|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by lamphorn
(Post 9931382)
He does have the odd tendency to just flat out love and champion really bad movies for obscure personal reasons. Take "Knowing", for example...
"Knowing" is among the best science-fiction films I've seen -- frightening, suspenseful, intelligent... The plot involves the most fundamental of all philosophical debates... Nicolas Cage, in another wound-up, edgy performance... With expert and confident storytelling, Proyas strings together events that keep tension at a high pitch all through the film. The film has sensational special effects... So the "obscure personal reasons" why Ebert liked Knowing so much are: --he found the movie effective as a sci-fi thriller; --he thought it dealt intelligently with an important philosophic issue; --he liked Nic Cage's performance; --he liked Alex Proyas' direction of the film; --and he liked the special effects |
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by lamphorn
(Post 9925657)
"No Country for Old Men" (2007)- Don't know. Don't care. It somehow beat "There Will Be Blood" for Best Picture, which makes it my mortal enemy. Won't see it.
I disagree with a lot of what you said, but all were your opinions - this however, how can you dislike a film you have never seen, just because it beat out a film you love for best picture? Weird. |
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
didn't he only give TWBB a 3.5 rating
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
(Post 9929569)
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. |
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by bse
(Post 9933785)
I disagree with a lot of what you said, but all were your opinions - this however, how can you dislike a film you have never seen, just because it beat out a film you love for best picture? Weird.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Crash does not deserve to be there, but what really offends me is No Country for Old Men. That was, without a doubt, the worst movie to ever win best picture. That movie was an overrated piece of shit.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by hapgilmore
(Post 9934151)
Crash does not deserve to be there, but what really offends me is No Country for Old Men. That was, without a doubt, the worst movie to ever win best picture. That movie was an overrated piece of shit.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by Fist of Doom
(Post 9934193)
Nope, it wasn't.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by hapgilmore
(Post 9934217)
Yes, it was. I don't expect any Coen fanboys to admit this.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
I'd expect that if Roger Ebert ever discovered that his "Best of"-list inspired a level of debate this moronic, he would kill himself.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
(Post 9934290)
I'd expect that if Roger Ebert ever discovered that his "Best of"-list inspired a level of debate this moronic, he would kill himself.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by jmu878
(Post 9934242)
Wrong. I personally love it. I'd say the award for shittiest best film winner ever goes to Slumdog, but the decade is full of em: Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, and especially Crash.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by hapgilmore
(Post 9934151)
Crash does not deserve to be there, but what really offends me is No Country for Old Men. That was, without a doubt, the worst movie to ever win best picture.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
(Post 9928637)
He's confused City of God with the documentary Bus 174 made in Brasil also in 2002
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
This list proves that Roger Ebert and I have completely different tastes in movies. 25th Hour?!? I loved Edward Norton in 'Rounders,' 'American History X,' and 'Fight Club' but 25th Hour was a snooze-fest for me.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by jmu878
(Post 9934242)
Wrong. I personally love it. I'd say the award for shittiest best film winner ever goes to Slumdog, but the decade is full of em: Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, and especially Crash.
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
Originally Posted by Brack
(Post 9938630)
Gladiator
|
Re: Ebert's Best Films of the Decade
I would say it was be damn near impossible to post ANY best picture nominee without someone on here thinking it was the worst winner. Different strokes folks.
And I too am surprised about The Hurt Locker being his #2 of the decade. Really? I just watched it and it was damn fine film but #2 of the decade? I don't think it's even in the top 5 for this year. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.