10 Thumbs Way Up

December 20, 2005 12:43 PM

Roger Ebert's Best 10 Movies of 2005
posted by surferboy (117 comments total)

Crash? A good movie, but best of the year?
posted by btwillig at 12:46 PM on December 20, 2005

He certainly is generous.
posted by billysumday at 12:46 PM on December 20, 2005

I have so much downloading to do now.
posted by mathowie at 12:47 PM on December 20, 2005

I think I have to agree with Crash as #1, although I'm dying to see Munich.
posted by surferboy at 12:48 PM on December 20, 2005

mathowie: "I have so much downloading to do now."

Yeah, ditto. I saw none of those movies. ("Munich"? 2005?)
posted by Plutor at 12:49 PM on December 20, 2005

I've always found Ebert's judgement to be, well, let's just say faulty. I believe we've already discussed my feelings for him after seeing Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

He can stick his thumb where the sun don't shine for all I care. A thumb up from him is actually more likely to cause me not to see a film.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:49 PM on December 20, 2005

Jeez, what did we just say about the list posts? They are still going "your favorite band sucks" in the other thread.
posted by fixedgear at 12:50 PM on December 20, 2005

I guess I'm on the outside as far as Crash goes. I really didn't like it-- thought it was way, way too hamfisted in making its point.
posted by COBRA! at 12:51 PM on December 20, 2005

All the fuss about the "interlocking stories," in Syriana and Crash (I've seen neither and have no intentions thereof). didn't John Sayles do the same thing in City of Hope 15 years ago, without all the marquee value of the big stars?
posted by jonmc at 12:52 PM on December 20, 2005

Now that's how to time things so as to make myself look like an asshole. Your favorite band sucks, man.
posted by COBRA! at 12:52 PM on December 20, 2005

Thanks for posting this, surferboy. I haven't seen a single one of those movies (five-month baby in the house) but now I know what to look for on DVD. The reviews were just the right length, neither useless one-sentence quips nor full essays, to figure out which ones I might like.
posted by Triplanetary at 12:53 PM on December 20, 2005

Thanks Trip. And to you Ebert-haters, you gotta admit he's one of the few film critics working today that can actually write. I read Schwarzbaum's reviews in EW, and I don't know what the hell she's talking about most of the time.
posted by surferboy at 12:55 PM on December 20, 2005

2046 is the best movie in like a long time.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:59 PM on December 20, 2005

didn't John Sayles do the same thing in City of Hope 15 years ago, without all the marquee value of the big stars?

I haven't seen the Sayles film, but Robert Altman has done it (with the marquee value of stars) and Pt Anderson after that. Both did a better job than Haggis.

Personally, I think "Oldboy" should be in that list, but then I'm not Ebert.
posted by btwillig at 12:59 PM on December 20, 2005

What, no European Gigolo? Who is Ebert kidding with that list?
posted by rottytooth at 1:02 PM on December 20, 2005

"King Kong": A stupendous cliffhanger, a glorious adventure, a shameless celebration of every single resource of the blockbuster, told in a film of visual beauty and surprising emotional impact.

What a crock. That guy's such a friggin weenie. He should have his testicles removed (if he actually still has them).

"Surprising emotional impact"???

WTF is he 12 or something?

How about:
Disappointingly lame attempt at emotional climax. All that was missing was the puppy getting hit by a car.
posted by HTuttle at 1:02 PM on December 20, 2005

I almost always disagree with this guy, which is great since it makes for avoiding bad movies that much easier!
posted by parallax7d at 1:04 PM on December 20, 2005

Just a reminder, you can find this and 28 other best of year film lists at fimoculous. And more to come. I love end of year lists. Interesting to note that Ebert's list doesn't really match up with a lot of other critics. He's more of a populist I think.
posted by jcruelty at 1:05 PM on December 20, 2005

1. "Crash"

Naturally.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:06 PM on December 20, 2005

I haven't seen the Sayles film,

See it, and any of his movies, and read his books. He's one of my artistic & political heroes.
posted by jonmc at 1:07 PM on December 20, 2005

I'll give you that he's a better writer, surferboy, but that ain't sayin' much. I think what really gets me is that he always seems so smugly sure of what is wrong or right about a film and I almost always think he's full of shit. I then see Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, which is utter, unwatchable cat vomit and I'm thusly convinced that indeed he is completely full of shit in knowing what is right or wrong with a film.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:09 PM on December 20, 2005

All the fuss about the "interlocking stories," in Syriana and Crash (I've seen neither and have no intentions thereof). didn't John Sayles do the same thing in City of Hope 15 years ago, without all the marquee value of the big stars?

