Brodinski's Best of the Year list

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

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.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

@ 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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Havent seen it yet , but will do soon.

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

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.

__________________
Recently Watched: AKIRA, Little Miss Sunshine, Take Shelter

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.

@ 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.

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

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.”



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.



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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 + to +.

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.

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.