would have added Collateral.

I agree with the above

Agree with some of the above that's it too early to compile a top 10 list being that there are still so many movies to see (love the holidays). But for me the following will find a way on it:

Finding Neverland
Garden State
Eternal Sunshine
Collateral
Phantom of the Opera
Closer
Spider-Man 2
Sideways

Still got a couple slots open as I watch a few more movies and reevalute 2004.

I had never heard of Hotel Rwanda until I saw it on Ebert's list, and just ran across a review of it at CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi...nda/index.html

I have no burning desire to see it in the theater, but I'll definately rent it once it comes out on DVD. Looks very interesting.

I've heard a lot about Hotel Rwanda, and can't wait to see it.

As previously asked in this thread, anyone find Roeper's list yet?

I must be one of the few dissenters, but I didn't like Spidey 2 very much; too much romance, too much Aunt Mae, too much with the heart-string pulling. Although I liked Doc Oc better than the Green Goblin. I'd replace SM2 with Collateral on that top 10 list.

I didn't like SM2 either, nor did I like Collateral too much (the whole ending was too Hollywood for me).

From his worst list, I really enjoyed Dogville, and would probably have it on my best of last year. I wouldn't have White Chicks on it either, because, while it was stupid, it did give me a couple of laughs. Its place would be taken by Catwoman, one of the worst movies I have seen in years.

I just found this posted on a site, so I don't know if this is legit or not, but here is the list of Roeper's Best and Worst Movies of 2004:

ROEPER'S BEST FILMS OF 2004


1. "Hotel Rwanda"
2. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
3. "The Aviator"
4. "Sideways"
5. "House of Flying Daggers"
6. "Million Dollar Baby"
7. "The Terminal"
8. "Kill Bill Vol. 2"
9. "Spanglish"
10. "Collateral"
11. "Garden State"
12. "Closer"
13. "Kinsey"
14. "Ray"
15. "The Assassination of Richard Nixon"
16. "Baadasssss!"
17. "Finding Neverland"
18. "Maria Full of Grace"
19. "The Passion of the Christ"
20. "Spider-Man 2"
21. "Friday Night Lights"
22. "Open Water"
23. "The Dreamers"
24. "The Village"
25. "The Woodsman"

Top five documentaries

1. "Metallica: Some Kind of Monster"
2. "Super Size Me"
3. "Overnight"
4. "Fahrenheit 9/11"
5. "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry"


ROEPER'S WORST FILMS OF 2004

1. "White Chicks"
2. "The Whole Ten Yards"
3. "Godsend"
4. "Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed"
5. "The Stepford Wives"
6. "Catwoman"
7. "Thunderbirds"
8. "Saw"
9. "Taxi"
10. "Connie and Carla"

I don't understand something. Ebert has "The Three Colors" triology ahead of Pulp Fiction on the the Top 10 of 1994, but he has Pulp Fiction ahead of it on the best of the 90's list. Doesn't make sense.

Because sometimes people change their minds. I seriously doubt your top ten list from 10 years ago is exactly the same, why should any critic be the same. These are opinions, and opinions change. When I first saw Blade Runner, I was bored. Now it's one of my favorite films ever. Does that not make sense? Or am I, like Mr Ebert and every other person on this planet, human. What I don't understand is why people believe movie reviews are objective, solidified ideals as opposed to subjective opinions.

Seriously, if you were to ask me my favorite film of 1994, I'd probably say True Lies. Ask me now, I would rate many films higher than that one, including Pulp Fiction.

Then shouldn't he change his top 10 of 1994 and put Pulp Fiction ahead of it? If that's his opinion now, then rearrange the list.

That was his top ten list of 1994. That was his opinion then. If he changes his mind, he should write a new list, not change the old one. Let's say he changes his mind about a film, and now sees it as better than his original review. Should he a) rewrite the old review or b) write a new review reflecting his changing opinions. I'd venture to say it's the latter. Actually, that's exactly what he does do, with his great movie essays. Granted, his opinions on many of those films haven't necessarily changed, but on some they have. Just take a look at his dueling reviews of The Graduate. In 1967 he gave it 4 stars, in 1997 he reassessed and gave it 3 stars. Should he have just rewritten the old review?

question, roper lists "some kind of monster" as doc of the year, is that elegible for an oscar?

It was eligible, but it didn't make the cut for the shortlist of documentaries that can be nominated.

Here's an interesting article on the subject. At the end it talks about the filmmakers who made that one and some of the problems docu filmmakers have in getting their films recongized for nomination.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/06/film-foundas.php

Agreed. Spiderman 2 -ohbfrank-