recent Two Thumbs Up® reviews

Linked here are reviews in recent months for which I wrote either 4 star or 3.5 star reviews. What does Two Thumbs Up mean in this context? These films are worth going out of your way to see, or you might rent them, add them to your Netflix, Blockbuster or TiVo queues, get them by VOD, watch for them on cable, anything. Many of the older titles are already streaming on Netflix and Amazon.

"35 Shots of Rum" (Unrated, 99 minutes). About four people who have known each other in way or another for a long time, and how their relationships shift in a way that was slow in the preparation. They live across the hall from one another in a Paris apartment building--a train engineer, a clerk in music store, a taxi driver, a rootless young man. Their likes are contended but not complete. Director Clair Denis has long been interested in the people of France's former colonies in East Africa, and now considers those who are Parisians. A delicate study of human affection. Four stars

"The White Ribbon" (R, 145 minutes). In a rural German village on the eve of World War One, bad things begin to happen. A murder, a barn fire, a cruel trick. Suspicion turns this way and that, but the facts don't seem to point to a single malefactor. The movie relates what happens but isn't a whodunit, and its message is that evil cannot be completely prevented and sometimes it takes place without a rational reason. The film has been described as about the rise of German fascism, but I think that's to simple. It's about how the rise of fear leads to the loss of freedom. Top winner at Cannes 2009. Four stars

"Crazy Heart" (R, 112 minutes). Jeff Bridges is a Best Actor front-runner for his performance as Bad Blake, a broke-down, boozy country singer with a stubborn pride. Maggie Gyllenhaal finds all the right notes as a much younger reporter who comes for an interview and stays to be kissed. The songs, the singing, the milieu, the wisdom about alcoholism, are all convincing. The stuff of countless country songs, made true and new. With Robert Duvall and Colin Farrell in key supporting roles. Written and directed by first-timer Scott Cooper. Four stars

"A Town Called Panic" (G, 75 minutes). Know how kids play with little plastic action figures that balance their feet on their own little platforms? And how kids move them around while doing their voices and making up adventures for them? Then you have a notion of the goofy charm generated by this new animated comedy from France. Horse, Cowboy and Indian live with Farmer and Policeman in a tiny village...and Horse's birthday inspires strange adventures. So simple it's sophisticated. Three and a half stars

"Avatar" (PG-13, 163 minutes). James Cameron silences his doubters by delivering an extraordinary film. There's still one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million wisely. Involves a mission by U. S. Armed Forces to an earth-sized moon, Pandora, in orbit around a massive star. They encounter a graceful race of towering blue-skinned forest dwellers living in harmony with their environment. Sam Worthington plays the hero, whose is befriended by a Na'va woman (Zoe Saldana), and chugs his allegiance. Awesome special effects, good storytelling. Four stars.

"Broken Embraces" (R, 128 minutes). Almodovar's passionate new film. A blind man ( Lluis Homar), once a director, now a writer, learns the producer of his final film has died. He still hates this man. Flashbacks reveal the history of their relationship, and the woman (Penelope Cruz) between them. In the present, the dead man's son enlists him in a project to gain vengeance on his father, and old secrets are discovered. A voluptuary of a film, drunk on primary colors, caressing Penelope Cruz, using the devices of a Hitchcock to distract us with surfaces while the sinister uncoils beneath. Four stars.

"Invictus" (PG-13, 134 minutes). Strange, that the first of many proposed biopics about Nelson Mandela centers on the South African rugby team. Mandela took an intense interest in the Springbok's drive to an eventual World Cup championship, and it was a famous victory for the parish apartheid state. Here it is foregrounded, and who would have expected this film to be structured around who wins the big match? Yet Clint Eastwood has crafted a strong film with many other key moments, and Freeman and Damon are well cast. Entertaining, but not a companion-piece for "Gandhi." Three and a half stars.

"Me and Orson Welles" (PG-13, 109 minutes). About the best movie about the theater I've seen, seeing Orson Welles' legendary first Broadway production through the eyes of a young would-be actor. Hard to believe the famous, towering, ego-heavy Welles, who kept everyone waiting for him, was still in his early 20s. Christian McKay does uncanny work Welles, and Zac Efron and Claire Danes are the young couple who study him in fascination, while falling in love. Directed by Richard Linklater. Four stars.

"Collapse" (Unrated, 80 minutes). Our global future proceeds on this fact: We have passed the peak of our oil resources. Remaining reserves are growing smaller and the demand will double as China and India grow. Oil makes plastics and tires, and supplies the energy for building and maintaining machines. It took about 100 years to use more than half. It will take less to finish the process. Investigator Michael Ruppert speaks calmly and reasonably, and his message is terrifying. Documentary by Chris Smith ("American Movie"). Four stars.

