Roger Ebert's "Best / Worst Movies of 2004" list! (2 Viewers)

[Chris Atkins]

A rule which Ebert seems to break himself, by the way.

 

[JonZ]

"The only other movie on any of his lists that I saw was "Kill Bill: Volume 2", and I loved it."
"It's better than Spider-Man 2 and MUCH better than the insanely overrated Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, which I got sick of due to dull characters and overused special effects."

See, to each their own.I think Spidey 2 was better than X2, which becomes more mediocre every time I see it.

And I thought the last 30 minutes of Kill Bill2 was so bad(and stupid), I actually felt embarrased to be sitting there watching it.One of the worst endings Ive ever seen to a film.

I enjoyed Eternal Sunshine ALOT more the second time I saw it.

 

[AlexCremers]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spiderman II, which belongs in the list "Most Overrated Films Ever",
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?In what way?


The whole time I felt they treated me like a twelve-year-old. I have no problem with "private life insights" but the kiddie level on which it operates in Spiderman II disturbs me. The puppy love scenes were far too naive. Also, eventhough I'm a Alfred Molina fan, the villain, Doc Ock, somehow let me down. He just didn't get to me as I hoped he would. Magneto, on the other hand, got to me big time (That character has class and the way he broke out of his prison cell simply terrified me). Yes, as comic book movies, I like the X-Men movies better.


------------
Alex Cremers

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I think PASSION OF THE CHRIST is left off some of the Top lists because of its subject matter, despite being a good film.

 

[Richard Kim]

To be fair, the film is being faithful to the original source, which also keeps pounding home how crappy Peter's life is. It annoys me in the comics, as well.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

The whole point of Spider-Man (and many MARVEL characters in general) was that he was as real and human as you and I - with all types of problems and difficulties getting in the way, which readers could relate to. Sometimes he wanted to give up being Spidey because of them. I'm very glad Sam Raimi "got it" when he made these two films, otherwise they would have been just two more typical action-packed, soul-less CGI modern masses of nothing.

 

[AlexCremers]

Another good example of how Ebert's mind sometimes works in strange ways. He is about the only critic who dwells with it.

 

[Ernest Rister]

I think PASSION OF THE CHRIST is left off some of the Top lists because of its subject matter, despite being a good film.

Exactly. The craftsmanship of the movie is impeccable, and Jim Caviezel has - so far at least - given what I think was the performance of the year. It looks like Mel Gibson should have plenty of free time on Oscar night.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I think Mel Gibson is the least worried about whether TPOC makes it into a Top 10 list or gets an Oscar nomination. The success of the film is more than he could have hoped for.

~Edwin

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I agree with you, Ernest - PASSION was a very well-executed and emotionally powerful moviegoing experience, and that extended far beyond just the visual frankness of the suffering of Jesus. I haven't seen many 2004 films this year, but of those I've seen, James Caviezel deserves an Oscar nod, IMO. Ditto for Gibson as Best Director.

 

[TheLongshot]

That is probably my main problem with SM2. Nothing is subtle in that film. Ok, I get it that Peter's life is horrible. Ok, I get it that Osborne hates Spiderman. And it goes on from there. Yes, there is great stuff in there as well, but as someone above said, I hate being treated as a 12 year old.

No "The Incredibles"? That I thought was much better than SM2.

Man, I think he was a bit hard on "Troy". No, it isn't great, but it isn't awful either. It was a decent middle of the road picture.

Jason

 

[Michael Elliott]

The yearly "Ebert's wrong and I'm right" thread.

Ebert talked about PASSION when he was on Jay Leno a few weeks back. He simply said it wasn't one of the best five movies made that year so that's why it wouldn't get an noms. I haven't made my own list yet but I don't think it would be my #1 spot. From the films on Ebert's list, I think I'd go with BAADASSSSS! as #1 but I'm looking forward to Scorsese's magic next weekend.

As for SPIDER-MAN 2, I thought it was better than your average comic film but I don't see it as a great film. This is the strange case where I'd bash the "action" while thinking the story was very good. I thought the action brought down the first film a bit as well but naturally this type of film has to have it.

We'll have to wait for his show but it looks like he picked TROY and ALEXANDER as the worst because they were expected to be among the best films out there. Considering the wonderful directors, perhaps they should get a little more heat than the other films.

 

[Ray H]

Crazy list. I liked Troy myself. It wasn't bad IMHO. I found it to be pretty fun in that popcorn kind of way.

 

[Nick C.]

How terribly odd, Ebert raves about it right after watching it at the TIFF, calling it a masterpiece, then it barely makes the cut... guess the term just mean much the way he throws it around

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

Yes, because these two films are so much worse than fuckin' White Chicks.

Seriously, there was a lot of terrible films to come out this year; but Troy, Alexander, The Girl Next Door, Dogville, and The Village were A LOT better than say White Chicks. Did Roger Ebert even see Envy? Along Came Polly? The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra?

 

[teapot2001]

He probably meant it was a masterpiece for the director.

~T

 

[Jan H]

Ebert has lost his mind. 15 years ago, Dogville would've made his 10 best list and he would've been too embarassed to put Spiderman 2 at #4 (not that it isn't a very good movie). Wow, the things we can anticipate as age inexorably creeps forth.

 

[David Galindo]

Along Came Polly was OK. Definitely not good, but definitely not worst movie material. Same goes for Envy.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I think they're good lists considering how many 4 star films came out this year (and how much crap came out, too).

Ebert also gave 4 stars to The Passion, Sky Captain, Kinsey, The Polar Express, and Ray.

While I've only seen five 2004 releases (The Passion, Kill Bill V2, Spider-Man 2, Sky Captain, and The Incredibles), all of them seemed like A+ films to me.

This year has had a ton of great movies, so cutting the list down to just 10 means you're going to have a lot left out. Try coming up with a top 10 for 1927, 1939, 1941, or 1964 and be satisfied.

As for all the flack for Spider-Man 2... I think it's an excellent film. Other than the original Superman: The Movie, I don't think any other comic book movie has gotten everything so right. If I may say so, Spider-Man 2 is superior to Superman: TM in a lot of ways (I like Alfred Molina's perfect balance between good and evil in his Octavius/Ock character more than Hackman's somewhat flat Luthor). It's a lot more than just your average "popcorn movie."

I'm saddened, though, that no mention of The Incredibles is there. It's the best CGI film I've seen (out of Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Shrek, Monsters Inc, Shrek 2, and Ice Age... hmm, not a lot of competition). I consider it to be at least the best animated film, right under the original Snow White, Fantasia, and Dumbo.

 

[GeorgePaul]

For my money, no actor's performance this year beat Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles. I think it would be a crime for him to not at least be nominated for the best actor, and I am frankly aghast that "Ray" has not even been mentioned yet as one of the year's ten best--it was just a perfectly-cast, wonderfully-acted, and masterfully-directed biopic.