Just wait for Armond White's list. I'm sure that will be a winner.

His list isn't surprising, Juno was his favorite of the Oscar movies two years ago, The Hurt Locker appears to be this year.

Bad Lieutenent:POCNO is not a remake. Eternal Sunshine - which he gave 3.5 out of 4 - was added to his "Great Movies" list today. He similarly gave a 3.5 to There Will Be Blood. No Country was fantastic.

I don't see how the list is any better or worse than anyone elses

I guess not.

1. Synecdoche, New York - Meh
2. The Hurt Locker - Great
3. Monster - Didn't care for it
4. Juno - Never had any interest in seeing this
5. Me and You and Everyone We Know - never seen it
6. Chop Shop - same as above
7. The Son - same as above
8. 25th Hour - Very good
9. Almost Famous - passable I guess
10. My Winnipeg - Have it recorded but haven't watched it yet

Adaptation" (2002) - Decent, not really a Spike Jonze fan though
"The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans" (2009) - keen on seeing this
"City of God" (2002) - meh
"Crash" (2004) - Hated it
"Kill Bill Vols.1 and 2" (2003 + 2004) - Hated them both
"Minority Report (2002) - Solid effort from Spielberg, but Munich is his best from this decade
"No Country for Old Men" (2007) - Another masterpiece from the Coen's
"Pan's Labyrinth" (2006) - Decent
"Silent Light" (2009) - never seen it
"Waking Life" (2001) - same as above

I know it's but I still find all the hatred for "Crash" amusing just because it beat out "Brokeback Mountain" (which is not on Ebert's list)

I never saw Brokeback Mountain and I still don't think Crash is anything special.

It would be interesting if we could track the sales on, "Me and You and Everyone We Know", "Chop Shop", "The Son", "My Winnipeg" and "Silent Light". They're the lesser-knowns. And, even if you're a movie geek, it doesn't mean that you saw these movies.

I think that Ebert is a big enough figure to help boost these movies a little, when they end up on his list. And, for that matter, maybe that's why something like Chop Shop gets the edge over "There Will Be Blood". There were plenty of glowing 4-star reviews from Ebert over the past ten years. It must have been hard to reflect and narrow them down, into a list that a lot of people take seriously (well, all relative to how seriously any 'best of' list is taken). Pretend to be a skeptic if you want - but you must admit that, if you're going to follow a list, it would probably be his.

I hated Crash, but I would have preferred if Good Night, and Good Luck had won. I liked Brokeback, but it wasn't my favorite movie of the year.

You sound like Ebert. He was sending out similar messages on Twitter when he first put up his list. He obviously was getting some shit about including Crash. In one, he said Crash gets all the hate because it beat Brokeback. Then, he sent another message trying to justify it by citing Crash's IMDB score and its Oscar win. If those things should be taken into account, where's LOTR on his list? I'm not saying LOTR deserves or doesn't deserve to be on the list, but it would need to be if those are really part of your criteria.

But anyway, I find it amusing that people would think that all the hatred for Crash is simply because it lost to Brokeback. I hated Crash from the moment I saw it, well before the Oscar ceremony. I would have preferred for any of the other nominated films to win over Crash.

I must admit that I lost a bit of respect for Roger because of the list, and it's not even because of the movies he chose but rather his reaction to how it was received. I respect his choices, even if I don't agree with them. But his messages trying to justify them were just desperate and at times just condescending. I know at one point he said something along the lines of only people who are stupid or haven't seen very many good movies could argue that Crash doesn't deserve to be among the top films of the decade. There were a lot of his peers who didn't like the movie, either. I figured he would be more aware that this is all still opinion and not to take this all so personal.

Supporting your choice with how others have reacted doesn't mean you have to choose something just because others like it.

I would love to see where Ebert suggested people were stupid. That just doesn't sound like Ebert at all.

I only have vague memories of the film - but I don't recall any bus hijackers or murderers being glorified in any way... Am I forgetting something?

The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans" (2009)

he picked this over Grizzly man? shame

I still don't get the all the love for "There Will Be Blood."

I personally thought it was garbage but won't shit on others for liking it.

This list I prefer, as the other list I only saw 3of those films (Juno, Monster & Almost Famous.)

Adaptation" (2002) - Was okay but nothing great
"The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans" (2009) - Have this at home, haven't watched it yet
"City of God" (2002) - never saw it
"Crash" (2004) - Enjoyed it
"Kill Bill Vols.1 and 2" (2003 + 2004) - Prefer the first to the second
"Minority Report (2002) - Great fun film
"No Country for Old Men" (2007) - Over blown hype, but not terrible nor was it excellent, more middle of the road for me
"Pan's Labyrinth" (2006) - never saw it
"Silent Light" (2009) - never seen it
"Waking Life" (2001) - never saw it

Same here.

