Best Films of 2006

The best movie I've ever seen in theatres. Gorgeous, breath taking, wonderful, amazing, eye popping, mind boggling. To me, it was like listening to a great symphony orchestra - you can't nitpick the details (who ever says "they used B sharp twice in that one stanza"?), but you take it in as a cohesive, immersive whole. It spoke to me, it touched me. As well as my girlfiend - we were so stunned after seeing it (as was the whole audience, who said through almost the entire end credits without budging), that we went and saw it 2 more times. Hugely underrated, this is a true masterpiece and top 15 films I've ever seen.

And then some movies just come out of nowhere and blindside you with their greatness. Children of Men is definately one of those flicks. A beautiful, haunting, powerful, emotional, exciting, thought provoking, eye-popping spectacle. The film is glacial at first, but then there is one of the most complex action scenes I've ever seen that is done all in one take, and the audience is riveted from thereafter. It's sort of like a Schindler's List for science-fiction films. Great movie, a really wonderful experience to watch it, and won't ever be forgotten.

It wasn't the best film of the year (that honour would definately reside with The Fountain, and Children of Men would follow), but The Departed definately deserved it's Oscar wins. People said this is Scorsese's return to form, to which I say - where'd he go that warranted a return? His last GREAT film was Casino, and that was only 10 years ago. Hell, The Aviator from a couple years ago was also excellent. At any rate, this is Marty's 5th best flick. Exciting, intense, wickedly funny, graphically violent - everything a great Scorsese film should be. It has perfect music, fantastically choppy editing, a performance from Nicholson that is in my top 10 fav performances of all time, and of course, there's Marty's directing, that once again proves there comes a time in a filmmaker's life where he's so good, he can break whatever rules he wants. I love him, and I love this film.

The Descent is superior craftsmanship, elevating what could've been just another generic monster horror film and became a masterpiece of suspsense and horrifying gore. If that last sentence sounded pretentious to you, well, that's cause this is a pretentious movie, hiding its true meanings and developments with lots of blood and guts. Its a modern horror film for people who hate modern horror films - in fact, one of the strangest observations about this flick is that most people who hate horror films love it, and most people who love horror films hate it. I'm not entirely sure why. I initially thought it might've been because this film actually takes its time to not only set up the characters and their relationships, but also in developing cringe-worthy claustrophobic suspense Hitchcock would've been proud of. But no - several of my horror-loving friends actually preferred the first half to the last, which consists of chases, "boo" moments, and monsters aplenty (sorry if that spoiled anything for you; but yes, this is a monster movie). I have a possible reason for this. The Descent utilizes the conventions of the horror/suspense genre to an amazing degree, but its only really amazing, I think, to people who don't normally watch horror movies, or don't like the ones they see. This is why critics loved the film but many audience members disregarded it. People who watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre every week would be acutely aware when a monster will pop around the corner, or when the musical stinger will blare out and make you jump, etc. They would see it coming, and not be afraid. But for the rest of us, this is horror-filmmaking of the highest order. Never have I been more scared watching a film. The first time I saw it in the theatres with my girlfriend and her roommate (none of us being big on horror flicks), we screamed, jumped, huddled into fetal positions, and generally wet ourselves several times over. It was the most intense and suspenseful experience I'd ever had in a theatre. But lots of horror movies scare me, and I still hate them (Texas Chainsaw comes to mind). This film deserves its 4 star rating from me because its so much more than a movie about underground monsters biting the heads off of cave divers. Its about our fear of not knowing what lurks in the dark, of what sound that is being heard from around the corner, of being trapped in small spaces with no escape. The director plays on these fears masterfully, but the film is even able to be scrutinized under the most pretentious film student kind of way (warning: spoilers may follow). There is not an easy explanation for the story in this flick. It would appear on first viewing (especially with the American ending - the one shown in theatres, but eventually expanded upon in England and on DVD), that the story is very cut and dry - women go into cave, get eaten. But repeat viewings and close attention will reveal otherwise. The main character is a woman who undergoes severe mental trauma when her husband and child are killed. In the beginning, before her and her friends journey into the cave, the main character leaves her pills by her bedside. Curiously, the film shows this, and stays focused on the pills. What's the director saying? Later on, another character lists several of the things that could go wrong in the cave - anxiety, claustrophobia, hallucinations, psychosis, etc. These things wind up happening to the lead character in almost that same order. Many other things that happen in the film point to (MAJOR SPOILERS) that there are no monsters at all, and the main character herself has gone bat-shit crazy and killed all her friends in the caves. This is the kind of twist ending that most films would spell out for us at the end, showing her stabbing her friends, etc. But this movie doesn't give us that easy closure, and makes us wonder about what really happened (consider these other things - Sara, the main character, is the only person to continually see the creatures in the beginning, usually right after a major trauma. And what about the image of her child blowing out the birthday candles - the same number of candles there are of her friends? Oh, and pay special attention to the last scene, and the way her body is shaped and how it moves when she gets up from the ground. Does that figuration look familiar?). This kind of close scrutiny can't happen in a normal horror flick, which makes The Descent so special. It was one of the best films of last year, and one of the greatest horror films of all time. Its terrifying, horrifying, petrifying, and most important of all, it doesn't insult your intelligence and actually makes you think. What other horror flick can do that?
P.S - I almost forgot to mention what a treat this flick is for film students, because there are numerous scenes or shots that are direct homages to some great, classic films. There are references (both subtle and not), to The Third Man, Vertigo, Apocalypse Now, and many others. Great fun.