C'mon jonmc. You do this enough with music, let's let film alone.

I second COBRA!'s sentiments on Crash. Whole thing felt full of characters just drawn up to serve tidy little moral lessons. Couldn't care about any of them.

Too bad Broken Flowers and The Constant Gardener didn't find their way into the top ten list.

Ebert's great. He's honest, down-to-earth, and defends his opinions well. I always enjoy reading his thoughts on movies, both when I agree and disagree.
posted by xmutex at 1:09 PM on December 20, 2005

Being a good critic and being a good filmmaker are two very different skills.
posted by surferboy at 1:11 PM on December 20, 2005

But I most confess that I love the guy. I never pass up a chance to hear him speak, and I read everything he writes. He knows his sh*t.
posted by surferboy at 1:12 PM on December 20, 2005

Being a good critic and being a good filmmaker are two very different skills.

True, but not if you listen to Ebert.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:14 PM on December 20, 2005

True, but not if you listen to Ebert.

Not even sure what that means.
posted by surferboy at 1:16 PM on December 20, 2005

I've read every word Ebert has written over the last 20 years and I appreciate both his knowledge and his consistency. I only agree with him about half the time, but I can always get an idea about whether I will like a movie or not from reading his reviews.

About this list: I'm afraid I've seen so few of them that I can't judge their quality. I did see Kong over the weekend and I thought it was brilliant, old school filmmaking. Living in a very small town like I do, I find it hard to see the less mainstream films until they come out on DVD. Most of the movies on his list didn't play within a 90 minute drive of my house.
posted by tolendante at 1:18 PM on December 20, 2005

I was pleasantly surprised that he mentioned more than just his top ten, with the "special awards" at the end of the article. Shit on Ebert all you want (and we have many times on MeFi) but he's doing what he loves, and it shows. He's proselytizing for the movies he enjoys and finds worthy (in general) and if you hate that approach in other areas, you probably won't like him.

And for the obligatory grousing about critics, Good Night and Good Luck blew.
posted by kyleg at 1:20 PM on December 20, 2005

Ah hah! Someone else who actually saw The Constant Gardener...

Also, Oldboy was 2003, wasn't it?
posted by hototogisu at 1:21 PM on December 20, 2005

Meanwhile, what some people like often differs from what others like. Probably the best use of this list is thus: if you like the kind of movies Ebert likes, you'll probably like these movies.
I did really like the special awards, as well.

I only agree with him about half the time, but I can always get an idea about whether I will like a movie or not from reading his reviews.

Very true. Strike what I said earlier- this list should probably just help you decide about the movies in question.
posted by 235w103 at 1:23 PM on December 20, 2005

I've read every word Ebert has written over the last 20 years

really? what's on his shopping list? I'm curious as to what kind of cheese he likes.
posted by jonmc at 1:25 PM on December 20, 2005

I liked Crash but you are right it was similar to City of Hope and to Grand Canyon which was acused of stealing from City also. Sayles has made some great movies, Eight Men Out and Matewan are two of my favorites.
posted by octothorpe at 1:26 PM on December 20, 2005

Also, Oldboy was 2003, wasn't it?

I think it didn't get US distribution until this year, which qualifies it for 2005 awards. For some reason.
posted by xmutex at 1:27 PM on December 20, 2005

Can't believe The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants didn't make it on that list!
posted by ramix at 1:30 PM on December 20, 2005

Kings and Queen was a good one, it's on NetFlix now and made a few critics' top 10 lists. Recommended by me, at least.
posted by cell divide at 1:31 PM on December 20, 2005

mathowie : " I have so much downloading to do now."

