Roger Ebert’s Top 20 Films of 2008
For the second time in three years, Roger Ebert has gone against the grain of film critic and not given us a straightforward, ranked top ten list of movies for the year. His reasoning? There are too many good ones to pick just ten. He also has written many times through they years about how he’s not a big fan of ranking movies. So we have a set of unranked favorites from the year. Here are his twenty picks, alphabetically:
Ballast
The Band’s Visit
Che
Chop Shop
The Dark Knight
Doubt
The Fall
Frost/Nixon
Frozen Friver
Happy-Go-Lucky
Iron Man
Milk
Rachel Getting Married
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Shotgun Stories
Slumdog Millionaire
Synecdoche, New York
W.
Wall-E
Interestingly, I’ve noticed at least one movie on this list (Wall-E) that didn’t get four stars, only three and a half. This is certainly not a complaint, as I love Wall-E and I hope all of its year-end love will help in the Oscars race for years to come; it is wondered whether, with the right push, it could become the second and animated movie and first since the Animated Movie award was introduced to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar.
That Wall-E was included is especially strange because some of his four-star reviews of the year (In Bruges, Lakeview Terrace) weren’t included as part of the twenty.
If I have a criticism with the list, it is that it’s coming out so early, and before a few of the Oscar hopefuls come out. Movie studios tend to load the end of December with releases of artful, award-hopeful movies to have them fresh on people’s mind as the big awards are dolled out. It’s not just a matter of respect, it’s a matter of money: an obscure film will get a lot more ticket sales if it gets nominated.
Unfortunately, I haven’t had much opportunity to get out so far this year, so I haven’t seen too many of 2008’s movies. This list includes the favorites of the ones I’ve seen (Dark Knight, Wall-E) and some of the ones I most want to see (Frost/Nixon, Iron Man, Slumdog Millionaire). Of these, I know W. got mostly mixed reviews, and Happy-Go-Lucky’s were only midly positive. Most of these seem to be well-accepted by most, too.
It’s always fun to see movies ranked, but I respect Ebert’s choice not to. Perhaps the days of his traditional Top 10 lists are at an end. Ebert’s untraditional format is sort of refreshing given the ADHD, list-obsessed nature of many sites and news. And though I love lists (obviously), it’s pretty cool to see something a little bit less hyperactive, more thoughtful.
Or maybe I just love everything Ebert writes and puts together. It could be that too.
Related posts:Roger Ebert’s Favorite Movies of 2007
Lots of End-of-Year List Goodness
NYTimes.com Best 1000 Movies Ever Made
By RSS
Out of the movies on his list, I’ve only seen Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Wall-E, so I don’t feel like I can make any deep, insightful comments on his picks. But I really enjoyed those three, so I’m sure the others were good, solid movies that deserve to be mentioned.
My only complaint about this list is that for some of the movies, he just says what they’re about without really saying what makes them stand out… what they do that other movies don’t… why they deserve a spot in his top 20. I appreciate the approach of making an unranked list, but I feel any unranked list needs to have a bit more detail about the merits of each item.
You raise an excellent point. I’d already read most, if not all, of the reviews before he put this up, so I pretty much knew his opinions on them already. Perhaps, then, I was blind to this fact. It does serve as a splash page to other reviews for most, so if you want a lengthier review you could get it. But that is a valid criticism. Points deducted, Ebert.
Quite often in his actual reviews, he spends too much time describing what the movie is about and not enough about why it’s good. I love his work, and I’ve read his review on pretty much every movie I’ve ever seen, but that’s one thing I don’t like. That and the fact that he gives out 4 star ratings like they’re candy on Halloween. He loves movies, and that’s cool, but he’s quite lax sometimes. It often seems to me that his default state is 3 stars–as in, well that movie didn’t suck, so I’ll give it 3 stars. Then, by extension, he gives any really good movie 4 stars, which makes it hard to separate the really good from the truly transcendent. But I digress….