Your best films of 2006

[Carlson2005]

Not a great year as far as cinemagoing is concerned - indeed, I can't even manage a top ten the quality was generally so mediocre. So, in reverse order, my top 6 of the year with wildly overlong reviews for 5 out of 6...


6. Borat

The free-running sequence in Casino Royale may be breathtaking, but it doesn’t quite manage to provide the best fight scene of the year – that honor goes to the notorious one in Borat which, like Casino, also involves testicles in an example of dedication by an actor that makes Christian Bale’s weight loss in The Machinist look like phoning it in. You have to admire Cohen’s cajones (which are on view in more ways than one) as he goes above and beyond the call of duty in his determination to stay in character no matter how hostile the environment he’s helped to create. It’s pretty easy to spot the faked sequences – the driving instructor, the friendly Jewish couple who rent them a room, the children at the ice cream truck, the Pamela Anderson finale – and most of the victims that aren’t faked are more than deserving of their fate (the racist rodeo impresario, the frat boys) or handle themselves well (the feminists). Even the villagers currently suing can’t really have much of a case: the moment an extra agrees to put a dildo on as a prosthetic arm, it’s pretty obvious they're not participating in a documentary. (Hell, they’re not even real Kazaks, so it’s not as if they’re playing themselves!) And yes, it is very funny even if, like most comedies, it does run out of steam in the ‘serious’ last act.


5. V For Vendetta


4. Election 2: Harmony is a Virtue

Johnnie To's crime drama is in many ways more impressive and definitely more ambitious than its predecessor even though it lacks its relentless forward momentum. Where the first film was a literal relay race, this is more of a distance event, but it’s a much more engrossing look at the nature and politics of corruption. It does amp up the violence from the first film, particularly in one literally grinding sequence, but it never deteriorates into a gore show, focussing less on Simon Yam’s Triad chairman after a second term than reluctant contender Louis Koo, contrasting the one’s troubled relationship with his son (who qualified for a lifetime in therapy at the end of the first film) with the other’s hopes for his future offspring. It ends with the possibility of hope for one son but the certainty of damnation for another that hasn’t even been born, the film bookended by scenes at the same location, the first full of sunlight and promise and confidence, the second dark and cloudy as one character finds that the price of respectability is the very violent life he wants to turn his back on. It’s also surprisingly critical of the corruption in the Chinese government, implying that its collusion with Triad gangsters goes way beyond mere backhanders but is actually a deliberate part of government policy as a means of exerting social control in Hong Kong through close ties with organised crime – a particularly perverse irony considering the Triads’ origins as political rebels exiled from the mainland who became corrupted by crime. Unsurprisingly, it seems to have been banned in Mainland China. Incidentally, although there is talk of a longer version existing because of three striking scenes in the film’s trailers (including a Chinese execution, the open grave of the first film’s last victim and a funeral), an interview on the 2-disc Panorama DVD reveals that these scenes were cut by To prior to release.


3. Casino Royale

As one of the only 12 people who were genuinely delighted at Daniel Craig’s casting a year ago, I must admit I was more than a little worried about Casino Royale. Not the kind of paranoia that those newcomers who’d never experience the changing of the guard the series goes through every decade or the staggeringly venomous hatemongering of the more fanatical Brosnan fans who felt compelled to start libellous hate-sites, though. After all those months of arguing that he was the perfect choice for the role (especially after some of the more moronic suggestions), was I setting myself up for a fall if he turned in a disappointing performance? Similarly there was the film itself. While the producers were making all the right noises about going back to basics, they’d done exactly the same with Licence To Kill and chickened out to deliver a sub-Roger Moore effort with Wayne Newton as a comedy relief villain, inept ninjas, pointless gadgets, laughable violence and monster truck stunts. Too often in the past the franchise had been over-reliant on the goodwill generated by the earlier films, rehashing earlier vehicles to decreasing returns secure in the knowledge that the audience would turn up anyway. Take away the Bond brand, and too many post-OHMSS entries simply wouldn’t have stood up to scrutiny in the marketplace on their own merits: Bond had become a tradition, a ritual like going home for the holidays that you knew was never going to be as good as it was when you were a kid but which you still went through out of a mixture of hope and obligation.

