Brodinski's Best of the Year list

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…

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 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.





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.





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.





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.

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.





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.





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.





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.

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!

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

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.

__________________
"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."

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



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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

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

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

Suspect's Reviews

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

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

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

Yeah, I think you should post a link or just repost the whole thing over here.

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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


+

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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


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

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

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

+

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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.