Men, Batman Returns and Husbands and Wives.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/unforgiven1.jpg

In a certain sense, in making Unforgiven, Eastwood bites the hand that fed him during an important part of his career. For a good part of his life, he was identified with the image of a silent cowboy who shot down his enemies cold-bloodedly in the name of the code by which he lived. In Unforgiven however, Eastwood takes the character with whom his image was almost synonymous and shows all his little sides: the fear, the aggression and the filth. He put a symbol (and himself) in the nude and in doing so, turned in his best film ever as a director.


The year is 1880. William Munny (Eastwood) is an old gunslinger who in his younger years killed women and children, but left those days behind him after he met the right woman. Now however, his wife is dead and Munny is left with his 2 children, a farm and continuous guilt over his past life. One day, a young, not too bright young outlaw named The Schofield Kid passes by with a proposition for Munny: in the town of Big Whisky, 2 cowboys carved up the face of a young prostitute. The local sheriff, Little Bill (Gene Hackman), doesn’t intend to do anything about it and so her friends offer $1000 to the man who’ll kill the culprits. Because he’s pressed for money, Munny decides to dig up his weapons one last time. Together with his old friend Ned (Morgan Freeman) and The Schofield Kid, he rides for Big Whisky to help the whores get their revenge.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Unforgiven8MunnyKid.jpg

The story sounds quite straight-forward, but is applied to enfeeble the mythology of the Wild West wherever possible. The lone gunslinger, the camaraderie among the gang members, the aesthetically justified violence and all those other things that are part of a classic Western, are one by one revealed as the illusions that they are. William Munny is an old man who knows that he is far past prime. He looks physically decrepit, complains because he has to sleep on the ground and after he had to ride in the rain, he nearly falls off his horse because he’s so feverish. Moreover, Munny is an emotional wreck. The dead come to haunt him in his dreams, as he is unable to find peace with what he’s done. In a particular scene, Eastwood is shivering with fever, whispering that he’s afraid to die. This is the story of a man who is paying for his sins every minute of every day. There is no sense whatsoever of romanticizing the old Wild West here.


The supporting characters are also there to pierce the glory of the Wild West. The young and brash Schofield Kid is nearly as blind as a bat and has never even killed a man in his life. Ned is a man who feels that age is catching up with him and would much rather just relax in the peace of his home. English Bob is put on as the English gentleman gunslinger with the private photographer who is constantly by his side to carefully build his image. However, sheriff Little Bill reveals him as the spineless faker he is. Little Bill himself is corrupt and probably just became a sheriff because he is too old to stand on the other side of the law. No one really answers to the description of a traditional Western character.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Unforgiven9MunnyLogan.jpg

The climactic finale shootout does not give the viewer chills of joy or triumph. The predominant feeling from watching William Munny resort back to his old ways is one of sadness and tragedy. On the one hand, his violence is justified, as he has just seen his old friend killed and hung up as some kind of trophy; on the other hand, it shows that Munny will never be able to escape his past. You don’t commit robberies and murders on innocent women and children and get away unscathed. Perhaps Munny realized that no matter how he tries to distance himself from the violence, it will always be a part of him. No matter how hard he tries, he will never find redemption. And so he does what he has to do to finish the job. The lines he utters at the end of the film are devastatingly powerful, as they show him as the monster he tried to escape for such a long time:


“Any man don't wanna get killed better clear on out the back.”


“All right, I'm coming out. Any man I see out there, I'm gonna shoot him. Any sumbitch takes a shot at me, I'm not only gonna kill him, but I'm gonna kill his wife, all his friends, and burn his damn house down.”


“I've killed women and children. I've killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you done to Ned.”

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Unforgiven1992.jpg


It’s clear that Unforgiven is not a cheerful film, but Eastwood manages to turn it into a compelling, atmospheric masterpiece. The actual violence is short, but none of it is disguised or idealized. What’s more important are the moments leading up to the violence. It seems like Eastwood watched Sergio Leone closely, as he too shows himself a master in building suspense. He takes his time, slowly lets his characters appear and keeps the audience at the edge of their seat until he can do no other than unleash the violence in a staccato-like burst. The difference with Leone is that Eastwood doesn’t bring the violence in an entertaining way, but rather goes out of his way to leave out feelings of righteousness and exuberance.


The film’s visual style is controlled, yet impressive. During the outdoor shots, Clint takes full advantage of the immense landscape, whereas shadows and deep shades of brown dominate the indoor shots. Contrarily to what you’re used to in a Western, it’s constantly raining in Unforgiven, which helps set the bleak tone that runs throughout the film.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Unforgiven.jpg


And then there are the performances. Freeman is all around solid, showing himself capable of taking on any role if he puts his mind to it. Eastwood’s portrayal of Munny is painfully great, as his emotional and physical pains are almost tangible. The standout performance though is that of Gene Hackman, who clearly enjoys the moral ambiguity of his character. There are times when Little Bill’s reasoning is acceptable, but then out of the blue, he reveals himself to be something of a sociopath. That’s a vague line for Hackman to walk on, but he does so consequently and believably.


Unforgiven was the second important Western of the 90s, after Dances With Wolves (correct me if I'm wrong, Mark). To me, it is clear however that Unforgiven is the more intelligent and mature film. It’s a merciless exposé, made by one of the true greats of Hollywood. I don’t think Clint Eastwood has ever made a better film, but as long as he’s alive and kicking I have hope that he will continue to amaze me.



5

[honeykid]

You don't have to wait for mark, Brod, you're wrong about Unforgiven being the 2nd most important. Especially if that means it's after Dances With Wolves.

I'd also argue about the 'greatness' of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, (campy, vampy fun, but not great) Scent of a Woman, ("Hoo-Ha" Shouty Al crosses with Dead Poets Society) and A Few Good Men (Shouty Jack shouts, while Demi plays 'serious' opposite a childish Tom.) Don't get me wrong, they're all enjoyable films, but none of them are great.

[christine]

Brod, very much liked your write up of Schindler's List. We recently paid a visit to Krakow and went to Auschwitz as well as the recently opened museum in Schindler's old factory. They've made a brilliant exhibition space in the museum covering the life of Krakow from the days just before the German invasion to after the war with lots of artifacts from the lives of Jewish people as well as Polish people who also suffered under the Nazis.

[mark f]

You don't have to wait for mark, Brod, you're wrong about Unforgiven being the 2nd most important. Especially if that means it's after Dances With Wolves.

He means it's chronologically the second important western of the decade since Dances with Wolves was released first.

[honeykid]

Ah, OK. That makes much more sense than thinking Unforgiven isn't as good as Dances With Wolves.

[Brodinski]

He means it's chronologically the second important western of the decade since Dances with Wolves was released first.

Yeah, what Mark said is what I meant, HK.

And I never said Dracula, A Few Good Men and Scent of a Woman were great. They just fell short of greatness, but I still liked them a lot, meaning their scores range from 3.5+ to 4+.

I didn't mind the shouty Pacino. I think he played that part with flair, panache and great dignity for his character. I had more trouble making Pacino's shouty demeanor click for me in Heat, which I think I also mentioned in my review.

[honeykid]

Yeah, I really don't like his performance in Heat, but then, I don't think anyone's performance in Heat is that great. De Niro's good, but I have huge problems with that film.

You're right, you didn't say that those films (Scent, Dracula, Few) were great, that was a mistake on my part. Sorry about that. :)

[Brodinski]

1991. Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Picking my top film of the year was a real no-brainer, as Terminator 2: Judgment Day is simply too much fun to be topped by any other 1991 film. However, I don’t think it got any stiff competition, bar one: Demme’s terrific The Silence of The Lambs, which is one of the finest thrillers ever made. Other films that I really liked, but were never really in contention: Barton Fink, The Commitments, Beauty And The Beast, My Own Private Idaho and Cape Fear. A film I’ve not yet seen, but which might’ve end up on my runners-up list, is Stone’s JFK.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Terminator2.jpg

With a price tag of over $100 million, T2 was the most expensive film ever at its release. Compared to many of today’s so-called blockbusters, you can actually see that those 100+ mil were well spent. The special effects from the ILM stable (that liquid metal!) are still spectacular to this very day, as are the stunts, and during its 2 hour + runtime, enough things exploded to make Michael Bay get an orgasm.

10 years have passed since the terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor. Her son, John Connor – that future leader of the resistance in the war between men and machines – is now a teenager. This time around, two terminators are sent to planet earth. The advanced T-1000 will do everything in its power to kill John Connor whereas the outdated T-800’s mission is to protect him. Amid all the destruction, chases and explosions, John Connor, his mother and his private terminator try to save the world from the inevitable Judgment Day.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/terminator-2.jpg

T2 is a beefed up version of the original film. The low-profile character of Terminator was exchanged for large-scale spectacle in which the Doomsday scenario is dilated upon. Much as was the case with the original, T2 has the relentless pace of a pursuit film, but this time around, Cameron doesn’t go straight for the goal. Instead, he treats his viewers to one climactic set-piece after the other. In this sense, T2 carries some more ballast than its predecessor, but luckily this ballast comes in the shape of supremely well executed action sequences, whether it be the chase scene in the viaduct, the escape from the institution, the raid on Cyberdyne or the red-hot finale in the factory. These magnificent scenes show that Cameron is a master when it comes to orchestrating action scenes.

Yet, T2 is more than some hollow, bombastic vehicle on auto-pilot à la Transformers. The characters are given plenty of time to develop and speak their mind. Their relations with each other are elaborated upon enough to really get drawn in on an emotional level (besides on a fun level of course). Sarah Connor’s transformation from the unknowing girl next door in Terminator to the cold-blooded muscular macho chick in T2 is logical, knowing everything that happened in the first film. Whereas the rather cold Sarah Connor treats John a bit like a future Messiah, the T-800 acts as a surrogate father to John. Surprisingly, this father-son relationship between them is the emotional cement of the film.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/t1000_1.jpg

Some might think of T2 as the film that paved the way for the endless stream of superfluous, inferior SFX blockbusters that are tossed our way every summer. But I bet that those people can’t deny that they spent 2 hours of their lives enjoying a jaw-dropping, irresistible popcorn spectacle that is one of the finest action films of all time.

5

[The Prestige]

Brod's, got to hand it to you, man. List gets better and better. And it's exciting. The most exciting thread on the forum by far right now, but i'm sure you already know that. ;)

Loved your write up on Unforgiven. Brilliant film and alongside Assassination Of Jesse James one of my favourite westerns of all time. Completely flips the genre on it's head and the man to do it is the man who was instrumental in the early years of it. I know the ending shootout isn't supposed to be one of triumphant like you stated, but I couldn't help but enjoy Clint taking no prisoners amongst Little Bill and his crew. Not sure what kind of person that makes me, but I do feel a bit justified in wanting Clint go back to his old roots a bit.

Terminator 2 is badass, without a doubt. You already know that I love that flick and Sarah's transformation. I prefer the original, but this one is undeniably brilliant in it's own right and wouldn't blame a soul for preferring it.

Good update!!!!!!!

[honeykid]

But I bet that those people can’t deny that they spent 2 hours of their lives enjoying a jaw-dropping, irresistible popcorn spectacle that is one of the finest action films of all time.

I'm not one of those people who see this as the fall of Western Cinema (that happened from 1975-1982) but I can say that, while I like this film, I was bored by the end of this film and waiting for it to finish. As I told n3wt the other day, I was just sat there thinking, "Just die so I can go home!" I still am every time I watch it. I'd rather watch any/all of these:

J.F.K., The Doors, Delicatessen, The Hard Way, New Jack City, Doc Hollywood, My Own Private Idaho, Once A Thief, Other People's Money, Raise The Red Lantern, Point Break, Rush, Slacker, What About Bob? There's a good few more that are marginal.

[TylerDurden99]

Terminator 2. Awesome.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Terminator 2 is a film to be enjoyed. It's that simple, you must enjoy Terminator 2.

It seems you had less to say about this film compared to others, but still an enjoyable read.

[The Prestige]

Yeah but to be fair there isn't a lot that can be said about T2 other than the fact that it's pure escapism.

[Brodinski]

1990. Goodfellas

1990 was a very solid year for cinema, albeit not a great one. Of course, Goodfellas obliterates the competition imo, but that says more about the quality of that film than it does about the quality of the others. My (distant) runner-up is Miller’s Crossing. It is a quirky pulp masterpiece that I can’t help but watch every time it is shown on television. Other films that I love are: Edward Scissorhands, Wild At Heart, Delicatessen, Misery and Cyrano De Bergerac. I’ll also add The Godfather, Part III. While it’s not even close to the level of the first 2 films and the casting of Sofia Coppola is a horrible, horrible mistake, it’s still good enough to make my list of runners-up. Perhaps people look down on it a bit, because the first two films were of such a high standard. A film that some people around these parts love is Costner’s Dances With Wolves, which never really worked for me.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/goodfellas-4749.jpg

Goodfellas boasts off one of the best opening scenes ever. Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci and Robert DeNiro are driving on some freeway. They suddenly hear something – a flat tire perhaps? – and decide to pull over. It’s not a flat tire, but a bloody, beaten-up figure that should have been dead lying in the trunk of the car. Pesci pulls out a knife the size of a rolling pin and repeatedly stabs the man. Just to make sure, DeNiro then fires 3 bullets at the man’s lifeless body. Liotta looks at them with a more or less dazed look. He might still realize to some extent that what they are doing is not particularly “sympathetic”, but that part of his soul has been closed for too long to even consider objecting to what his friends are doing. He closes the trunk and the camera dollies in on his face. Freeze frame. And then, Liotta speaking in voice-over, follows the real opening line of the film: “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster.” It is the perfect opener to a perfect film.

Liotta portrays Henry Hill, a kid from the Bronx who at age 13 parks cars and sells jacked cigarettes for the mafia members he once admired from across the street. The organized crime life is a dream to him: he sees men catching heaps of money without putting in too much effort; men that are also respected around the neighborhood and above all, men that are always a part of something, a part of a family that supersedes all other families.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/good.jpg

We then follow Hill’s criminal life and see him teaming up with his like-minded friends Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro) and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci). Jimmy Conway is somewhat of a mentor to Henry. He too genuinely likes the various aspects of being part of an organized crime family. As he is Irish, Conway can never become a so-called made man, but he does seem to have the power of one. He is mostly the brains behind the schemes of Henry and Tommy. Tommy DeVito is the unpredictable one of the threesome. He’s a sociopath with an aggressive temper and a tendency to slip into the occasional murderous rage, but can also be a very funny guy who is loyal (to a certain extent) to his real friends.