I needn’t have worried. Not only is it the best Bond film in 37 years, it’s as if the Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan years never happened. After Brosnan’s surprisingly lazy and slightly seedy turn in DAD, Craig delivers the most physical Bond since Lazenby, but this time matched by the acting chops to make the most of the best script the series has had in decades – at once plot and character led - as the rookie blunt instrument bulldozes his way through his mission until emotional awakening and betrayal starts to finesse him into the Bond we knew from the Connery days. Brosnan never could have delivered this kind of performance, either physically or emotionally, and, truth be told, neither could Connery in his prime: Craig is the first one to convince you that he’s not a movie star or an actor but that he really is James Bond.

The updating of the plot from the Cold War era to a post 9/11 world works surprisingly well, with the first act managing to provide a convincing motive for the high stakes poker game centrepiece while also providing a couple of superb action scenes that don’t become too absurd and serve the plot in a series where in the past the plot was too often an excuse for the action. The much-criticised change from baccarat to poker is a smart one too. Where Baccarat is purely a game of luck (as Fleming himself found out when he went bust in three hands trying out the novel’s premise on a Nazi spy), poker actually involves both strategy and psychology, making for more satisfying drama and tension.

There is, sadly, one concession to gadgetry that veers into the absurd – c’mon, who keeps a defibrillator in their glove compartment? – and is an unwelcome reminder of the days when old Roge would get out of a scrape with his buzz saw wristwatch or his projectile dart cufflinks thanks to lazy writing, but elsewhere it settles for using existing technology (most of it manufactured by Sony for some reason that escapes me) rather than veering into total fantasy. And it’s good to see a Bond who needs hospitalisation after the villain goes Quasimodo on his nuts with a bellrope. The film’s final sequence promises one helluva follow-up, and one can only hope the producers don’t lose their nerve and throw it all away the way they did with Diamonds Are Forever. The real James Bond is indeed back.


2. Cache / Hidden

Even though I was immensely impressed with Code Unknown, the only other Michael Haneke film I’ve seen, I wasn’t prepared for how powerful Caché turned out to be. Denied an Oscar nomination as Best Foreign Film because no-one could agree whether it was a French film or not, certainly on the surface it’s a fairly typical French film, but it’s what’s under the surface that really counts.

The central premise is simple enough, as Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche’s comfortable bourgeois life is put under increasing strain by a series of videotapes of the their house accompanied by childish drawings of faces with bleeding mouths or throats. With one exception, the tapes show nothing: their menace comes not from their contents but the fact that they exist. Since the drawings have to come from someone who knows the character’s past, is it Auteuil’s Georges’ own conscience that is sending them? Or is it the filmmaker who is sending them to provoke a reaction from his characters? Significantly the tapes are all shot on a fixed camera mounted on a raised tripod in what must be a clearly visible position. Indeed, the appearance of the second tape blocking a doorway that was clear earlier in the shot offers little else in the way of a possible natural explanation.

But the tapes are really just a Maguffin, a narrative device to push the characters and plot forward, not for some cross-country chase but for a more internal guilt trip. This particular lost highway leads into the past, mirroring France’s inability to apologize for it’s colonial past (in particular it’s treatment of Algerians), something it absolves itself of all guilt from by repeating the mantra that it was all in the past when they were much younger and knew no better, as if that wipes out thousands of futures denied or stolen. It’s no accident that the film revolves around a failed adoption that mirrors France’s own failed colonisations.

