My Top 10 Films of 2006

Matt Damon once remarked in an interview that it would be a good idea if Oscars were given out a full decade after their release, as he felt that was the gap needed to make a determination on the best of that year. While this site clearly isn't the Oscars, it at least now has the benefit of something it didn't before: Hindsight.

So, now it's time to find out. In celebration of 10 Years of "Jeremy The Critic," my picks for the top 10 films of each year from 2006-2015 will be gradually revealed. Unsuccessfully cramming to see all the year's films before it's end has prevented me from compiling these so now it's make-up time. With apologies to ESPN, it's a little project I'll be calling "10 FOR 10," as I unload 10 Top 10's.

We'll find out which films survived the long trek, maintaining or increasing their standing in my mind, and which slipped, as the bloom comes off the rose for titles I may have originally raved about. Now, they'll all face the ultimate equalizer: FATHER TIME. A review is so often an immediate reaction to what you've seen, while a star rating counts for far less. This will be something else entirely.

Other than in the case of rare, tie-breaking situations, I'm not planning to rewatch anything, instead going with my gut in these rankings and selections. Some years I know exactly what's going to happen while others are still very much up in the air, but you can definitely bet on some surprises. I'm avoiding long, laborious explanations of each in favor of a choice review quote I feel says it all, accompanied with brief write-up where I reflect on how that year's list turned out. Let's get it going with what's unfortunately the weakest movie year of them all: 2006

                                                 2006

It feels like I'm just filling slots here, which is never good. The silver lining is that this will be followed by the strongest film year of the decade in 2007. Let's get the big questions out of the way first: Where's Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, Borat or The Fountain? I initially gave the former four stars, but now I need to actually be reminded of its existence. The other two I waffled back and forth on because they just haven't stayed with me at all. Notes on a Scandal, Marie Antoinette, and to a lesser extent, Casino Royale, were weaker runners-up that just missed the cut. It's possible that with another viewing one or more of those could have snuck in. Or not.

I had two choices in approaching a year this weak: Stick with what I originally had (with some minor, necessary adjustments) since so few of them were rewatched, or just make a systematic countdown of the technically best, critically acclaimed films of the year. Hopefully you appreciate me going with the former since you could just look at a bunch of other lists for that.

The only surprise inclusion is The Night Listener, which I had rewatched shortly after Robin Williams' passing and discovered I underestimated it. Featuring one of the actor's quietest dramatic performances, the whole package (which features a thought-provoking, ahead of its time premise) proves more memorable than many of the aforementioned prestige dramas critics were drooling over. V For Vendetta, The Descent and Clerks II are all just fine but I'd be lying if I said any would make it in a stronger year (or in this case nine stronger upcoming ones). While its recent influence on Mr. Robot proves Vendetta's reach was perhaps greater than expected, the inclusion of Clerks II kind of bothers me since I have this strange feeling it (or any other Kevin Smith film) wouldn't hold up now. That it still got in should let you know how little I think of this year.

Stranger Than Fiction has aged really well, partly because Ferrell hasn't done anything like it since. Other than my top two, it might be the only film here I feel any kind of passion for. Time couldn't dilute United 93's immediacy and power, even if its a film to respect rather than admire. Best Picture winner The Departed is just kind of a given, with its inclusion feeling almost like a contractual obligation at this point. Iñárritu's constant presence and versatility throughout the decade only bolsters the already strong multi-character, cross-cultural Babel in hindsight.

The first true discovery of '06 was Brick, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and helmed by future Breaking Bad and Star Wars director, Rian Johnson. If ever there was a time to say I told you so, it's now, with both continuing to creatively explode ten years on. But the top spot goes to Todd Field's Little Children, the most masterfully acted and directed film of the year in my favorite movie sub-genre: Nightmare in American Suburbia. It carries that torch proudly by being the most frighteningly realistic and disturbing drama that year. Over time, it's left the deepest cut.


10. The Night Listener

"The big draw of this film isn't the mystery, but the underlying idea behind its premise. How trusting should we be? Can we accept anything at face value anymore? Something to think about in this digital age where we communicate with people daily, yet can never know for sure who they really are." - 1/13/07


9. V For Vendetta

"The relationship that develops between her and the masked man, his history, and his motives for destroying the government build the framework for an emotionally complex tale that also happens to be pretty gory at times." - 8/2/06


8. The Descent

"In a way, the movie is almost a throw back to the horror films of the seventies, where the main objective was to torture you with suspense, then pick and choose your openings to deliver just the right amount of thrills and gore. It's not what you show, but what you don't, and how." - 1/10/07

 

 

 7. Clerks II

"The original Clerks was an excellent first feature by a film student that changed the course of independent cinema in the 90's. This is a more mature effort by an accomplished filmmaker at a different place in his life with more things to show and prove." -12/9/06


6. Stranger Than Fiction

"Harold Crick is an I.R.S. agent stuck in what could be called a routine. In actuality, he leads a painfully boring existence, but that doesn't really occur to him. It wouldn't since those immersed in their routine rarely stop to consider if they're bored or not, or more importantly if they're even remotely satisfied or happy."- 3/2/07