The world portrayed in Goodfellas is one of unbridled capitalism. The gangsters are in the business for a good reason: money. They wear expensive suits, buy butt-ugly but terribly costly houses and drive around in big cars. Their wives are decorated with jewelry and plastered with thick layers of make-up. Despite their richness, they can’t hide the fact that they come from a blue-collar background. Their wardrobe and the interiors of their houses are often paragons of bad taste and kitsch. Just watch the transformation that Lorraine Bracco undergoes. As Henry’s wife, she is introduced to the world of maffioso’s wives. Her head is spinning from all the nonchalantly told stories about murder and manslaughter while not being able to get her head around the fact that these women look ugly as hell. By the end of the film, she looks like one of these women herself. She has become an accessory to the crimes of her husband and the beauty she once had is now covered under a thick layer of make-up. The cancer that runs through the society depicted in Goodfellas has also infected her.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/good1.jpg

This story of moral decay cannot possibly have a happy ending. There is no catharsis for any of the characters, who end up dead or trapped in either prison or their criminal lives. Henry is now in the witness protection program, as he ratted out his friends in order to not do any more time in prison. He now lives an anonymous existence in some suburb and he complains about his life, hating that he cannot live the gangster lifestyle any longer. To Henry, it’s like he’s just another loser instead of someone people look up to.

Scorsese’s virtuosity just flows through every minute of this film. I can’t even begin to name all the technical highlights in the film. Very known are of course the two outstanding tracking shots. The first one is that where all of Henry’s companions are introduced in the nightclub. The second one is even more impressive, as we witness Henry and his future wife enter the Copacabana through the rear entrance. And what’s to say about the different shots that show the bodies of the Lufthansa heist in Cadillacs and meat freezers. I am amazed at how gracefully natural, nearly poetic, the camera flows in these shots.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/good2.jpg

Scorsese’s directorial prowess is accompanied by a great soundtrack, all hits from that era. This soundtrack is particularly apt in the later part of the film when the bubble in which Henry and his wife have been living is about to burst. Everything is falling apart for Henry, as he has developed a serious coke addiction. Moreover, Jimmy and Paulie have grown weary of him. The pacing of the film during the chapter “Last Day as a Wiseguy” is very wild, fitting in perfectly with the hectic, uncontrolled like that Henry is leading by then.

I could write another paragraph about the performances, but even a blind man can see that they’re all-around solid. Liotta has never been better, DeNiro is the consummate professional, Paul Sorvino is very believable as the mafia boss and Pesci steals the show.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/goodfellas.jpg

Depending on which day you ask me, I could very well say that this is my favourite Scorsese film. It always comes down to a showdown between Goodfellas and a film we’ll encounter later on in this thread. In summary, I’ll say that Goodfellas is quite possibly my favourite mafia film and certainly one of the greatest crime dramas ever made.


5

[honeykid]

It's not as good as The Godfather, IMO, and nor is it my favourite Scorsese film, but I love this film. This is one I definately agree with, Brodinski. :up:

[Brodinski]

Thanks, HK.

Yeah, most of the time I don't think it's as good as The Godfather or The Godfather, Part II either. But I like Goodfellas so much, because, while being a serious crime drama, it also offers a little humour. Joe Pesci is hilarious at times. Like when he shoots Spider because he doesn't bring him a drink promptly and then just says: "whadya want from me, I'm a good shot." Or when his mother tells him to settle down with a nice girl and Pesci says: "sure, mom, I settle down with a nice girl every night, then I'm free the next morning."

[honeykid]

I love those quotes. Goodfellas is so quotable.

Are you going to continue into the 80's, Brodinski?

[Brodinski]

The 90s have been completed. I've once again tried to rank my top picks:

00s

1) City of God (2002)
2) Lost in Translation (2003)
3) The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (2007)
4) Mulholland Drive (2001)
5) Inglourious Basterds (2009)
6) Traffic (2000)
7) 35 Shots of Rum (2008)
8) Babel (2006)
9) Dogville (2004)
10) Syriana (2005)

90s

1) Magnolia (1999)
2) The Big Lebowski (1998)
3) As Good As It Gets (1997)
4) Goodfellas (1990)
5) Trainspotting (1996)
6) Heat (1995)
7) Unforgiven (1992)
8) Schindler's List (1993)
9) Pulp Fiction (1994)
10) Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)


Magnolia stands firmly at the top of the list. Like I said at the end of my review, it's in my top 5 of all time and if you ask me on the right day, I'll tell you it's my favourite film ever. I cannot begin to explain the impact it had on me, so my review of it will have to suffice.

Next are The Big Lebowski and As Good As It Gets. Their order is interchangable though, depending on the day you ask me. It might be a surprise to some to see As Good As It Gets up so high, but no other film on this top 10 of the 90s gives me as much pure pleasure and honest emotion from watching it. Of course, The Big Lebowski just had to be high up, as I've named it my # 1 comedy of all time. And I still stand by my opinion that Walter Sobchak is one of the greatest and most original characters ever.

Then there's 7 other films that are all seminal and stellar. I have tried to separate them from each other more clearly, but that really didn't work out. Ask me any other day and their ranking will vary. It looks kinda "bad" that Pulp Fiction and T2 are so "low", but look at what they're up against: arguably the greatest maffia film ever; one of the greatest westerns ever; one of the greatest war tales ever told; arguably the best heist / crime film ever and the best film on drugs ever (all imho of course). There is no shame in coming in last when being in the company of such terrific films.

The 80s

I originally wanted to finish the 80s before my exams of January, but I'm afraid I was a bit too ambitious when I came up with that time schedule. I've finished 3 reviews so far: for 1985, 1981 and 1980. I've decided on 6 of my # 1 picks of the year. I've still got some important films of the 80s to watch, like E.T., Sophie's Choice, Do The Right Thing, A Fish Called Wanda, Fanny and Alexander, The Hitcher, Terms of Endearment, The Last Emperor, Barbarosa, Diner and some more I can't really recall right now. So I've got my work cut out for me just watching these films, before I can actually decide on my # 1 pick and review it.

I'll pick up this thread again after my exams of January. My earliest prognosis is restarting late February. I hope to have worked through the 80s and 70s before summer starts. Like I said in my very first post, this is going to take me possibly years to finish and it looks like it's going to pan out that way.

Anyway, sit tight until Feb, 2011!

[honeykid]

Pleased to hear that you're carrying on with this, Brodinski. I've got no problem waiting till then. Looking forward to it.

You were right about the 90's. There's a lot more films on there that I like.

[Fiscal]

I'm looking forward to it!

[stevo3001]

Again a majority of really good films, although I think Heat is rather average, Terminator 2 isn't a special action movie and I can't stand Magnolia. The writeups, though, are consistently well worth reading. Nice work.

[TheUsualSuspect]

As Good As It Gets is indeed too high, compared to the other films on the list.

But I love it.

[The Prestige]

I love Goodfellas too, Brods. I like it even more than I used to actually. It would be higher on my list. Given how difficult I am finding my editing career, the skill and technical decisions gone into making this very complete film seem larger than life should be studied by everybody interested in such things. I think I read something in Empire about how Scorsese wanted the film to feel like an extended trailer, which is a bigger complement than it may first seem.

Love that tracking shot you referred to where they walk through the corriders, but my own personal favourite camera techniques are the simple yet highly effective super zooms that runs throughout the film. I remember watching this film about 3 years ago and having really vivid dreams about the camera style. I would say that Casino is almost as good in execution, but the content does seem slightly rehased, which makes it a slightly lesser film for me.

But again, excellento choice :)

And I always thought you were going to go until you had a hundred anyways :). You HAVE to continue this and you know it. Even if it takes you 5 years or whatever, we need this thread and more threads like this. Keep up the good work and I look forward to your next installment.

[Brodinski]

Thanks guys. It's nice to get positive feedback. I'll surely carry on with this list. Just yesterday, I've decided on my # 1 film of 1988, meaning that I've now picked my top film in 7 years. Only 3 more to go, but they're tough ones. Once I've picked all of them and my exams are over, I can start reviewing.

[Brodinski]

I’m getting this show back on again in some days’ time. I think I’ve watched most of the more critically acclaimed films on the 80s, both in US cinema and world cinema. Granted, there are still some blind spots in my viewing history, particularly when it comes to the Palme d’Or winners. Most of the highly regarded films that I’ve not seen isn’t because I didn’t want to watch them, but mainly because I couldn’t ‘find’ them. Nevertheless, I believe that for each year I have a good number of films that I hold in high regard. For most years, I’ve been able to name 8-10 films that I strongly like or love in my runners-up section.

Despite having watched numerous 80s films over the past months, my picks were mostly films that I had already watched multiple times. That is not to say that picking a # 1 for each year wasn’t difficult. Unlike for the 90s and 00s, I had trouble picking a clear # 1 for some years. I even wanted to tie 2 films for the # 1 spot for one particular year, but I eventually decided against that. Tough choices are there to be made so that’s what I did. I still have 2 more reviews to write and a couple more to finish, but that normally shouldn't prevent me from posting a new # 1 pick every two or three days as soon as I've gotten started.

In a couple of days I’ll start things off again with my # 1 of 1989. Naturally, you are all welcome (and encouraged) to present your own # 1 of each year and comment on my picks and reviews.

[honeykid]

Looking forward to it, Brodinski. :yup:

[Brodinski]

1989. Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade

The 80s closed with a bang, with numerous great films and many ones that fall just short of greatness. My runner-up is Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V. Branagh’s performance is terrific, the supporting cast rousing, the costumes beautiful and the camerawork realistic. The Agincourt speech made by Branagh is of course an unforgettable goose bumps moment. Completing the top 3 is Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors, which is my favourite Woody so far. I love the mix of cynical comedy and serious drama. Themes of unrequited and self-destructive love, morality and infidelity are touched and elaborated upon in typical Allen style. Other films that I love / like a lot include: The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, Glory, Batman, My Left Foot, Drugstore Cowboy, Driving Miss Daisy, Creature Comforts, Monsieur Hire and Licence to Kill. Two films that some might hold in high regard, but weren’t good enough for me to make my runners-up are When Harry Met Sally and Born on the Fourth of July. Dead Poets Society I didn’t care for at all. Despite being a big Robin Williams fan, I couldn’t get into it and it basically left me cold. Two glaring omissions on my part are Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing and Kieslowski’s Dekalog.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/indy4.jpg

In the third installment of the Indiana Jones series, Indy goes looking for his father (Sean Connery), a historian who has devoted his life to finding the Holy Grail. Jones Sr. was quite advanced in his research when he vanished in Venetia. Indy’s relationship with his father wasn’t exactly optimal, but your father is still your father, so Indiana, supported by his colleague Marcus Brody and Austrian researcher Elsa Schneider, undertakes a search for his father and the Holy Grail.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/indy.jpg

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is akin to Raiders of the Lost Ark in the sense that pretty much all the elements that made the first one so good are back. The action scenes are more light-hearted than in The Temple of Doom. Spielberg incorporates some jokes into the action again (Sean Connery shooting at the very plane he’s in) and he also doesn’t feel the need to pound into his audience all the time. As a result, The Last Crusade has more moments of relative rest than Temple of Doom, which (in my opinion) helped the quality considerably. The link between Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade is further reinforced by the return of Denholm Elliot as Marcus Brody and John Rhys-Davies as Sallah, who both contribute superbly to the more comical tone of the film.

Is this then a mere replica of Raiders of the Lost Ark, but with a different story? No, it isn’t. Instead, Spielberg elaborates on the Indiana Jones character. This time, the prologue to the film isn’t just a meaningless action sequence that has little or nothing to do with the main story. Instead, we find out where Indy’s love of antiquities and his fear of snakes stems from as well as how he came to carry his by now trademark attributes, namely his whip and his hat. We even find out how he got the scar on his chin.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/indy3.jpg

Later in the film, Indy’s relationship with his father is established and elaborated upon to add another dimension. This extra dimension was perhaps something that I find was missing in Temple of Doom, which was a different story than Raiders of the Lost Ark, but with the exact same hero. This time, we see Indiana as the son of his father, trying to get his father’s approval and appreciation throughout almost the entire film. One example is when he runs over a Nazi soldier on a motor cycle and grins at his dad, as if to say “I did that!” Connery just looks disapprovingly and pulls his trademark hat a little firmer on his head.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/indy1.jpg

What I like here is that the father-son relationship isn’t soaked in typical Hollywood sentiment. There are no corny monologues; no pseudo-profound conversations where father and son bring up their lifelong trauma’s. When Indy blames his dad for never really talking to him, Jones Sr. bounces the ball right back, saying that he’s here now and asks Indy what he wants to talk about. In one of the many comical moments, Indy ponders this for a second only to say: “I can’t think of anything right now!” Later on in the film, there is a potential cry-moment when Jones Senior thinks his son has died, but the sentiment in that scene is nicely dodged by having Harrison Ford walk onto the screen with a confused look on his mug. Time and time again, Spielberg uses humor to avoid that the film treads into mellow, corny waters.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/indy2.jpg

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a sequel the way a sequel should be: Spielberg took all the elements that made Raiders of the Lost Ark a fan-favorite and added a few more aspects to avoid a strong déjà-vu feeling. As a result, The Last Crusade is one of the most entertaining films I’ve ever seen. Time just flies by every time I watch this seminal film. I even think it’s better than Raiders, though perhaps that’s because I watched The Last Crusade first.


5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Love Last Crusade!!!!

[mark f]

It's amazing how many people like The Last Crusade the best, including my wife. I think it's only the third best but that still makes it one of the best films ever made for me. I think people like it so much because of Sean Connery. I thought he was actually much better in this than he was in his Oscar-winning turn in The Untouchables. The scene where the "Jones Boys" are tied back-to-back and first share some love moments with Elsa and then have to dodge the fireplace is classic. Also, what Senior tells Junior is, "You left just when you were becoming interesting!" This is another film which has some quotes my family uses in daily life, especially, "He chose poorly."

I forget what you think of Batman but I didn't notice that you mentioned it in the first paragraph. It outgrossed The Last Crusade by a couple mil to win the box office in '89.

[honeykid]

Indy? Oh ffs. :(

[stevo3001]

I loved the first two Indys and didn't like Last Crusade. At the time it seemed to me that having his dad along for the ride made the whole adventure much less fun. I preferred Indy unsupervised. Plus I don't think the villains or set pieces are as good as the first one. All around less memorable.