While the characters are believable rather than Godardian or arthouse archetypes, it’s easy to ascribe a wider allegorical purpose to them. In many respects, Georges is a reflection of France itself, outwardly respectable but denying his past and not acknowledging guilt over Algeria (it’s probably not altogether insignificant that Auteuil himself was born in Algeria). He simply doesn’t want to talk about it. He doesn’t even connect emotionally with his present, let alone his past, mother, son and wife all a part of his life he really has nothing much to say about. Nothing is ever Georges’ fault, not even a near accident crossing the street. He blames a cyclist for his careless mistake, showing that he has learned nothing from his past but is still repeating it. As with the opening of Haneke’s epic of non-communication, Code Unknown, he is oblivious to the wider implications of what is to him a trivial moment or of the possible consequences of his moment of self-righteous anger.

More than that, just as he edits out anything ‘too theoretical’ in his TV show, he tries to re-edit his own past (just as the French government did last year when it passed a law that “the benefits of French colonization in foreign countries should be recognized and integrated into school programs.”) but can’t do it quite so easily. Not that he doesn’t try. Both of Georges' initial flashbacks are dishonest reinventions of memory: Georges turns his childish conspiracy against one character into his victim terrorizing him, reinventing his memory and history to reflect his current interpretation of events and reality. It’s this reinvention that allows him to honestly claim without any real evidence that he is being terrorized – “a campaign of terror” are his exact words – by the person he has wronged. To France, the atrocities inflicted on the Algerians don’t matter – it’s the threat to Georges that, in his childlike ignorance, is all that matters and must be dealt with radically.

Indeed, even though Majid and his son are French-born, both are regarded as foreigners, intruders. Yet neither conforms to the stereotyped ‘Arab’ image: polite, sad, very pointedly not aggressive, yet still regarded purely as a threat for being goaded into an action for which they were punished.

Haneke makes no secret that he isn’t interested in providing answers but rather is forcing questions on the viewer to make them more of a participant. As he said in an interview in The Observer, “I’m not going to give anyone the answer. If you think it’s Majid, Pierrot, Georges, the malevolent director, God himself, the human conscience – all these answers are correct. But if you come out wanting to know who sent the tapes, you didn’t understand the film. To ask this question is to avoid asking the real question the film raises, which is more: how do we treat our conscience and our guilt and reconcile ourselves to living with our actions.

“People are only asking “whodunit?” because I chose to use the genre, the structure of a thriller, to address the issues of blame and conscience, and these methods of narrative usually demand an answer. But my film isn’t a thriller and who am I to presume to give anyone an answer on how they should deal with their own guilty conscience?

“I look at it as productive frustration. Films that are entertainments give simple answers but I think that’s ultimately more cynical, as it denies the viewer room to think.”

If all that sounds hopelessly ‘arty,’ it’s not: this is a film that can be enjoyed on many levels, and it certainly engaged the varied crowd in the packed house I finally saw it - it’s been a long time since I’ve heard an entire cinema gap in genuine shock at one sequence. And, though I usually avoid anything shot on video like the plague that they are in theatres, at least there’s a valid reason for this to be shot on tape (there needs to be a textural similarity between the covert tapes that drive the narrative and the ‘real’ scenes), although there are moments where the limitations of the HD cameras are all too awkwardly apparent and briefly drew me out of the film. But the film was powerful and thought-provoking enough to draw me back in and lodge itself in my head long after seeing it.


1. Pan's Labyrinth

This is one of those films that starts so well that you hope it will stay that good but which actually surprises you and constantly improves. It’s a remarkably layered work about the importance of choice even in an emotional and political dictatorship and about the fictions and fantasies that sustain people through the worst circumstances. On the surface this appears to be little more than a more fantastic spin on The Spirit of the Beehive, sharing its post-Spanish Civil War setting as well as the broken family setting, but this is a far superior film in every way. Although marketed largely as a fantasy, its real power lies in the scenes set in the real world where Sergi Lopez’s all too believable Fascist monster is mopping up the few remaining communist guerrillas in the hills while waiting for his sick wife to give birth to his son while her daughter from her first marriage tries to reassert her own identity rather than submit to the Captain’s idea of family.