5. United 93

When we're finally in the air, there's more waiting. It becomes clear these terrorists really don't have much of a plan. They keep looking at each other, wondering when it's the right time. They can never agree. The sloppiness of the situation only makes it scarier. There were points when I felt like screaming at the screen for them just to do it so it's over with." - 9/11/06


4. The Departed

"The dangerous, heart-pounding game between the two main characters and the visceral energy DiCaprio and Damon infuse in them is where the meat of the film lies, making it one of Scorsese's most psychologically complex works. This is a movie about choices. Both good and bad." - 2/19/07


3. Babel

"A tiny event halfway across the world can carry ripple effects that impact others in ways that may seem impossible on paper. It has happened and continues to everyday. Misunderstandings and communication breakdowns can cause a bad situations to escalate into worse ones. No matter what your reaction to Babel is, you're at least forced to admit you had one." - 2/24/07


2. Brick

"Gordon-Levitt does things in this movie few actors his age could reasonably be expected to pull off at this point in his career. At first, it's off-putting seeing this scrawny kid with glasses walking around like a brooding mini-Brando, beating the hell out of everybody. Yet it's a testament to his abilities that after a while we don't question it at all. He pulls it off, building his reputation as one of the best rising young actors of his generation." - 9/9/06


1. Little Children

"From the opening scene, with figurines rattling on a shelf as the sound of an oncoming train approaches, we're prepared for tragedy as these characters' lives threaten to intersect in the worst possible way for over two tension-filled hours. Rarely does a film get so many little details right and hide such small treasures for the viewer to discover. - 5/13/07

Top Ten Films of 2006
1. Little Children (dir. Todd Field)
2. Brick (dir. Rian Johnson)
3. Babel (dir. Alejandro González Iñárritu)
4. The Departed (dir. Martin Scorsese)
5. United 93 (dir. Paul Greengrass)
6. Stranger Than Fiction (dir. Zach Helm)
7. Clerk II (dir. Kevin Smith)
8. The Descent (dir. Neil Marshall)
9. V For Vendetta (dir. James McTeigue)
10. The Night Listener (dir. Patrick Stettner)

Revolutionary Road

Director: Sam Mendes
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Michael Shannon, Kathy Bates, David Harbour, Kathryn Hahn, Dylan Baker
Running Time: 118 min.
Rating: R

★★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

There's nothing worse than waking up and discovering you've turned into your parents. If you have, you consider yourself a failure while the rest of society thinks you're a success. If you haven't, you consider yourself a success while the rest of society labels you a failure. Chalk it up as a no-win. That's the dilemma facing Frank Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio) in Sam Mendes' trying but almost brilliant Revolutionary Road. Adapted from Richard Yates' acclaimed 1961 novel it does the unthinkable in actually bringing a different take to not only my absolute favorite genre of film, but one that's admittedly been explored to death. Just not from an angle like this.

For once we're presented with characters who are fully aware of the suburban hell they've trapped themselves in and are clawing and fighting to escape. But the harder they fight, the deeper they sink. Mendes skips the formalities with only a single scene depicting the first encounter between Frank and his future wife, April (Kate Winslet). They meet at a cocktail party and hit it off. He made her laugh. There isn't much laughing after that as minutes later we flash forward a few years and they're at each others throats. That trend continues throughout the duration of the picture, nearly suffocating us with their emotional intensity and marital discord.

Frank works in marketing at Knox Business Machines, following in the footsteps of his late father who was employed there for twenty years. He despises it. In an unforgettable shot we see him blend in amidst a sea of flannel suits and bowler hats in New York's bustling Grand Central Station. Everyone looks the same. Scratch that. They are the same. He celebrates his thirtieth birthday by sleeping with a young secretary whose primary appeal to him is that she's the only woman around naively impressed by anything he does. Frank and April, along with their two kids, have just moved into their new home on Revolutionary Road, located in a very wealthy Connecticut suburb because that's "just what you do."

While on the surface their lives resemble a Norman Rockwell painting, it's all a put-on. April comes up with a crazy idea for Frank to just quit his job so they can move to Paris where she'll support him with a high-paying government secretarial position while he gathers time to decide what he wants to do with the rest of his life. Their plan is pretty revolutionary for a time when society's expectations of gender roles in a marriage are very clearly defined. Equally important is keeping up with the Jones,' or rather the Campbells (David Harbour and Kathryn Hahn), who are sent into a tailspin by the Wheeler's news, causing them to examine issues they'd rather leave alone. The Paris move is set into motion until things are heavily complicated by a surprise pregnancy and a golden opportunity presented to Frank at work. That, and a visit from an unwelcome houseguest, causes their already shaky marriage to devastatingly fracture.

The 1950's have taken a beating in cinema as the decade of boredom, conformity and repression, leading us to ask: "Was it really THAT bad?" But the truth is that this film could have taken place during any decade and still have rang just as true. When the middling box office returns came in for this it wasn't exactly a surprise audiences weren't in the mood to hear or see a wealthy suburban couple whine and complain about their lives as we struggle through an economic recession. There's the temptation to avoid any movie that could possibly remind us of life's very problems, especially if it features characters this realistic...or even worse, "UNLIKABLE." As someone who feels Hollywood's been spoon feeding us false optimism in the past year it was a relief to see a film at least try to tackle serious life issues head-on and ask important, socially relevant questions.