Yes you are.

Crazy people post stuff on the internet.

You forgot that.

He's confused City of God with the documentary Bus 174 made in Brasil also in 2002

I agree with that, but come on! Citing IMDB ratings? As justifications for why a film should be considered best of the decade? That seems weak, to say the least. And yes, I think it's weak to use other people's reaction to support your choice of a film. That should have absolutely no bearing, and it won't certainly won't change anyone's mind. It's especially weak because if it was a Best Picture winner that he didn't like, the award wouldn't matter to him if someone brought it up as a stamp of quality for the film. If you want to justify your decisions, make real arguments on why you thought was great. Don't cite awards and IMDB rankings.

And I found the tweets he sent out. Wasn't quite as bad as I remember. Hey, it was New Year's Eve when he sent it out! I wasn't completely sober at the time, but that's why I went back to verify. I am still surprised he sent the one message out, though.

The bottom line for me is that it's his list. He's been doing this a long time. He knows there will be people who disagree with him. Why should he feel the need to justify his list? Put it out there and let it stand on its own. To say that only "special pleaders" and "those who don't see many films" wouldn't agree with him is bull shit. Right there, he's saying that people either have a special agenda or aren't educated enough in film if they disagree with him. There are plenty of his peers that don't agree with him. But I guess they don't see many films, either.

Anyway, that's what I didn't really care for. I have loads of respect for him, even if I disagree with on some movies, like Crash. But I just thought it was a bit out of line and unnecessary. Why should he care that much about what others think of his list? He's Roger fuckin' Ebert! I guess he's just too bored at home.

Methinks you're taking Ebert's jests a bit too seriously.

Also Ebert is saying special pleaders would think it's WORST of the decade. I agree with that. It's not worst, just not best.

Maybe so. I'm probably just tired of people suggesting that if you don't like Crash, it's because it beat Brokeback Mountain. That's such a ridiculous statement, but so many people seem to go there. It's a cop out. And a cheap one at that.

Well now there I'm in total agreement with you. I found CRASH to be extraordinarily average and entirely too self-important and in love with itself to rise to a level of anything above the magnitude of a shrug and a 'meh'. But as mentioned before, I still haven't see "Brokeback Mountain" so that whole theory that "people hate CRASH because it stole Brokeback Mountain of its rightful Best Picture Oscar" is a buttload to me.

I can't remember what my favorite movie of 2005 was. No wait, it was Munich, with Match Point a close second. Either film infinitely better than CRASH, in my opinion.

It's not black or white. I can understand that some people would still hate Crash regardless of the Oscars but considering the shitloads of posts about the Oscars on about every movie forum you can think of where people see winners/losers as validation of their tastes in film, to argue that the Oscar win has no bearing at all on the hatred for Crash is ridiculous.

Go back to the original post, and read the comments at the end of the article in the link. This "Best Of" list is based on specific criteria which people in this thread continue to ignore because they are too busy bitching about the list.

I'm just tired of reading posts from people who don't/can't understand the difference these opinions:
-Crash did not deserve to win the Best Picture Oscar
-Crash is not a good movie
-Crash is one of the worst movies made in the last ten years

Ebert can't argue his high esteem for Crash against anyone who has a diametrically opposed opinion of it.
"Strawberry is the best ice cream flavor."
"No. Strawberry ice cream sucks."
Quite an argument, there.


When he defends his opinion of Crash by pointing things to like an Oscar win, Imdb ratings or a Rotten Tomato score, Ebert is showing that his extreme valuation of Crash is still one that falls within the overall positive valuation of Crash that is held by the mainstream.

He is pointing out that anyone with such a low opinion of Crash is standing outside the mainstream evaluation of the film, and as such should be questioning their own ability to critique any film, not lob bombs at him.

Basically, he's saying: It's fair to disagree that Strawberry is THE BEST ice cream flavor, but if you think Strawberry ice cream tastes terrible, then there is a problem with you.

Ebert added Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind to his list of The Great Movies.

So is he still the no-nothing jag-off that he was a week ago?

Thanks for pointing that out. From the article:

"In choosing the list, I decided to bypass films that may have qualified for their historical, artistic, popular or "objective" importance. No lists have deep significance, but even less lists composed to satisfy an imaginary jury of fellow critics. My jury resides within. I know how I feel."

I don't always agree with the guy, but I have a lot of respect for him because his reviews seem to come from the heart.

He does have the odd tendency to just flat out love and champion really bad movies for obscure personal reasons. Take "Knowing", for example...