"Up in the Air" (R, 109 minutes). Bingham (George Clooney) describes himself as a Termination Facilitator. He fires people for a living. When corporations need to downsize quickly but hate the mess, he flies in and breaks the news to the new former employees. In a hard times, his business is great. He loves isolation from other people. Vera Farmiga play his longtime mistress, and Anna Kendrick is his young trainee. To both he explains why he doesn't need home, sigh or family. The third great film from Jason Reitman ("Thank You for Smoking," "Juno"). Four stars.

"Brothers" (R, 104 minutes) About a family twisted from its natural form when a father leaves for service in Afghanistan just after his brother comes home from prison. The good brother (Tobey Maguire) goes into harm's way while the bad brother (Jake Gyllenhaal) is shielded by his misbehavior. The serving broth is reported killed in action. The survivor tries awkwardly to help the widow (Natalie Portman). We know all along Maguire didn't die, and is being tortured by the Taliban. When he returns the drama deepens. Directed by Jim Sheridan; remade from 2005 Danish film. Three and a half stars.

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox" (PG, 88 minutes) .Not for kids, not for adults either. Just an everybody film. That's the charm. After "The Dareeling Limited" and "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zisou," Wes Anderson creates an explicably odd and riveting look for Roald Dahl's fable about a fox trying to overcome his basic foxian nature. Combo of traditional stop-action and uncanny fur so realistic you want to touch it. Voice talents of George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"The Road" (R, 119 minutes). Evokes the images and the characters of Cormac McCarthy's novel, but lacks a care of emotional feeling. The film is a sincere attempt to relate the story of a man and his son trekking westward across a devastated future America, but the strength of the novel isn't in the action; it's in McCarthy's prose, which evokes so much more than it says. With Viggo Mortenson as the father, Kodi Smit-McPhee as his son and Charlize Theron in flashbacks as the wife and mother in years before the unexplained apocalypse. An honorable attempt, but McCarthy is daunting to film. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans" (R, 107 minutes) Werner Herzog stars Nicolas Cage in a dire portrait of a rapist, murderer, drug addict, corrupt cop and degenerate paranoid who is apprehensive about iguanas. It places this man in a devastated New Orleans not long after Hurricane Katrina. It makes no attempt to show that city of legends in a flattering light. And it gradually reveals itself as a sly comedy about a rather courageous man. Cage and Herzog were born to work together. Four stars. View the trailer.

"The Messenger" (R, 107 minutes) Two Army officers draw the hard duty of notifying the next of kin of a death in combat. Woody Harrelson plays the old hand at breaking the news. Ben Foster, plays the new man, wounded in combat in Iraq. He has a tendency to care about the people he's informing. Not Army policy, the veteran explains. You'll lose it if you let yourself care. With Samantha Morton as a new widow and Steve Buscemi as a father whose grief turns to anger. Directed by Oren Moverman, himself a combat veteran in the Israeli army. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"2012" . (PG-12, 158 minutes) The mother of all disaster movies (and the father, and the extended family) spends half an hour on obligatory ominous set-up scenes (scientists warn, strange events occur, prophets rant, and of course a family is introduced). Then it unleashes two hours of cataclysmic special events in which the earth is hammered relentlessly. This is fun. John Cusack stars as the limo driver of a Russian billionaire who get swept up with his family in the cataclysm. "2012" delivers what it promises, and will be, for its intended audience, one of the most satisfactory films of the year. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Skin". (PG-13, 107 minutes). Magnificent performance by Oscar nominee Sophie Okonedo ("Hotel Rwanda") as the apparently black child of apparently white Afrikanars in South Africa under apartheid. Her parents insist she's white, but society sees nhefr as black, and she's trapped in the nightmare if apartheid's insanity. A powerful emotional experience, based on a true story (we see the real-life woman at the end). Sam Neill and Alice Krige play her stubborn parents. Directed by Anthony Fabian. Four stars. View the trailer.

"Precious"(R, 109 minutes). School is an ordeal of mocking cruelty for a fat teenager, and home is worse. Precious avoids looking at people, hardly ever speaks, is nearly illiterate, is pregnant. One of her teachers (Paula Patton) and a postal worker (Mariah Carey) see something in her, or simply react to her obvious pain. They try to coax her out of her shell. She's not stupid, but feels defeated. Gabourey "Gabby" Sidibe gives a powerful performance in the title role, and Mo'Nique is frighteningly effective as her abusive mother. Directed by Lee Daniels, based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire. View the trailer.

"Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans" (R, 107 minutes) Werner Herzog stars Nicolas Cage in a dire portrait of a rapist, murderer, drug addict, corrupt cop and degenerate paranoid who is apprehensive about iguanas. It places this man in a devastated New Orleans not long after Hurricane Katrina. It makes no attempt to show that city of legends in a flattering light. And it gradually reveals itself as a sly comedy about a rather courageous man. Cage and Herzog were born to work together. Four stars

"The Messenger" (R, 107 minutes) Two Army officers draw the hard duty of notifying the next of kin of a death in combat. Woody Harrelson plays the old hand at breaking the news. Ben Foster, plays the new man, wounded in combat in Iraq. He has a tendency to care about the people he's informing. Not Army policy, the veteran explains. You'll lose it if you let yourself care. With Samantha Morton as a new widow and Steve Buscemi as a father whose grief turns to anger. Directed by Oren Moverman, himself a combat veteran in the Israeli army. Three and a half stars

"A Christmas Carol" (PG, 95 minutes) An exhilarating visual experience that proves for the third time Robert Zemeckis is one of the few directors who knows what he's doing with 3-D. The story that Dickens wrote in 1838 remains timeless, and if it's supercharged here with Scrooge swooping the London streets as freely as Superman, well, once you let ghosts into a movie there's room for anything. In motion-capture animation, Jim Carrey does the movements and voice of Ebenezer Scrooge, never thinner, never more stooped, never more bitter. The A-list cast also includes Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn and Cary Elwes. Four stars. View the trailer.

"The Men Who Stare at Goats" (R, 93 minutes). A weirdly funny comedy that seriously claims to be based on an actual U.S. Army interest in using paranormal soldiers as a weapon. Ewan McGregor plays a reporter who encounters George Clooney, a "Jedi Warrior" graduate of this secret program; flashbacks show Jeff Bridges as an officer who seems very much like The Big Lebowski, perhaps because Bridges is, quite simply, playing he Bug Lebowski, as who better to? Could these warriors kill goats by staring? Well, if you can bend a spoon with your mind, why not a rifle? Three and a half stars.View the trailer.

"(Untitled)" (R, 96 minutes). A good, smart comedy about the fringes of the New York art world, starring Adam Goldberg as an impossible experimental musician and Marley Shelton as a chic Soho gallery owner. The art on display is good enough to be plausible, and weird enough to be funny. It's worthy of the best Woody Allen, and Adrian is not unlike Woody's persona: A sincere, intense, insecure nebbish, hopeless with women, aiming for greatness. His conceptual music has to be heard, and seen, to be, believed. With Brit Vinnie Jones as a cutthroat artist. Directed by Jonathan Parker. Four stars. View the trailer.

"An Education" (PG-13, 100 minutes) A 16-year-old girl (Carey Mulligan) is the target of a sophisticated seduction by a 35-year-old man (Peter Sarsgaard). Could have been shabby or painful, but the luminous Mulligan makes it romantic and wonderfully entertaining. The romance isn't so much with him as with the possibilities within her, the future before her, and the joy of being alive. Sarsgaard plays a smoothie who bewitches her protective parents (Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour). He's a dirty rotten scoundrel, but a real charmer. With Mulligan, a star is born. Four stars.
Lynn Barber's memories that inspired the film. View the trailer.

Antichrist (Unrated, 105 minutes). A film containing shocking images of a man and a woman descending into an emotional hell after the death of their child. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsborgh play He and She, cruelly struck by their loss, she turning it into guilt, he into blame. In a retreat to their cabin in a dark wood, they seem overcome by pain and madness, and Nature itself seems to have turned against them. Some admire the film, some loathe it, no one is indifferent. Written and directed by the Danish provocateur Lars on Trier. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"The Damned United". (R, 97 minutes). The rise and sudden fall of an enigmatic English legend, the soccer coach Brian Clough. He guided underdog Derby County to victory, was beloved, then switched to its hated rival Leeds United and began a losing streak so sudden he was out after 44 days. Not a sports movie, but one about a fascinating man. Michael Sheen again embodies a British icon, as in Tony Blair ("The Queen") and David Frost ("Frost/Nixon"). With crucial supporting performances by Timothy Spall and Colm Meaney. Screenwriter Peter Morgan and producer Andy Harries were involved in all three; Tom Hooper directs. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"We Live in Public". (Unrated, 91 minutes). Provocative doc about "the greatest Internet pioneer you've never heard of." Josh Harris founded the web company that pioneered internet audio/visual streaming in the 1990s, sold it for $80 million, gathered 100 volunteers to live communally online 24-hours a day, and lost his fortune. Ondi Timoner has followed him for 15 years, in good times and bad, and returned with a portrait of a genius/eccentric/screwball who left it all to grow apples. For Harris, the brave new world is behind him. Four stars. View the trailer.

"A Serious Man". (R, 104 minutes). The darkly comic new Coen brothers film. Every single thing in Larry Gopnik's life is going wrong. His wife is leaving him for his best friend. His son is misbehaving in Hebrew school. His daughter is stealing money. His brother in law in sleeping on the sofa. His neighbor is a gun nut. A student tries to bribe and blackmail him. There's worse. Larry teaches advanced physics, but his life is a medieval tragedy. In a 1960s Minneapolis suburb, the Coens restage the Book of Job as rich human comedy. Four stars. View the trailer.