You very often hear people these days utter the phrase "I'm lucky just to have a job." So true, but have you noticed it mostly seems to be uttered by people who hate their jobs? As if they feel guilty and are saying it to motivate themselves to keep going. That's Frank Wheeler. Similarly, when a woman is pregnant our first inclination is always to congratulate them but have you ever thought why? There's a tremendous amount of financial and emotional stress that comes with raising a child and some people just aren't built for it because they're too selfish or irresponsible. Maybe they're only having children because their biological clocks are ticking or all their friends are. April Wheeler falls into both categories. But what makes this couple differ from other spoiled characters who have populated cinema's suburban hell through the decades is that they know (or think they know) what's happening and are desperate to escape, completely unaware that changing everything around them won't necessarily do that.

Paris isn't a pipe dream, but April's IDEA of what moving there will do for them just might be. They come up with all the right questions but answer them all wrong by trying to alter every external detail in their lives without first working on themselves or their relationship, although any marriage that would require this much work might not be worth salvaging to begin with. This leads to the question of how much work should a marriage should take before throwing in the towel.  Unfortunately, doing that just wasn't a viable option for couples during this era. Divorce would have been even more frowned upon than just picking up and moving to Paris. When the Wheelers' gregarious Realtor friend Helen Givings (played to perfection by the great Kathy Bates) decides it would be a good experience for her mentally unstable son John (Michael Shannon), to meet the young couple I cringed, but hearing about Shannon's Oscar nominated supporting performance couldn't have really prepared me.

Shannon's John acts as kind of a bridge between the two halves of the film, popping in to call Frank and April out on their hypocrisy. A former mathematician on leave from the psychiatric hospital, he's ironically the only character who truly understands the problem and isn't afraid to say so...bluntly. When he feels betrayed by the Wheelers, he pushes them to their breaking point, leading to an electrifying confrontation that rivals the deli scene in The Wrestler as the scariest and most uncomfortable few minutes committed to film in 2008. Shannon occupies only minutes of screen time, but he's like a tornado ripping through the picture, leaving a wreckage of distress and shock that stays with the couple (and viewers) long after he departs. There's definitely no shame losing the Best Supporting Actor Oscar to Heath Ledger but the irony there is that Shannon basically comes in and plays his own twisted version of the Joker for two huge scenes. The similarities are eerie.

There's little point arguing whether Kate Winslet's Oscar winning performance in The Reader was more or less deserving of the statue than her work here. They're two completely different parts that call for entirely different performances, the former obviously being the flashier, more Academy-skewing role. It isn't difficult to see why they nominated her for that instead. Both are deserving, but I prefer her more understated, no less challenging turn here, which wouldn't have been possible without DiCaprio, who equals her in every way.

Winslet may be given more notes to hit but DiCaprio is even more impressive, inhabiting a man at war with himself, resentful of society's expectations of him, but too afraid to do anything about it. So he takes it out on his wife. For years DiCaprio has very deliberately made more mature choices as an actor but because of his youthful appearance it's been an uphill climb. None of that is due to of a lack of talent since he's given great performances each time out (with his work in The Departed and The Aviator topping the list), but rather a certain preconceived bias from audiences that he's "too young" for these types of roles. No one can say that about this, his most mature, fully realized performance. He becomes Frank Wheeler in 1950's suburban Connecticut. Just watch his face in the the scene when he returns home to find April and his kids surprising him for his birthday.

Fans of Titanic who waited over a decade to see the re-teaming of Kate and Leo will probably want to hang themselves by the time the final credits roll. This is not an epic romance, or even a romance at all. Despite the fact it was misleadingly marketed as Titanic 2, there isn't a single romantic element in it. It's closer to a horror movie. Think Pleasantville meets Rosemary's Baby with a side helping of Mad Men thrown in for good measure. I'm convinced the hate-filled scenes the two actors share wouldn't have been possible if they weren't really close friends (which they supposedly are) and a very high comfort level must have been there for them to go at each other like they do.

Director Sam Mendes explored this kind of material before with 1999's Best picture winner, American Beauty, but he isn't just repeating himself. This is a far different film, set in a different era and Justin Haythe's screenplay doesn't feel quite as calculated. That's not a knock on Beauty but rather an indictment that the two share anything other than the exploration of a crumbling marriage in the suburbs. Strangely enough, it also doesn't remind me of the most recent flag bearer for this type of movie, Todd Field's Little Children, even though they share an actress in Winslet and Field was originally attached to this project. That film seemed to have a more satirical slant and bite that this lacks, making the two different enough that this film doesn't suffer that greatly in comparison.

Technically, it's a flawless motion picture. There isn't a single wasted shot or moment. The best cinematographer working today, Roger Deakins, tops himself again by bringing the '50's to vivid life with dreamlike precision while the production and costume design is so authentic its frightening. Thomas Newman's subtle piano score comfortably fits the film like a glove. Even the film's most biggest detractors would have to concede it's a top notch production and better put together than any other recent adult drama. I'm curious if it'll hold up moving forward or go the way of just about every other supposedly great film of 2008 and lose its power on repeated viewings. It does seem like the kind of picture you respect and admire in terms of craftsmanship, but can't love because it keeps you at arm's length. We'll just have to see how time treats it and whether, like the similarly themed The Ice Storm, it experiences a critical resurgence down the line.