Dude, just take the little bawler to the theater. That's what all the rest of the parents do.

Fuckin' kids.

/get off my lawn!
posted by graventy at 1:34 PM on December 20, 2005

All the fuss about the "interlocking stories," in Syriana and Crash (I've seen neither and have no intentions thereof). didn't John Sayles do the same thing in City of Hope 15 years ago, without all the marquee value of the big stars?

Shorter jonmc:

Why do you need new bands? Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.

Movies too.

posted by SweetJesus at 1:35 PM on December 20, 2005

Out of all his lists, I've seen only Batman Begins. And that was my favorite movie of the year.

Either I need to get out more, or Ebert needs to stay in more.
posted by grey_flap at 1:36 PM on December 20, 2005

I wouldn't know, sweetjesus, considering I was in nursery school in 1974. I do know that from what I've seen Hollywood and the culture industry in general is out of new ideas. Pretty much everything, mainstream and indie, seems like a retread of something else. IMHO. YMMV.
posted by jonmc at 1:39 PM on December 20, 2005

It's silly to get all up in arms with a critic because you disagree with them.

What's good about Ebert is that he can tell you why he thought a film was good in a reasonably cogent fashion. I don't care what movies Ebert likes. But in his telling me why he liked a movie (and any decent critic), and I can decide to go see a film or not. That's what film critique is about for me.

I don't care what movies Ebert likes. But in his telling me why he liked a movie (and any decent critic), and I can decide to go see a film or not. Most of the ones on his list are now in my Netflix que. Don't have much interest in Brokeback Mountain, and his review confirmed that. The rest I want to see, with the exception of Munich, as I think Spielberg is just to over-the-top for me anymore.

I, too, think he overestimates Crash, but it was engrossing to watch. I don't think it quite succeeded, but I was quite happy to watch the filmmaker and actors try.
posted by teece at 1:39 PM on December 20, 2005

I wouldn't know, sweetjesus, considering I was in nursery school in 1974.

While you keep your eyes on the tree, you're missing out the forrest.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:41 PM on December 20, 2005

...on the forest. Sheesh.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:42 PM on December 20, 2005

The forest has been burnt down to make room for a mall, my friend.
posted by jonmc at 1:42 PM on December 20, 2005

Rock music peaked about 1968, I'd say.

But yeah, film peaked about 1974 or so. Yep.

/born in 1972
posted by stinkycheese at 1:42 PM on December 20, 2005

I've seen only Batman Begins

Yeah, I liked this too, and I hated the other Batman films.
posted by btwillig at 1:42 PM on December 20, 2005

Actually, pop culture as a whole peaked in 1966. This guy's book proves it.
posted by jonmc at 1:43 PM on December 20, 2005

I'd buy that. But then there were a few more years of messing around with the perfection after that. Adding distortion and wah pedals or whatever. I love the messing around phase myself.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:46 PM on December 20, 2005

Pretty much everything, mainstream and indie, seems like a retread of something else. IMHO. YMMV.

Oh, our mileage is very much varying and we're quite enjoying ourselves. Thanks.
posted by xmutex at 1:48 PM on December 20, 2005

If you don't think film peaked in the 70s BTW, here's a site you need to see.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:48 PM on December 20, 2005

Here's Roeper's list...
posted by btwillig at 1:49 PM on December 20, 2005

The forest has been burnt down to make room for a mall, my friend.

You keep telling yourself that.... *Sigh*

We can all have a discussion about our collective culture becoming watered down, but to say there hasn't been anything new in film in the past 15 years borders on professional cynicism for cyincism's sake.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:52 PM on December 20, 2005

stinkycheese: all that site proves that even the crap of the 70's was better than the crap of today. I'm sure things will pick up again eventually, like they did in the early nineties, but right now we're in one of those shit periods.

borders on professional cynicism

you mean I'm supposed to be getting paid?!

*storms off in a huff*
posted by jonmc at 1:56 PM on December 20, 2005

Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact. Movies too.

