02) A History Of Violence (tie)
David Cronenberg’s career has been defined by a series of intensely personal and decidedly unique movies that defy easy classification. From The Fly to Dead Ringers to Videodrome, Cronenberg has established himself as an artist of unflinching vision who refuses to compromise his work for mainstream acceptance. On the surface, A History Of Violence seems like a departure for Cronenberg. It has a reasonably linear plot, features characters that the audience can identify with and is devoid of the director’s usual flights of biological and technological fantasy. But to read A History Of Violence as a standard thriller is to miss the genius of the film. Though it borrows liberally from the language of Hitchcock and Welles, A History Of Violence is no standard thriller. Rather, it reads as a surgical deconstruction of classic Film Noir. Viggo Mortensen, as Tom Stall, is a synthesis of both Noir villain and hero. He’s simultaneously the innocent ‘wrong man’ and the guilt ridden lost soul whose misguided actions throw everyone around him into jeopardy. In this way A History Of Violence is every bit a Cronenberg film and the mastery he brings to the medium is apparent in every frame.

A History Of Violence is unquestionably Cronenberg’s most accessible work to date, but for the attentive viewer all the rich nuance and depth of Cronenberg’s cult classics is present. By taking his lexicon into a more subtle and acceptable area, Cronenberg didn’t just make one of the best films of 2005, he created an even more subversive work than some of his overtly shocking pieces.
– Chris Hughes

02) King Kong (tie)
How do you follow up one of the most successful, groundbreaking, and utterly masterful cinematic trilogies of the last 20 years? Most filmmakers would take a very long, well-deserved vacation and then settle into a small, “personal” picture. Not Peter Jackson. After knocking one out of the park with the ambitious Lord Of The Rings trilogy and scooping up armloads of Oscars in the process, he immediately dove into his dream project: King Kong. While Rings was a delicate project to undertake, with a built in supply of potential critics of a much-beloved series of books, at least it had never received a proper silver screen treatment. King Kong, on the other hand, has been done twice before (not counting various rip-offs and the Japanese series) and done very, very well. The original 1933 film is the simplest definition of a classic and the 1976 remake was another big hit in all of its ‘70’s big hair glory. In addition, the telling of this well-loved classic contains a very poignant ending that even the most basic film watchers already know well in advance.

Jackson boldly attacked the project and took some very important steps in creating his vision, steps that really worked to make this film successful. While the original was set in its own time and the ’76 version brought the story current to its time, Jackson decided to make this movie a love story to the 1930s New York City of the original. The story is simplicity itself: Girl meets ape, girl fears ape, ape bonds with girl, girl loves ape, ape dies for girl. Inside of all that, Jackson weaves a rich tapestry of visual eye-candy and real emotional power. Not enough can be said about Andy Serkis’ invaluable contributions in adding depth and believability to the CGI Kong. Thanks to Serkis’ emotion, there is a real chemistry between Kong and Naomi Watts’ Ann Darrow. You actually believe that she can feel for Kong, just like we in the audience do. While it is certainly easy to criticize the film, I found the overall experience to be visceral, entertaining, and genuinely moving. Peter Jackson’s King Kong may have suffered from enormous box office expectations, but it was a true cinematic joy and deserving of the critical praise it has received.
– Larry Phillips

01) Sin City
Everyone in the world of comic books knows Frank Miller is a genius. After revitalizing a B-grade character in Daredevil, he turned one of the world's most recognizable icons, Batman, on his ear with The Dark Knight Returns. And he was only just getting started. With a series of works outside the mainstream, Miller honed his craft, always breaking the rules, always doing things one way. His way. Somewhere along the way, he stumbled into a love. A passion. A world of his own creation filled with booze, broads and bullets. That world was the world of Sin City, and for years it was his own private playground of over-the-top, graphically violent, Noir-inspired urban fantasy.

And then Robert Rodriguez got his hands on it, and the world would never look at “comic book movies” the same way again. A bold experiment in total green screen filming, Sin City took on the absurd task of filming not one but three graphic novels all at once – and pulled it off. It was dark. Violent. Brutal. And reflected what Frank Miller put on the page with such faithfulness it can take one's breath away. Go ahead, look at the pages yourself. Rodriguez put them on screen as if Miller himself was the director. Hell, that's just how he did it, removing himself from the Director's Guild of America in order to keep Miller's name on the film. It was a move easy to dismiss as a gimmick until you see the results. Visually stunning, tightly directed and with a cast to die for, Sin City stood out from the pack as a film that played by its own rules. Rodriguez nailed it.

You want to talk style? Attitude? Unbridled cool? Sin City has it all in spades. Carried on the shoulders of screen tough guys Bruce Willis, Benicio Del Toro, Clive Owen and the ridiculously badass Mickey Rourke, this film was a macho fantasy come to life, littered with guns and tits and ass-kicking and muscle cars and people getting shot the fuck up. It made no effort at being highbrow or imparting a message, it only worked at being coo-mutha fuckin'-ool. And damn did it ever succeed. That's why Sin City is DVD In My Pants' top film of 2005.
--Eric San Juan