pete docter's MONSTERS, INC (2001)

before Ratatouille broke Pixar into a creative sprint, Monsters Inc was their most definitively original work, and that (along with Sully's still-breathtaking fur, jesus christ) keeps it fresh as the three before it start to show a touch of wear. but it also sits juuuust below Finding Nemo as their most classically accomplished screenplay: it's high-concept (in the best possible way) but doles out its information about the characters and their peculiar world in a completely seamless way, never talking down to the audience or daring for a moment to cease entertaining. (it pains me to think that the execrable Shrek movies -- flawed in all the ways this film is perfect -- will be forever tied to it.)

take the ending, as an example of Pixar's good taste. in another studio's film it would be a closing scene: a big hug, some sort of sappy, closure-stressing exchange of dialogue, big swell from the string section, quick punchline, cut to a montage of all the characters enjoying life, physical humor abounds, and ooohhhhhhwaitforit SMASH MOUTH AS THE CREDITS ROLL

here: one medium shot, one heart-crushingly wonderful word of off-screen dialogue, a facial expression, a tinkle from the score, cut to black.

but which one gets the Oscar? gah.

rian johnson's THE BROTHERS BLOOM (2008)

(click to read via METRO PULSE)

billy wilder's DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)

quentin tarantino's PULP FICTION (1994)

christopher nolan's THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)

more than enough has been said about The Dark Knight's across-the-board successes and more specifically Heath Ledger's game-changing performance, but what stood out to me just as much (especially on a second viewing) is how genuinely accomplished the Nolan/Nolan/Goyer script is, and i hope they're not hidden in Ledger's shadow come awards season. costumes aside, The Dark Knight is as much a crime novel as a summer blockbuster, and walks a fine line between density and accessibility; what's more, though, the script is completely saturated with its challenging themes, and for every moment where it spreads its complex good vs evil, order vs chaos ideas on a little thick there are three or four where they've been woven almost imperceptibly into the narrative. my immediate reaction to The Dark Knight was that "the Godfather II of comic book films" is a pretty fair comparison, and the more i think on it the fairer it gets. i'm reaching back to write this all the way from September (a busy late summer put me a bit behind) but this is still the best "movie" AND the best film i've seen in 2008.

mike nichols' CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR (2007)

most everyone has had the displeasure of seeing a favorite book neutered and mismanaged on the road to the silver screen, and George Crile’s superlative nonfiction yarn Charlie Wilson’s War shouldn’t be an exception to that rule: the story of Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson’s successful efforts to covertly arm Afghanis against their Soviet oppressors is terrific material, but the sequence of events is convoluted and tangled as only real life can tangle them. it’s that much more miraculous, then, that Aaron Sorkin’s adaptation is not only reverent but indeed a nearly perfect model of how such daunting material can play effortlessly onscreen. Sorkin (redeeming himself after the dreadful “Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip”) makes every choice with precision and wit, freely molding Crile’s details into a characteristically snappy, streamlined script that does the book’s larger-than-life characters and story full justice without bending under the weight of adaptation. it helps, of course, that Sorkin’s script attracted veteran subversive Mike Nichols (confidently continuing a career resurgence here) and the unexpected comedy team of Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman, all of whom are almost unfairly suited to the material. Charlie Wilson’s War could have easily been a misfire, but the talent and professionalism at hand make for one of the most satisfying (and refreshingly adult) mainstream efforts of the year.

(from the KNOXVILLE VOICE)