The challenges of the mythical world are far less disturbing – or violent - than the real one, and it’s all too easy to see why she wants to escape into the darkness of the labyrinth where at least the hope of something better exists. But then she’s not the only one escaping into the imagination, as her mother sustains herself with a romanticised view of her meeting the captain that he has no interest in whatsoever. To him stories – even a part of his family history that has passed into local legend – exist only to be denied. Lopez’s greatest sin isn’t the pride that he admits to, or even that he is so pitiless, it’s that he chooses to obey without question: the girl’s small triumph is that she does not. And the triumphs in the film are generally small, quiet ones, where courage and fear go hand in hand, making the few acts of decency all the more important when they occur. There is one “saved by the cavalry” moment that at first doesn’t convince but does prove to be there for a definite purpose that makes the ending all the more powerful.

But while there’s a lot going on underneath the surface of the film, it doesn’t crush it with the weight of its ideas. It’s directed with a visual assurance and, at times, playfulness that sweeps you along, sometimes with delight, sometimes with apprehension, but never simply for the sake of a nice shot or a neat special effect (most of which are incredibly well integrated for such a low budget feature). The performances are superb, with Lopez somehow managing to avoid turning his irredeemable character into a caricature: this is an evil without conscience that is all too recognisable. Javier Navarette’s beautiful score is also adept at walking the fine line between magic and emotion without crossing the line into schmaltz.

It’s a remarkable film, the only new one that I’ve seen this year that I’d genuinely say is one of the greatest of all time. It’s been years since I was so affected by I movie that I had to see the very next show. Practically perfect and definitely one to catch on the big screen.

[Monterey Jack]

There is, sadly, one concession to gadgetry that veers into the absurd – c’mon, who keeps a defibrillator in their glove compartment?

This, personally, I had little problem with, as portable defibrillator kits are becoming more commonplace, and considering the recent real-life poisoning of an ex-spy, this is something that 007 would have to keep an eye out for, especially with all those martinis he sucks down.

And while I still have a handful of movies I'd like to see in the next two months as they expand from limited engagements, here's my tenative top-ten list for '06:

1.) Brick: A-

2.) The Departed: A-

3.) V For Vendetta: A-

4.) Casino Royale: A-

5.) Hard Candy: A-

6.) Inside Man: A-

7.) Apocalypto: A-

8.) The Descent: A-

9.) The Black Dahlia: B+

10.) The Prestige: B+



And the pits...



45.) Over The Hedge: C+

46.) Ask The Dust: C+

47.) Poseidon: C+

48.) The Da Vinci Code: C

49.) American Dreamz: C

50.) Firewall: D

51.) Lady In The Water: D

[mkaroly]

I only saw 8 films released in 2006....not a good year. Here are my "grades" from the reviews I write for family and friends:

8. Eragon (D) - Dumb, not original, and unbelieveably hilarious (when it's not trying to be).

7. Lady In the Water (D) - Dumb, pretentious, and nearly unwatchable. Giamatti's perfromance and JNH's score saved it from the lowest grade.

6. Superman Returns (C) - Score really bad, and while it did have moments here and there overall I didn't care for it too much (especially the twist).

5. POTC: Dead Man's Chest (C) - Johnny Depp good, but film is too long. Just because you can make a 2.5 hour movie doesn't mean you should. The editing gave me a headache as I am not ADD (Kraken sequence almost got me to leave the theater). Zimmer's score is dull.

4. Scoop (C+) - Arguably the funniest movie Woody Allen has done in a long time. Same jokes, different locales...I disagreed with critics who kept compaing it favorably to Manhattan Murder Mystery (which is one of my guilty favorite Allen films); Johanssen and Jackman are very good in it. I was happy to see it.

3. Apocalypto (B+) - I admit that I did enjoy this film and found it a fascinating viewing experience. Not what I expected.