If you move the date up to 1981, I'd agree with that. Ever since MTV started, movies and music have pretty much sucked.
posted by octothorpe at 2:00 PM on December 20, 2005

jonmc: all that site proves that even the crap of the 70's was better than the crap of today.

Huh? That's like saying...you totally lost me there. How much of the "crap of today" do you think people would pay to have a DVD-R of in 30 years? You think people are gonna dish out bux for a burn of "National Treasure"? The 1970s were a perfect storm of film. All the elements came together in perfect syncronicity.

And then a big shark came & made it all go away...
posted by stinkycheese at 2:00 PM on December 20, 2005

Crash? wtf?

fuckin' Junebug???

in his endless list, Ebert manages to name a few really good ones. as much as I love Wong Kar-wai, this year's best for me is "Caché". by far.
posted by matteo at 2:01 PM on December 20, 2005

I missed Malick's, but I doubt it's as good as Haneke's. I mean, "Colin Farrell does Pocahontas" doesn't sound as good as, say, "Badlands".
posted by matteo at 2:03 PM on December 20, 2005

"Me, You and Everyone We Know" is beautiful.

I find reports of the death of culture to be greatly exaggerated.
posted by xod at 2:09 PM on December 20, 2005

Cut the fat man some slack. He walks the tightrope between popular movie reviewers-- you know, the type who write for just about every paper everywhere-- and the art-house reviewers in the New York Times and the Village Voice. He cultivates a wide enough palette to embrace both the well-executed art film and the blockbuster.

This is the great thing: He can be critical about movies without being cynical about them. Every so often you see the guy just get gleeful about something he saw in a movie. That's a rare and valuable quality for a movie reviewer to have. And that's why I value his judgment.
posted by Scooter at 2:10 PM on December 20, 2005

I quite enjoyed Oliver Twist. Yet, it seems that it did not actually exist. (information culled from me sporadically asking anyone I know if they had even heard of the recent Polanski version)
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 2:14 PM on December 20, 2005

After seeing the trailer for Munich, I am much more interested in seeing it.
posted by smackfu at 2:16 PM on December 20, 2005

i hate your favorite movie
posted by |n$eCur3 at 2:16 PM on December 20, 2005

Yeah, man, Crash was great. James Spader is constantly underrated, Cronenberg is god, and mix it all up with some J.G. Ballard creepy erotic writing and you've got a hell of a film.
posted by Nelson at 2:17 PM on December 20, 2005

Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.

If you move the date up to 1981, I'd agree with that. Ever since MTV started, movies and music have pretty much sucked.

Rock music peaked about 1968, I'd say.

It's a joke, not my opinion. Homer Simpson said it, and he was talking about the Alan Parsons' Project (which I believe was some sort of hovercraft)...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:17 PM on December 20, 2005

Ahh, Ebert. The man can be a real charmer sometimes. (video!)
posted by washburn at 2:22 PM on December 20, 2005

Jesus Christ. I usually agree with Ebert on a review-to-review basis, but that list is crap. I've never even seen Crash, but it looks like a steaming pile of sermonising schlock.

And Roeper includes "A History of violence" ????

WTF??

How do critics come to laud this horrible type of middle of bland American film making? Woodsman, Crash, 21 Grams, Assassination of Richard Nixon etc. These guys have lost their balls BIG TIME when it came to compiling these lists.
posted by fire&wings at 2:26 PM on December 20, 2005

MY OPINION IS RIGHT, EVERYONE ELSE'S IS WRONG. IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME THEN YOU'RE DUMB.
posted by Elpoca at 2:27 PM on December 20, 2005

Personally, I think "Oldboy" should be in that list, but then I'm not Ebert.

Well, considering it came out in 2003, you'd have a hard time for it being one of the best of 2005.

Best movie I saw that was on Ebert's list was Keane (though I saw it in 2004). Runner up would be Haneke's Cache.
posted by dobbs at 2:30 PM on December 20, 2005

jonmc: I'm curious as to what kind of cheese he likes.

Can't you be bothered to read the linked article before you comment?
posted by whir at 2:35 PM on December 20, 2005

I've never seen _____, but it looks like crap.
posted by xod at 2:36 PM on December 20, 2005

And Roeper includes "A History of violence" ????

