10 Best Films of 2006
It’s that time of year again, when I select my annual ten best films. In general terms, 2006 has been quite a good year for cinema, and there are several movies worthy of an honourable mention that didn’t quite make the final selection.
Children of Men was a remarkable slice of dystopian sci-fi, but was squeezed out of the final selection due to ferocious competition. Although George Clooney’s Good Night and Good Luck was very good, it was also a bit too dry for the shortlist. Elsewhere, despite having hugely enjoyed Cars, a certain film involving singing Emperor penguins proved to be my favourite animated picture this year. None of the years guaranteed cult-status movies – from Brick to The Proposition and Snakes on a Plane – ended up in the shortlist. The Devil Wears Prada lost out on a place because of its fudged ending. Martin Scorsese’ violent but brilliant swear-fest The Departed was surprisingly good (despite being a remake of Infernal Affairs) but still not on a par with the likes of Goodfellas. South African film Tsotsi was a notable best foreign film winner at the Oscars, but didn’t quite make the grade. Neither did Walk the Line, featuring Joaquin Phoenix’ excellent performance as Johnny Cash; another film I would have loved to include, but competition for space was too strong. And most regrettable of all, Superman Returns narrowly missed out, because I decided after a second viewing that of all the blockbuster films released this year, Casino Royale was the best of the bunch.
So here is the final selection (in no particular order of merit):
Munich – Steven Spielberg’s powerful and thought provoking drama about an Israeli assassination squad targeting Palestinian terrorists who were involved in the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
Hidden – Sublime paranoid French thriller about a man and his family who receive videotapes showing they are under surveillance.
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada – Tommy Lee Jones directs this hugely impressive modern western.
United 93 – Paul Greengrass’ absolutely riveting drama/documentary about the only hijacked plane on 9/11 that didn’t reach its target – mercilessly intense, harrowing, unsentimental, and monumentally upsetting, yet ultimately profoundly moving, stunningly powerful and utterly unforgettable. The best film of the year by far, and one that should easily get an Oscar nomination for best picture (and if it was up to me, a win).
Little Miss Sunshine – Forget Borat, this was the best comedy of the year, and another likely Oscar nominee, about a dysfunctional family’s road trip across America to get their little girl to a beauty pageant. Hysterically funny, but also mercilessly satirical and emotionally painful.
The Queen – Helen Mirren’s stunning central performance as Queen Elizabeth II towers over this respectful and fascinating drama about the days following the death of Princess Diana. Another film with major Oscar potential.
Casino Royale – The best James Bond film for decades, with Daniel Craig superb in the lead role.
The Prestige – Christopher Nolan’s near-masterpiece about feuding magicians in Victorian London. The best thriller of the year.
Pan’s Labyrinth – Dark, spiritually dubious, but superb fairy tale for grown-ups, and will without doubt ultimately prove a landmark in fantasy cinema.
Happy Feet – Singing Emperor penguins and strong environmental messages may sound like an odd mix, but together they add up to the best animated film of the year.
Happy New Year!
Simon Dillon, January 2007.
Seen your national newspaper mention yet?
According to Simon Dillon, of the Christian film review website The Greatest Trick, “Borat is a monstrous creation designed to fly in the face of every politically correct notion you can possibly think of, yet despite being misogynistic, homophobic, anti-semitic, and worse, Borat has proved hugely popular, possibly because people are sick and tired of politically correct comedy (surely a contradiction in terms in any case).”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1981685,00.html
Comment by asilon — 3 January, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Most amusing (and a typical Guardian article). Of course, I get quoted somewhat out of context, but who cares?
Comment by Simon — 3 January, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Here is the letter I sent to The Guardian in response. Doubt they’ll respond, but anyway….
Dear Sir,
In yesterdays article by Stewart Lee “Guilt Free Pleasures”, the writer inexplicably decided to quote my small-fry movie blog, specifically my review of the Borat film.
I am writing to you because I feel that whilst the quotation was accurate, I have been somewhat quoted out of context. Leaving aside the debate about whether or not political correctness is a good thing, by inference the article suggests that I recommended Borat for being politically incorrect, which I did not. I simply stated why I believed the character was popular amongst some viewers (more on this in a moment). Worse, the placement of that quotation in the article implies that I am a Daily Mail reading right wing loony type, which I am most certainly not.
Furthermore, the point Lee goes on to make by quoting Peter Baynham, with reference to Borat’s antics being clearly portrayed as absurd and unacceptable, is exactly the same point I made later in my article. I quote: “What makes Borat acceptable amongst some is probably the way this absurdly unpleasant character is used to expose the dark prejudices of Middle America.” This is of course a very similar point the one Baynham made, and I read exactly the same thing into the film as he and Lee did.
What I go on to say, and what I believe Lee naively overlooks, is that not everyone will read the same thing into Borat. Again I quote my original article “Obviously, the satire of Borat is hugely sophisticated but will everyone see it that way?” The reality is that regardless of Baynham’s intentions or interpretations made by Lee or myself, there are people out there who will view Borat as funny because he as a character is politically incorrect, not because its a reminder that one shouldn’t be politically incorrect. At the end of the day, you cannot police the reasons why people laugh, and no amount of articles telling people why they should or shouldn’t find something funny will change this.
Ultimately, my review (which was aimed at Christians) concluded that the film would probably be offensive to my readers for an entirely different reason. So in all fairness, to imply I was recommending Borat for being politically incorrect was somewhat unfair. Whether or not I believe political correctness to be a good thing (which generally I don’t) is a seperate issue.
I don’t mind if your writers wish to quote little old me in a national newspaper, but if they do so again, I would appreciate it if the spirit of my original article was not misconstrued. Please read it yourself if you like and make your own judgement.
I would also appreciate it if you would pass on my remarks to Lee, or indeed to your letters department, since I am not a big time reviewer who can stage a right to reply with such a wide audience. I would appreciate a response of some kind, and would happily correspond with Stewart Lee should he wish to debate the matter further.
Sincerely
Simon Dillon
Comment by Simon — 8 January, 2007 @ 5:25 pm