[Brodinski]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

@ Mark: Indeed, I appear to have not mentioned Batman in my runners-up list. It's not because I don't like it; I merely forgot about it. I'll fix that. And yeah, I think the degree by which you like The Last Crusade depends largely on whether you think Connery is a strong addition or a cold shower. I clearly love him, but several of my friends think less of The Last Crusade, largely due to Sean Connery.

@ HK: So what's your pick for 1989? See You In The Morning? :cool:

@ Steve: Fair enough. As mentioned above, a big factor in people's rating of The Last Crusade is Sean Connery. If you don't like his input, you're likely not to like The Last Crusade.

[honeykid]

@ HK: So what's your pick for 1989? See You In The Morning? :cool:

lol... No, though that's a nice film. If you saw it, I don't think you'd regret it, but I wouldn't tell you to go out of your way to see it.

There's more than a few good films to choose from, but if I try to combine quality and my love for it, I think I'd go with Drugstore Cowboy. However, you did mention a few of those I'd have been happy to see as your choice (along with Drugstore Cowboy) and, as I'm assuming that you've not seen Do The Right Thing, I can always hope that it would surpass your current choice. Though I think hope is all it is.

No mention of the following? Field Of Dreams, The Killer, Violent Cop, Casualties Of War, The War Of The Roses, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Heathers, Cinema Paradiso, Last Exit To Brooklyn, Parenthood, Scandal. I also thought you might mention New York Stories.

[linespalsy]

This is a really good idea for a favorites list, I might have to rip it off some day. I like how you're using it to mention more films with the runners up and "also goods." It also makes sense to me because this is how I organize my personal list of movies that I've seen.

As for the individual years, I'm playing catch up. So far the closest our favorites have come to matching up is in 1992 (Unforgiven is at 3 for me, after Minbo and Naked Killer.) Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting, Last Crusade and The Big Lebowski are all in, or near my top ten for their respective years.

I find it interesting that you mention Henry V (which I haven't seen) as your runner up for 1989 but not Branagh's Hamlet for 1996 (which is also a less competitive year for me, though I still put several - including Lone Star my no.1 for that year - before Trainspotting). Also you mention the absence of Do the Right Thing for '89. does this mean you haven't seen it?

I haven't seen a lot of your picks for the 2000's, and it's interesting for me that for those years almost half of your picks are foreign or international productions, while for the 90s they all seem to be American movies. Do you think this represents a trend in movies or is it just the arbitrary selection that you've seen or something else? I'm sure I'll have more comments/questions. Thanks for the lists!

[honeykid]

I haven't seen a lot of your picks for the 2000's, and it's interesting for me that for those years almost half of your picks are foreign or international productions, while for the 90s they all seem to be American movies. Do you think this represents a trend in movies or is it just the arbitrary selection that you've seen or something else? I'm sure I'll have more comments/questions. Thanks for the lists!

I can't say I'm surprised by this and, while I have my own ideas of why this may be the case, I'd also be interested to hear Brodinski's reason(s) why. :)

[Brodinski]

as I'm assuming that you've not seen Do The Right Thing, I can always hope that it would surpass your current choice. Though I think hope is all it is.

No mention of the following? Field Of Dreams, The Killer, Violent Cop, Casualties Of War, The War Of The Roses, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Heathers, Cinema Paradiso, Last Exit To Brooklyn, Parenthood, Scandal. I also thought you might mention New York Stories.

Nope, I haven't seen Do The Right Thing. As I said in my introductory post to this 80s countdown, I will mention the biggest omissions of the year in the first paragraph of each review. These are films that I haven't watched, mostly because I simply couldn't get a hold of them.

I like Fields of Dreams, but not enough to put it in my runners-up section. It didn't play any strings I particularly like, but I can appreciate it as a well-made film with good acting. I'd rate it 3+. I also like The Killer, but again, I didn't find it particularly memorable. I rate it 3.5. Cinema Paradiso was released in 1988. Parenthood was ok, though I don't remember much of it. I am notoriously hard to please when it comes to comedies, so me saying it was "ok" is usually a compliment in this case. The others you mention I haven't seen.


I find it interesting that you mention Henry V (which I haven't seen) as your runner up for 1989 but not Branagh's Hamlet for 1996 (which is also a less competitive year for me, though I still put several - including Lone Star my no.1 for that year - before Trainspotting). Also you mention the absence of Do the Right Thing for '89. does this mean you haven't seen it?

First of all, nice to see you stopping by my thread, lines. To be honest, I haven't seen Branagh's Hamlet. I'll check it out asap, as I generally love Branagh's output as a director. Lone Star is an excellent pick for # 1. What I love most about it, is that Sayles was able to bring across a terrific murder mystery while also subtly highlighting social life and politics in the Texas town where the story takes place. Combine that with great camera work and magnificent use of flashbacks (they just flow naturally throughout the story) and you've got a very solid 4+ to me.

I haven't seen a lot of your picks for the 2000's, and it's interesting for me that for those years almost half of your picks are foreign or international productions, while for the 90s they all seem to be American movies. Do you think this represents a trend in movies or is it just the arbitrary selection that you've seen or something else? I'm sure I'll have more comments/questions. Thanks for the lists!

I have to say that before I started this countdown, my biggest "fear" was to have a list of all American productions. There are huge blind spots in my world cinema knowledge, especially Asian films, so I was kind of scared that I would come across as someone who completely ignores world cinema. However, in going over my lists of movies seen of each year (highly incomplete, as I only typing these up 3 years ago), there were usually a few really good 'foreign' productions in there. I have always followed my heart in my picks so far and if things really got tough, I decided by picking the film that gave me the most viewing pleasure.

Now, to answer your question: I do not think that Hollywood's 00s output was as abysmal as some around these parts think. That being said, the 00s don't hold a candle to the 90s. The 80s I'm not so sure of, as I believe this was also a weak decade for American cinema. From what I have seen, the 70s were also way better than the 00s and I still have a bunch of classics and extremely highly touted films I haven't even watched of that decade, so... The 60s, 50s and beyond I haven't yet seen enough of to make a clear-cut statement on.

I hope that's a satisfactory answer.

[The Prestige]

Top film, son. I like it. I like it a lot. I actually think it's the best of the trilogy and I think that's because of the pairing of Ford and Connery. Great to see you continuing this, bro. I can't wait to see what's next. Hoping A Nightmare On Elm Street makes it on to the eightes list. You need to continue this stuff bro. Man, i'm horny. soz.

[linespalsy]

Now, to answer your question: I do not think that Hollywood's 00s output was as abysmal as some around these parts think. That being said, the 00s don't hold a candle to the 90s. The 80s I'm not so sure of, as I believe this was also a weak decade for American cinema. From what I have seen, the 70s were also way better than the 00s and I still have a bunch of classics and extremely highly touted films I haven't even watched of that decade, so... The 60s, 50s and beyond I haven't yet seen enough of to make a clear-cut statement on.

I hope that's a satisfactory answer.

Hey, the Lone Star comments were very satisfactory :cool: and just to make it clear, I don't think your choices need to be any more balanced or anything, I was just curious. I encourage everyone to give many different films a chance but that doesn't mean there won't be plenty of Hong Kong cinema represented in my top tens for the late 80s and early 90s (for example). Keep them coming.

By the way, have you seen Men With Guns or Limbo? Besides Lone Star, those are my other two favorites - the nineties were a really good decade for Sayles.

[Brodinski]

1988. Cinema Paradiso

1988 was a very solid year for film. My first runner-up is The Naked Gun, with the late Leslie Nielsen. It’s one of my all-time favourite comedies, yet it still fell short to knock Cinema Paradiso off the top spot. Completing the podium is Spoorloos, perhaps better known to you guys as The Vanishing. It’s an excellent thriller that I recommend to everyone around these parts that isn’t familiar with it yet. A special word also goes out to A Fish Called Wanda, which is truly a terrific comedy with some brains to it and a solid story. It’s what I consider to be to comical equivalent of a film noir only with the femme fatale having some good in her after all. Moreover, every single performance in the film is solid, with Kevin Kline and Michael Palin as the standouts. Other films that I really like, but were never really in contention: The Last Temptation of Christ, Chocolat, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Dangerous Liaisons, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Eight Men Out and Shoot to Kill. I’m a Sidney Poitier fan and given my preferences, a film like Shoot to Kill is tailor-made for me. I’m sure a lot will consider Die Hard as their top pick of the year, but I can’t see what’s so special about it. I’ve no love whatsoever for Bruce Willis; maybe that’s a big part of why I feel neither hot nor cold about this film.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Cinema_Paradiso_Poster_Web.jpg

Cinema Paradiso starts by showing us a man, named Salvatore di Vita, returning to his home where his girlfriend tells him his mother called to say that a certain Alfredo died. Having never heard of this Alfredo, the woman asks if he was a relative of his. He says it’s nothing seriously, but as he lays his head on his pillow, he begins to bring up memories of his childhood and adolescence in his hometown of Giancaldo, Sicily. You see, it was right there that a young Salvatore, nicknamed ‘Toto’ at that time, discovered his lifelong passion: cinema. The kid spends every spare minute of his time in the local film theatre, the Cinema Paradiso.

The projectionist of the Cinema Paradiso is the serious, grumpy Alfredo. At first, he thinks of Toto as an annoying kid who comes to pester him during his work hours. It does not take him long however to grow fond of the mischievous Toto. He even begins to teach Toto the mastery of his craft and takes pride in having a young apprentice under his guard. This idyllic episode in Toto’s life comes to an unexpected ending when an unhappy occurrence causes the Cinema Paradiso to burn down.

Luckily, a wealthy villager decides the theatre must be rebuilt with Toto taking over Alfredo’s job as a projectionist. From here, the movie jumps forward into Toto’s adolescence. We see him grow up into a young man dealing with the issues that all of us (well, all men around these parts) had to deal with during that period in life as well: girls and relationships. By now, Alfredo has become a substitute father to him, his real father having died during World War II. Alfredo finally urges his friend to get off the island in order to realize his grand dreams to become a filmmaker. The old man takes a tough stance on this, probably because he realizes that in order for Toto to achieve greatness, he must make the ultimate sacrifice of parting ways with him.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/cinema_paradiso_1.jpg

Giuseppe Tornatore really managed to make the Cinema Paradiso come across as the epicenter of the small town of Giancaldo. It seems as if all the citizens gather there to watch the movies. There is no lack of eccentric personalities. There’s a guy who always falls asleep during the film and as a result, is consistently teased by the kids. Furthermore, there is a local prostitute who will sleep in the cinema with anyone who is willing to pay her. But it doesn’t take a prostitute to engage in extra-marital activities, as is also documented in the Cinema Paradiso. My personal favourite is the guy who seems to come to the theatre just to spit down the lower-seated attendants’ neck.

There is so much to like about this film. As was the case for many of my # 1 picks of the year, it is very difficult to choose my favourite scene of Cinema Paradiso. Is it the scene where Toto discovers his passion for film when he sees his pastor screen a film in the Cinema Paradiso and rings his bell every time he sees a “carnal” sin? What about the scene where Alfredo projects a film out of the projection room’s window onto a wall so the citizens of Giancaldo can watch it? Is it Salvatore di Vita’s heart-breaking return to the web-enshrouded Cinema Paradiso? I think I’ll go with the cliché here and say that my favourite is the final scene of the film. It is one of my favourite endings of all time, it being the perfect summary of the friendship between Alfredo and Toto. I won’t reveal the specifics of it here, because I wouldn’t want to ruin anyone’s viewing pleasure by giving it away. You have to watch it completely unaware of what you’re in for. Just prepare to be overwhelmed by emotion.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/cinema-paradiso3.jpg

The main complaint against the film is its sentimentality. I’ve read critics’ complaints that sentimentality permeates almost every scene of the film up to the point where it just numbs you. Clearly, I couldn’t disagree more. Tornatore is completely up front about the film’s sentimentality. First off, the main character is reliving his childhood and adolescence. Who wouldn’t be at least a bit sentimental about those things? Moreover, the sentimentality is never used in a manipulative manner. I think the feelings of sentimentality fit the film’s story, making it as emotional an experience for the viewer as it undoubtedly is for Toto.

It’s important to note that there are 3 versions of Cinema Paradiso: a 124 minute International version, a 155 minute version and the director’s cut, which lasts 171 minutes. I strongly recommend you watch the director’s cut. The shorter versions, even the 155 minute one, might come off as too mellow, as some essential scenes about Toto and Elaine’s relationship were cut out. The director’s cut deals in depth with themes of love, loss and consequences. I see many critics describe Cinema Paradiso as a love letter to cinema, but the director’s cut shows that it’s more than just that, as it raises questions about much larger themes.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/cinemaparadiso-remembering.jpg

Cinema Paradiso is a wonderful coming-of-age story of a young boy who grows up to be a celebrated filmmaker, going from a childhood in poverty and first love over adolescent heartbreak and a loss of innocence to world-weariness and an eventual unforgettable return to his hometown, with the constants being his friendship with Alfredo and his passion for cinema. The first time I watched this, I remember thinking it was a very solid film; one that I placed under my runners-up section of the year. On every re-watch, my rating of it has gone up, up to the point where I can’t go up it anymore. Italian cinema has produced many masterpieces, but Cinema Paradiso is truly of a seldom-seen quality. One of my all-time favourites.


5

[stevo3001]

I love your two runners-up, great choices. I've watched Naked Gun (and 2.5, but not 33.33) scores of times and it's still hilarious every time. Spoorloos I may never watch again, and I don't need to, the sense of fear and disgust it created is scratched into my brain permanently and I still think about the deeper points it raises.

I'm not particularly fussed about Cinema Paradiso.

[nebbit]

:love: Cinema Paradiso I saw it at the theatre when it came out :yup: good choice :)

[Brodinski]

@ Steve: Yes, Spoorloos is a deeply unsettling and disturbing film that packs quite a punch. I've seen it twice myself, but, much like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, doubt whether I'll revisit it again.

@ Nebbit: I envy you, I wish I'd seen Cinema Paradiso on the big screen. Sounds like an overwhelming experience.

[Brodinski]

By the way, have you seen Men With Guns or Limbo? Besides Lone Star, those are my other two favorites - the nineties were a really good decade for Sayles.

I oversaw this question earlier. I've seen Men With Guns, but not Limbo. I think Men With Guns isn't bad, but I'm not a big fan either. I think it works well as a suspenseful thriller with some good unpredictable twists to it. However, I've some issues with the characters and the spiritual (or mythical, whatever) realism. Some of the characters (particularly the American tourists) come across as stereotypes that serve Sayles' point.