History of Violence was easily my most hated film of 2005. I hated it, balls to bones.
posted by dobbs at 2:37 PM on December 20, 2005

History of Violence was easily my most hated film of 2005. I hated it, balls to bones.

Why? I missed it but am looking forward to it on DVD. Is it that bad?
posted by xmutex at 2:38 PM on December 20, 2005

I sat in the theatre watching A History Of Violence, wishing like hell it was something I could like. Every preview looked good, the cast seemed great. And I found myself openly laughing at the wooden dialogue, clumsy staging, and ham-fisted, scenery-chewing stupidity of the whole thing. I still can't quite figure out what the champions of this movie feel was right about it. I read some very literate, well-reasoned ass-tearing reviews that said it much better than me in refutation to the critics who insist that the unwashed masses didn't "get" it.
posted by docpops at 2:53 PM on December 20, 2005

Well, considering it came out in 2003, you'd have a hard time for it being one of the best of 2005.

True, but the North American release wasn't until this year. Why do we have to wait so long to see Asian films?

If I had pick something released this year that's closer to home, I'd go with "The Squid and the Whale."
posted by btwillig at 3:04 PM on December 20, 2005

How do critics come to laud this horrible type of middle of bland American film making? Woodsman, Crash, 21 Grams, Assassination of Richard Nixon etc. These guys have lost their balls BIG TIME when it came to compiling these lists.
posted by fire&wings at 5:26 PM EST on December 20 [!]

Different opinions. Surely you've beene exposed to them no? It goes like this. You think chef A for instance, makes a wonderful mushroom soup. I think chef A for instances, makes a terrible mushroom soup. I don't even like mushroom soup.

And that's it. Means nothing more or less.
posted by juiceCake at 3:14 PM on December 20, 2005

True, but the North American release wasn't until this year. Why do we have to wait so long to see Asian films?

There's no Asian DVD stores in your neck of the woods?
posted by juiceCake at 3:14 PM on December 20, 2005

True, but the North American release wasn't until this year.

Really? I saw it in Toronto in the summer of 2004 but that was at the film fest. I thought it came out within weeks, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't go to the theatre much.

xmutex, I hated everything about HoV. The acting, the score (good Christ, it was shit--felt like I was in Lord of the Rings), but mostly, the script sucked. The dialogue was poo, the scenarios were cliche and predictable (not a single "reverse" or "twist" was surprising).

The sex scenes were laughable and out of place (and, I later confirmed, didn't come from the graphic novel), the "moral" was of a gradeschool level. The film had no basement whatsoever, no reason to ever need to see it again.

Questions that the film answered should have been left unanswerered and weak characters should have been strogn and vice versa. The filmmakers took the easy route at every opportunity.

That said, people loved it. I would have walked out but was with someone and he was over the moon for it. The critics (locally, anyway) praised it as the year's best, and, if I remember correctly, it won something at the Toronto Film Fest. In my opinion, it's the antithesis of good filmic storytelling. In short, it sucked.
posted by dobbs at 3:15 PM on December 20, 2005

And everyone thinks my typos are atrocious. An absolute outrageous!
posted by juiceCake at 3:15 PM on December 20, 2005

Crash was the only movie I saw since I seldom get out to the movies. It was ok. Most movies would make me mad and it just made me annoyed so it's certainly not bad, but it's not the best either. Grizzly man was a really good movie. So was Murderball. I'll need to see more of these to be fair but my intuition is certainly negative.
posted by I Foody at 3:21 PM on December 20, 2005

Best? I long ago stopped naming movies the best I ever saw, all-encompassing or periodized; too much meaning in that four letter word.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang was the most fun I had watching a movie, but the 40-Year Old Virgin was the funniest movie I saw, while the funniest, most random line I heard came from Just Like Heaven, even if the rest of it was just "eh". You can see how in the end, my list will be long and rambling, and frankly, pretty pointless. I leave it at: I like movies. I go to the movies a lot (45 times this year so far). Done.