It's rare I can say that I loved an animated film, but holy man, I loved this flick. I don't think I've ever belly-laughed more in a cartoon. Hilarious from start to finish, this movie is so black in it's comedy at times I almost felt like it was made more for teenagers than kids. Hugely underrated, highly recommended.

This is definately the closest a film has ever been to an actual book. The movie is literature in almost every way - from the rather intrusive narration to the development and depth of the characters to the unhurried flow of the plot, this is a short story transformed into film. And, it should be added, this is hardly criticism. While I never felt deeply moved, saddened, uplifted, etc. during Little Children, I was constantly and consistently engrossed and involved. I got to know these characters, and know them well. Even the ones with the most mystery, or the ones that are the most unsympathetic and even monstorous (like Jackie Earl Haley's pedophile), I understood and felt a connection with them by the end of the film. There's a moment in the flick where a background character goes on a date with the pedophile, and within one two-shot, without him ever telling her a thing, she suddenly knows how creepy and sexually perverted he is. The shot of her breaking down into tears from the realization that this nice guy is just yet another sicko is heartbreaking and true, and it reflects the theology of the entire film - of the masks we wear to hide pain, suffering, and indecency. From top to bottom, the cast is strong, although many actors/actresses were underused (or in the case of Jennifer Connelly, she definately needed a nude scene. Or two). The direction and cinematography is never flashy, but always important and effective. The screenplay is evocative, and Thomas Newman's music, as always, kicks ass. Having said all this, the film isn't perfect. The voice over narration, coming from an outside source reading the actions from a third person point of view, keeps in synch with the literary aspects of the film, but always takes us out of the movie - it reminds us, every time it comes on, that we are indeed just watching a film (and plus, I giggled every time I heard it cause it reminded me of that Family Guy scene where Peter is narrating his life - "I walked down to the kitchen and looked with a grimace at what Lois had served for dinner"). Many characters and subplots are not given the attention needed - Winslet's husband, for instance, has one tense and wonderful scene, then disappears for basically the rest of the film. And I'd go so far as to call the ending slightly anti-climactic - while what happens in the park is not what you'd expect from a pedophile running into a deserted area with a knife, it still feels almost - well, let me say that i think Todd Field, the director, felt that this ending was giving closure to characters, but I don't think it's closure at all - they will continue to hurt, they will continue to hurt others, and for the rest of their lives after the credits roll, they will make the lives of their lovers miserable. This isn't closure, which is fine, but the way Field directs it, I get the feeling he did think it was closure, which makes it feel slightly like a cheat. Still, this is a masterful film - involving, evocative, disturbing, wonderful, beautiful, and just damn good.

