Explanations by Ebert can also be seen here (rogerebert.suntimes.com).
He also lists his Ten Worst Films of 2004. Can't say I see any reason to disagree. No explanations from him, though. If he does it on TV, I'd like to see it, if only for the entertainment value.
Wost Films of 2004: 1. (tie) "Troy" 1. (tie) "Alexander" 2. "Christmas With the Kranks" 3. "The Girl Next Door" 4. "Dogville" 5. "New York Minute" 6. "The Grudge" 7. "White Chicks" 8. "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" 9. "The Whole Ten Yards" 10. "The Village"
Wait you are telling me that neither Godsend or Van Helsing made the crap ten list? How about Polar Express as the most boring movie of the year? Seriously Godsend was dumb in so many ways that it depresses me that it was just ignored. They got robbed.
Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
-Godsend was an interesting concept muddled by bad execution and a terrible third act. Van Helsing was terrible as a straight film, but as an agent of perverse unintentional humor, it ruled. Troy was entertaining to some (like me), but was overlong and meandering. Alexander didn't know what it wanted to be, so it ended up being nothing. Christmas with the Kranks was similar. Girl Next Door was a niche film (teenage boys, mostly) and Ebert doesn't fit into that niche. The Village had a HORRIBLE ending. -Of Ebert's list I saw 4 (Sideways, Aviator, Spidey 2 & Kill Bill 2) and of Roeper's I saw 6 (Collateral, KB 2, Terminal, Sideways, Aviator & Eternal Sunshine). I question the placement of The Terminal in a Top Ten list...but I suppose that can be chalked up to the weak year.
"Illusions, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money...or candy!" - G.O.B. Bluth, Arrested Development
Originally posted by DahakWait you are telling me that neither Godsend or Van Helsing made the crap ten list? How about Polar Express as the most boring movie of the year? Seriously Godsend was dumb in so many ways that it depresses me that it was just ignored. They got robbed.
Ebert actually liked Van Helsing if I remember correctly. I think he gave it 3 or 3 1/2 stars.
Good to see Alexander making the top of a worst list, it was definitely the worst movie I saw in 2004. And I say that as a film critic that watches A LOT OF bad movies.
"Don't compare my arm...to your cheap arm!" -Edward Elric
How KILL BILL Vol. 2 wound up on either list is beyond me. I just don't see the reasonlig behind the critical love for it. Sure, it was fun to watch, but compared to so many other films that came out this year, such as THE SADDEST MUSIC IN THE WORLD, THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS, GARDEN STATE, NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE, LES FIL(THE SON), THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU(...which is fucking fantastic!), KINSEY, THE MACHINIST... I can't understand why either of these guys would put a subpar Clint Eastwood film (MILLION DOLLAR BABY), a badly acted Leo Dicaprio film (THE AVIATOR), SPIDER-MAN 2, and kung fu films (KILL BILL, HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS) on a best of list.
I will admit THE TERMINAL was way better then it should have been, BAADASSSSS was a welcome surprise from Sonny Spoon, and ETERNAL SUNSHINE ON A SPOTLESS MIND was great to watch unfold, but were any of these worth calling 'best of the year'?
How do I get a job watching movies and telling people what's good or not because I think Ebert just needs to retire.
Cerebus: RIP 1977-2004.
"What do you think it's like being created by a manic-depressive, paranoid schizophrenic, hypochondriac, misogynist with delusions of grandeur and a messiah complex?"
Re: The Brown Bunny. Ebert saw the re-edited version of the film and gave it a mildly positive (three stars out of four) review.
I'm delighted to see KB2 and Spidey II on Ebert's top ten list, as if I made up a list, those two would be right up top as well. This is also the first year that I didn't have at least one guilty pleasure on Ebert's worst list, so yay for agreeing with a major film critic like a mindless sheep.
I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits." --- President Jed Bartlett, The West Wing
As for your other complaints -- eh, different people like different movies. Ebert's never made any attempt to suggest that his reviews are somehow seperate from his own personal opinion, so I assume his Top Ten list works the same way. He's not attempting to make an "objective" list -- so he likes kung fu, whatcha gonna do?
P.S. Cerebus -- have you seen Twilight Samurai? Check it out, I think you might like it.
(edited by Karlos the Jackal on 3.1.05 0109) Last 5 movies seen: Dead Man Walking - Dawn of the Dead (1978) - Harold and Kumar go to White Castle - Open Water - Twilight Samurai
Kill Bill 2 isn't so much a kung-fu film as it is a western, anyway. There are surely elements of kung-fu in it, the most obvious being the Pai Mei flashback, but overall it is much more of a western. Now, Kill Bill 1 was definately more of a kung-fu style film.
Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling, where I'd do anything to bone her. Harry: That's a special feeling.
I think the Incredibles made honorable mention on Ebert's list.
I honestly haven't seen enough movies this year to really make a top ten. Kill Bill, Spidey 2 and Prisoner of Azkaban all make the list, but I'm a geek for that kinda stuff. I also loved Once Upon A Time In Mexico, but I'm a sucker for Robert Rodriguez and Johnny Depp both.
"All I ever asked for in life is an unfair advantage." Microchip, Punisher Annual #2
Everyone is dissing Kill Bill vol. 2, but no one is saying anything about Spiderman 2?! Wow. Anyway, I would have put Spidey 2 has my number one movie, but I agree with Kil Bill vol. 2. Even though the hardcore catfight was the only real badass fight of the moive, I thought it kept to the spirt of the film which was a woman out for revenge only to find herself theme. Plus, the Bill's Superman speech had me thinking at least month. If both films were edited together than it probably would make more sense to people. I just don't see Kill Bill being nominated for anything this year anyway which is a shame, because its a fairly wide open year and most of the criticial darlings like Garden State, Spotless Mind, Neoploan Dynamite don't like all that interesting and a few of my friends of stated they wanted the two hours back for at least Spotless Mind.
"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
Originally posted by GRLThen it's safe to say "Napoleon Dynamite" made YOUR list. Certainly not mine, since I found that movie unapologetically smart.
What do you mean by "unapologetically smart," and how does a movie become it?
A lot of people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidents and things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
Napoleon Dynamite is exactly this: a student film that became a popular longer feature length movie, which is enjoyable if you don't expect to be wowed and you turn off your brain before it starts. Nothing happens, but not in the Lost in Translation way in which something can be read into the nothing. Dynamite is just like Seinfeld in a lot of ways, just without the great writing. It's neither a great film or a great movie, but I understand why so many people are overrating it (in my opinion). It's funny in its awkwardness and its nerdiness - and the fact that it falls into the "so much of it is so BAD, it's good" category. Nothing wrong with that, but it will never be remembered by time as one of the year's best 20 movies, nevermind films. Unless it's on internet forums like this.
What I find funny about Ebert listing Troy as the co-worst movie of the year is that he was very close to flipping from a thumbs-down to a thumbs-up this past summer on the TV show.
I find my tastes lie most consistently in line with those of Roeper's, which is convenient for me when I'm not sure what to rent.
Life Aquatic both two thumbs down from these two guys about a month ago.
Ocean's Twelve easily fits into my Top 10 Worst of 2004. Forget comparisons to the first one, this movie was just a waste of all elements involved: from the money paid to make it and the money I paid to see it.
I do know about this stuff. These books are humongous best sellers. I only read the first one and I thought it was okay; it didn't fill me with revulsion like Dan Brown's oeuvre but I wouldn't say it was great or anything. But a lot of people do.