My second favourite Sayles is actually Eight Men Out, which made my runners-up section of 1988. David Strathairn delivers a very good performance, as does John Cusack. I also like that it's not a film about baseball, but about people that just happen to play baseball. Honeykid has said it before elsewhere on the forum, but as is the case with many good sports films, Eight Men Out is not so much about the sport as it is about the people and their psyche.

[linespalsy]

Yeah, I like Eight Men Out a lot. Actually I like all Sayles' movies, but many of them I haven't seen in years. I'll try and get a copy of Men With Guns to rewatch soon, then maybe I'll have more of a response, but Limbo is my favorite and most-watched film of his so my recommendation for that one still stands.

[Brodinski]

1987. Full Metal Jacket

This was a very solid year for cinema, perhaps even a great one seeing my extensive runners-up list. My first runner-up is Louis Malle’s Au Revoir Les Enfants, which has one of the most devastating endings I’ve seen. It falls just short of bumping Full Metal Jacket off its # 1 spot, but this was a tough, tough choice to make. Completing the top 3 is a film I’ve only recently watched, namely Withnail & I. I’ve taken an immediate liking to it, as I think it is hilarious and boasts off some excellent performances and a good soundtrack. I am notoriously hard to please when it comes to comedies. I guess it’s because I know that a comedy is trying to make me laugh, so I’m anticipating something funny and then it’s much harder to make me laugh. Withnail & I though not only succeeded in making me grin countless times, it also got me to laugh out loud on numerous instances, which is something I rarely do when watching a film. Other films that I like, but never came close to dethroning Full Metal Jacket are: Wings of Desire, Radio Days, The Last Emperor, The Untouchables, Evil Dead II, Robocop (I kid you not), Predator, Good Morning Vietnam (Robin Williams makes up a lot of the film’s flaws) and House of Games. Lethal Weapon is a nice film, but not good enough to make my runners-up section. Two films that I haven’t seen, but heard lots of good about, are Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun and Boorman’s Hope and Glory.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/full.jpg

As a big Kubrick fan, a constant in his work seems to be his obsession with machinery and man’s relation with machines. In Lolita, sex and sexual insecurity can be considered as machines that maul everything in their path. In A Clockwork Orange, man’s instincts, albeit malicious, are suppressed until he is but a machine with pre-programmed emotions and reactions. And in The Shining, Jack Nicholson is – in my opinion at least – a social machine with a number of preconceived roles that he sheds as the story advances. I have to admit to not having seen 2001: A Space Odyssey, but speculate that this is also a clear example of the man vs. machine relation. Full Metal Jacket also fits into this man-machine relation. The marine trainees arrive on Parris Island and immediately, their head is shaved. One could interpret this as a shedding of their identity, as they now all look more or less the same. Subsequently, the heartless Sgt. Hartman (Lee Ermey) begins to mold them into effective (read: ruthless, uncompassionate) combat machines.

One of these marine trainees – played impeccably by Vincent D’Onofrio – is overweight and can’t cope with the heavy physical training. Slowly but surely, he begins to lose his mind and his humanity due to the constant humiliations of Hartman. At a certain point, we see him putting together his gun in an almost erotic way, as he talks to it while he slides the various parts into each other. Elsewhere in the film, in one of my favourite scenes actually, we see the trainees march through their sleeping quarters in their underwear – one hand holding their rifle, the other their gentleman’s area – while chanting: “this is my rifle, this is my gun – this is for fighting, this is for fun!” I hope that by now the link between sex and violence, between man and machine is clear. During the first 45 minutes of the film, the trainees are broken down to the core and subsequently rebuilt into what Hartman wants them to be. It’s seminal cinema. I kid you not when I say that those 45 minutes may very well be the best I have ever seen.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/full1.jpg

Kubrick films all this in a demure way, without any fancy camera tricks (at least not to my knowledge, limited as it may be). Instead, he focuses on the actors who all deliver all-around solid performances. Matthew Modine acts a bit as the stand-in for the viewer. He portrays an intelligent, good-natured young man who by the end of the film – in spite of his personality – has lost his humanity, much like all his fellow marines. He is the most complex character in Full Metal Jacket. The best example of this is naturally the fact that he has written “born to kill” on his helmet, but wears the peace sign at the same time. He himself says it has something to do with the duality of man, but I’m not sure if he’s entirely convinced of what he says there. In the end however, when the Vietcong sniper is finally located and gunned down, he looks at the suffering, dying woman without feelings or a spatter of humanity. It’s taken him a long time, but he too has become a killing machine.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/full3.jpg

Lee Ermey, who portrays Sgt. Hartman, was actually a drill sergeant in the army during the Vietnam War and plays an exaggerated version (I hope, lol) of himself here. His part has become such as classic and how can it not be? Nearly everything he says can be quoted. The colorful insults and tirades he spews at his recruits’ heads make for the best moments in the film. It’s almost horrible to laugh at the things Hartman says, but I still couldn’t help myself. His opening monologue and the 'jelly donut moment' are my favourites.

According to some, the film’s biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. The first 45 minutes are so overwhelmingly good that the remainder of the film is pretty tame in comparison. I disagree. Granted, the rest of the film isn’t as stellar as the training camp, but it’s still pretty damn good. Kubrick avoided the usual jungle setting and has the war take place in an urban setting, which is a nice refreshing touch. The TV-crew that interviews the soldiers also works very well. The stories and lines told by the soldiers exemplify their utter numbness to the situation they’re in and their lack of humanity. And then there is the ending scene, which is reminiscent of Paths of Glory. After the violence, the soldiers march through the abandoned city at nightfall while singing the theme song of The Mickey Mouse Club. I suppose this too has something to do with the duality of man.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/full2.jpg

Is it my favourite war film then? Well, it’s comes down to a Mexican standoff à la The Good, The Bad and The Ugly between Full Metal Jacket and two others that will be revealed down the road. Is it a cinematic masterpiece? The answer to this question is predictable, as I’ve already answered it by picking it as my # 1 film of the year. But is this my favourite Kubrick film? No, that honor goes to a film we’ll encounter later in this Best of the Year thread. Full Metal Jacket though is a seminal film, one that I rank very highly in Kubrick’s impressive body of work.


5

[linespalsy]

Full Metal Jacket is an excellent film, I enjoyed your write-up a lot. I agree with you that the parts of the movie in Vietnam aren't a let down. For me the film seems to have three acts: boot camp, the first part in vietnam where Joker seems somewhat aimless and unanchored, and the final taking of the sniper. Each of those parts seems completely distinct to me, and all three are equally important.

I'd love to watch this movie again, as of right now I don't have a single favorite for 1987 but 4 likely candidates: Untouchables, A Taxing Woman, Full Metal Jacket and Throw Momma From the Train. I've re-watched all of those except for FMJ in the last year, so I'll fix that soon. I'll have to check out that Malle film, too.

[mark f]

As far as the opening of the film, I had no problem letting out my laughs. I laughed hard and constantly throughout the boot camp scene. On the other hand, when the film ended, I had a very strange physical reaction caused by what I do not know. I walked out of the theatre and the lights inside the lobby all seemed muted and I felt like I was getting a brain tumor or something similar. It stayed with me as I went out to buy food with Brenda after the film. I've never had that experience ever before or since, and to this day, I attribute it to the [subliminal?] power of the film.

I agree with lines about the film being in three acts. The third act is especially important in that it shows all those American "fighting machines" having an incredibly difficult task taking out one teenage girl fighting in her homeland for a cause. The problem with the Marines' training was that they were taught how to kill but not what was worth killing for. At the end, sure, you could say it was a "duality of man, a Jungian thing" when the soldiers sing "The Mickey Mouse Club Theme" trying to get in touch with their lost innocence. Then again, the lyrics do include "Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?" So I also take it that the Commander of the U.S. Military in Vietnam is Mickey Mouse, so that being the case, how could the U.S. possibly win?

[honeykid]

Looking at all these choices, I suspect that 1987 wasn't a good one for me. Of course, if I go take a look I'm sure I could find a good few. :)

The first time I saw FMJ I really liked the first 45 minutes and thought the rest of the film quite boring (huge surprise) however, I've seen it twice more since and now I really don't like the first 45 minutes and prefer the rest of the film. Especially the sniper set piece at the end.

I've not seen the film for a good 12 years (at least) and, TBH, the thought of sitting through those first 45 minutes again is about enough to stop me.

BTW, the Robocop remake seems to be back on and this time IT'S IN 3D! :facepalm: No real idea how this is going to happen seeing as MGM has just sacked its entire digital department. No sign of Darren Aronofsky this time around, though.

[Brodinski]

Been away for a while, but am back now. Things seem to be pretty quiet around here lately and I don't mean this thread...

Anyway, I'll have my 1986 pick up later today. It's a long one!

[Brodinski]

1986. Jean de Florette + Manon des Sources

1986 was a very good year for film with some great films and numerous very good ones, including some personal favourites of mine. My first runner-up is a toss-up between Oliver Stone’s Platoon and Lynch’s Blue Velvet. I dislike most of Stone’s films, especially his recent ones, but Platoon was top notch. I’ve seen Blue Velvet for the first time pretty recently within the framework of this Best of the Year thread and was impressed by what I saw. Right now, it’s top 3 Lynch for me with the possibility of climbing one more spot. That being said, I still think Mulholland Drive is his absolute masterpiece. Other films that I think are good, but were never really in contention are: Peggy Sue Got Married, Castle in the Sky, Aliens, Top Gun, Manhunter, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Stand By Me and Down by Law, which is my favourite Jarmusch flick. Personal favourites of mine that aren’t so critically acclaimed or certainly not regarded as potential candidates for # 1 of the year, are The Hitcher and Hoosiers. The Hitcher has been a personal favourite since I first saw it some months ago now. I’ve re-watched it 2 weeks ago and man, what a superb multi-layered thriller. If it wasn’t because Platoon and Blue Velvet are of such top notch quality, it would be in my top 3 of the year. Hoosiers is a personal favourite because I think it’s well-acted, well-paced and I love a good underdog story. And it has one of my favourite actors: Gene Hackman.

Before I get started with my review, I’ll give an explanation as to why I’ve picked 2 films for the # 1 of the year. Well, it’s because Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources is essentially a double feature. The story doesn’t end when Jean de Florette ends. It picks up again 10 years later in Manon des Sources to continue the story of the Soubeyrans, Jean’s daughter Manon and the village where it all takes place. It’s kinda like Kill Bill, but these 2 films were released in the same year.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/jeandeflorette.jpghttp://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/manon_des_sources.jpg

César ‘Papet’ Soubeyran (Yves Montand) is a wealthy farmer in the Provence who hasn’t merely acquired his fortune through his knowledge of agriculture, but also through conniving and conning other people. One day, his nephew Ugolin (Daniel Auteuil) has a luminous idea of growing carnations, flowers that are not only beautiful, but also go for quite some money on the local markets. Unfortunately for the Soubeyrans, cultivating carnations requires a lot of water, which they don’t have in their bone-dry region. However, an underground source of water is located on the neighboring piece of land. And so the Soubeyrans pay a visit to their neighbor to ask him whether he doesn’t want to sell his land. Here, the ruthlessness of the cold-blooded César is established. The talk with the owner of the land doesn’t go well, things get out of hand and César slings the man into a rock, causing his death. The piece of land with on it the invaluable source of water now belongs to a distant relative of the deceased, namely Jean de Florette (Gérard Dépardieu).

One day, Jean, along with his wife and little daughter, arrives on his piece of land, filled with incessant optimism. He has left the big city in order to start a new life as a farmer, in spite of him being a hunchback. His optimism isn’t all he has going for him; he has some books that proclaim modern methods on agriculture that Jean plans to implement. However, he doesn’t know that the Soubeyrans are secretly thwarting him. Jean doesn’t know about the source of water on his land, as César and Ugolin have clogged it up. Furthermore, Ugolin has befriended Jean in order to learn about his ‘foe’ so that his uncle César can pick the right time to make a bid for the land.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/jean1.jpg

An important theme in Jean de Florette that is treated in depth is the opposition between the metropolitan and the rural mentality. The villagers look at Jean and his family in a suspicious, even hostile manner. These folks have been cultivating their crops in a traditional manner for decades, based on generally accepted wisdoms of agriculture and even superstition. When Jean arrives with his modern ways, his posh accent and his refined, scientific ways, the villagers would like to see him go rather than stay. Initially, they laugh at his ideas, but after a while, they too can’t deny that Jean’s scientifically-based methods are working wonderfully.

The only reason why Jean’s success doesn’t last, is because of the lack of water to cultivate his crops. If only he could’ve made use of the water from his source, his harvest in all likelihood would have succeeded. It is the hostility and greed of the Soubeyrans that plunge him into misfortune. The rest of the villagers are accomplices, as they all know that there is indeed a source on Jean’s land but rather keep their mouths shut. In this way, they are indirectly driving Jean into poverty and even madness.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/jean2.jpg

Claude Berri captures all this in a fabulous manner. With rich colours and slow, lyrical camera movement he manages to squeeze every last drop of beauty from the nature environment where the story takes place. You can almost feel the heat coming through your screen. Berri also shows that a farmer’s life is hard; the main characters are shown while taking care of their crops in the burning sun quite a bit. We see how Jean walks miles for just a few liters of water to keep his crops alive. The physical aspect of this particular trait is shown effectively and I think it lends a certain credibility to the film. When I think about it, Jean de Florette is one of the most all-encompassing depictions of a way of life I’ve ever seen on screen.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/jean3.jpg

What I like most about Jean de Florette are the terrific, terrific performances from the three main characters. Daniel Auteuil is impressive in his portrayal of Ugolin, a man who in spite of his uncle and his own greedy personality, starts to really bond and take pity on Jean near the end. There are scenes in the film where Ugolin has to lie to Jean under pressure of his uncle, but if you watch Auteil’s facial expression, you can tell he’s struggling to push this man further down the black hole he’s already in. The ever-reliable (as long as he’s talking French) Gérard Dépardieu storms across the screen like a whirlwind. In the start, he’s drunken with enthusiasm to try his luck as a farmer; afterwards, he’s just… drunken. What I think is impressive about Dépardieu’s performance is that he manages to capture Jean’s enthusiasm and educated mind in a credible, almost seemingly effortless manner. You see, Jean often expresses himself through elaborate, sophisticated dialogue. He doesn’t mean to come across as a showy intellectual; that’s just the way he is. I love how Dépardieu is able to show this. But the most impressive performance comes from Yves Montand as César Soubeyran. It is a delight to see Montand at work as an old bastard. His eyes seem to twinkle with a near youthful archness every time he thinks of another way to make Jean’s life impossible.