As for Ebert, I like his reviews. As said several times already, it's not whether or not he likes a movie, it's that he can explain why. As for track record, I found 2004 to be a year where I agreed with him most of the time, while this year was just the opposite.
posted by linux at 3:25 PM on December 20, 2005

Really? I saw it in Toronto in the summer of 2004 but that was at the film fest.

Yeah, I saw it early this year in Vancouver (not at a film fest). Ebert lists it on the bottom of the page under Special Jury Awards, so 2005 must have been a nation wide release.
posted by btwillig at 3:26 PM on December 20, 2005

It is clear that the best film of 2005 was The Best of Youth. But count me on the pro-History of Violence side.
posted by goatdog at 3:35 PM on December 20, 2005

SweetJesus:
It's a joke, not my opinion. Homer Simpson said it, and he was talking about the Alan Parsons' Project (which I believe was some sort of hovercraft)...

Homer was right... and no apostrophe needed. Today is Alan's birthday!
/fanboy
posted by OneOliveShort at 3:36 PM on December 20, 2005

There's no Asian DVD stores in your neck of the woods?

Yes, and I often rent them.

Call me a purist, but I'd rather see a film like 2046 on the big screen than my crappy 25".
posted by btwillig at 3:37 PM on December 20, 2005

fuckin' Junebug???

Shit yeah. That movie was fan-fucking-tastic. Real fucking tender and human, without being fucking sappy. Not to mention that it should win the fucking OSCAR for sound editing because it FUCKING NAILED it the way that sound carries through small, shitty middle class houses in the fucking middle of nowhere. Really brought an extra depth to the filmic space, a la La fucking Regle du no shit jeu, but in sound. Plus had Will Oldham in it for the Indie Cred and as Pitchfork says:

No matter your tastes, somewhere there's a Will Oldham record waiting just for you

posted by eatitlive at 3:54 PM on December 20, 2005

Crash hamfisted is like saying George Bush is not so smart. It's clear from even a cursory glance. Yikes.

Who didn't see the ending of that movie coming? Why was that Middle Eastern guy so mad? Why couldn't he just ask his daughter to look after some stuff.....after all she seemed to be around quite often.....

Maybe it's just LA -- I'm not sure. But, it would have to be very accurate in order to save itself. And, if that was the true LA, yikes.
posted by narebuc at 4:07 PM on December 20, 2005

Why? I missed it but am looking forward to it on DVD. Is it that bad?

I concur with the others to say: Yes.
posted by Dr. Zira at 4:40 PM on December 20, 2005

I'm sorry to say, there was no best movie this year. And certainly not ten of them.

The pickings were so slim I had to feed off of 1970s movies to avoid starving to death.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:46 PM on December 20, 2005

Until somebody remakes The Terror of Tiny Town, I am not interested in contemporary cinema.
posted by maxsparber at 5:04 PM on December 20, 2005

Huh. Tim Burton could do a pretty nifty remake of that, I bet.
posted by alumshubby at 5:31 PM on December 20, 2005

MY OPINION IS RIGHT, EVERYONE ELSE'S IS WRONG. IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME THEN YOU'RE DUMB.

Elpoca is on the right track, but this could be said more succinctly: I'M RIGHT, FUCK YOU, FUCK THAT GUY, FUCK EVERYONE ELSE. That's seven fewer words!
posted by chrominance at 5:43 PM on December 20, 2005

Millions was excellent. I'm a sucker for good child actors, though.
posted by pmbuko at 8:00 PM on December 20, 2005

HTuttle: How about:
Disappointingly lame attempt at emotional climax. All that was missing was the puppy getting hit by a car.

See, now, that's how I felt about Crash....

... and I fifth or sixth or whatever the previous notes -- Ebert is pretty reliable for knowing what you're likely to get. I can't tell you how many times I've read a bad review from him and known immediately that I'd like the film. And yes, that's a compliment.

Plus, there are few critics out there who can savage a bad film as amusingly as the big guy...
posted by lodurr at 8:05 PM on December 20, 2005

The 1970s were a perfect storm of film. All the elements came together in perfect syncronicity.

