Roger Ebert's Top 10 of 2005
 

1. Crash
2. Syriana
3. Munich
4. Junebug
5. Brokeback Mountain
6. Me and You and Everyone We Know
7. Nine Lives
8. King Kong
9. Yes
10. Millions


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...TARY/512180302

Wow besides Munich and King Kong it's a bunch of movies I wouldn't watch. And more than likely my local theater wouldn't even show.

I think the fact that Crash is his number one movie of 2005 immediately disqualifies this list's credibility.

Why wouldn't you watch them?

I quite liked Crash, I wouldn't put it at #1 maybe but I definitely think it was one of the year's 10 best, and it had more balls than most movies this year did.

Oh, I'm not saying I hated Crash. I own it and I'll say it's a good movie, but that's the most I can give it. It was quite contrived and lacked subtlety of any kind. Certainly not number one. I'm not sure I'd put it in a top ten - but I wouldn't have a problem with it being, say... 6-10.

I don't know if I could even make a top 10 for this year, but I thought Crash was a good, above-average film.

The arguments against subtilty I don't understand. There's no mistaking this movie for anything but an examination of conflict and racism, that's a broad issue that most anyone can relate to. Why have it pander to critics, the ones who will go over it with a fine tooth comb to extract meaning or lack of, when it should have an immediate impact and be understood by the public?

I'd like to hear one good argument as to why the lack of subtilty hurt this particular film.

I find Ebert's list a bit humbling......I mean I thought I was on top of things but I am clueless when it comes to "Junebug", "Nine Lives", and "Yes"........hope that isn't grounds for suspension here at the forum.

I'm eager to see "Syriana", "Brokeback Mountain", and "Munich". I still have to see "A History of Violence" and "Cinderella Man" (the DVD should have arrived today but didn't) as well.....along with "The Constant Gardener".

Glad to see both "Crash" and "King Kong" in his Top 10 since as of right now they are my two favorite American films of the year.

edited to add: I've got "Millions" on DVD already, I suppose I should check it out sooner rather than later.

I'm ashamed to say that I've only seen 3 of these films ("Crash," "King Kong," and "Millions,") but I loved all three of those and I'm certainly going to make an extra effort to see the rest of these.

I've seen 4 of these, but will see Munich soon, and I will also see "Millions" and "Me..." soon. Not sure I'll see the remaining 3 (Junebug, Yes, Nine Lives).

Ok, you didn't like my word choice, and that's fine. What I meant by that is the obtuse writing - especially the dialogue. Now, it can be argued that it was all done on purpose, and that may be so. But (especially in the beginning) it was such a frickin staccato of the most obvious dialogue and the simplest possible characters, I wasn't sure I'd be able to sit through it. I'll admit the film got better later on, and as I said, I would classify this as "good" but not "great" and certainly not "number one."

To me, the biggest problem was the writing. It was so forced, and felt artificial. The characters simply existed as bundles of their own racism, and that's pretty much it. The only other characters that I saw had a second dimension to them were Don Cheadle with his mother, and in a distant second, Matt Dillon with his dad. Even Thandie Newton and Terrence Howard's marriage felt manufactured. Pretty much the only thing they ever talked about were their race problems.

Obviously a movie focusing on race issues needs to concentrate heavily on that subject. But with the amount of characters it wanted to follow and the numerous intersections they tried to work in there, they simply must have run out of time to fully flesh out a single person. So what you have is scene after scene of nothing but race bashing, followed shortly by scenes disproving the racial stereotypes. (With the notable exception of the redeeming qualities of the Persians- where was that? And especially the Asian people- nice to see they have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.)

I called it a lack of subtlety, but whatever you want to call it, what I meant was the writing style was obvious and chunky. It didn't flow well, and the characters were as thin and unsupported as their own racist views. The biggest payoff of the movie is the warm fuzzy feeling you get at the end that people are generally good, except for Asians.

Ebert has a very Pro-2005 thing going on. Seems theres been a lot of slamming of the movies going on due to poor box office.

His additional lists contain flicks such as Batman Begins, Sin City, Saraband, The Constant Gardener, Oldboy, The New World and a ton of others.

And I agree, Crash is good but not my #1 of '05. But also not bad by any means.

I strongly disagree.

I've only seen one of the movies on Ebert's list (Syrianna), and I thought it was a terrible movie. The only other movie I'm planning to see on the list is King Kong. I'll probably see it this weekend. Can't wait!

Ever since I found out Ebert gave The Godfather III a better review than The Godfather II, I stopped taking him seriously. And ever since he gave Tomb Raider an excellent review, I started looking elsewhere for reviews that I could rely on. But I still visit his site from time to time just to read what he has to say. He's wrong often, but he's still interesting, nonetheless.

I wouldn't say the entire list is without merit, but this taking the top spot certainly gives me pause.

I agree with Ebert. Crash is my choice for movie of the year.

I think one thing that redeems Crash being his number one is that Star Wars isn't even on the list. Hallelujah.

That from the guy who says a "personal top 10" list has no credibility because it includes a movie he doesn't agree with. It's his own personal top 10 list. It has all of the credibility it needs to have, and I'm no fan of the guy. But his opinion holds more credibility than yours.

Good God, slavetotherave, why did you have to mention Star Wars? You've gone and awoken Terrell.

Yawn!

I really hated Crash, but I accept and understand that it seems to be a very well liked film. The only other ones I've seen are King Kong and Me, You...., both of which I liked.

I never said my opinion was higher than his. I believe it's implied that each post has an understood "in my opinion" tacked on the front of it. We're in a forum. People voice their opinions.

I'm going to lose so much sleep tonight knowing that you don't value my opinion over Roger Ebert's.

I sincerely apologize. I had no idea what the rammifications of that action would be.

