Two great films, and they are a pretty nice pairing as they are both movies which wear their greatness on their sleeve. You get a clear sense of what happens when a director uses their editors, composers, cinematographers, sound designers to the hilt. But it isn't just empty bombast. In both instances the films lack of subtle cinematic techniques are about exploding the emotional states of its characters. They are in complete service to narrative. And as purely 'filmic' as both of these are, they also offer audiences a perfect blend of narrative and character driver thrust. Technique and story are beautifully intertwined.
Requeim was on my ballot. How could it not be considering what my reaction to it was. I watched it twice in a row the night I put it on, and immediately as I woke up the next day. Then again later that afternoon when my girlfriend came to visit me. In many ways it is an absurdly over the top movie. And it's message that drugs destroy us is the most tired of all messages (and one that I, in some ways, can't help take but a personal affront to). But at the same time, it is an almost completely accurate representation of drug enduced psychosis. And how it can rot all manner of people. It's climax, possibly the most overwhelming assault on the senses I can think of from any (fairly) mainstream film. It's a movie that makes me lose my breath just thinking about it. And, as Popcorn mentioned, Burstyn is the ****ing emotional anchor of the whole film. She is both cartoon character and dreary American tragedy, all at once. As are most people who succumb to such fates. I haven't seen this for years because it feels like a movie that more belong in my past than present, as I'm less and less interested in bombast, or technical proficiency. But no matter how much I've been hibernating on it the last twenty or so years, I still know its a neutron bomb.
Not sure why I didn't pick City of God too (maybe I did, but I feel probably didn't). Maybe, as I summed up above with Requiem, it is a movie that is more emblematic of my tastes in my twenties and early thirties and have just grown out of championing movies that come at the audience full throttle. But it definitely deserves nearly as much as respect as RfaD. If one loves the things that go into making film, from the passion of the director, to the dazzling technical wonders they can create when really putting all of their sweat into something, City is a gift. A masterpiece in such obvious display that I'm clearly a fool for purposely (I think) omitting it.
As for the other new entries:
Downfall: Was from my list. A surprise inclusion as I've only just watched it, and only the one time. But so impressive was my experience with it (I would almost certainly rank it in the top 3 first time watches of last year) that this recent enthusiasm propelled it to my list. Not sure what I said about it initially last summer, but what else can really be said. It is the kind of movie that is many things at once. That movie lovers of all different stripes and sizes should be able to find something to latch onto. It's a historical indictment, a character study, an overheated and claustrophic drama. There is humor and terror and tension and heart in it. And ultiamtely, the whole thing is completely devastating. A pretty perfect thing.Can't believe I dismissed it for as long as I did. My bad. I'm dumb.
Kill Bill 2: Another one from my ballot. Pure cinema offered up by a man who understood the inherent artistic beauty of so much long neglected B-movie trash. Tarantino, with Kill Bill, takes a jackhammer to the line that separates high and low art. A huge public service. Is Kill Bill Vol 2 empty? In a lot of ways, if we want to simply discuss philosophy or history or the burning emotions and betrayals and victories of humankind, maybe. But when it comes to articulating the joy of creation, of paying respects to all the kinds of film we've ever unabashedly loved in our lives, to watch a man create a shining temple out of art that so many supposed critics have tossed to the sidelines of history, Kill Bill Vol 2 has meat on its bones. Is it as good as the first Volume in articulating this? Maybe, maybe not. But it fills in what the first film could not address in its willingness to rush headlong into pure, almost gravity-less filmmaking, that pays little caution to any proper narrative beats or full realized character development. It's the perfect yin to the first films yang. So it had to be on my list.
Up - I like Up. Just as I like most Pixar films. But it is, for me, at best in the middle of their pack. While I have no doubt it is rich with lots of overlooked details, my single watch of this didn't pick up on much of that, and so I was left with a film that I liked it pieces, but not such much as a whole.
Lost in Translation: Also could have made my list, but didn't. A film that allowed narrative to drift into a woozy space, and let us live in this foreign landscape with a similarly lost (both geographically and emotionally) tourist. All of its great attributes have been talked to death. I have nothing to add to any of it. Bill and Scarlett are magic together. Anna Farris is great comedic relief, as usual. Coppola refined her vision after the sloppy (but interesting) Virgin Suicides, to eventually become one of the more interesting, polarizing and ultimately misunderstood of this milleniums new brand of American auteurs.
The Pianist: Gruelling and uncompromising. I imagine this gets the shock and drudgery or evil more right than the considerably more cinematic (but also truthful, in its different way) treatment Schindler's List brought to the table. Pianist is a movie I respect a lot. Is one of the few best picture movie winners that doesn't seem like it was chosen by a herd of naked mole rats. But not one I have a lot of interest in revisiting. It's a very painful film (as it should be), but is articulated by Polanski in a way that makes me want to turn my back on it and forget what happened. Which, frankly, is probably about as good an endorsement for its greatness as anything. But it didn't make my list (glad it made others though)
Hot Fuzz: This took me a million times to get through. I always put it on at the wrong time. Would fall asleep. Would get called away from friends. Was in a mood where laughter felt like a betrayal of everything that was inside of me. Finally got through it all near the beginning of the pandemic, and I do like it. It's a deeply clever film, and incredibly reverential towards the kind of films it is making fun of (which is usually the best way to properly make fun of something). Pegg is great as the button down cop. And I can tell its just crammed full of little details that deepen its sense of fun and how well designed its parody is. But as I'm rarely one for pure comedy, and I'm not nearly as well versed in 80's action as those who might really have a soft spot for this, in wasn't going to be in contention.
Let the Right One In: Next to Martin and Blood for Dracula, the greatest vampire movie ever made. And unlike those two, isn't simply a caustic or satirical deconstruction of the genre. It takes its vampires very seriously. And by doing so, finds an emotional core that is so delicate and sad, I couldn't help but fall in love with the film. Oskar, as a character, is one of the perfect embodiments of childhood loneliness ever put on screen. And the relationship he ends up developing over the course of the film feels so real, and so pure, and in the end so tragic, that the emotions start to well up just thinking about it. All this and it also functions perfectly as a horror film. One of the great horror films of all time. Definitely made my list.
Memories of Murder: How can anyone fault the inclusion of this, even though I didn't include it, and have always felt an (almost certainly incorrect) slight dissatisfaction with the film. Why? I honestly don't know. If someone were to call it perfect, I'd probably agree. I think its frightening scenes are frightening. I think its endictment of the police force is razor sharp. I think the dynamics between the characters creates a rivetting drama outside of the pursuit of the murderer. And it also doesn't lose a sense of humor, somehow, miraculously. Why did I just give it a three and a half on Letterboxd then? I'll probably never know. But I just remember thinking two thirds of the way through it, that it felt like something was missing. Aching like a phantom limb I couldn't prove actually existed. But all of this said, I say all of that knowing I'm completely wrong in my assessment. No need to worry much about my particular dumbness in this case. I won't push it.
Reply to Topic
Check out my podcast: 
