Brodinski's Best of the Year list

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.

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.

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

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..

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.


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.


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.


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.


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

Great list Brodie 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

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

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.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

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.

Cool 90's list so far

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

Love Trainspotting. Funny, yet thought provoking.

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

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

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.

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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

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

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.

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.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

+