We now leap 10 years in time to Manon des Sources. Business is going well for Ugolin and his uncle César ‘Papet’ Soubeyran. The water source they had hidden from Jean is now ensuring them a steady income from the sale of their carnations. At the beginning of the film, we see Ugolin, his eyes twinkling, hide away pieces of gold in a pot. The other villagers know what happened, or at the very least have a strong suspicion, but they don’t speak up. Manon, Jean’s daughter, has grown into a beautiful young woman who is still living in the very region where her father met his end.

Ugolin, who is being pressured heavily by his uncle Papet to produce an offspring, falls in love with Manon. He decides to put on his best suit and ask her to marry him, even though he’s never even talked to her in his life. In the meanwhile however, Manon has overheard a conversation of two villagers in which they speak about the source and how Papet and Ugolin led Jean into his downfall. Overcome with grief and hatred, Manon decides to treat the villagers to a taste of their own medicine and when she coincidentally stumbles on the source that provides the entire village with water, she decides to clog it up.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/manon1.jpg

What is remarkable about Manon des Sources is that Ugolin and Papet are no longer presented as the archetypical bad guys as was mostly the case in Jean de Florette. Ugolin (still a very solid Daniel Auteuil) already had certain mixed feelings about what he was doing to Jean. He didn’t mind Jean and his modern ways, but his own greed and his uncle’s manipulation made him plunge Jean into misery. In Manon des Sources, the tragedy of Ugolin’s character is further highlighted. We learn that he is just a lonely man looking for love. Even César Soubeyran, who had no redeeming traits whatsoever in Jean de Florette, gets an extra dimension added to his character. For the first time, he doesn’t act purely out of self-interest. Certain revelations at the end of the film even add a certain sorrow and nuance to his character. That extra layer of nuance to both main characters works to the advantage of Manon des Sources. Much more than Manon could have ever punished them by cutting off their water supply, Ugolin and César punish themselves with regret over their pasts.

A feeling of nostalgia seems to reign Manon des Sources. Characters revisit their pasts and draw their conclusions. The film also echoes some of the things we’ve seen in Jean de Florette. An example of this is when the source that provides the village with water is cut off by Manon. One of the most memorable scenes in Jean de Florette was Gérard Dépardieu running onto his field in desperation, crying at the heavens: “don’t you know I’m a hunchback?! Do you think this is easy? Make it rain!” In Manon des Sources, we see Ugolin pray to the Gods for rain.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/manon2.jpg

The theme of rural, traditional life and modern, experimental ways of thought also returns in Manon des Sources. In Jean de Florette, the villagers mocked Jean for his modern thoughts. This time, a representative of the nearby town comes up with a number of high-technological, modern (!) ways to solve the village’s acute water problem. They are all too quickly accepted, even knocked at for not being high-technological enough. Ugolin himself shouts: “I offer 100 francs for progress right now!”

Manon des Sources is as stunningly beautiful as its predecessor and the acting is still top notch. Furthermore, the various plot threads are nicely tied together to end in a devastating, but subdued climax. It is a fitting ending to a terrific portrayal of rural life with some of the best cinematography, settings and acting I’ve seen. Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources combined may very well be my favourite French film ever.


5

[mark f]

I like both of those movies a lot too, but I think I like My Father's Glory/My Mother's Castle (1990) even more. They're also based on Pagnol books, produced by Berri and directed by Yves Robert.

[honeykid]

I probably wouldn't have picked it for my favourite film of '86 (though it is possible) but I think it's the best. Excellent choice, brodinski. Though I'd have just picked Jean du Florette. I know it's a continuation of the story, but we're picking films here, not stories. But that's just me (and I really do mean just me, as I'm the only one who seems to see it this way. :D)

[stevo3001]

I think Blue Velvet is not only by far Lynch's best cinema film, but perhaps the best film of the 80s. So I'd pick that.

However, I really like the two winners too. I actually didn't have high hopes for them and held off watching them until just a few months ago... just after we moved out from the city and bought a farm in the country :facepalm:

[TylerDurden99]

Love your pick for 1987. Wouldn't be my choice for best of the year, but it's a film I love and rate highly in Kubrick's work.

The Last Crusade is my third favourite Indy film and is a very enjoyable film.

[Brodinski]

I think this is the first time more than 1 person agreed (at least verbally now) with my choice for # 1 pick of the year.

Tyler, nice to hear you like Full Metal Jacket as well. I know lots of people who don't, mostly due to the second part.

[Brodinski]

1985. Ran

I think 1985 is a solid year, albeit one with three films that are miles ahead of the competition. Ran got its stiffest competition from Zemeckis’ Back To The Future, which is one of the most entertaining films I’ve ever seen. It’s one hell of a ride that can be re-watched endlessly. Completing the podium is The Breakfast Club, which is one of my favourite coming-of-age films. Other films I really liked, but were never really in contention: The Color Purple, Pale Rider, The Purple Rose of Cairo, After Hours, My Life As A Dog and Prizzi’s Honor. One film that is highly regarded by many, but which I couldn’t warm to at all is Gilliam’s Brazil.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/ran1.jpg

Ever since the Japanese film industry dropped him like a brick after the expensive and problematic Red Beard, I’ve read that Akira Kurosawa had great difficulties to even direct another film. He was banned to Russia for Dersu Uzula and could only direct Kagemusha thanks to financial aid from Spielberg and Lucas. Whatever faith the Japanese once had in him was apparently still not entirely restored when Ran went into production, as Kurosawa received French support to scrape together the budget to make the film the way he wanted to. Kurosawa, then 75 years old and probably disappointed in the business he had spent his entire professional life in, once more poured his soul into a film to prove that he still had it. And did he ever…

An adaptation of Shakespeare’s King Lear, Ran is about an old warlord named Hidetora who spent his whole life fighting to eventually be the ruler of a vast empire. As he feels his old days growing on him, he decides to divide his empire among his 3 sons. His eldest son Taro gets general control over the empire and the first castle. His second son, Jiro, gets the second castle and is ordered to listen to his older brother. The third son, Saburo, gets the third castle and the same instruction as Jiro. Taro and Jiro promise to obey their father’s wishes, but Saburo is not pleased. He points out to his father that it will only be a matter of time before his 2 brothers turn against each other, plunging the country into war. Hidetora doesn’t like his son’s harsh words and bans him from his empire, which – of course – wasn’t the smartest move to make. Saburo was proven right, as his father is betrayed by his two other sons, that are heavily manipulated by Taro’s wife, Lady Kaede.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/ran2.jpg

What I find so interesting about Ran is the general vision on the world it puts forward. At the beginning of the film, Saburo doesn’t tell his father that a peaceful cooperation between himself and his 2 brothers is impossible because they have a disliking towards each other or a terrible personality or whatever. His reasoning is more general than that. What he is trying to tell his father is that he is doing something unnaturally, namely awarding greater “power” (call it whatever you want) to person A than he awards to persons B and C, without giving an explanation other than “he’s the oldest”. It seems that what Saburo is trying to convey is that people can’t share power without wanting to claim it all for themselves. Saburo believes that this has to go wrong, regardless of the individual intentions of the characters. In my opinion, this is the trademark of a true tragedy: inevitability. The sense that something could have never worked out differently, even regardless of men’s free will. Of course, the characters themselves are pretty evil, but I interpret that this is because the world they live in is corrupted.

In this sense, it’s also fascinating to see that Hidetora, who is presented as the victim of his sons’ aspirations, is not a very sympathetic figure. We learn that he has pillaged together his empire. He conquered his first castle by defeating Lady Kaede’s father and subsequently obliged her to marry his firstborn son. Can you really blame her for wanting to take revenge afterwards? Another castle he burnt to the ground and he let the daughter of that defeated lord serve as the concubine to his second son. Hidetora also stabbed out her brother’s eyes. When Hidetora, betrayed by his sons, has lost everything, he desperately seeks help at a moldered shack. The man who lives there is the brother that was blinded by Hidetora.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/ran.jpg

What Kurosawa is suggesting here, is that Hidetora is being pursued by bad karma. He is now facing the consequences of his belligerent, cruel deeds. He is being punished for the wrongs he committed in his earlier life. Life is a b!tch: the way of the world barely allows anything but you handling selfishly and destructive, but in the end you are punished for the “errors” that the world has ingrained in man’s nature.

The chance of you walking away happily after having seen Ran is thus quite slim, but the stylistic design turns it into an exciting spectacle. Everything is shot in long shot or medium shot at best. To my recollection, there is only one close-up in the film. Kurosawa keeps his camera still as much as he can, and if there are any movements from the actors, they are simple and subtle. He lets his actors move around the screen without adding much to whatever they are doing. Even the battles are filmed from a distance, with almost continuous usage of “overseeing” shots (for lack of a better word). What Kurosawa has effectively done here, is present the camera as an impassive, uninvolved God looking down on his most pathetic creature, Man. This visual style reinforces the film’s substance. Sure, Man can try to fight his evil nature and his bad karma, but God, Buddha and other Allahs don’t give a rat’s ass. They look upon it from a distance, but never intervene.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/ran6.jpg

Ran has a rather meandering pace, but it never feels drawn-out, because the plot is clear and continuously keeps developing as the story progresses. Kurosawa delivered his final masterpiece: a film with a superb story, deep themes and a gorgeous visual style with a fantastic application of primary colours. It’s my favourite Kurosawa film, save for that other masterpiece that we’ll encounter further down the line in this Best of the Year series.


4.5+

[honeykid]

Another brilliant film and, again, probably the best film of the year. I'd have probably gone with Flesh + Blood, myself, but that's just beacuse I love that film.

Have you seen/considered any of the following? To Live And Die In L.A., Vagabond (Sans toit ni loi), Subway, Mask or The Shooting Party?

[stevo3001]

An excellent pick. I might just lean towards Come and See, but it'd definitely be between that and Ran.I would also mention Tampopo and The Quiet Earth.

I agree on Brazil too.

[TylerDurden99]

Ran is an excellent choice. I watched half of it last night and plan to watch the rest today.

[Tyler1]

I would have a hard time choosing between Come and See and Ran. Nonetheless, amazing review. Kurosawa was already 75 years old when he made Ran, can you believe it?

[Brodinski]

Have you seen/considered any of the following? To Live And Die In L.A., Vagabond (Sans toit ni loi), Subway, Mask or The Shooting Party?

I like To Live and Die In L.A. It starts off really ordinary, but suspense is gradually built up. What I was most impressed with (besides the car chase obviously) was the atmosphere that was created through the visuals. I rate it 3.5, which means it just falls outside of my runners-up list.

I've also seen Mask. It's very emotional, but I like the heartwarming scenes best (makes sense I guess). It's a straightforward film with a nice ending, but I've issues with Cher, simply because I dislike her as an actress. I rate it 3+

I haven't seen the others you mention, although Vagabond and The Shooting Party intrigue me.

@ Steve: I've not seen Tampopo or The Quiet Earth. I'll try to get around to watching the latter, as that sounds very cool.

[Brodinski]

1984. Blood Simple

I think this was a pretty good year for cinema, with numerous films I liked a lot and a few I love. My runner-up is Sergio Leone’s final film, Once Upon A Time In America. It is hard to put into words just how highly I think of this film. I know for sure this is hands down the best of the year in terms of sheer quality. This is one of those times when I catch myself saying: “I can hardly believe I didn’t put this in the # 1 spot.” It’s not easy to love on the first viewing, or even the second one, but it has most certainly grown on me. Right now, I think it’s one of the greatest of epic films ever made. So why was it beaten to the top spot by Blood Simple? Simple, it’s one of my personal favourites. It’s probable that there is no one on this board that likes Blood Simple as much as I do. Therefore, I just had to put it in front of Leone’s final masterpiece. My second runner-up is Cameron’s The Terminator. Although I think T2 is superior to this one, it’s still a solid action/chase flick. There are some other films that I liked, but not enough to be in contention: Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Gremlins, The Killing Fields, Amadeus, Repo Men, Stranger Than Paradise, This is Spinal Tap and Beverly Hills Cop. I realize my choice for Blood Simple is highly personal. I bet there’s people here who rate Once Upon A Time In America, Amadeus, Ghostbusters and Amadeus ahead of it. That’s cool, but Blood Simple has been a longtime favourite of mine for reasons that are hard to explain. I’ll still give it a go though.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/blood1.jpg

Blood Simple takes place in a sweaty, broodingly hot remote corner of Texas, where bar owner Julian Marty (Dan Hedaya) discovers that his wife Abby (Frances McDormand) is having an affair with his bartender, Ray (John Getz). Marty isn’t exactly happy about this – to put it lightly – and hires the grubby private detective Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh) to kill his wife and Ray. Visser thinks this over for a bit, only to decide that it’s much easier to just kill Marty and take the money he was supposed to receive for the assassination of Abby and Ray.

This is just the beginning of a web of intrigues that makes perfect sense in its context if you at least take the time to consider the motivations of the various characters. There are no sympathetic figures in Blood Simple. Marty is a vicious scrub of a man; Visser is a slime who won’t shrink back of murder and even Abby and Ray don’t even seem to be all that attracted to each other. The only thing they truly seem to have in common is hatred towards Marty. What I am getting at is that everyone is trying to look after their own interest and this is what ultimately drives the characters. On any given moment throughout the story, they undertake the action that delivers them the most short-term gain. In this sense, Blood Simple’s screenplay is picture perfect, as I haven’t been able to find one single fault against that logic of self-interest and personal gain.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/bloodsimple2.jpg

To a certain extent, thrillers, especially suspense thrillers like Blood Simple, depend on the information that is given to the viewers as opposed to the information that is given to the characters involved. You don’t need a college degree to see that there are 3 ways to go with this information relationship between viewers and characters. Either you give your viewers less information than you give your characters, à la The Usual Suspects. Option two is to let your viewers know as much as your characters, which is the case in most thrillers. Or you can give your viewers more information than the characters involved. It’s the third option that the Coens have chosen in Blood Simple. This means that we – being the viewers – realize why a character is undertaking a certain action, but the characters themselves don’t know everything about the situation they’re in, which often causes them to take wrong decisions. Like I said before, their actions make sense according to the information they have at their disposal, but as a viewer, you can’t help but think: “what are you doing, you twat!” This is what suspense is all about. Hitchcock once said that “there is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.” In Blood Simple, all characters are sitting on ticking time bombs without being aware of it, which means that it can’t possibly end well for all of them, or perhaps even for any of them.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/bloodsimple.jpg

The Coens don’t merely excel in the establishment of suspenseful scenes, but also in their execution. Dialogue is avoided whenever possible and realism permeates every scene in Blood Simple. Take for instance the sequence where Ray attempts to dispose of a dead body. This sequence takes about 15 minutes while barely a word is spoken. The Coens unscrupulously stretch the length of the scene without it getting boring. The horror of what is happening isn’t being hushed up, but shown to great extent. What could have been a boring, wordless bit of film is instead a suspenseful scene that has you on the edge of your seat.