I understand why this movie failed commercially but am still in complete disbelief that it wasn't better received by critics or the Academy. It would seem tailor-made for them except for the fact that they made up their minds this past year that they'd rather not be challenged or pushed by mainstream entertainment. This isn't easy to watch and full appreciation requires almost full surrender into a state of total despair. Not an easy thing to do. You have to be a hardcore cynic or have a generally pessimistic view of human nature to enjoy it, and even then, I'm not sure the word "enjoy" applies. If you didn't like it, you should probably be relieved. That my favorite genre of film usually features characters who emotionally hurt one another scares me to no end, but it doesn't depress me. What really depressing is when movies insult our intelligence by chickening out.

When the film ended though I wasn't left with the feeling of hopelessness you'd expect after sitting through what's essentially less a movie than an ordeal. That's because of one well-placed, superbly performed scene before the finale hinting that maybe Frank and April finally "got it." Maybe the key for them was finding a healthy balance somewhere between the hope and despair and, at least for a brief, passing moment, they did. It may make everyone feel better about themselves to classify these these people as unlikable but the reality is more complicated. Take away the suburban setting. Place it in another decade. It doesn't really matter. The problems are universal, the story is timeless. Revolutionary Road offers up a new reason why we shouldn't turn into our parents: They may have been even more screwed up than us.

What I Want (And Don't Want) To See On the AFI Special Airing Tomorrow Night

It's hard to believe it's been almost 10 years since the American Film Institute revealed their list of the 100 Greatest Movies over a 100-year period. It seems like just yesterday my friend and I were lamenting that we should have recorded the special because, whether or not you agreed with their choices, you had to admit it was done really well and generated great rental ideas. Now, I know what you're thinking. Lists like this are silly, subjective and meaningless so why should we care? To an extent I agree, but the AFI list actually means something to me because I was exposed to a lot of films I shamefully hadn't even known about when this special aired in 1998. It caused me to make a list of films I had to see, and as result, bolstered my interest and knowledge in cinema. Had that program never aired I'm not too sure I'd be reviewing films right now. The show will hopefully get people talking and arguing about films, so that's a good thing. Plus, it's hard to criticize any organization that sees it fitting to pay tribute to Al Pacino.

In celebration of the tenth anniversary of that special, tomorrow night the AFI is airing a three-hour special on CBS called 100 Years..100 Movies-10th Anniversary Edition hosted by Morgan Freeman. They're updating their list to reflect what they call a "changing cultural perspective" and it now includes any American movie made up until January 1, 2007. Of course this opens up Pandora's box since a lot of great movies have come out between 1998 and now and older titles many feel were unjustly left off of the original list now have a second chance.

At first, I was excited. Until I saw the official ballot handed out to the AFI jury (which consists mainly of critics and filmmakers). Anyone interested in taking a peak (and let me save you the trouble and tell you it's not worth it) can go over to their site. They ask for some basic info and then they e-mail it to you. In addition to the ballot there's a section where they ask members to rank their top 5 choices (in case of some kind of tie) and allow them to fill in 5 movies they wish to be considered that aren't on the official ballot. Any movie selected to be a part of this elite list of 100 must meet the following criteria:

1. Feature-length: Narrative format, at least 40 minutes in length.
2. American film: English language, with significant creative and/or financial production elements from the United States.
3. Critical Recognition: Formal commendation in print.
4. Major Award Winner: Recognition from competitive events including awards from organizations in the film community and major film festivals.
5. Popularity Over Time: Including figures for box office adjusted for inflation, television broadcasts and syndication, and home video sales and rentals.
6. Historical Significance: A film's mark on the history of the moving image through technical innovation, visionary narrative devices or other groundbreaking achievements.
7. Cultural Impact: A film's mark on American society in matters of style and substance.

I think most of this criteria is ridiculous, to be honest. It makes it sound like a popularity contest. I also love how they make sure the box office is "adjusted for inflation" so they have a proper measurement of how much money the film made. Like that should even be a factor. Also, award recognition is an especially stupid prerequisite since the Academy and often other major critics groups screw up royally. Citizen Kane was hardly nominated for anything, but since it has "historical significance" and "cultural impact" I guess that's excused. It made no money in theaters, but racked up in home video sales. The criteria is confusing, but like I said, it's subjective. After looking at the ballot of the 400 films under consideration for a spot I picked the 5 films I'd least want to see make it, the 5 I'd jump for joy if they did, and lastly, I'll reveal my 5 write-in choices that aren't on the official ballot. And yes, I'll be fair and use their stupid criteria to make those selections.

These are the films on the ballot that, if they make the list, I'll throw a brick at the television:

1. The Sixth Sense- Can you believe this movie was actually nominated for Best Picture?! Now, it may weasel its way onto this list. Give me a break.


2. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl- To be fair I've never actually seen it, but I don't know anyone who would claim it's one of the 100 greatest movies in American history. I know their list tends to go mainstream but this is ridiculous. Too bad Michael Bay's Transformers didn't come out last year or it probably would have stood a chance.
3. The Matrix- I was actually planning to do a list of the most overrated movies in motion picture history. Looks like the AFI has taken care of that for me. I appreciate it's special effects were influential and important (in mostly negative ways), but why not reward a movie like Pleasantville or What Dreams May Come? They were visually amazing, but told an emotionally compelling story.


4. Spiderman 2- I'm sorry I just never got it with this movie. The fact that people whose opinions on film I genuinely respect love this make me think I should give it a second look. I certainly didn't get anything out of it the first time. It just doesn't belong here. How about Richard Donner's Superman or Superman II, or even Tim Burton's Batman? Any of those would be better choices than this.


5. Mystic River-This is the least offensive of the bad choices and I expected to see it on the ballot. That doesn't make it any easier to take though. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Clint Eastwood as a filmmaker, but I'm sorry this is one of his weakest films and it shouldn't have won (or even been nominated for) Best Picture in 2003. It's essentially a made for tv movie with great performances and a ludicrous ending. I'd rather see any other Eastwood directed movie represented on the list (except Blood Work). Incidentally, Million Dollar Baby is on the ballot and I'm fine with that making it.

Here are some other bad choices on the ballot: As Good As It Gets, Shakespeare in Love, Crash, Apollo 13, Austin Powers, The Aviator, Braveheart, The English Patient, Erin Brockovich, Gladiator, Philadelphia, Shrek, There's Something About Mary


Now, some films on the ballot I'd be thrilled to see make the list. Notice I didn't include any movies that don't need my support because they'll make it anyway (like Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Apocalypse Now, The Godfather or Pulp Fiction).

1. Back To The Future- Thank God. Thank God this movie is on the ballot. Now let's just hope it makes it this time. This is one case where the AFI's commercial tastes paid off. One of my all-time favorites.


2. The Empire Strikes Back-Star Wars will make the list. We know that. If someone put a gun to my head and asked me to pick whether A New Hope or Empire Strikes Back makes it, I'd pick The Empire Strikes Back, the superior film. I guess I should just be grateful The Phantom Menace isn't on the ballot the way they've been doing things.


3. Fight Club-The REAL BEST PICTURE OF 1999. American Beauty won Best Picture that year. It's on the ballot and will rightfully earn a spot, but this deserves to be ranked right along side it, if not higher. It's paid its dues and deserves it. Strong box office, culturally significant, critical recognition, popularity over time. Check, check, check, check. Has this movie aged well or what?


4. Requiem For A Dream- AFI, I'm impressed. Getting a little edgy. This was a pleasant surprise when I saw it on the ballot. Will it make the 100? Probably not. Still, it's a victory they even considered it. Massive critical adulation likely forced the issue for them.
5. Harold and Maude-Is there a film as darkly comic and, at the same time, as strangely moving in American cinema history? The very first cult classic deserves a spot. This is long overdue.

Here are some others also on the ballot that I was happy to see and wouldn't mind if they made it:
Badlands, Boogie Nights, Being John Malkovich, A Beautiful Mind, Blue Velvet, The Breakfast Club, A Christmas Story, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Fast Times At Ridgemont High, Groundhog Day, Ghostbusters, Halloween, Memento, American Beauty, Million Dollar Baby, The Shining


And now here are my top 5 movies I want to be considered that are NOT ON THE BALLOT. Keep in mind this is not a list of my all-time favorite films (though a couple are), but rather a list BASED ON AFI'S CRITERIA of what qualifies for the Top 100. Let me first say though that David Fincher's The Game (1997) is one of my all-time favorites but is ineligible because it got no awards recognition, had mixed reviews and isn't "culturally significant." Hopefully Fincher will be represented with Fight Club. I love Roger Avary's The Rules of Attraction (2002) but Paris Hilton is universally liked more than that film, it too received no award recognition and was box office poison. I also think Frank Perry's The Swimmer (1968) belongs at the very top of any list of the greatest American films ever made but it fails to meet any AFI criteria other than critical support. It's so obscure AFI members have probably never even heard of it. So now that I've put this in perspective these are my five write-in picks not on the ballot:

1. Almost Famous- I loved Cameron Crowe's Jerry Maguire also, but this is an outrage. When I saw this wasn't on there I nearly flipped. I really expected it to at least be on the ballot. In 2000 it was robbed a Best Picture nomination, Crowe was robbed of a Best Director nod and Kate Hudson was handed an unfair Best Supporting Actress loss, a blow from which her career has yet to recover. Not only is it one of the greatest American movies, IT IS AMERICA.Time is revealing it to be one of the true greats and "culturally significant." It's also one of the few movies to get a good cry out of this reviewer. If this were in the top 10 of all-time greatest films you'd hear no complaints from me. It's that good. I'd get rid of every other selection I made here for Almost Famous to get a slot in the AFI 100.


2. Donnie Darko- Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko was released into theaters the week of September 11, 2001. Needless to say, not many moviegoers were interested in watching a movie about a jet engine crashing into a family's house. It came and went with little fanfare. Slowly it started to pick up steam on video and is now considered one of the great cult classics and underdog success stories in movie history. It has its detractors, but even they will admit it's a one of a kind, original work that can only come along, oh, every 100 years or so. It's been analyzed from every angle and picked apart to death, yet still no one can agree on any answers. I was considering putting another time travel movie, 12 Monkeys on here (and it does deserve to be) but came to the conclusion that it doesn't push as many boundaries cinematically. Darko also has one of the most unforgettable and haunting endings you'll ever see.