I've talked a lot lately about movies that enjoy being bad so much, and revel in being bad so much, that they surpass merely being a "bad" movie and become great entertainment. Roger Ebert refers to them as "Great Trash", and three of the best examples I've seen are Planet Terror, Congo, and Snakes on a Plane. Many people think Crank belongs in this category, but I actually think they're wrong. This movie didn't become funny by being so deliciously terrible - it is, in fact, an actual comedy. Straight up. This movie is played for laughs as much as action. How else to explain the scene where a character refers himself to as a cunt, and the word "Cunt" appears on his forehead? Or how about the scene where a character falls to his death from a helicopter, and takes out his cellphone to call his girlfriend? I laughed as much in this film from it's wonderful audacity as I did from scenes actually intending to get laughs - which is not something usually seen in an action film. The movie is pure movement, caught on camera. It's not an action flick persay, I would argue - yes, there are some great action scenes, but for the most part this movie is simply pure kinetic energy, never stopping for a breath. The methods used by the main character to constantly get adrenaline (so the poison won't kill him, which was inflicted because...ahhh, you gotta see it) are ingenious. He drinks Red Bull by the gallons. He steals about 10 nose sprays. He does his girlfriend in the public streets of Chinatown, much to everyone's enjoyment. And he gets a blowjob from his girl during the action-packed shoot-em-up car chase, proving that it is possible to STILL have new spins on a car chase (by the way, the very idea of his girlfriend giving him head during the car chase is brilliance enough - the punchline of this scene made it the funniest action/comedy blend I've ever seen). The film has huge laughs, the film has great action set pieces, the film has the most frenetic, energetic, and joyously exuberant camera work of any movie out there. It isn't just overkill, this shit is OVERKILL, and becomes all the more fun because of it. And anyone who disregards the film as going over the top, I feel, isn't getting it. The film is so over the top that it's actually parodying itself, and becomes a satire of the MTV-influenced style of action flicks these days by over-doing it so much. I truly feel that this was the comedic intention of the filmmakers, and the fact that they managed a great ride of an action film out of it is truly applaudable.

I was quite impressed with this the first time I saw it, and was surprised how much I wanted to see it again, and quick. Haunting little film with some very good performances, Ebert was right when he said that in terms of writing and direction, nothing really special is being done here, yet the movie is mesmerizing anyway. I agree.

I've known people like the main characters in Candy. One of my oldest friends was almost a mirror image of Dan, Heath Ledger's character. Being addicted to drugs is one thing, but to be in a loving relationship with someone who also is hooked - that makes things almost impossible. It becomes a parasitic relationship, where one won't do something if the other doesn't do it first; like, in this case, quitting heroin. Dan often says in the movie, "I'll quit if you do". The problem is that when you're both addicted, no one wants to be the first to dive into the water. Having said all this meaningless background information, Candy is a shattering, heart breaking film. Yes, this material has been done before, and done better (Requiem for a Dream more vividly portrays the state of mind of an addict, and the horrors their lives can receive). But for what it does and what it says, it's a valuable film. For once, the average star rating on Flixster is dead on. This is a mature, thought provoking, assuredly directed and written flick with two great performances. Ledger proves again, after Brokeback Mountain, that he's an actor who'll be around long after many other teen-heartthrobs are gone. I've never seen Abbie Cornish in a movie before, but she's so good here that it's about time I pay attention to her. Anyways, Candy is well worth seeing. Perfect? No - the narrative is too unfocused and the situation of the character's a little to jumpy to be labelled as such. But it's still a damn good film. The story is divided into three acts - Heaven, Earth, and Hell. Luckily for us, after enduring the brutal domestic details of Earth, Hell seems much easier to handle. In fact, there's a scene in Earth where a miscarriage is shown in all it's unfortunate detail, and when Ledger holds his dead baby in his hands and weeps, it's impossible not to get choked up. Yes, the movie's incredibly depressing. It's a story of drug addiction - by God, how could it not be depressing? But if you gather the strength to see something tragic without totally ruining your day (like Requiem or Schindler's List), this is a good one to see. It's mature, it doesn't sensationalize or pander, and it's written in a way that realistically portrays what this sort of relationship might be like (although the amount of endless kissing they do in the Heaven chapter is a little unlikely). Do yourself a favour and go rent this underrated flick...and then maybe watch The Simpsons just to bring you out of despair.