The film’s cinematography is terrific, a testament to budget film photography that can be great without the help of a multi-million dollar budget. I believe that the lighting is mostly realistic, unlike the highly stylized lighting in the classic noir films of the likes of Siodmak. Camera man Barry Sonnenfeld (who would later go on to direct the Men In Black films) finds beautiful nuances in the dark Texan sky during the outdoor scenes. The use of contrasts between light and dark is phenomenal. This is particularly noticeable in one of the final scenes where Visser shoots holes in a wall. In the one room, it’s dark whereas the adjacent room is lighted. We thus see the beams of light shine through the bullet holes. Blood Simple is immersed in this kind of simplistic, raw beauty, which is one of main reasons why I like it so much.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Blood-Simple.jpg

Every piece of the puzzle fits in Blood Simple: from the plot and the characters over the logical progression and the dialogue to the score, the cinematography and the tone. It’s rare that I cannot fault anything in a film. Blood Simple is such a rare case. It is a brilliant film that makes a strong case to be in my top 20 of all time. Yep, that’s how highly I think of it.


5

[TheUsualSuspect]

I loved reading your thoughts on this film. I enjoyed it, but not as much as you do. We already had a bit of a discussion on the film in my One A Day Review Thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=621744)

What's your take on the final image?

[TylerDurden99]

I will have to see Blood Simple.

[nebbit]

I will have to see Blood Simple.
You should it is good :yup:

[Tyler1]

Fantastic review! Though i wouldn't call it the best film the Coen Brothers have to offer. That title goes to Barton Fink. Nevertheless, i will try to rewatch Blood Simple again. Currently i'll give it no more than 4/5.

[mark f]

I give it 3/5, but it's good. :cool:

[Fiscal]

I plan on watching every film you have listed that I haven't seen. I agree with virtually every write up you have produced for the films I have watched. What better place to find new films than from a guy that has nearly identical taste in films but a much larger brain catalog :cool:

[Brodinski]

Thanks for all the comments and rep, guys. It's much appreciated.

@ TUS: I had some theories on the final image until I read this post (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086979/board/flat/123820050?p=1) on IMDB. ******* Coens, playing tricks on our minds...

@ Tyler Durden: You most definitely should. All of the Coens' films are worth-watching, even their mediocre efforts Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers.

@ Tyler1: I don't know about Barton Fink. A bit too 'strange' and philosophical for my taste, but most certainly a very thought-provoking and daring effort. I think I mentioned it in my runners-up list of 1991, although it barely made that.

@ Mark: pfft, 3? Booo ;)

@ Fiscal: thanks buddy. Good to see you back in this thread. Your input has been missed. Indeed, our tastes match quite well. Are you going to continue / finish your new top 100? I remember you getting started with it like 2 months ago, but don't know what happened with it. Did I miss something or... ?


EDIT: btw, I'm taking a short break from this countdown. I've lots of stuff going on at uni right now and I still have to finish my write-up for 1983 and completely do my review of my 1981 pick. The 1983 pick should be up in about a week though.

[Brodinski]

1983. The King of Comedy

I have to say that this is a very weak year for me. I think it’s by far the worst since the start of this countdown. My runner-up is Scarface, which used to be a favourite of mine some time ago, but my appreciation for it has lessened after a few re-watches. Completing the top 3 for 1983 is Bresson’s L’Argent. It’s not an easy film to digest, but it cuts very deep and does so with surgical precision. Another one that deserves a special mention is A Christmas Story, which is my favourite Christmas film, along with Home Alone. Other films, mostly world cinema, that I enjoyed, but aren’t great by any measure: A Nos Amours, Trading Places, Christine, Local Hero, Testament and Pauline à la Plage. Woody Allen’s 1980 output I generally like, but Zelig is not my cup of tea. It had its moments, but overall, it’s not up to par with most of his other 80s films. I liked Terms of Endearment to a certain extent, especially Jack Nicholson and Shirley Maclaine’s performances. Nicholson is such a powerhouse that his mere presence in a film is usually enough for me to at least like the parts where he’s on the screen. Two films that I have not seen from 1983 that might have appeared in the runners-up section are the Palme d’Or winner The Ballad of Narayama and The Makioka Sisters. I wanted to see them, but unfortunately couldn’t get a “hold” of them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/84/Kingofcomedy.jpg/220px-Kingofcomedy.jpg

Robert DeNiro portrays Rupert Pupkin, a wannabe stand-up comedian who fancies himself the next big comedy star. Unfortunately for Rupert, he hasn’t got any further than the immensely successful shows… in his basement, while his mom yells for him to be quieter. Pupkin’s idol is Jerry Langford (Jerry Lewis), the presenter of a very popular TV-show, which is modeled after Johnny Carson’s The Tonight Show. One night, Pupkin seizes his chance to talk to Langford. After this conversation, Rupert wrongfully thinks he’s friends with Langford. So, he starts sending him tapes of his material and harasses the popular TV presenter with unannounced visits. When Pupkin finally figures out that Langford isn’t interested in his jokes, he decides to undertake drastic measures: he takes Langford hostage and demands to show his comedic talents on Langford’s show as ransom.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__9UFe0zlhT8/TPrnRdimTOI/AAAAAAAAAI8/2Dx1D_3bLs8/s1600/King+of+Comedy.jpg

A central theme in The King of Comedy is the desire to be famous and loved at all expenses. Nowadays, this idea is old news. Being a celebrity is a goal that seems to have little to do with talent or artistic ambition. Just look at the countless reality shows and sex tapes. Kim Kardashian starred in a ‘leaked’ sex tape and before you know it, there’s a reality show running about her and her family. I get the feeling that some of these celebrities don’t even want to achieve something. After all, why would you put all that energy into a good performance or making a good album (or whatever) when you can also try to make the high lines in less strenuous ways. Ever since The King of Comedy, some people display a near pathological urge to be in the spotlight. In a certain sense, the film’s fiction has thus been surpassed by reality. Rupert Pupkin doesn’t have a lick of comedic talent, but he is clearly a ‘loser’ who spent his life idolizing people that are more successful than him. He wants to take revenge on everyone who told him he won’t make it to stardom by being a TV-star, if only for one night.

http://filmfanatic.org/reviews/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/king-of-comedy-lewis.png

This is also something that featured prominently in Taxi Driver. Travis Bickle is a character that wanted to break free from anonymity and his isolated life, but had no clue on how to exactly do it. Pupkin seems less dangerous, but the threat he emanates is very much perceptible. Just watch during the conversations he has with Langford’s secretary. The tone of Pupkin’s voice is always polite, but he keeps getting more and more virulent in the manner in which he insists. You get the impression that this is a man who knows how to control his emotions, but might just as well explode with frustration.

Scorsese made an uncomfortable film about a man desperately looking for attention and affection. As he can’t find what he seeks with a single individual in his life, he goes looking for it with the masses. Stand-up comedy is just a means of achieving that goal and as a result, it’s irrelevant. The stress shouldn’t be put on comedy but on the king. By today’s standards, the film feels a tad dated (we see crazier stuff on the telly nearly every day) but the observation of the main characters is razor sharp and the screenplay manages to dance on a tight-rope between comedy and downright creepiness. Scorsese has certainly made finer films, but The King of Comedy is certainly one, if not the most underrated film in his oeuvre.


4

[The Prestige]

I haven't read your King Of Comedy review yet, but I absolutely loved your Blood Simple review. That was honestly one of the most thought provoking and enjoyable reviews I have read on this site, which is saying a LOT. Your analysis on the relationship between the spectator and the amount of information given to us could not have been more spot. I guess that's another reason I have always liked noir films. The restricted information we're given as viewers automatically gives us a bonding with the characters, I feel. When we learn info as they learn it, I think we're encouraged to care about the characters more, and that type of storytelling is typical of 40's noirs. I also like the other approaches too.

Blood Simple really is my favourite genre of film if I ever had one and I am very glad you put it on here.

I've yet to see Ran but I have made it my personal mission to see every film that came out in the year I was born :D.

Great stuff mate and will look over King Of Comedyin a bit.

[nebbit]

Thanks I :love: The King of Comedy :yup:

[TylerDurden99]

The King Of Comedy is the Scorsese film I'm most interested in seeing. I also think 1983 was a weak year for film.

[honeykid]

Brodinski, did you consider any of the following: Videodrome, Wargames, Trading Places, Silkwood, The Right Stuff, Merry Christmas Mr. Laurence, The Hunger.

I agree with you that 1983 seems to be a rather poor year. but I don't know that I'd call it the worst year you've reviewed.

[Tyler1]

My favourite film from 1983 would be Videodrome. :D

[Brodinski]

Brodinski, did you consider any of the following: Videodrome, Wargames, Trading Places, Silkwood, The Right Stuff, Merry Christmas Mr. Laurence, The Hunger.

I agree with you that 1983 seems to be a rather poor year. but I don't know that I'd call it the worst year you've reviewed.

Completely forgot about Trading Places. I like that film quite a bit. I've put it in my runners-up section.

I've watched The Right Stuff a long time ago, probably when I was 14 or 15. I don't remember much of it, except that it felt a bit long. I need to revisit it before I can comment.

I see where you're going with The Hunger - it being a bit of a cult-classic - but I disliked it. I thought it was a bad case of style over substance with the style not being particularly good either. It's been a while since I've seen it, but as of now I rate it 2

As for Wargames, I've watched it a long time ago and I remember thinking that there are some blatant holes in the plot.

I've not yet watched Silkwood, Merry Christmas Mr. Laurence and Videodrome. I did read some good stuff about Videodrome, so perhaps I should check that one out.

[Brodinski]

1982. The Thing

1982 was a monumental year for cinema, but rather for world cinema than Hollywood. My runner-up is Bergman’s Fanny and Alexander. Bergman remains one of my biggest blind spots in world cinema, as I have only recently seen Fanny and Alexander for the purpose of this countdown. It’s the only Bergman I’ve ever seen, but having said that, Fanny and Alexander had a profound enough impact on me to grant it my # 1 runner-up position and it took a great horror film to supplant it from the top position. My second runner-up is Costa-Gavras’ Missing, which is a compelling, powerful political thriller with yet another hall of fame worthy performance by the grand Jack Lemmon. Another 1982 standout is crazy Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo. It’s an insane two and a half hour ride and I was amazed at how many shifts in tone there were throughout the film. Other films that I really liked, but were never really in contention are: E.T., Gandhi, The Verdict, Diner, First Blood, Fast Times at Ridgemont High (not exactly for the scene you’re thinking about right now) and Tootsie. Films that I haven’t yet seen, either due to a lack of time or because I couldn’t find them, are: Night of the Shooting Stars, Veronika Voss and The Draughtman’s Contract (particularly regrettable, as linespalsy’s movie tab entry about this one intrigued me). A film that I didn’t care for much, but am sure many here like is Blade Runner. It’s not that I think it’s bad; I just don’t hold it in the high regard that many clearly do.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/thing.jpg

The Thing focuses on a group of American scientists working in Antarctica. We are given no specifics as to why they are there, but are thrust into their existence by means of a spectacular opening scene. Near the American base camp, a husky dog is being chased by two crazed, armed Norwegians in a helicopter who are desperately trying to kill the animal. The sequence is long, slow and tone-setting, giving you a good sense of just how remote a place this story takes place in. The Norwegians die and the dog manages to find its way into the American scientists’ base.

It soon becomes clear that the dog isn’t an animal, but rather a shape-shifting alien that is capable to eat its victim and to subsequently take its form. The alien is able to imitate its victims so well that it is damn near impossible to tell the difference. As a result, the humans can’t separate their friends from their enemy anymore, as they fight a desperate struggle for survival in one of the most remote places on earth.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/thing3.jpg

Once the Americans, led by anti-hero R.J. MacReady (Kurt Russell) have figured out more or less what they’re up against, they try to fight the alien using their wits instead of their firepower. But how can this alien be exposed? Just how many of these “things” are there? If they do manage to expose it (or them?), can it be destroyed? And will they be able to work together long enough to achieve all of this or will doubt and paranoia set in, turning them against each other?

What Carpenter has done very effectively here is create an eerie, haunting atmosphere right from the opening sequence. You really get a good sense of just how massive and desolate a place these men find themselves in and that they really have no place to run or hide. They are isolated from civilization and when they realize that the alien would gladly escape the icy hell together with them, it’s clear that fleeing to populated areas isn’t an option until the thing is destroyed. I think this feeling is further reinforced by Morricone’s moody score that at times is a bit inappropriate, but it did spook me quite a bit.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/thing1.jpg

Carpenter blended this eerie atmosphere with well-timed visceral horror. What I like is that the spectacular special effects aren’t used in a gratuitous manner. They are precisely timed to serve as the climax of haunting, suspenseful scenes. And boy, are those special effects something. Effects artist Rob Bottin turned in incredible pieces of work. The transformations are of the highest quality I’ve ever seen. Almost 30 years after its release, they are still frighteningly realistic. As great as the special effects are, the film’s best moments are its quieter ones. These are moments of true horror, especially when paranoia and doubt get a foothold in the men’s minds.

Kurt Russell is solid as R.J. MacReady, as he manages to effectively and realistically convey the emotions of a man who is in a position where he has to lead a group of men (quite literally, as there are no women in the film!) who seem to be falling apart as the story progresses. The paranoia is almost tangible, as the remaining humans have no idea if the man next to them is a human or the alien life form that has driven them to near-madness.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/thing2.jpg

It also needs to be said that the ending is brilliant. I have tried to come up with ways of how the ending could be altered to make it even better, but have come up with none. I won’t give anything away when I say that The Thing’s ending is a perfect, thought-provoking conclusion to a terrific horror film. Comparisons between The Thing and Ridley Scott’s Alien are valid. They’re both about a group of humans stranded in an isolated environment going up against a horrific creature that they know little about. In my book, The Thing can easily trade blows with Ridley Scott’s iconic Alien and it’s a toss-up which one is best.

I am not big on horror, so me picking The Thing as the # 1 film of the marvelous 1982 speaks volumes about how highly I think of it. It is a unique, ingenuous, truly scary film that is not only Carpenter’s best, but one of the best horror films I’ve ever seen.