3.The Ice Storm-When I decided I would put Ang Lee's quiet 1997 masterpiece on here it occurred to me that I've probably seen this movie more times than any other. Whenever it comes on cable I can never shut it off. It's almost hypnotizing and it's amazing to think such an accurate portrait of this country in the 1970's was directed by a man not even born in this country. It didn't do that well in theaters and underperformed at the Oscars, but it's done exceptionally well on home video and is now widely regarded as a modern classic. I was very surprised it didn't show up on the ballot. Very surprised. Watch it and remember when Tobey Maguire was a real actor. If they want a film of "cultural significance" it'll be hard to find one better than this.


4. Little Children-As I was browsing through the ballot I was overcome with a feeling I couldn't shake: "Why isn't Little Children on here?" I just expected to see it for some reason. It's tough to explain why I thought that since it came out so recently, but it just feels right. It feels like an AFI Top 100 movie. It's technically brilliant, culturally significant and was nominated for 3 Academy Awards in addition to winning numerous critical honors. More importantly though, it tells us something about how we live and intelligently examines human behavior. Simply put: It's important. I thought this and Brick were the two best films of 2006, but Brick isn't culturally significant like this is. I know it may seem early to judge its place in history, but they're likely going to put the heavy-handed Crash on the list. That film already hasn't held up well at all and it's only been two years. 10 years from now I can guarantee you that Todd Field's Little Children will still be emotionally resonant and relevant. It's a great choice.


5. The 40-Year-Old Virgin- I have an idea. If the AFI wants to be mainstream, how about they put a mainstream movie on the list that's actually great and deserves to be there? To their credit, the AFI were one of the few in 2005 to put this film on their best of the year list so I was kind of surprised it wasn't on the ballot. I would put this movie up against any comedy they have on there and it would win. No one could tell me this film isn't far superior to Animal House, Airplane! and Austin Powers. They're not even in the same league. It's probably the most underrated comedy of all-time since it's so funny people often don't give it the credit it deserves for just being a brilliant movie. And I don't care if it's a comic performance, Steve Carell deserved an Oscar nomination. It's slowly revealing itself as the best film of 2005 and possibly the most well written comedy ever. It did get critical and awards recognition, is proving to be culturally significant and did massive box office. They have no excuse.

According to the criteria, here are some other films not on the ballot that deserve to make it: 12 Monkeys, Dark City, Adaptation, Pleasantville, What Dreams May Come, Magnolia, The Big Lebowski, House of Sand and Fog, Before Sunrise, Eyes Wide Shut, Clerks, The Goonies, Straw Dogs, They Shoot Horse, Don't They?, Mulholland Drive, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Princess Bride, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Karate Kid, Say Anything, Superman II, A History of Violence, Seven

Little Children

Director: Todd Field

Starring: Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Jennifer Connelly, Jackie Earle Haley, Noah Emmerich, Phyllis Sommerville, Gregg Edelman

Running Time: 130 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)
In 2001 Todd Field released In The Bedroom, which earned an Oscar nomination for Best Picture and was hailed by many critics as a masterpiece. It wasn't. Little Children is. What was the first thing I did after I finished watching this film? I sat and thought about it for a long, long time. And then...I watched it again. It's not an easy movie to sit through emotionally but it really requires at least two viewings to fully appreciate all the subtle nuances and tiny details that hide between the cracks of the film, in both the directing and the performances. It's so observant and intelligent about life that you might not even notice all the ground it covers at first. I know I didn't. After the first viewing I was taken aback and not quite sure what to make of it because it's so different from anything that's out there right now. It's very dense, methodically paced, isn't easily accessible and plays like a sprawling novel.

Based on Tom Perrotta's 2004 bestseller of the same name, Field co-wrote the script with author, going on record as saying they had no interest in simply just translating the material onto the screen, but adding a different dimension to it. Having not read the book I can't compare the two, but I have a feeling this is one of those rare adaptations where the integrity of the original work was not only preserved, but enhanced. Kubrickian in its execution, the film features a visionary style, sterile quality, and dark sense of humor the late director would have surely appreciated. It even contains a Barry Lydon-style voiceover narration. There's a throwback feel to it, from the creepy opening title sequence to the score and pacing all the way to it's ambiguous but ambitious ending. It could hold its own with some of the best from the 60's and 70's. The kind of movie they don't make anymore.

I thought Kubrick comparison may have been unfair until I remembered that Todd Field was an actor before he was a director and had a small role in Kubrick's last and most underrated film, Eyes Wide Shut. It looks like someone took notes. Many filmmakers have attempted to employ Kubrick's style over the years but none have come close to succeeding technically or effectively harnessing the spirit of them. Field has.