2. X-Men: The Last Stand (A) - Really, really enjoyed this film. Famke Janssen is HOT! I thought it was better than X2 and enjoyed the "post-credits" teaser. Very entertaining film.

1. Casino Royale (A+) - I can't stop talking about how much I love this film and David Arnold's score. The franchise needed a shot in the arm and they got it with Craig and an excellent story (defibrillator aside) with solid performances and hardly any gadgetry. Clearly for me this was the best film of 2006. I'm looking forward to the next Bond film.

[AndyDursin]

I thought BORAT was mildly amusing but to me it was this year's version of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT -- a "movie of the moment" that must've had the finest press junket in the world for critics to lavish heaps and heaps of praise all over it. Don't get me wrong, I found the film uproarious in places but so poorly made with connecting material that wasn't even competently directed. The "story" was inane, some of the gags completely misfired, and one could have strung the material together in a 20 or 30 minute segment and had it worked just as well (not to mention the pathetic, fizzled-out finish). I find Cohen hugely talented and Borat hilarious for 5 minutes but the movie just didn't do it for me; Cohen is just as hysterical in TALLADEGA NIGHTS in a totally different role too.

I have a hard time doing a Best Of list because there are many films I haven't seen yet and want to (PAN'S LABYRINTH, Eastwood's two WWII films, LETTERS being the more notable Oscar choice since its anti-war messages will appeal to the core voters), but going on what I saw I could easily recommend these:

6 For '06: Andy's Recommended Flicks at the Movies (in no particular order)

-INVINCIBLE: Mark Wahlberg's finest performance graces a truly heartfelt and saccharine-free sports bio of Vince Papale. I really loved every aspect of the film, from Greg Kinnear's work as Dick Vermeil to the authentic atmosphere and Mark Isham score. Very highly recommended and now on DVD, too.

-CASINO ROYALE: I wasn't in love with it, but there were undoubtedly some phenomenal moments and Craig was great. Good enough for me to forget the whole Brosnan era, which was the point, wasn't it?

-PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 2: Not sure what most of the critics were watching -- audiences certainly responded too -- but this was a grand, epic adventure packed with imagination and Depp's defining role. The score was an improvement as well; can't wait for Part 3.

-ROCKY BALBOA: Stallone delivers the goods. As "feel good" a movie as I've seen in years.

-X-MEN: THE LAST STAND: I actually had a friend think I was joking when I said I liked this. Obviously with it being the 3rd highest grossing flick of '06 domestically ($234 mil, higher than the much more hyped Superman) a lot of people did too. Easily Brett Ratner's finest hour -- a slimmed-down and action-packed comic book that dispenses with all of Bryan Singer's pretentious sermons and delivers the goods. Good score by John Powell too.

-APOCALYPTO: Undeniably a powerful and one-of-a-kind viewing experience with some amazing sequences. Shows Gibson's undeniable power as a filmmaker; too bad James Horner's effective but unremarkable score wasn't able to let loose.

Over-Rated Film That Stands The Best Chance at Oscars

-THE DEPARTED: What happened to the end of this movie? Good performances (though I had enough of Jack chewing up the scenary and all of his costars) and a reasonably compelling story kiboshed by a terrible leading lady and no climax to speak of. When you got to the end, I had a hard time believing it WAS the end.

5 Duds For 2006

-V FOR VENDETTA

-SUPERMAN RETURNS: As unappealing a "restart" as one could imagine -- an endless pseudo-sequel that manages to pretty much do everything wrong from its tone to its "remade" characters, indifferent performances and John Ottman's hideous arrangement of John Williams' themes. The big climactic confrontation between Lex Luthor and Superman reminded one of the Rodney King beating instead of the original film. Here's a suggestion: Bryan Singer ought to pound his issues out in therapy instead of grafting them onto comic book heroes where they don't belong (Superman as an alienated loner, deadbeat dad, and ex-girlfriend stalker?). Sadly with the incessant marketing the movie managed to do well enough to launch a sequel, though the budget will apparently be stripped down somewhat (Singer only blew $10 million on a sequence for the first movie that didn't even make the final cut!). Coming next: SUPERMAN KIDZ, with a flying eight year old -- just what we all want to see!

