« The Year in Lists, Part I: 2005's Top Ten Unreleased Films | Main | The Year in Lists, Part III: Ten Great Discoveries »
The Year in Lists, Part II: Filmbrain's Top Ten of 2005
![]() |
| Despite what many others are claiming, 2005 was not a stellar year for film (for me at least). Compared to last year, where several films had me over the moon, there wasn't that one film that stood out far above all others, screaming to be #1. Ranking the ten films below was a game of endless shuffling. This year's batch of top ten lists seems even more uniform than usual, which leads me to conclude that the pickins' was mighty slim. The endless praise being heaped on Brokeback Mountain has steered me away from it, at least until the hype dies down. As for History of Violence, yes, I enjoyed it, but it seemed slight after seeing Caché just a few days after. Once again, troubled, damaged, and/or otherwise doomed relationships are at the heart of half the films on my list. Come to think of it the most upbeat film is about a political assassination. Three cheers for despair. . . In reverse order: 10. The New World. Terrence Malick, USA 9. Head-On. Fatih Akin, Germany 8. Kings and Queen. Arnaud Desplechin, France 7. 5x2. Francois Ozon, France 6. Innocence. Lucile Hadzihalilovic, Belgium/France 5. Caché. Michael Haneke, France/Austria 4. L'Esquive. Abdel Kechiche, France 3. The President's Last Bang. Im Sang-soo, Korea 2. L'Intrus (The Intruder). Claire Denis, France 1. The Squid and The Whale. Noah Baumbach, USA Could/Should be on the list: The Dying Gaul, Yes, Me and You and Everyone We Know, Broken Flowers, Dear Wendy, Nobody Knows. |
December 30, 2005 in Film | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345163ca69e200e550644cb48833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Year in Lists, Part II: Filmbrain's Top Ten of 2005:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"But one thing -- play this movie LOUD."
Exactly! Rosenbaum recently called Beau Travail Denis's only musical, but I think he's got it wrong. Beau Travail is a ballet; L'Intrus is her musical. Instead of a traditional score, though, the music is the sound design itself -- the hum of electricity in a morgue, the drone of forklifts, the whisper of wind in a forest.
Posted by: Darren | Dec 30, 2005 1:19:43 PM
Darren--We first saw the movie a year and a half ago, and I can still hear that guitar loop clattering around in my head.
Posted by: girish | Dec 30, 2005 1:38:05 PM
I am going to see The Squid and the Whale this weekend, but I can't imagine seeing a better film from this year than The New World. This film just seems to come from another planet. I'm looking forward to the 4 hour version supposedly being released on DVD in March.
Posted by: Gregor Samsa | Dec 30, 2005 2:35:40 PM
wow fb is that how it was? who knew growing up poor was such an advantage. my youth was much more like: it's hard to be a saint in the city.
Posted by: la_depressionada | Dec 30, 2005 2:43:23 PM
LaD --
My identification with the film is less about economic class than it is about the divorce (and other things I'd rather not share.)
Posted by: Filmbrain | Dec 30, 2005 3:39:37 PM
I was looking forward to seeing The New World. Now I don't know if I should see the revised theatrical release or hold out for a theoretically more complete DVD version.
Thanks to the praise given on a film in your other list, The Wayward Cloud DVD is on its way to my mailbox as is Survive Style 5. Several Korean titles mentioned are also on my Nicheflix queue.
Posted by: Peter Nellhaus | Dec 30, 2005 4:21:03 PM
(Don't worry, Filmbrain, nobody knows about your chronic semen-wiping.)
Posted by: Aaron Hillis | Dec 30, 2005 6:18:34 PM
Filmbrain,
What you say about Innocence, in my mind, equals to the definition of the best film of the year. Especially the last sentence: "This film, more than any other this year, remained burned in my brain for weeks after seeing it."
Anyway, thanks a lot for these lists. They will be of help in sorting out the Asian films I'm expecting to see in Rotterdam in about a month. While I didn't enjoy Peacock at all, I'm really looking forward to many of the films you've mentioned in this as well as the other list.
Posted by: Mikko | Dec 30, 2005 6:46:10 PM
Mikko --
I'm curious -- what was it about Peacock that you didn't like?