5

[Justin]

Great review, I love The Thing.

[Tyler1]

I absolutely adore this film. The beginning is a little slow but then it gradually builds up and soars from there.

[TylerDurden99]

The Thing is awesome.

[Brodinski]

1981. Raiders of the Lost Ark

1981 was a pretty solid year, although I don’t rate it too highly in comparison with most other years of the 80s. My first runner-up is an obscure Brazilian film, Pixote. It’s a brutal showing of kids growing up on the streets of Brazil. If you decide to ever watch it, it’s not light material. By the end of it, you’ll feel kind of drained emotionally, but there is no denying the profound impact it will no doubt have on you. My second runner-up has to be Wolfgang Petersen’s Das Boot. I’m no fan of the guy, but the feeling of claustrophobia he was able to recreate here is impressive. Other films that I like are: Gallipoli, Thief, La Pont du Nord, Excalibur, The Evil Dead, Absence of Malice and Blow Out.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/raiders.jpg

The plot of Raiders of The Lost Ark hardly needs explaining. Indiana Jones, archeologist / adventurer starts a search for the Ark of the Covenant before the Nazi’s can get a hold of it. Together with his former girlfriend Marion Ravenwood, he travels from Nepal to Egypt to prevent the Führer from adding this biblical relict to his weapons arsenal.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is a pretty absurd film. Nazi’s on the prowl for the ultimate Jewish artifact, not to destroy it (as you would expect) but to use as a weapon. Smaller, but no less laughable events that lack every logic frequently pop up throughout the film. Take the legendary opening scene where Indiana is trying to escape from a giant stone ball. Now, you could question just how many people would’ve been necessary to place that stone there, but what’s ‘bothering’ me (well, not really) is that when Indy jumps out of the cave, the stone just magically disappears. Another example would be the scene where Indy jumps from a boat to dive towards a German submarine. We last see him walking on top of the submarine. Okay, that’s all good and well, but just HOW exactly does he make his way into the submarine? Or is he simply holding on to the periscope all the time?

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/raiders1.jpg

In many other films, these illogical events would annoy the living hell out of me. In Raiders of the Lost Ark however, they are part of what makes the film such irresistible fun. The Indiana Jones series is based on the old adventure films of the 30s when people didn’t give two sh!ts about plot logic, but simply wanted to be on the edge of their seats. In essence, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a chain of mostly grand set pieces, big action sequences that are beautifully captured and full of wit. The fact that logic is at times thrown overboard doesn’t matter.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/raiders2.jpg

And boy, are those action scenes impressive or what? Spielberg knows how to put together a large action sequence that is well-paced (not that flash montage crap you’re bombarded with nowadays) while ensuring that your viewer can still orientate himself. What bothers me about many action films today is their montage. There seems to be a trend of editing within the action scenes. What I mean is, you see one person swing a punch – CUT – the punch lands – CUT – you go back to the person who sweeps the other guy to the floor, and so on. And apparently, working with slow-motion and close-up is frequent practice when filming fistfights nowadays. As a result, those scenes can be very confusing and annoying, because you lose track of the big picture. None of that in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Most of Spielberg’s action sequences are filmed in wide-shot or medium shot at best to ensure that you have a lovely overview of the scene. What I’m trying to convey here is that Raiders of the Lost Ark is visually very clearly structured, particularly the action scenes.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/raiders3.jpg

Raiders of the Lost Ark still remains the pinnacle of what one can reach in the action / adventure genre. It’s bullsh!t, but bullsh!t with an incredible flair to it that is visually top notch and very witty at times. I prefer The Last Crusade by the smallest of margins, but both films are pretty much the best you can see in the action/adventure genre.

4.5+

[TylerDurden99]

Another excellent pick :up:. When I first saw this film, my jaw dropped in excitement! Again, great pick.

[The Prestige]

Great review of The Thing. I agree that it's probably Carpenter's best film. The mix of suspense, paranoia and out of this world special effects is extremely effective. I think I was about 8 or 9 (!) where I first saw a few scenes of the film. It was randomly on TV and remember seeing the dog scene and the bit where Kurt taunts one of the crew members with the fire and The Thing just lets out this howl while in this really hideous form. That image has haunted me since that day. The blood test scene is also very well executed and probably the hardest for me to look at (Hate little bits of blood poppin' out of the skin).

I also agree with you about the special effects. Amazing. Apparently the upcoming prequel will feature a similar approach which could work. You heard much on it?

I still would have picked Blade Runner though. It's one of those films where I can understand why somebody wouldn't love or even like it much, but it's also one of those that I think might need to be seen more than once. How many times have you seen it?

[honeykid]

As always I have a few suggestions, though as you chose Raiders, I could produce a pretty long list of films I'd rather watch :p, however, some serious contenders.

An American Werewolf In London, Christine F, Chariots Of Fire, Southern Comfort, Ms. 45. I'd also be tempted to throw in Roadgames, Happy Birthday To Me, Cannonball Run and Nighthawks, but I wouldn't expect to see them mentioned.

BTW, Das Boot or Pixote would've been excellent choices, IMO, and I'm pleased to see that you rated them highly, too. Have you seen Who Killed Pixote?

[Brodinski]

Great review of The Thing. I agree that it's probably Carpenter's best film. The mix of suspense, paranoia and out of this world special effects is extremely effective. I think I was about 8 or 9 (!) where I first saw a few scenes of the film. It was randomly on TV and remember seeing the dog scene and the bit where Kurt taunts one of the crew members with the fire and The Thing just lets out this howl while in this really hideous form. That image has haunted me since that day. The blood test scene is also very well executed and probably the hardest for me to look at (Hate little bits of blood poppin' out of the skin).

I also agree with you about the special effects. Amazing. Apparently the upcoming prequel will feature a similar approach which could work. You heard much on it?

I still would have picked Blade Runner though. It's one of those films where I can understand why somebody wouldn't love or even like it much, but it's also one of those that I think might need to be seen more than once. How many times have you seen it?


I concur that the blood test scene is one of the most chilling and effective ones. Like I said, the more quieter moments are the most horrifying ones in The Thing. No, I haven't heard anything about a prequel. I'll watch it when (if?) it's released, but I'm not setting my hopes too high for it.

I've seen Blade Runner twice. I never could really warm to it.

[Brodinski]

As always I have a few suggestions, though as you chose Raiders, I could produce a pretty long list of films I'd rather watch :p, however, some serious contenders.

An American Werewolf In London, Christine F, Chariots Of Fire, Southern Comfort, Ms. 45. I'd also be tempted to throw in Roadgames, Happy Birthday To Me, Cannonball Run and Nighthawks, but I wouldn't expect to see them mentioned.

BTW, Das Boot or Pixote would've been excellent choices, IMO, and I'm pleased to see that you rated them highly, too. Have you seen Who Killed Pixote?

I have some issues with An American Werewolf in London that I addressed in the Movie Club thread on that film. I dislike Chariots of Fire. I don't think there's anything special about that film and I especially dislike the dialogue and the acting. And the climax is ridiculous. It has a few good moments, but overall I was very dissapointed by it. Southern Comfort is pretty good, but I didn't like the ending. Without that, it would of ended up in the runners-up section.

I've not yet watched Roadgames, but the premise sounds very interesting. I'll add that to the ever-changing to-watch list.

No, I haven't watched Who Killed Pixote. Seems even more obscure than Pixote. Is it better or... ?

[Brodinski]

I'll put up my 80s pick tomorrow. It's my longest review so far.

[Tyler1]

1980 - Raging bull... holds breath...

[TylerDurden99]

1980 - Raging bull... holds breath...

Thinking the same thing, either Raging Bull or The Empire Strikes Back.

[Brodinski]

1980. Raging Bull

As you probably know by now, I usually start every entry in this series by naming my runners-up of the year. These are films that fell just short of the # 1 spot or simply films that I really liked, but were never in contention for the top spot. For the first time in this series, I refrain from naming my runners-up; my contenders (to get in the boxing spirit a bit), if you will, for film of the year. There are no contenders this year, even though there were a LOT of good to excellent films released in 1980. No film released in 1980, or in fact the entire 80s, can touch my # 1 pick (MC Hammer style). Raging Bull demolishes its competition, much like Jake LaMotta used to demolish most of his opponents during his prime in the 40s and 50s.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/raging.jpg

If there is anything I love more than watching films, it’s watching and practicing boxing. I picked it up at the age of 16 when I saw a taped fight at a friend’s house. I saw Roy Jones Jr. knock out his opponent, Otis Grant, with a right to the temple. Only a split second before that devastating blow, Jones Jr. kept his hands behind his back, so as to taunt his opponent. It’s what got me into the sport, first as an avid fan, then as a practitioner myself. No, I never got to fight professionally (and never will), but I have some amateur bouts under my belt and basically just enjoy practicing and learning the sweet science. Knowing as much about the sport as I do, I will be the first to be quite critical of a boxing film. Even some that are critically acclaimed I have serious issues with: I didn’t like Million Dollar Baby and Rocky. I’ll go ahead now and state the obvious: Raging Bull is the best boxing film ever made. In fact, Raging Bull is the best sports film ever made.

This is going to be a long read. No one has ever accused me of brevity when it comes to reviewing films, but even for my standards, this will be a mammoth.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/raging-bull2.jpg

Raging Bull was based on the memoires of Jake LaMotta (Robert DeNiro), a boxer hailing from the Bronx, who during the 40s and 50s was at the pinnacle of the middleweight division. He was the World Middleweight Champion from 1949 to 1951 and, perhaps more importantly, the first man to ever beat the greatest ever, Sugar Ray Robinson. The film tells the story of how Jake met his wife, Vicky (Cathy Moriarty); his constant struggle to cut weight and especially his mental problems. LaMotta was a sickeningly jealous husband who couldn’t stand seeing a single man talk to or look at his wife, not even if it was his own brother, Joey (Joe Pesci). As the years go by, he becomes more and more violent and thus insufferable to live with. As a result, life slowly slips through Jake’s hands: his wife Vicky leaves him, his brother no longer wants anything to do with him and in the ring, he is just a shimmer of the once fit athlete who was the first to make Sugar Ray Robinson taste defeat. Eventually, he opens a nightclub in Florida where he spends his nights entertaining his guests, sponging off his reputation as a boxing legend.

One could say that Raging Bull is a boxing film and one would indeed be right. Yet categorizing this film as just that, would be an insult to the drama of Jake LaMotta’s life that is retold in Raging Bull. In essence, Raging Bull is a character study of an insecure man. In fact, LaMotta is so insecure about himself, his sexuality and what others think of him, that he constantly feels the need to prove to everyone that he is a real man; a force to be reckoned with. Let me ask you this: why do kids fight? They mostly don’t fight because they want to hurt each other per se, but rather to make a point: “I’m the boss around here!”

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/raging-bull3.jpg

Jake LaMotta had everything a young man could dream of. With every fight, he was seemingly unstoppably inching closer to the coveted World Title. He was married to a beautiful woman. His family loved him; his brother Joey stood by him through thick and thin. It seems like the best a young kid from the Bronx could hope for. And yet, throughout the film, we never see Jake be truly happy. Sure, he will occasionally laugh or smile, but there is always this underlying uneasiness when he interacts with other people. It’s as if he’s afraid that they are judging him. So, Jake acts like a child that has to make it clear to everyone who’s boss. And LaMotta does not spare anyone from his violent outbursts: he hits his wife, his brother and the few friends he has. I believe that he doesn’t do this to hurt them, but rather to keep them close to him: Stay with me and love me, or else… In reality, Jake isn’t only fighting his opponents in the ring, he is also fighting his own demons and unlike most of his opponents, these he cannot overcome. Because LaMotta is so afraid that the people close to him will leave him or betray him, he resorts to the one argument that always tips the scale into his advantage: violence.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/raging_bull.jpg

This is also where LaMotta’s fights in the ring can be interpreted on a meta-level. You can look at them in a twofold way. Firstly, they serve as an outlet for LaMotta’s violent nature. In the ring, he can beat up guys all he wants and he does a splendid job at it. Vicky once made a remark that she found a certain boxer to be quite pretty. Later, LaMotta has to fight this man. He gave the kid a hellacious beating. In slow motion, we see the blood gushing from his face. We literally see his nose break from one of Jake’s power punches. The Bronx Bull shows us how he earned his nickname and we hear one of the ringside commentators say: “he ain’t pretty no more.” This was exactly LaMotta’s intention and Scorsese inserts a meaningful close-up of Vicky’s face. She got the message all too well.

Secondly, juxtaposed to the punishment LaMotta dishes out to his opponents, he isn’t scared of taking a punch either. It seems that in the ring, Jake penances for his sins by absorbing terrible punishment at the hands of Sugar Ray Robinson. It is a well-known fact in boxing that LaMotta’s chin was the stuff of legends. His defense remains underrated throughout history, but that doesn’t take away the fact that he was able to shake off punches that would’ve laid out just about any other man. As Scorsese once named the ring “an allegory for life”, it seems as if he and his screenwriter Paul Schrader wanted to make it look like Jake’s ability to absorb huge punches like a sponge isn’t just a case of toughness, but also a means of being punished for his sins. It’s like he’s saying in the ring: “I know what I do is wrong on some level, but I just can’t express it so I’ll do my penance in the ring.”

What Scorsese realized on a visual level, especially the fight scenes, in Raging Bull is – for lack of a better word – achingly beautiful. Before Raging Bull, boxing matches were pretty much always filmed from outside the ring. Scorsese not only brings the camera into the ring, but turns LaMotta’s fights into a sort of ballet through the use of slow-motion and Thelma Schoonmaker’s grand editing. Just watch the scene where we see the steam raise from Jake’s body. He really does look like a Raging Bull. Time and time again, in slow-mo, we see the punches make contact with his opponent’s body. The blood and sweat flies all over the place. During the final boxing scene of the film, we see a ray of blood splatter the people sitting on the first row. Subsequently, Scorsese slowly moves his camera upward, from Jake’s feet to his face. His entire body – even his legs – is covered in blood, his eye is swollen shut. There is no air of glamour attached to the sweet science in Raging Bull. It’s man against man in there. I have never seen the physical aspect of boxing, the pain and bloodshed that is an essential part of the sport, reproduced in such a realistic and believable manner as it was in Raging Bull. Michael Mann made a decent effort with Ali, where he managed to give the viewer a good sense of the intensity of the sport of boxing, but the film lacked the poetic beauty of Michael Chapman’s black-and-white cinematography.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/Raging_Bull1.jpg

The team that was responsible for the realization of Taxi Driver is largely the same for Raging Bull. Naturally, there are the usual suspects: Scorsese directing, Schrader writing the screenplay and DeNiro acting. But there’s another man that deserves special praise: Michael Chapman, the director of photography. He did an extraordinary job in Raging Bull and I’m not just talking about the virtuoso boxing scenes. My favourite scene of the entire film comes near the end. Jake LaMotta is arrested in Florida for intercourse with a minor. We see LaMotta in his cell, a single ray of light on him. As a result, LaMotta is a mere silhouette, a shell of the fighter he once was. He is pounding his hands and head to the wall while lamenting: “stupid, stupid, stupid…” Once again, LaMotta punishes himself for his acts. And I think the minimalist photography adds a lot to the emotional impact of that scene.

