outcastja

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

Mopower

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.

slavetotherave

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

William Fuld

Why wouldn't you watch them?

The Antipodean

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.

slavetotherave

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.

DVD King

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.

flixtime

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.

Sondheim

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.

Patman

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).

slavetotherave

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.

RichC2

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.

scott shelton

I strongly disagree.

Johnny Boy

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.

meritocracy

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

lordwow

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

slavetotherave

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

Terrell

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.

FinkPish

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

Terrell

Yawn!

DealMan

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.

slavetotherave

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.

Johnny Boy

Is Terrell George Lucas?

Shannon Nutt

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.

Perkinsun Dzees

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.