Fuckin' right that is.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:34 PM on December 20, 2005

Crash? Eek. That's the worst #1 from him since Dark City.
posted by my sock puppet account at 8:34 PM on December 20, 2005

I am really bored with all the whiners complaining about how things where done better back there or then.
It's an old complaint and I am tired of it.

What has been is what will be,
���and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.
-Ecclesiastes�1�:�2�11
posted by pointilist at 8:41 PM on December 20, 2005

damn- didn't see it looking like that before.
posted by pointilist at 8:42 PM on December 20, 2005

The 1970s were a perfect storm of film. All the elements came together in perfect syncronicity.

I think that the indie explosion of the 1990s will be looked on in similar fashion 20 years from now.
posted by my sock puppet account at 8:50 PM on December 20, 2005

Crash is the meta movie of the year. Everyone is a "racist" racist stereotype.
posted by iamck at 9:07 PM on December 20, 2005

Crash? Eek. That's the worst #1 from him since Dark City.

The fuck dude? Dark City was very good and a ballsy choice for #1 of the year.
posted by xmutex at 9:24 PM on December 20, 2005

Screw Ebert.

I'll look to Rotten Tomotoes for a Top 100 List. Crash isn't even on the list.

Ebert is just one vote.

weak fpp
posted by geekyguy at 9:58 PM on December 20, 2005

It's great to see Me and You and Everyone We Know on this list; it is such a refreshing movie. It's quirky without being cloying and portrays an interracial relationship and biracial kids in a way that seems *normal*.

I liked Crash too, but I don't know if I would rate it #1.
posted by mayfly wake at 10:20 PM on December 20, 2005

I must praise my local theater in Sausalito for putting "Crash 2005" on their marquee. Isn't it weird to make a movie with the exact title of another, completely different movie made less than a decade earlier?

BTW, I really liked Cronenberg's Crash.

No mention of Serenity here. I'd have to say that would be on my Top 10.
posted by tritisan at 11:16 PM on December 20, 2005

It's been quoted before, but:

"Now that I've inspired a character in a Godzilla movie, all I really still desire is for several Ingmar Bergman characters to sit in a circle and read my reviews to one another in hushed tones."

I like a critic who can poke fun at himself and a movie at the same time.
posted by Ritchie at 11:42 PM on December 20, 2005

No mention of Serenity here. I'd have to say that would be on my Top 10.

Serenity was a decent effort, but it is not in my Top 10 for this year. And I saw like three movies.
posted by kindall at 12:10 AM on December 21, 2005

My biggest suprise for the year was Rob Zombie's (of heavy metal band White Zombie) grindhouse homage The Devil's Rejects. I'm not a horror film fan normally and it was definitely a guilty pleasure, but damn it was good fun... and the soundtrack rocked.

History of Violence - thumbs down from me. I found Crash similarly meh-ish. But Ebert is one of the few critics I use as a guide to picking my movie viewing.
posted by Onanist at 1:46 AM on December 21, 2005

No mention of Serenity here. I'd have to say that would be on my Top 10.

Serenity sucked, even with Chinese subtitles.
posted by NewBornHippy at 4:44 AM on December 21, 2005

geekyguy: I'll look to Rotten Tomotoes for a Top 100 List. Crash isn't even on the list.

Ebert is just one vote.

... The Wisdom of the Crowd Has Spoken. All Hail the Crowd!
posted by lodurr at 4:50 AM on December 21, 2005

I guess I'm on the outside as far as Crash goes. I really didn't like it-- thought it was way, way too hamfisted in making its point.
posted by COBRA! at 12:51 PM PST on December 20 [!]

Yes. "Crash" is not a top ten movie. No way. It's like a 'grittier' version of "Grand Canyon" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101969/. Meh.
posted by Radio7 at 6:45 AM on December 21, 2005

I like Ebert, but it's gotten tough to listen to the Ebert and Roeper podcasts now that Cinecast's Adam and Sam have got me spoiled for good reviewing and a welcome lack of middle-aged slapfights [NSFW].
posted by blueberry at 7:38 AM on December 21, 2005

I'll look to Rotten Tomotoes for a Top 100 List. Crash isn't even on the list.

