Rather than indulging the need to craft a list of the "Top 10 Movies of 2006" (an act I was unable to avoid in books and music and sports stories), I've decided to instead create an overview of movies from the last year that you may have missed (intentionally or otherwise) in hopes that they find an audience. Of course, the Oscar-nominated films are all the rage over the course of the next couple weeks and you should definitely take the time to seek out most of them (especially Pan's Labyrinth and Letters From Iwo Jima) but there are other films released this year that are either on DVD or may be trickling out of theaters nearby that you should also see once "Oscar season" passes and we get into the cinematic wasteland that is the spring.
I really hope others have seen these films and you, too, share them with your friends/family, or if you hate them, feel free to explain to me why you disagree and believe I am in error. Or just tell me I suck and go look up funny videos on Youtube. Either way.
I already wrote at length about some of these films, but just in case you didn't listen to me then, or are willing to take a chance now, I'll try again to persuade you again.
The IllusionistFlushed AwayStranger Than FictionThe Last KissHacking DemocracyNow to all-new ideas for your viewing pleasure:
When The Levees Broke - A Requiem in Four ActsSpike Lee's searing 4-hour Hurricane Katrina documentary, released by HBO Films, is undoubtedly the best in documentary film this year, disqualified for the Oscar because it played on TV instead of in theaters. Taking his cues from America's greatest documentary filmmaker Errol Morris, the film features no direct commentary from the director (Morgan Spurlock & Michael Moore, please take note) instead focusing on file footage and interviews with the displaced folks from New Orleans and surrounding areas, political commentators, politicians, historians, and others.
Essentially, the film argues that there were equal elements of race and class that led to the grossly inadequate response from the government (at every level) and places most of the blame not on Blanco and Nagin, but on the Army Corps of Engineers and Michael Chertoff. The film starts with the lead-up to the storm, then the brief calm between the storm and the breaking of the levees (which actually caused the massive flooding), then it goes back to when a similar event occurred some 60 years back in N.O. when the government allowed flooding in the poor white neighborhoods (in the 9th Ward) to preserve the historical affluent areas. And he finishes with looking at how people are getting along today, waiting for insurance payouts/settlements, getting FEMA trailers, and the prospects for renewal for the citizens and reprisals for those who let this disaster balloon out of control.
It is illuminating, but at 4 hours you do feel it's length, so maybe you should watch it in split shifts.
The Lake HouseThis is one where I already know there is disagreement among some who read here. I loved this movie because I thought it was a great example of an old-style Hollywood romance film. It had an original premise and narrative structure (Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves live in the same house, 2 years apart, she in 2006, he in 2004, and they fall in love by passing letters back and forth through the mailbox which serves as some sort of time-warp), good lead performances, and an interesting narrative/visual style. The film showcases a supreme appreciation for its Chicago location, making the city come alive, putting forth its uniqueness.
Sandra, Keanu, the "lake house", and that magical mailboxMost of the detractors claim the logical structure is too convoluted/messy, but that never bothered me, once I accepted the temporal logic of the film is subservient to the emotional logic. The film just works, no matter what they say.
The PropositionThis next sentence will probably make a good number of people stop reading this and skip down to the next one right away (which is fine, the next movie is also excellent, but you'll be missing out). This is a hyper-violent western, set in the Australian outback at the end of the 19th century, made as an art movie.
Still here? If so, great.
The eponymous proposition is this: Guy Pearce plays an outlaw who's older brother is a reprehensible killer. The lawman of their town arrests his younger brother and offers to release him if Guy Pearce brings in the older brother, otherwise the younger brother gets killed. So, Guy Pearce goes off to find his brother to try to save his younger brother, who is innocent. He finds him and begins to feel conflicted, he doesn't want to sacrifice either brother, but he has to choose.
Also, Emily Watson plays the lawman's wife who is trying to retain her genteel English ways in the brutal conditions of the outback. She is ostracized by the community for being out of step with them, as they all want the younger brother to be hanged right away, while she doesn't understand why he imprisoned if they don't know he killed anybody. It is an interesting interplay of the idea of what people do when they think no one is watching (on an international scale in this case), and the dangers of groupthink (also dramatized masterfully in the 1943 western
The Ox-Bow Incident)
The landscape of the film is incredibly well-realized. It is a harsh, harsh environment, and director John Hillcoat and his cinematographer do a great job creating the effect of the long, hopeless, aridity of the area, while at the same team creating some of the best visual compositions on screen all year.
Notice how small/insignificant the characters are in relation to everything around them
While in this shot, Danny Huston, playing the evil older brother, is bigger than the trees behind him, looming large and as ominously as the horizon in the distanceThe other two big themes at work here are: 1)Are people naturally reprehensible, but we hold it back under the construct of "civilization"? The captain repeats his mantra 'this place will be civilized' but who needs to be civilized?
