I thought this list was particularly interesting with it's choices. I think Ebert's lists are almost always unconventional and are extremely well thought out. Check it out and post your comments...

Okay, I am about to make a couple of comments that are going to be quite controversial, so please don't bash me. I will go through the list from one to four and say what I think about each.

1. Million Dollar Baby-I haven't seen it yet, but suddenly realize that I must rectify this as soon as possible.
2. Kill Bill, Volume 2-Overrated. I know that many here enjoyed the films, but overall they weren't that great. Oh well, I understand why it is there.
3. Vera Drake-Never heard of it. I might look into it.
4. Spider-Man 2-This is a great spot for it. Not at the top, but not near the bottom. Just a middle of the pack comic-book movie. It was the best comic-book movie to date so four seems reasonable.

As for the rest I either haven't heard of them or haven't seen them. I am suprised, however, how high he rated "The Aviator" but it WAS given a 75 by the critics of Metacritc so I can understand why. Overall, granted that I haven't seen most of the top ten, it seemed like a fair list.

What's missing from the list is the third "Harry Potter". I know many here disagree, but I must say that it was on par with "Spiderman 2" (it though was the lesser of the two). Anyways I'll do something similair to what Mike did when I have the time.

Here was my list:

quote:

---

1. The Incredibles
2. The Bourne Supremacy
3. Shrek 2
4. Spiderman 2
5. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
6. Blade 3: Trinity
7. Collateral
8. The Chronicles of Riddick
9. Ocean’s 12
10. Dawn of the Dead

---

And after looking at that, I suddenly realized that Ebert didn't even mention "The Incredibles" at all in the list. Big mistake made there.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

icredibleS.......Hello H.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:
Here was my list:

quote:

---

1. The Incredibles
2. The Bourne Supremacy
3. Shrek 2
4. Spiderman 2
5. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
6. Blade 3: Trinity
7. Collateral
8. The Chronicles of Riddick
9. Ocean’s 12
10. Dawn of the Dead

---

And after looking at that, I suddenly realized that Ebert didn't even mention "The Incredible" at all in the list. Big mistake made there.

---

Mike, "Blade 3" and "Chronicles of Riddick"...surely you jest???

quote:

---

Mike, "Blade 3" and "Chronicles of Riddick"...surely you jest???

---

I rate solely on entertainment value, therefore they were very good. You have to take movies they way the are supposed to be taken, Blade and Riddick were meant to be taken as entertainment, F 9/11 is supposed to be taken as a learning experience, and movies like Collateral should be taken on many different areas because it is as PE called it a "Psychological Drama." I guess this was just a long way of saying that Riddick and Blade are fun. BUT generally I keep fun movies out of my top 5.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

quote:

---

Mike, "Blade 3" and "Chronicles of Riddick"...surely you jest???

---

I rate solely on entertainment value, therefore they were very good. You have to take movies they way the are supposed to be taken, Blade and Riddick were meant to be taken as entertainment, F 9/11 is supposed to be taken as a learning experience, and movies like Collateral should be taken on many different areas because it is as PE called it a "Psychological Drama." I guess this was just a long way of saying that Riddick and Blade are fun. BUT generally I keep fun movies out of my top 5.

---

OK, here's a discussion question. Something that is somewhat of an internal conflict of mine. Are movies that are ones "favorite" and are fun movies nescessarily great movies or "Best" movies. I have arguments for both sides but I cant come to my own conclusion.

I've decided that if I like it, and enjoyed it more than "Great" movies than it is deserving to be included in the "Best" movie list. Who cares how well the camera angles are if the movie is boring? Just my opinion. I get your point though, they can be two different list, but prefer not to actually have to make two different list so that my favorites can be seperate from some of the smarter movies.

What strikes me as odd is that his 2 "worst" movies of the year, if numbers 1 & 2 on that "worst-of" list are the worst (if not the best of the worst) were given a 2-star score on his site (translated to 50/100 on this site). Is this due to scoring inflation on his part? Shouldn't the "worst" movie of the year get 0-stars? or even as much as 1-star? I just find this strange.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Metacritic Games Editor:
What strikes me as odd is that his 2 "worst" movies of the year, if numbers 1 & 2 on that "worst-of" list are the worst (if not the best of the worst) were given a 2-star score on his site (translated to 50/100 on this site). Is this due to scoring inflation on his part? Shouldn't the "worst" movie of the year get 0-stars? or even as much as 1-star? I just find this strange.

---

Yes, I found this to be puzzling as well. notice his tenth worst film of the year, "The Village", was given ONE star. Shouldnt this be ranked higher than "Alexander" and "Troy"??

quote:

---

Originally posted by EccentricSam:

OK, here's a discussion question. Something that is somewhat of an internal conflict of mine. Are movies that are ones "favorite" and are fun movies nescessarily great movies or "Best" movies. I have arguments for both sides but I cant come to my own conclusion.

---

A film's subject matter shouldn't determine how "great" it is. I'm of the opinion that movies should entertain first and foremost ( although I enjoy a movie which moves me too), but what I find entertaining (witty dialogue, expert pacing, solid storytelling, good acting, artistic lighting and camerawork, and direction which enhances the story instead of subverting it) doesn't matter to your average moviegoer anymore.

Great actors, writers and directors have made many lousy movies, while several seemingly-modest individuals have made some very good movies. I just take each movie as it comes, being totally open to it. I just don't find too many movies today that are that original, bright, well-made, thought-provoking or entertaining, except in a sorta "average" way. That's why I'm gaga over "The Incredibles."

Anyhow, somebody else may talk now.

I'm glad others before just validated the extreme grade inflation Ebert gives to all films, including the supposedly "bad" ones. I will agree with him about "Dogville" though being one of the worst films of the year. I disagree with him putting "The Village" in the worst 10...I think that's too harsh for that movie. As for his Best 10 list, I haven't yet seen "Million Dollar Baby" or "The Aviator", so I can't comment. However, any list that does NOT have "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is not a very good one, I think.

In conjunction with Ebert's grade inflation, I noticed in the article that he couldn't just give a "Best 10" list. Instead, he had to add 15 more films as a "Special Prize". Yeesh.

Loved yer list, dude! I wouldn't argue with any one o' them, unless they wanted me to.

Ebert's list was very respectable, especially with such a high listing for Vera Drake, which was exceptional. I probably would have listed Sideways a bit higher, which, upon a second viewing, has grown wonderfully rich in my memory.

Yeah... and still not on the bandwagon for Million Dollar Baby, though the performances were uniformly excellent, and I have to admit it was a gigantic step forward from the dreary, supernaturally overrated Mystic River.

I do, however, greatly disagree with his inclusion of Dogville as one of the worst films of the year (it's my pick for the best). The others, at least what I can remember, deserved to be there.

And yes, Dogville was also awarded two stars from Ebert, yet was listed ahead of The Village, which was only given one star.

Ebert, you tricky devil, you...

Honestly my 2 favorite movies of 2004 are Collateral and Anchorman!!