Hilarious movie. The scene with "Kelly", above all, had me near pissing myself with laughter. My girlfriend hates it because it's stupid, but then of COURSE it's stupid - in terms of dialogue and seriousness, this movie is sorely lacking. But where it doesn't lack is the laughter department, and that's all that matters. Very funny movie.

I love how when someone mentions Snakes on a Plane, all you ever hear is the main motherfucking quote from the motherfucking movie, as Sam Jackson would say. People seem to forget, in their conversations about this film, how hilariously fun it is. I near wet myself laughing, and I mean it as a compliment. Aside from Clerks 2 and Borat, it was the funniest flick of 2006. Sheer B-movie entertainment from start to finish. Yes, it could've been "better" - the last 20 minutes are almost snake free, and it's obvious that it would've and could've been brawnier, more profane, and more violent, if they'd been aiming for an R rating the whole time instead of last minute reshoots (can you imagine if Joe Pesci was Sam Jackson's partner?). Still, this flick is great fun, and is in the top 5 Great Trash movies of all time.

I hadn't really noticed it before re-watching The Prestige again, but one of my favourite themes for a movie to involve is an obsession. Doesn't matter with what - could be religion, like a Bergman flick, or another character, like a Scorsese flick. Obsessions of many different kinds permeate my favourite films list. The Prestige is all about an obsession, a growing one that takes years to finally end (and one could say that even when the credits roll, the obsessive rivalry between one of these magicians might not end at all). I love watching the rivalry between hero and enemy, but what I love watching even more is the rivalry between two people who are neither good nor evil - just flawed individuals, capable of wonderful things and atrocious things. Both of the lead actors in this film do some pretty horrible acts, and it definately takes a lot of your attention to catch it all. This isn't a flick to watch while reading a book or chatting with friends - you don't pay attention for a couple minutes, and you're lost. That, by the way, isn't a hard thing to do - the movie is consistently engaging, engrossing, and actually very suspenseful. It's an intense film, with one scene in particular where you know something awful is going to happen, and you're on the edge of your seat still even after it's past. The movie has a lot going for it, but even then, it's flawed, and I think a lot of that has to do with the structure. In my opinion, this is a needlessly convoluted film. I don't think it had to be this complicated and disorienting in order to properly tell the story. There are so many disjointed timelines shifting about that, while you're always kept guessing and more often than not quite confused, it makes the ending rather anti-climactic (it relies on two big movie cliches, of which I will leave for you to discover). There is one point in the film where Bale is reading the diary of Jackman who's writing about reading the diary of Bale who's writing about trying to figure out what's in Jackman's head as he's trying to do the same to Bale. Backward reeleth the mind. So while I do think the film didn't need to be quite so complicated in it's editing, it does definately enhance the disorienting effect of the film. The flick is dark, it's twisty, it's always interesting, and it's quite the tense experience. Very enjoyable.

A fun little film with a couple twists I definately didn't see coming. It always feels "written", but then the writer and director clearly wasn't trying to immerse you in this world and forget you were actually watching a movie - he just wanted to show you a good time, and a good time I had.

A nice, pleasant, interesting little film. I think if Charlie Kaufman himself wrote it, it would've been edgier and funnier, but as it stands this is a fun, sweet, lovely little film that's well worth watching (and almost makes me forget about Talladega Nights).

If this wins the Oscar, the world has officially ended, but that's not to say that this isn't a nice little film. Very pleasant with some good laughs and great performances (like Carell), but hardly worth the Best Pic statue.