2) The man who's attempts to save the one(s) he loves ends up killing them, directly or indirectly.
Watch it and be amazed.
The DescentI had no preconceptions about this one. The advertising made me not want to see it, but the reviews were almost universally positive, so my interest was piqued. For those unfamiliar, the story is about a group of late 20-something female adventure seekers who have decided to go spelunking for the weekend. What they don't know is that the woman who is leading their excursion has taken them to a cave which she recently discovered and has not yet been mapped, so no one knows it exists other than them. Being that this is a horror/thriller film, I'm sure your imagination can fill in the blanks as to the plot, but just in case it can't, here's a preview:
What makes the film so effective is director Neil Marshall's ability to create a sense of claustrophobia and dread with his camera, lighting, and staging, rather than resorting to a staccato, pulsating score to create mood (that said, the score is also perfect). Also, the female characters, for the most part, are uniquely and sharply defined as opposed to being sort of an aggregate bunch of victims-to-be, though they can be difficult to distinguish physically at times.
The strong suit of the film is that once the blood starts to flow, the film does not lose sight of the characters in favor of simple run-and-hide-and be as quiet as possible sequences. Sure, those are in there, but we also continue with the characters' arcs and the plot (they need to get out of the cave). The enemies they are fighting have a fatal flaw that actually makes perfect sense for once and as soon as they figure it out it is so very suspenseful to see if they can take advantage.
It is reminiscent of Jaws in some ways, in being a frightening thriller, while at the same time creating sympathetic characters who react as real people would, given the circumstances, while at the same time being wholly entertaining and engaging. And it wraps up in just under 90 minutes (although I believe the DVD also features the original British cut of the film which was 10 minutes longer). Even so, what more could you ask for?
Tristram Shandy: A Cock & Bull StoryBased on a book long considered to be "un-filmable", the makers of this film create something highly original conceptually. The film is both the movie of the book and the making-of of the movie of the book, allowing the lead actor, Steve Coogan to play the title character, the title character's father, and himself. The manic performance is worth the price of a rental, if not a purchase.
The film has a slightly left-of-center sense of humor (see image to the right), so it's not for everyone, but for certain sections of the population, especially film critics and fans of the book, it is a treat. The story is that of a man, Tristram Shandy, who is attempting to tell his own life story, but he gets so sidetracked by incidents along the way that catalyze the telling of other stories that he never gets around to his own birth in the telling of his life story. Convoluted? Absolutely! Interesting and entertaining? Without a doubt.
CSA: Confederate States of America (this was technically first seen in 2004, but never opened on more than 35 screens, so the August DVD release was really the first time most people could see it)The film centers around a simple premise: What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War? Director Kevin Willmott employs an interesting device in framing the film as a British documentary about American History playing on American television. He makes creative use of offensive products/advertising slogans/advertising logos from American history as the ads during the telecast to further emphasize his ideas. Mix of file footage and original video shot for the film, the film features interviews with "historians" and "experts" as played by actors offering their commentary on the events unfolding.
Lincoln arrested while hiding out in blackface trying to get to Canada through the Underground Railroad. He dies in exile, considered a war criminalThe film is at its best when it is creating history, but he does a lot of glossing over events or not changing what occurs (though this in itself is an interesting concept in the film...even had the south won, what would have occurred anyway?) and at times this causes the film to lose steam. It is worth a look though. There are definitely worse ways to spend 89 minutes.
last and faaaaar from least, in fact, one of the best overall movies of 2006:
Three TimesThis film from Taiwanese master Hou Hsiao-Hsien. It is basically a more mature, more accomplished version of what Darren Aronofsky tried to do in The Fountain (also worth a look). The title, Three Times, refers to three time periods in which the film takes place: 1966, 1911, and 2005, in that order. It is a film about the sometimes messy, confusing, disorienting nature of love and the idealism and innocence (if not naivete) of youth. The film features 3 vignettes (thankfully, they are not interwoven) each of about 40 minutes. The stories also mirror the socio-political mores of the eras in which they take place in China, adding an extra layer of interest to it.
The downside is this is unquestionably the definition of an "art-house" movie and will really only appeal to the art-house crowd; for most it will be too slow, too boring, and the middle segment, which plays out in the style of late silent movies, with dialogue on intertitles and only music on the soundtrack, will lead you to turn it off or fall asleep. But, if you are a lover of cinema and that last sentence didn't make you throw up in your mouth, you will be rewarded with a virtuoso, engrossing film from one of the great modern directors.
Couldn't find great photos from all 3 "times", so I'll leave you with a photo of the 2 stars in hopes that they are enticement enoughNow, go forth and enjoy.