Is Terrell George Lucas?

Ebert seems to have a soft spot for any movie that deals with racial tensions...perhaps because he's involved in an interracial marriage himself. I remember his extremely high praise for "Do The Right Thing," "Boyz N The Hood" and other films.

I wouldn't put CRASH that high on my own list, but I don't think Ebert loses credibility for putting the movie #1. Actually, from the films I've seen, that's a pretty solid top 10.

I thought "Crash" was purdy good myself, but then I like most Cronenberg movies. But still, wouldn't "A History of Violence" have been a more suitable choice. I mean, "Crash" is how old? Still, I gotta give Ebert props for going out on a limb with this one.

:up: Amen.

I too enjoyed Crash but felt as you did on it being contrived and without subtlety. I could never quite think of the right words to describe it though until your post. We watched this as an assignment for class and I was the only one who had issues with the movie. I was only able to relay that I felt the movie "tried to hard." Saying it was contrived and lacked subtlety would have been better.

Out of *****

1. Crash (**1/2)
2. Syriana (**)
3. Munich
4. Junebug (*1/2)
5. Brokeback Mountain
6. Me and You and Everyone We Know (**)
7. Nine Lives (*1/2)
8. King Kong (***1/2)
9. Yes (*)
10. Millions (**)

I still haven't seen Brokeback or Munich but I hope they are good.

:rimshot:

How do opinions about movies lack credibility? -ohbfrank-

You either like a film or you don't. It isn't really about credibility. You could tell me your favorite film of the year was something I thought sucked. Neither opinion does anything to make either of us anymore credible.

I'm sure Ebert's list will be more credible than a clown like Joel Siegel.

I've only seen 2 of his top 10 (Kong, Crash), but both are in my list as well. I have Crash #3. Capote 2 and then Kong #1. Kong left me in a daze after the movie was over. I was blown away by it and was very caught up in the story. I plan on seeing the other "Oscar" contenders in the coming weeks, so my list will change. But those 3 films will remain. I loved all 3.

I'm gonna come out and say that Crash was an absolute pile of shit, and that I thought Ebert would've been too smart to get suckered in by it... I guess not.

This guy says it best:

Crash is filled with smug Afterschool Special nonsense. One should not walk out of a movie about racial tolerance with an overwhelming urge to commit genocide, but I left my screening of Crash just about ready to end all of humanity.

What makes Crash most insidious is that it’s well made and well acted. It fools you into thinking that it’s worth a damn, but it’s really a wholesale rip-off of Magnolia soldered onto a Very Special Episode of Diff’rent Strokes. At least in Magnolia the coincidences that brought the characters together were part of the point of the movie – here they’re just a distracting series of plot contrivances engineered by a writer/director so full of himself that there’s no room left for dessert. Characters don’t behave like people or even stereotypes – they simply move across the screen like chess pawns, doing whatever the simplistic themes of the film require.

I call foul on every critic who fell for this film. I call foul on people like Roger Ebert, who have put it at the top of their ten best lists for the year. I call foul on any group that gives this film an award. This is a false movie. This is a movie made up only of manipulation and simplicity, a movie designed to pat you on the head and never truly challenge you with a new or original thought or concept. It’s the White Man’s guilt movie of the year, assuring us that everybody is just as bad as we are, and then giving us a greasy prostate massage of utter falsity. The fact that America’s movie theaters weren’t burned to the ground during the scene when the Saintly Hispanic daughter of the Saintly and Misunderstood Hispanic locksmith was “shot” proves only that the movie-going public is corrupt and depraved.

1. Crash - average not great; flawed script, some character arcs felt unresolved.

2. Syriana - interesting premise, however it failed to give any soul to the film's characters. Too self indulgent.

3. Munich - rivetting, taunt thriller. Further character development could helped the film but overall a solid film.

4. Junebug - great acting, mood and cinematography were well suited to the story, gaps in storyline made the film feel lacking though.

5. Brokeback Mountain - great performances, and IMO the best of the films Ebert raves about, an A+ from me.

6. Me and You and Everyone We Know - didn't care for the story or characters for that matter, the director came across as a Todd Solondz wannabe

7. Nine Lives - great camera work and story structure, but inconsistent acting and a couple of the episodes went nowhere brought the film down.

8. King Kong - technically incredible but superfluous characters, hammy performance from Jack Black and Jackson's intuitive nature to go over the top, mar the film.

9. Yes - interesting use of iambic pentameter, however in one scene seems very forced and borders on self parody. The story's final quarter is predictable.

10. Millions - wonderful performances, witty, imaginative and from what I have been told - faithful adaptation of original story.

Wow, this guy has got a problem. I think whoever you quoted needs to chill, and also maybe go out and see what some US cities are truly like after he checks out of rehab.


As for Ebert's top 10 list, I haven't seen too many of those movies (still wanna see Kong, and might bump up Millions in my Netflix queue) but I will eventually.

what's interesting, is that all the films sans 'Munich' and 'Brokeback Mountain' (which I understand is getting a wider national roll out in January) are films that were released earlier in the year, its a nice little slap in the face to the studios that release their uber elitist films that get shown in New York, LA for one-week Oscar qualification/consideration.

Did we watch the same movie? Maybe if Todd Solondz wasn't a depressed boob that hated life then maybe he would have made Me You and Everyone we Know.

Crash was pretty decent. I wouldn't say the film had balls, Hollywood has yet to make a real film dealing with racial issues.

i'm glad Millions made that list, great feel good movie (and very well made).

Not even Malcolm X?

That's true; he had Monster's Ball at #1 a few years back.

I always pay attention to this. When he reviews films about blacks or involving race relations, I don't think I've ever heard him say a bad word about them. Sorry Roger, there are some lousy black films. Hate to break it to you.