Posted by: Filmbrain | Dec 30, 2005 7:09:16 PM
Peter,
I would certainly encourage you to go see whatever version is released on the 20th, this film will greatly benifit from experiencing it in a theater. Also the new cut is apparently being done at the request of and under the supervision of Malick. Remember Kubrick cut 15 minutes of footage from 2001 after its early screenings and I don't see anyone pining away for those lost minutes. It will be fantastic to see the 4 hour version though, I am very very excited for it. Hopefully at some point this will see a theatrical release as well.
Posted by: Greg Samsa | Dec 31, 2005 12:34:29 AM
Is it a french-heavy list or what? ;) I'm really happy for Kechiche that he and his cast got such a good reception in the USA, one of my dearest french films in recent years.
It's good to see someone else who re-evaluates A History of Violence to a masterpiece like Caché.
Did you really like Dear Wendy?
Posted by: HarryTuttle | Dec 31, 2005 1:29:42 AM
i'm seeing cache tomorrow, so i'll see if it's half the movie others have held it up to be. but no love for syrianna? so far it's my favorite film of 05.
Posted by: christopher | Dec 31, 2005 8:04:22 AM
Filmbrain,
I have to admit that I wasn't prepared for such a long film, and I left the screening for many different reasons. Anyway, discussing the film later with a friend of mine (who watched the whole film), we both thought that it was pretty mediocre and dull, even needlessly long. I personally hated the acting of the film. Maybe it's that I was expecting something extraordinary and what I got was practically a mainstream film with a slower pace. Anyway, it just didn't resonate with me at all. It felt too simplistic, and naive, although I understood that was the characters' personality.
Posted by: Mikko | Jan 1, 2006 8:26:49 PM
Um, I don't see anything titled Peacock on this page, or in the filmbrain archive, or (for the last 5 years) on imdb. What are you guys talking about?
Posted by: Jim Flannery | Jan 3, 2006 11:13:12 PM
Sorry Jim -- my archives at the moment are a bit wonky. Here's the link to my original review:
It appears in the list below this one -- best undistributed films of 2005.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jan 4, 2006 12:34:03 AM
Ah! Thanks. Strange that imdb didn't have the english title listed either, but i've found it there now. Hopefully it'll make it to one of the festivals here in the backwoods of SFO this spring ... (it's like living in a different timezone, only it's eight months wide :-\)
Posted by: Jim Flannery | Jan 4, 2006 4:27:47 AM
5 x 2? 5x2?!?!
Yuck! I found the structure convoluted for no particular reason. The comparison with Scenes from a Marriage is apropos - Scenes is a movie that attempts to deeply understand it's characters, and 5x2 is completely superficial: the wife is a passive-agressive priss; the husband is a commitment-phobic, thinking-with-his-penis shithead. What's new about this stuff?
Posted by: burritoboy | Jan 4, 2006 2:31:57 PM
It would be foolish for Ozon to try and replicate what Bergman did. (Plus, ole' Ingmar took six hours to do it.)
I think your assessment of the pair is a bit flippant -- sure, some of their uglier traits shine through, but as the film progresses, we seem to grow evermore distant from them -- as if we actually know less than we did at the start. It really worked for me, and I felt it was very original.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jan 4, 2006 6:11:26 PM
we have ways of making you talk.
i'm going to write to armond white. i actually watched war of the worlds and paid good money (okay sneaked in after the family stone) to see munich. it was a little reminiscent of the early 70s pakula type parallex view or maybe marathon man. that increased my spielburg quotion 200% in the last decade.
Posted by: la_depressionada | Jan 5, 2006 4:27:08 PM
"sure, some of their uglier traits shine through, but as the film progresses, we seem to grow evermore distant from them -- as if we actually know less than we did at the start."
I didn't feel that. The last section (the first in time) sets up the relationship too smugly: the (future) husband cheats on his (then) girlfriend with his (future) wife, setting up the series of equally pathetic affairs within their (later) marriage. The (future) wife is a passive-aggressive priss even then.
I don't think the movie told us anything about failing marriages or relationships - there are so many of those that they are almost a seperate genre, especially within French cinema. The question is whether the movie would have been anything but run of the mill if Ozon hadn't played time machine. I think that question's answer is no.
Posted by: burritoboy | Jan 5, 2006 8:58:35 PM
did you not see "Keane" by Lodge kerrigan? This was a brilliant Bressonian stripped down film...
It was in the theaters for about 10 min but it was amazing! Almost as good as Brown Bunny!
Posted by: danton | Jan 9, 2006 9:26:46 AM



