Ebert's Top 10 of 2004
 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...SAYS/412190302

1. Million Dollar Baby
2. Kill Bill, Vol. 2
3. Vera Drake
4. Spiderman 2
5. Moolaade
6. The Aviator
7. Baadasssss!
8. Sideways
9. Hotel Rwanda
10. Undertow

Having only seen half of these films I can't argue against the 5 I've seen being on the list. I think if Mirimax hadn't split KB into two films, the single film would have taken the top spot.

Oh, and let me get the obligatory Ebert comments out of the way: He's lost it, he's fat, he's dumb, I don't agree with him so he's stupid, blah blah blah

I really liked Million Dollar Baby. I thought Kill Bill Vol. 2 was over the top, yet an awesome cinematic experience. Spider-Man 2 was too hyped up with pop-psychology and the beginning was too heavily based on the script, but overall a good film. The rest I have not seen yet... Will see Phatnom of the Opera today, and maybe Aviator. The good thing with Ebert is that he has on occasion interesting view points, but I am still perplexed over how he could have liked Speed 2.

Glad to see he has some love for two great films that other awards have overlooked, being Spidey and Bill.

No Finding Neverland? He's nuts!

I've seen no top 10 list love for Eternal Sunshine. I admit I haven't seen every movie this year, but I've seen a bunch and it was by far my fave.

KB is just soooooo over rated.

I'm glad to see the terrible The Passion of the Christ isn't on the list even though he gave it four stars.

It sucks Eternal Sunshine is so overlooked. I hope it finds love at the Oscars, though I doubt it will. I'd easily put it in my top 5.

What do you mean, "the beginning was too heavily based on the script"? That makes no sense whatsoever to me. :confused:

Spider-man 2 on a top-ten list is a joke.

I'd have RAY and CLOSER on my top ten, but I have yet to see all of the films Roger mentions.

How many of these are on DVD already? (KB2, Spidey 2, any others?)

No Eternal Sunshine, Finding Neverland, or Incredibles disappoints me. Although I havent watched all on that list, The Aviator isnt anywhere near those 3 films, and I would say the same for Spiderman 2. Of course its only opinion so.

Yes, because immensely popular movies have no place in any DVDTalk top ten list. :rolleyes:

That wasn't my reasoning. I enjoyed Spidey for what it was (i have the DVD after all) and I would give it a *** (out of four) rating. But that's not top-ten material imo.

I'd like to see your reasons for disagreeing with Roger. He gives excellent rationales for his choices. And we ALL have our personal top 10 lists. We just don't get the newsprint.

IMO a great movie can change you...you take something with you after you leave the theater. That to me is a great movie. Spider-Man 2 is a good movie...but you don't take anything way. BTW I'm a huge spidey fanboy, check my posts.

Agreed, but again, it's only opinion.

And the ten worst?

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"

Is that the Jewish version of Spider-Man 2?

Also in that article:

EBERT'S WORST 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"

Sort of surprising considering he three of those movies (Troy, Alexander, and Dogville) 2 star ratings, which isn't exactly glowing but not bottom-of-the-barrel either. Yet a quick search of his site shows he gave one star of less to the following films not on that list:

1 star

Anatomy of Hell
Catwoman
A Cinderella Story
A Dirty Shame
Raise your Voice
Sleepover
Taxi
Team America: World Police

0 stars

The Perfect Score
The Prince and Me

Maybe those were the most dissapointing to him, because of higher expectations?

Troy was easily my favorite movie of the year. I can't believe Ebert did not rank Catwoman as one of the worst.

Ebert's lost it. He's fat and dumb. I don't agree with him and he's stupid.

He's said many times that the star ratings are relative. Perhaps he found those particular movies particularly objectionable for whatever reason.

Yes, but he is also the person who gave those original star ratings. If he found them so objectionable, why not give them lower grades in first place? And the fact that the ratings are relative makes it all make even less sense. A 2 star adventure epic trumps a zero star teen comedy on the awfulness scale?

The only thing I can think of is that after time and consideration, he has lowered his opinion of these films. Either that or he's simply trying to make a point with the list (take down these overdone epic wannabes from directors who should know better), and it is not a true reflection of his rankings of these films. Either way, I just found it curious.