I’ve not yet gotten around to speaking about the performances. DeNiro, who portrays Jake LaMotta, actually came up with the idea of making the biopic. He became infatuated with LaMotta’s life after having read the man’s autobiography. As soon as Scorsese and Schrader came aboard, the project went into production and DeNiro immersed himself in the persona of The Bronx Bull. He met extensively with the man himself, his brother Joey and even his ex-wife Vicki. I’ve read that DeNiro even trained boxing with LaMotta and trainer Al Silvani, so as to make the fights look more realistic.

However, it is not DeNiro’s acting when in the ring that makes his performance so memorable. It’s his ability to communicate LaMotta’s mental issues. Like I said, there’s always this undercurrent of fear of being left or betrayed running through Jake’s head. The fact that DeNiro is able to effectively communicate this in a genuine way is a testament to his terrific acting skills. To this day, some of the scenes deeply unsettle me. When Jake starts beating his brother, convinced that he had a relationship with Vicki, I just cringe. This is the Robert DeNiro that I’ll remember, not the man making a clown of himself in Analyze This or Meet the Parents.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/ForgotsoFatso/raging-bull4.jpg

The other standout role is that of Joe Pesci as Jake’s brother Joey. He is as loyal a brother as he can be, training Jake, making him watch out for his weight and keeping the mafia at bay as best he can. It’s heartbreaking to see him get almost nothing in return from Jake, except distrust and a beating. You can think of Pesci what you want, but at his best, he is one of the finest actors I’ve seen on the screen.

Phew, I think I’ve mentioned pretty much everything I wanted to address. If you’ve taken the time to read through all of this, then I hope you understand by now why I think that this film is such a seminal achievement. Raging Bull not only captured LaMotta’s pugilist expertise, but also his violent, mentally uncertain persona, beautifully elucidating his success and adversity both inside and outside of the ring. After this gushing and knowing my love of boxing, I guess the one question left to answer is whether I consider Raging Bull to be my all-time personal favourite. Well, it’s in my top 5 and (much as is the case with Magnolia) after every re-watch I catch myself thinking that Raging Bull is the greatest film of all time… until I re-watch one of the other 4 in my top 5.


5

[Tyler1]

Bravo!! :D My favourite Scorsese film.

[nebbit]

Fantastic review Brod :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Always love how in depth you go with your reviews in this thread. While I don't love Raging Bull, I can appreciate it and I love how much you love it.

[TylerDurden99]

Excellent choice, Brodinski. While I don't think it's Scorsese's best, it's still a fantastic film, with some of the greatest performances ever. Again, great choice.

[Justin]

Yeah, terrific choice. It might be my favorite Scorsese.

Good write-ups, too.

[Brodinski]

The 80s have been completed. I've once again tried to rank my top picks:

00s

1) City of God (2002)
2) Lost in Translation (2003)
3) The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (2007)
4) Mulholland Drive (2001)
5) Inglourious Basterds (2009)
6) Traffic (2000)
7) 35 Shots of Rum (2008)
8) Babel (2006)
9) Dogville (2004)
10) Syriana (2005)

90s

1) Magnolia (1999)
2) The Big Lebowski (1998)
3) As Good As It Gets (1997)
4) Goodfellas (1990)
5) Trainspotting (1996)
6) Heat (1995)
7) Unforgiven (1992)
8) Schindler's List (1993)
9) Pulp Fiction (1994)
10) Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

80s

1)Raging Bull (1980)
2)Blood Simple (1984)
3)Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
4)Full Metal Jacket (1987)
5)Cinema Paradiso (1988)
6)Jean de Florette + Manon des Sources (1986)
7)The Thing(1982)
8)Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
9)Ran(1985)
10)The King of Comedy (1983)


There's not getting past Raging Bull, which is up there with my top 5 films of all time. None of the films on this list will ever knock it off that # 1 spot of the 80s. In fact, in the 00s, 90s and 80s, there's only one film that can really trade blows with Raging Bull and that's Magnolia.

Blood Simple is what I consider to be as close to a perfect film as one can get. I've already praised it enough in my review, so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice to say, it stands firmly at # 2 of the decade.

Numbers 3 to 5 are interchangeable. Depending on the day you ask me, they could switch places. Cinema Paradiso packs the biggest emotional punch, Full Metal Jacket contains arguably the finest 45 minutes of cinema I've ever seen and The Last Crusade is possibly the best action/adventure film I've seen.

Jean de Florette + Manon des Sources is fixed at # 6. I think it's an all-around more accomplished film than The Thing, which nonetheless stands firmly at # 7. In spite of it being in my top 3 horror films ever, it 'only' made # 7, which probably says more about me than about the film itself.

I'm sure that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Ran may seem a tad too low for some, but I'm not always in the mood for a film like Ran and I prefer Last Crusade over Raiders.

The King of Comedy is far and away the worst of the bunch. I could pick about 20 runners-up from other years that could take its spot had they been released in 1983.


The 70s?

What's certain is that I'll do the 70s, but the exact date when the countdown will begin is as of yet undetermined. I still have a LOT of important 70s films to watch before I can actually start doing any write-ups. I wouldn't want to just go ahead with it and not have seen 40 % of the critically-acclaimed 70s films. If you want to do something, do it right.

I reckon the earliest start to the 70s countdown will be late 2011. I'll dig up this thread when I have a more precise date.

Thanks for all your positive comments and rep so far. It is - as always - much appreciated.

[Pyro Tramp]

Im hoping to get some interesting new films to watch from the 70s, excellent decade for filmmaking

[The Prestige]

Love the way you write and how insightful you are. But you knew that.

I'm actually going to watch Raging Bull again because of this review.I am not a massive fan of it but I did admire it's artistic achievements. The film just struck me as a little TOO cold, even for me. But then, I last saw this about 5 years ago, so perhaps I can handle the bleakness more.

Didn't know you did some amateur stuff, Brod's. I actually trained Muay Thai (Thai boxing) for a few years during my teens which as you know involves some boxing techniques, so I kinda relate to you in appreciating the level of detail Scorsese goes into showing the pain and blood and genuine nastiness of the sport. I never even had amateur muay thai bouts. I was never that into it and I don't even think I would have been good anyways. But I would have intense sparring sessions where me and an opponent would go as hard as 80%. This with about 16oz soft gloves on..and I would STILL feel like a fragile mess for a few days or so. It wasn't 'workout soreness' but genuine pain from having the body and face battered. I didn't and don't have the heart for that type of thing which is why I admire thai boxers, mma fighters and general boxers out there because when they go out and do the real thing I get a good understanding of the intensity and physical impact of the damage they take and inflict. Raging Bull takes that into account but the slow mo gives it a poetic touch. The bit where LaMotta throws the fight is pretty difficult to watch. Full twisting haymakers and body shots? This is the only film I can think of that makes those punches look unglamourous. I think fighters are very special athletes. A normal person couldn't be a fighter. You need a different mentality for that ****. It takes a special person go out there and test his will against another man (or woman) who has been specifically trained for 8-12 weeks to bring you to your knees.

I really liked how you interpreted LaMotta's psych though. I never looked at him at those angles. Just looked at him as a scarily jealous bloke, but never considered his insecurities with his masculinity and his fear of being left alone - which is pretty much what happens in the end. But in hindsight his actions make a bit more sense. I don't think I have ever felt so sorry for Joe Pesci as I have done in this film. Even when his Casino character got done in with a baseball bat. But he wasn't exactly sympathetic in that film. In this one, I kinda felt like I was being bullied when I was watching him, which is definitely a testament to both him and DeNiro, specially as I saw this film after Goodfellas.

It's funny though, because for all of it's lack of realism, I always loved Rocky. Its by far the least realistic boxing film made, but I like the notion of it all. I like the training montages and the fact he can take an inhuman beating and come back for the win. Exaggerated, yes, but still fun. I guess that's just the American Dreamer in me.

What did you think of The Fighter, Brod's? I liked how it touched upon the bodyshots being a bigger deal than the ones to the face.

[Brodinski]

First of all, thanks for you hall-of-fame worthy comment, mate. Your input is this thread has been of high quality throughout and this deserves special praise. Seeing as I can't give you a lollypop, I'll just express my gratitude this way.

I can't stand Rocky because it's sooooo unrealistically. There's only so much of that ***** I can take when it comes to boxing. Furthermore, Stallone is a terrible actor.

To my shame I have to admit to not having seen The Fighter yet. I've put off watching it because I can't stand Mark Wahlberg. The only thing that guy can act convincingly is anger or telling other people to go "**** themselves" (The Departed). I think he'll mess up my whole experience of the film.

[The Prestige]

Heh, i'd be more at home with a packet of wine gums than a lollipop. :p

I kinda understand where detractors of Mark Wahlberg come from. His face isn't very likeble. But the main thing with him is when he is bad, he is VERY bad (The Happening, Truth About Charlie) but when directed well by good filmmakers, he can be pretty good (Three Kings, Departed, Boogie Nights and The Fighter). He is actually very reserved in the latter which I think strengthens the performance. Bale didn't totally eclipse him. Maybe it was just good casting, I don't know, but I thought he did a decent job.

It's definitely worth watching. It should be out on DVD this month.

[mark f]

I'm a little confused about Prestige's Rocky statement concerning "coming back for the win". You are talking about the original Rocky, correct?

The Fighter is a very good film. It's very entertaining on multiple levels. Sure, it's based on a true story, but it's even more Rocky than Rocky. HA!

[The Prestige]

I'm a little confused about Prestige's Rocky statement concerning "coming back for the win". You are talking about the original Rocky, correct?

The Fighter is a very good film. It's very entertaining on multiple levels. Sure, it's based on a true story, but it's even more Rocky thn Rocky. HA!

I was talking about the whole series to be honest, but the original one more so than the sequels. Yeah, the original is almost unamerican in that Rocky is content to just go the distance whereas in the sequels there was the formula where he'd be beaten up and then have the comeback. But the original also had him scoring more towards the end of the fight so I guess it's fair to say it was a comeback of sorts

[Tyler1]

The 70s?

What's certain is that I'll do the 70s, but the exact date when the countdown will begin is as of yet undetermined. I still have a LOT of important 70s films to watch before I can actually start doing any write-ups. I wouldn't want to just go ahead with it and not have seen 40 % of the critically-acclaimed 70s films. If you want to do something, do it right.

I reckon the earliest start to the 70s countdown will be late 2011. I'll dig up this thread when I have a more precise date.

Thanks for all your positive comments and rep so far. It is - as always - much appreciated.


Oh please, I would love to see your 70s list. I'll plus rep the sh*t out of it once you start :)

[Brodinski]

Yeah, the 70s are still in the pipeline. I've finished reviews for 5 years so far, have made my choice for # 1 film for 9 years in total, with one still undecided.

I don't really know when I'll actually get this going, because I'm very busy with work, keeping in shape and just relaxing during the weekend. A rough estimation would be March or April.

[inspace]

Oh please, I would love to see your 70s list. I'll plus rep the sh*t out of it once you start :)

Ditto, lol.

[TylerDurden99]

Just a quick question to you, Brods: it is pretty well known that you don't think much of Bruce Willis, but I noticed you had The Sixth Sense pretty high up in the runnerup section of 1999 (unless they aren't in any kind of order). Is that the exception to the Willis dislike rule?

[JayDee]

After meaning to for a long time I finally decided to go through your thread here Brodinski, and have been doing so the last couple of days. Fantastic effort man. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/bravo-497.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/bravo-497.gif.html) Even though there are a few films I don't agree with I still admire the sheer amount of work and love you put into them. And you do have some fantastic picks (some of which I may not have expected) such as Terminator 2, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Last Crusade, Unforgiven, Pulp Fiction etc. Oh and while it would not be my choice Blood Simple is a brilliant left-field pick for 1984.

Just going through and I was amazed how many films you chose as winners or runners-up that I have actually done a review for. Wall-e, Assassination of Jesse James, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Lives of Others, the Lord of the Rings flicks, Oldboy, Memories of Murder, Moulin Rouge, Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan, LA Confidential, Forrest Gump, Ed Wood, Unforgiven, RoboCop, Stand by Me, The Hitcher, Gremlins etc. It makes me think I should have gotten a lot more rep and feedback from you! :p

Anyway as I said great stuff, and I hope you continue with the thread either into the 70s or catching up the last few years

[Guaporense]

I was disappointed with Ranging Bull, though I watched it when I was younger and I was expecting a movie like Rocky, instead, where the main character is a success story. So I was disappointed.

I will try to watch it again now that I am more mature.

[Masterman]

Raging Bull is fantastic.

[internpete]

Reading through this list has reminded me of several I must get out and watch! Babel was one that I forgot about.

[Brodinski]

After meaning to for a long time I finally decided to go through your thread here Brodinski, and have been doing so the last couple of days. Fantastic effort man. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/bravo-497.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/bravo-497.gif.html) Even though there are a few films I don't agree with I still admire the sheer amount of work and love you put into them. And you do have some fantastic picks (some of which I may not have expected) such as Terminator 2, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Last Crusade, Unforgiven, Pulp Fiction etc. Oh and while it would not be my choice Blood Simple is a brilliant left-field pick for 1984.

Just going through and I was amazed how many films you chose as winners or runners-up that I have actually done a review for. Wall-e, Assassination of Jesse James, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Lives of Others, the Lord of the Rings flicks, Oldboy, Memories of Murder, Moulin Rouge, Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan, LA Confidential, Forrest Gump, Ed Wood, Unforgiven, RoboCop, Stand by Me, The Hitcher, Gremlins etc. It makes me think I should have gotten a lot more rep and feedback from you! :p

Anyway as I said great stuff, and I hope you continue with the thread either into the 70s or catching up the last few years

Many thanks for your kind words. I'll probably continue with the 70s this year. Maybe somewhere around September. We'll see.