-LADY IN THE WATER: I think some of the reviews were too kind. An utter disaster on pretty much every level (save the score) that proves Disney was right to dispose of "Night"'s talents.

-POSEIDON: Not even so bad it's good. Just....bad, boring, and thoroughly unappealing with not one character you could give a damn about.

-THE WICKER MAN: Molly Parker and Leelee Sobieski are HOT. Nothing else in this unbelievably godawful bomb is, with Cage looking like GHOST RIDER can't come soon enough. The "shock" ending would have been more effective if EVERYONE burned up, including the film crew shooting it!

[romanD]

well, my problem is that I always forget what came out during the year...

anyhow, in no particular order:

1) POTC 2 - just loved it... one of the few movies in a long time I saw twice in the theater! Bring on part 3!

2) THE DESCENT - well, was a 2005 movie here, but still... great characters you care for, incredibly tense (even before the monsters show up), great shocks and gore and fantastic ending

3) PANS LABYRINTH - very nice and touching movie, but honestly, how do you market this movie and who is supposed to see it? For most people it will look like LABYRINTH and kids should definitely not see it (nor will they understand it). Rarely I have been so shocked by movie violence, but the scene with the bottle and the knife scene, the scene where the cute elves get eaten and not to forget the ending, made my day... you shouldn't plan to go out after this movie. Still, very moving, emotional film, great design... the score however didn't do anything for me and was the only weak point. Prepare for some intriguing, thought-provoking but hyperviolent movie (as the violence is so realistic... think the torture scene in CR was scary? Think again...)

4) THE BANQUET - chinese adaption of HAMLET/MACBETH... by far outstanding in every category. Story, acting, direction, art direction, costumes, music, photography, action... absolutely mindblowing movie which may even surpass HERO as the story is much more intriguing. Difficult movie, you have to pay attention to the story... this should get Oscar noms in many categories. Even the title song is fantastic! Loved the final scene, when the Empress reflects on the happenings and then... well... just loved it, pay attention to the lyrics of the song and then the tear falling into the well... loved it.

5) Xmen 3... guess I think it is better than it actually is, because of the character relationships from the first two movies. Still, had a helluva time with it... could have been longer, but well, I guess, this shows that movies dont need to be 2,5 hours long!


Departed was fine, but it was almost a shot for shot remake, so I wonder what Scorsese interested in this. The ending was a typical americanized ending which was a lot worse than the ending of the original. Funny though as soon as you give a remake another title, nobody cares about the fact that it is a remake.

[Carlson2005]

I must admit I found POTC to be rather average - it was okay, the special effects and Bill Nighy were great, but it felt like they never had a full script and were writing it from day to day. It’s not a bad film and offers a fair amount of enjoyment, but the script really lacks the polish, wit and surprise of the original and the film feels like it was thrown together in far too much of a hurry to get the best out of the footage (the three-way swordfight should have been better than it was). But undoubtedly one of the biggest problems for me was that whereas the original boasted perhaps Keira Knightley’s only okay performance, she more than makes amends here by delivering a performance of such staggering incompetence that it’s almost physically painful watching her scowl or over-enunciate her way through her scenes. She's not on screen for long, but every second is an eternity. But I'll still see the next one.

Incidentally, Pan's Labyrinth has done extremely well on this side of the pond, but then without America's crazy "You can let your four-year-old kids see torture scenes as long as you buy a ticket as well" ratings policy, the 15 certificate neatly removes the problem of bringing anyone too young to the film.