Aardman Productions (Peter Lord and Nick Park, the guys responsible for Wallace and Gromit, Chicken Run, and now Flushed Away), are kinda like the anti-Disney. They don't make dramas with comedic elements - they make hilariously zany comedy/satires and say "screw it" to any drama at all. Thematically, this film is as empty as Wallace & Gromit was, and that's exactly why I found it so refreshing - it comes out to make you laugh, and it does an admirable job. In fact, I laughed harder and more frequently in it than Chicken Run and Wallace & Gromit. Very fun and enjoyable movie - just don't show it to your kids when you want them to learn valuable life lessons.

For people who have a relatively extensive knowledge about the film industry, This Film Is Not Yet Rated doesn't offer too many insights or revelations. However, the movie is incredibly important for all those people who might see it and don't know all about the MPAA skull-and-bones society. Because the MPAA is up there with Michael Bay and Calgary Flames of my most hated things in this world, watching them get bitch-slapped by this documentary was a very theraputic and amusing experience. I wasn't taught much, and my eyes only widened in surprise to a couple of statistics or hilariously ridiculous statements made by MPAA heads. However, many people won't have this much knowledge, and I think seeing how this censorship board works will be very informative to them. The movie details the emergence of the MPAA rating board for movies, and how they have since become a major part of the film industry - good, and bad. In fact, the level of control they have over films is frightening. Being given an NC-17 (the rating higher than an R you never see), is much worse than just getting a few less people in theatre seats. Many theatres won't show NC-17 films, many video stores won't carry NC-17 films, and advertising is pretty much thrown out the window. There's a reason this rating is called the "kiss of death" among filmmakers. For years and decades, the MPAA has forced filmmakers to censor and cut and essentially completely change their films so they don't get this dreaded rating (there's also much consternation with PG-13 to R films, but it's not discussed much in this film). Basically, the MPAA has the power to destroy any film - how is this not scary for anyone with a movie camera? By showcasing this hypocrisy, and how the society disguses this horrible censorship with patriotism and a sense of duty to poor American families, director Kirby Dirk waves a big middle finger to them with this movie, and it's a valuable finger to wave. It's such a corrupt system, so ruled and dominated and bought out by the major studios, that it's impossible to get good ratings anymore. So while the movie's message is very important, the flick itself is quite flawed. While visually interesting and often very amusing, there are occasional interviews that go on a bit long and are a little dry, and the stuff involving the private detectives felt sort of like a tangent that was being taken too often. There aren't enough interviews in the film with actual filmmakers, either - they're segments, where directors such as Kevin Smith or Darren Aronofsky or Mary Harron discussing their horror stories involving the MPAA and being forced to cut their films, were by far the most interesting and enlightening parts of the movie. Aronofsky especially gets short-thrift, with only one 30 second interview in the movie, and while he presents an interesting point I'd never thought of before, I would've loved to hear his take on the MPAA's ruling of Requiem for a Dream. So that bothered me a little about the movie, as well as it's lack of a real ending - there is no closure, catharsis, or even just a closing statement; the movie simply ends, abruptly, and I wish there was more there. However, these flaws don't detract from the overall brilliance of the idea of the film, and the balls used to make it. I loved hearing other people say exactly what me and so many others have known for years - why can movies with unrelenting violence be Ok for kids, but movies with an f-word or a bit of pubic hair are banned from them? It's a ridiculous system, and this movie helps try and call a cause to act, even though that'll never happen. One thing I wish someone had mentioned in this movie, though, is how utterly useless the ratings board has become. I don't know what it's like down there in the states, but up here in Canada, if you're 13 and wanna see an R rated movie, you'll have no problem at all. I've seen five year olds in Brokeback Mountain and Rambo, for Christ sakes. The ratings are useless because they're not enforced by anyone except the MPAA, so all they do is wind up making director's destroy their vision for no good cause. Plus, in these days, what kid out there hasn't heard an f-bomb or seen a boob? Sigh. Anyways, I really recommend this movie to anyone planning on making a career in film. It'll be more of a horror movie than any Hostel flicks could be.

Good movie? Yes. But was it really necessary? That's the question that was bugging me after the film was over. Throughout the movie, I was engaged and never bored, but when it was over, I wondered if the story was really worth telling. Again, it was a good flick, but I'm not sure if I'd watch it again.