The problem with the Rotten Tomatoes Top 100 is that it's based on a pass/fail system. So theoretically a film that got a mildly positive 6/10 from every reviewer would have a end score of 100%. It misses those "love it or hate it" films.

A better system would be to ask each critic their choices for the best 10 films of the year and to score by ranking to create the list. So it wouldn't matter if a film got a few negative reviews as long as several critics thought it was one of the years best. The Sight Sound 100 is done in sorta that way.
posted by bobo123 at 10:54 AM on December 21, 2005

I'm curious about this 70's consensus. What are some recommendations for films from the 70's.?

Really.
posted by xod at 12:14 PM on December 21, 2005

I must praise my local theater in Sausalito for putting "Crash 2005" on their marquee. Isn't it weird to make a movie with the exact title of another, completely different movie made less than a decade earlier?

Reminds me of a conversation I had after renting the new version...

Me: I rented "Crash".

Girlfriend: Oh, which one?

Me: Uhhh, the one without all the amputee sex...
posted by SweetJesus at 12:42 PM on December 21, 2005

xod: There's a nice write-up here that explains some of the reasons why Hollywood had its creative heyday in the 70s, as well as listing some picks for each year. I included this site earlier, which is largely exploitation and art films currently - and probably forever - unavailable commercially. Between the two, you should get a feel for the cinematic zeitgeist, and hopefully get some ideas of stuff to rent or look out for as well.

my sock puppet account suggests upthread that the 1990s may be thought of in much the same glowing terms - and indeed it may - but I think perhaps a closer analogy to the film industry of the 1970s might be to the music industry of the early 1990s.

To wit, the people running things felt so very out of touch with what consumers wanted that they simply threw money at anyone who seemed "with it", hoping to fluke a hit. This had the result of funding lots of cheaply made, challenging, and idiosyncratic films. There's a lot more to it than that of course, but that comparison occured to me while thinking over this thread. Obviously the drugs/sexual liberation/social change/experimental living/political cynicism, etc. all played their part too.

I would also recommend reading Easy Riders, Raging Bulls for more on the history of how all this came off. It's a pretty gossipy read for sure, but I couldn't put it down. My wife liked it too, and she really couldn't care less about film history, I don't think.

Not to leave you with the impression that 1970s film was strictly about Hollywood either. Europe, Asia & Australia all had a banner decade. I could go on & on (& on) about this frankly - but my time is short & I don't want to bore anybody either.

Happy hunting! I'm no whiner BTW - I love the recent films of Haneke, Stolz, Noe, Chronenberg (though, yeah, HoV was disappointing) for instance, and I think the last ten years has seen a surge in awesome documentaries. I just think that the 1970s was, as I said earlier, a unique convergence of many different forces that created a huge backlog of amazing films. There were enough great flicks made in those ten years to keep anybody busy & entertained for a lifetime.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:54 PM on December 21, 2005

Thanks sc!
posted by xod at 2:39 PM on December 21, 2005

The problem with the Rotten Tomatoes Top 100 is that it's based on a pass/fail system. So theoretically a film that got a mildly positive 6/10 from every reviewer would have a end score of 100%. It misses those "love it or hate it" films.

Not how it works. Look closer.
posted by geekyguy at 11:04 PM on December 21, 2005

A better system would be to ask each critic their choices for the best 10 films of the year and to score by ranking to create the list.

This is exactly how metacritic works. They assign every review a score from 1-100, and then average the scores, and they tend to cover most of the mainstream reviewers (they also aggregate dvd, game, music, and recently, book reviews). Here's their list of the highest-rated films from 2005, which is an interesting contrast to the top-grossing films of 2005. Leading the list are Capote and The Best of Youth.
posted by whir at 1:47 PM on December 22, 2005

Er, reading more closely, I see that what you were looking for was different from what I described, but metacritic's summary of published top-ten lists comes close to what you want.

(Not trying to shill for metacritic here, but I do like them a lot as a sort of review portal.)
posted by whir at 1:51 PM on December 22, 2005