[romanD]

still, I think a 15 rating is too low...

it will be 16 in Germany and only because the movie is intelligent, that always is an excuse for violence in low ratings... still, found it highly disturbing. Haven't been that disturbed by a movie in a long long time.

But if it weren't in Spanish with subs Im sure lots of people in America would take their kids to this movie, no matter an R-rating or not...

[Carlson2005]

I didn't find the film to be that violent - the bottle incident happens slightly out of frame and the torture sequences are of the before and after variety rather than showing anything happening. Aside from the shootings, which are fairly 'clean' in the gore stakes, the most violent scenes in the film are probably the death of the fairies and the root in the fire. It's really more the consequences of violence being dealt with (such as stitching that slash wound) that makes it seem more violent than the often gorier violence in disposable popcorn movies.

[Monterey Jack]

(Superman as an alienated loner, deadbeat dad, and ex-girlfriend stalker?)

Oh, for pity's sake...if I hear one more groundless compaint about Supes being a "stalker" or a "deadbeat dad", I'm going to scream. In exactly what way is he "stalking" Lois? There's one scene where he uses his X-Ray vision to check out Lois' current situation with Perry White's son, and that...is...it. Hell, Clark's endless mooning over Lana Lang on Smallville (despite her getting constantly weirded out by his lame excuses when he has to skip out on her to save the world) hewed a lot closer to "stalker" territory (take a hint, Clark, and go for Chloe, for God's sake! ). And being a "deadbeat dad"? He did not know Lois was pregnant when he left. And at the end of the film, in a very touching scene, he promises to his sleeping son to always be there for him and watch out for him. How is that "deadbeat"? What, does he have to make child support payments? Will a bank accept a check made out by Superman? Honestly, these complaints are getting very old.

[AndyDursin]

Nope, they're not groundless at all. Superman is a comic book character and an American icon. Bryan Singer wanted to make a Bryan Singer movie, not a SUPERMAN film, so while I'm glad it worked for you, the entire movie felt off-base and wholly inappropriate, not to mention joyless -- which is not what SUPERMAN ought to be about.

It's like SUPERMAN being made by the director of ORDINARY PEOPLE. Not what I (or a lot of fans) wanted to see. (One can imagine if Batman had a kid what kind of uproar you would've heard from a much more hard-core fan base like that one, too)

[Jedbu]

Only saw seven films last year that stood out. Here they are in ascending order:

7) MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3-Cruise was human, it had a great villain (watch this film a few times Barbara Broccoli!) and some of the best action pieces I've seen in a long time.

6) INSIDE MAN-Lee's first director-for-hire job is one of his best, scrubbed of his usual polemics and nice to have the bad guy (a bit of a surprise) not shot a million times or blown up.

5) THE ILLUSIONIST-even though not everything Paul Giamatti and Edward Norton appears in works, this film had me guessing and really amazed at what they were able to pull off. It might pale in comparison to THE PRESTIGE (haven't seen it yet), but extremely entertaining.

4) THE DEPARTED-not Marty's best film and ol' Jack inhaled the scenary, but talk about keeping you guessing and the casting was just unbeatable.

3) FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS-Eastwood just gets better as a director, and even though UNFORGIVEN is/was still his masterpiece to me (with MILLION DOLLAR BABY close behind), this was quite an accomplishment. Adam Beach and Ryan Phillippe were just so good, and when was the last time you saw George Grizzard playing a good guy anywhere?

2) UNITED 93-harrowing, gut-wrenching and a film, that even though you know the outcome, you still watch hoping that they will come out OK. Not a false note or a wasted frame and no soapy backstory that would have doubled the length. This is what WORLD TRADE CENTER should have been. It left me shaking.

1) LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA-The film that knocked UNFORGIVEN out as Clint's best film, with a performance by Ken Watanabe that shows that there was some humanity on the Japanese side, this is a film that shows that both sides of a war really lose a bit of something when we both try to kill each other.

Well, that is my list. I can't wait to see what Eric and Andy think of it!