The film perfectly capturing those lazy summer afternoons in suburbia where the "desperate housewives" sit idly on the park bench gossiping while their children play. Playground politics are on full display in this small Massachusetts suburb and Field keeps digging deeper and deeper into the hypocrisy that surrounds its inhabitants. Someone who wants no part of this hypocrisy and is truthful to herself to a fault is Sarah Pierce (Oscar nominated Kate Winslet). A free spirited woman who was once a dissertation away from her Master's degree in English and is now a mother who couldn't possibly be more unfit for motherhood. Her only enjoyment in life comes from her evening walk around the neighborhood facilitated by her husband Richard's (Gregg Edelman) return from work, where he stays late masturbating to internet porn.

Sarah finds herself amidst three shallow housewives who have set their sights on a man they've dubbed the "Prom King," who has returned to the playground with his son after a long absence. This is Brad Adamson (Patrick Wilson) a stay-at-home dad whose beautiful wife, Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) is a successful PBS documentary filmmaker and family breadwinner. That she's a documentary filmmaker is a neat touch since the uncredited voice that narrates this film belongs to Will Lyman of PBS Frontline fame. Screenwriting coach Robert McKee will probably yell at me for saying this but I'm a sucker for voice over narration. If used well it can add a lot to and this is possibly the best use of it ever in a film. The narrator here is smart, eloquent and often very humorous, popping up at just the right moment (like a tense dinner scene) to add rather than detract from the story. His voice is as much a character as anyone else's in the film.

Brad spends his days entertaining his son and his nights pretending to study for the bar exam, which he's failed more times than JFK Jr. He doesn't want to be a lawyer, or really much of anything for that matter. Time that could be spent studying is used watching kids skateboard in the park in an attempt to recapture the teenage years that eluded him, even though the kids don't even notice he's there. The housewives in the playground are too scared to talk to him, or maybe simply too lazy, but Sarah isn't and on a dare strikes up a conversation. As a joke they share a kiss in front of the shocked and horrified mothers resulting in a very funny scene. That eventually leads to summer afternoons at the pool with the kids and a deep friendship. It soon turns into a torrid affair.

Meanwhile the entire neighborhood has a bigger problem with the release of convicted child molester Ronnie J. McGorvey (Oscar nominated Jackie Earle Haley) from jail after serving a 2-year sentence. He comes home to live with his aging mother (the wonderful Phyllis Somerville) and their scenes together are maybe the most touching, and at the same time strangely pathetic, of the film. She's trying to prepare him for life when she's gone despite the distraction of the town breathing down their necks. When he shows up for a swim at the public pool the parents grab their kids and flee like they've seen Jaws. Leading the charge is Larry Hedges (a completely unrecognizable Noah Emmerich), a "retired" neighborhood cop who leads a group called "The Committee for Concerned Parents" who makes it their mission to rid the town of this pedophile. He organizes a weekly touch football game with the guys and recruits Brad to be their quarterback. He has a secret of his own. From the opening scene of the film, with figurines rattling on a shelf as the sound of an oncoming train approaches, we're prepared for tragedy as these characters' lives threaten to intersect in the worst possible way for over two tension-filled hours.

Rarely does a film get so many little details right and hide such small treasures for the viewer to discover. Like the jester hat Brad's son wears all day but takes off the second his mother comes through the door, as if playtime is over. The real parent is home. No use for silly costumes. Or Sarah forgetting the rice cakes for her daughter and her frazzled reaction to it. Has anyone ever been more ill equipped for parenthood? The narrator at times mirrors the thoughts of the audience as he wonders how Brad can possibly cheat on his seemingly "perfect" wife with Sarah but we actually do know why and so does he. Sarah understands him and for Brad that means an awful lot right now. His wife would rather share the bed with their infant son.

The movie tries to convince us that Sarah is even physically wrong for Brad with her "boyish figure," and does an admirable job dressing her in baggy clothes to make her look as unflattering as possible. Of course we know Kate Winslet is far from ugly and having a "boyish figure," but if the narrator and wardrobe do not completely convince you, her performance will. She digs deep into this sad and negligent mother to deliver the finest work of her career. Some may find her scene with the book club discussing Madame Bovary a little too on the nose and in the hands of a lesser director it would have been. Field knows just the right way to handle it and Winslet is captivating.

On the surface Jennifer Connelly's Kathy seems like just a ball and chain plot device for Brad and Sarah to get together and an underdeveloped character. Look closer though. Watch how Connelly effectively portrays a nagging wife without ever once nagging. She'll give a look or say something just a certain way that gets under Brad's skin. When he announces he's thinking of buying a cell phone her response is so simple and matter of fact that it's actually devastating. How about when Brad comes home and finds a list of magazines he's subscribed to on the table with a note attached: "Do You Really Need These?" Finally a movie portrays marital strife with something a spouse would actually do! People don't always scream and yell at each other. These are the things that hurt more.

Over the past two weeks, between this and the indie drama Hard Candy, I've been able to see two movies starring Patrick Wilson, who I had never really seen or heard of before then. Both of these films are among the best I've seen in years and I think the reason neither performance garnered nominations (perhaps aside from the uncomfortable subject matter) is that he has such a natural screen presence that it appears he isn't doing anything. He's the best kind of actor. He doesn't force anything and can slip into a character without you noticing he's inhabiting it. With his blank expression and regular everyman looks you don't even notice he's giving a performance. Of course it wouldn't be up for any awards. It's too subtly brilliant and never draws any attention to itself. It's what he doesn't do that makes him so effective.

Much has made of Jackie Earle Haley's huge comeback and return to Hollywood's good graces thirty years after his role in The Bad News Bears. The strange thing about his performance as Ronnie is that it doesn't pull you in immediately, but rather sneaks up on you and slowly builds throughout the film until it finally explodes, or more accurately, implodes. His blind date is painful to watch. It seems like it's going well until we realize this man is simply not capable of having any kind of normal social interaction with anyone. The date ends the only way it can: in disaster.

Recently there has been some forward progression in how pedophiles have been portrayed onscreen. Between this film, The Woodsman and Hard Candy we're seeing pedophiles portrayed not as nameless, faceless monsters but as real people who are seriously ill and need help. Their behavior may be monsterous but it doesn't mean they're not human. It may be easier for us to pretend they're not, but if we do we're no closer to understanding what causes it. If we don't understand that, how can we prevent it? It's a reminder movies can educate as well as entertain. A lot of people are going to be uncomfortable with a movie that presents a pedophile in a sympathetic light, but I don't think this does that. It presents him as a sick human. Haley's performance is what earns our sympathy. Your heart breaks for the guy.

As good Haley's performance is, it's not the best in the film. I think that honor belongs to Noah Emmerich as the neighbor who makes it his life goal to harass the hell out of Ronnie and his mother. I can't tell you how many neighborhood parents I knew growing up who were exactly like ex-cop Larry Hedges. I could swear I knew the man. Emmerich gets every detail just right. It's so spot on it's scary. Loud, lonely, obnoxious, opinionated and self-centered he's the guy in the neighborhood you're nice to because you feel you have to be. Not a bad guy mind you, just annoying. You always have that feeling that he's harmless though, as he hides behind his mask of insecurity. For good reason. Everyone has a past. Especially guys like Larry. When you live in a small town you really have no choice but to be nice to him because you're going to have to deal with him every day. I loved it when Kathy had to remind Brad that he doesn't even like Larry Hedges. How true that often we get so caught up in our routines we're not even sure how we really feel about anyone, or even if we care anymore.

Emmerich, a fine character actor best known for his "best friend" supporting roles in films like The Truman Show and Frequency finally has an opportunity to play a character that's three dimensional and complex, and he sinks his teeth into it. How committed was he to this performance? Let's just say when he first appeared on screen I had no idea who he was. He looks like he lost all the weight DeNiro gained for Raging Bull. You can tell he underwent both a physical and emotional transformation to become this neurotic, obsessed man. It's the great overlooked performance of the film because it weaves so seamlessly and realistically into the story that it's almost impossible to notice how powerful his work is upon an initial viewing. His character is at the heart and soul of this film and that's never clearer than at the end. I think it's my favorite performance, supporting or otherwise, of the past year and Emmerich deserved a nomination.

Everyone has their favorite genre of film. Some like horror, others action/adventure, and some prefer suspense films. I always get strange looks when I tell people my favorite type of films are suburban nightmares. There's something about real people put in real situations with the volume turned way up that I respond to. Since I grew up in a small town a lot like this one (minus the public pool) and hated it it's always interesting for me to see these types of films exposing the hypocrisy of the residents, yet still showing them as human beings who make mistakes. The title of the film is cruelly ironic as it's the parents who are really the "little children." They need to be protected…from themselves. There's something about the truthful way it exposes how people think and act that we can learn from. I would rank this film alongside American Beauty, The Ice Storm and The Swimmer as the greatest in this genre.

I went into this film with the highest expectations imaginable and they were exceeded tenfold. In a year that's seen films like Children of Men and Notes on a Scandal come with incredible hype only to fall short for me I went in with great trepidation as well as optimism. As the film's finale approached I worried Field would force all these characters into a contrived collision course of melodrama. Just the opposite occurred. Instead the film ended quietly, introspectively and intelligently. At first I was surprised how abrupt the ending was and the lack of closure. But sometimes in life, that's how it is.

You have to wonder what would have happened had New Line gotten behind this film and pushed it like all the mindless sequels and remakes we've been seeing in theaters lately. That it was only nominated for 3 (albeit very well deserved) Academy Awards is shameful. It should have been a lock for a Best Picture nomination. How Field's first feature In the Bedroom, a great film but inferior on every single level, earned one in 2001 is perplexing. I think mismarketing is to blame and it's carried over into the DVD release as well. The cover art makes the film look like a romantic comedy and doesn't even hint at the emotional heft and complexity of this story.

Interestingly, the DVD doesn't come with a single special feature (not even a trailer) and there are no plans for a special edition in the future. You know what? I'm glad. Any special feature accompanying a film like this would seem gratuitous. Supplemental material, which in most cases is still a good idea, has devolved into a tool for filmmakers to hide the fact their movie sucks. I really don't need to hear George Lucas talk about the catering crew on the Star Wars Episode III DVD. This movie can stand on it's own and it's fitting there isn't a feature on here because this movie doesn't even seem like it belongs in the DVD era at all. That this is only Todd Field's second film can mean one of two things: He's peaked, or more frighteningly, his best work is yet to come. Either way, Little Children is one of those rare motion pictures that stay with you.