"Trucker" . (R, 90 minutes). Michelle Monaghan plays a cold, loner, hard-drinking, promiscuous trucker. Jimmy Bennett plays her 11-year-old son. She left his father (Benjamin Bratt) soon after he was born, and wants nothing it do with him. But after Bratt gets sick, she's forced to take in the kid. Both of them are angry and closed-off. James Mottern has written and directed a film that closely observes as their abrasive personalities are forced to coexist. Not sentimental, avoids obvious cliches, doesn't play it safe, comes to strong emotional life. Monaghan deserves an Academy nomination. Four stars. View the trailer.

"Coco Before Chanel". (PG-13, 110 minutes). The story of Gabrielle Chanel, from poor orphan girl to the brink of becoming the most influential figure of 20th century fashion. Audrey Tautou stars as an independent, strong-willed young woman who from behind the clouds of her cigarettes regards the world with unforgiving realism and stubborn ambition. Director Anne Fontaine avoids any effort to make Coco Chanel nice, or soft, or particularly sympathetic. That has the effect of making her just that much more interesting. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Paranormal Activity". (R, 96 minutes) an ingenious little horror film, so well made it's truly scary, that arrives claiming it's the real thing. Micah Sloat and Katie Featherson, a San Deigo couple, been bothered by indications of paranormal activity in an upstairs bedroom. Micah's bright idea is to film in the house, leaving the video camera running as a silent sentinel while they sleep. Like any man with a new toy, he becomes obsessed with this notion -- the whole point, for him, isn't Katie's fear but his film. After one big scare, she asks him incredulously, did you actually go back to pick up your camera? Flawlessly acted, eerie realistic. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Big Fan." (R, 88 minutes). A surprisingly moving dramatic comedy, starring Patton Oswalt as an obsessive sports fan. He lives vicariously through his hero, a quarterback for the New York Giants, and after breaking through the pro-fan barrier, is beaten so badly he almost dies. This causes an emotional disconnect, because if the quarterback is suspended for long, the Giants may lose got the hated Philadelphia Eagles. A remorseless portrayal of a not uncommon American type. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"The Invention of Lying." (PG-13, 99 minutes). In its amiable, quiet, way, a remarkably radical comedy about a world where everyone always tells the truth. When Ricky Gervais discovers he can lie, this gives him incredible power. Jennifer Garner plays the great beauty who informs him truthful hat he's short and fat and not an ideal genetic match. He agrees. Then he discovers by accident a suggestion that inspires the joy and gratitude from the entire world. Its implications are radical, but the movie is so well-mannered and laid back that it gets way with it. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Capitalism: A Love Story." (R, 117 minutes). Michael Moore's latest doesn't suggest a solution for our economy, and is a little disorganized, but out contains chilling explanations of "peasant insurance" and the Wall Street gambling known as "derivatives." There is also awesome, long-forgotten footage of Franklin Roosevelt calling for a Second Bill of Rights. And first person testimony from victims of the meltdown. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Bright Star". (PG, 119 minutes) Jane Campion's beautiful and wistful film shows John Keats and Fanny Brawne submerged blissfully in a love that exists almost entirely of their idealism. The great young poet and the younger girl who found his poetry difficult live in two halves of a tiny cottage in Hampstead and drown in nature and Romanticism, in a film with its own visual poetry. Abbie Cornish is entrancing as a determined seamstress who supports herself, which is more than Keats can do. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Disgrace". (Unrated, adults, 118 minutes). A white Cape Town professor is fired for misbehavior, and goes to live with his daughter on her remote farm. Here events take place that confront him with the fundamental changes in post-apartheid South Africa. Not a feel-good parable, but a painful, challenging examination of deep feelings, magnificently acted by John Malkovich, Jessica Haines as his daughter, and Eriq Ebouaney as her African farm manager. Based on the Booker Prize-winning novel by Nobel Laureate J.M. Coetzee. Four stars. View the trailer.

"Paris.". (R, 128 minutes). Filmmaker Cedric Klapisch's symphonic tribute to the city he loves, with each character a movement. Not a travelogue with beauty shots, however, but set in very specific places. Yet the city itself almost becomes a character, so completely and these people embedded It's unusual for an episodic film to involve us deeply in individual lives; we're genuinely curious about what will happen to the characters next. Starring Juliette Binoche, Romain Duris, Fabrice Luchini, Albert Dupontel, and Francois Cluzet--all familiar faces. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"The Informant!" (R, 90 minutes) Matt Damon stars as the highest-ranking executive in U.S. history to blow the whistle in a case of corporate fraud. He exposed global price-fixing by Archer Midlands Daniel, the Decatur, IL, agribusiness conglomerate, after wearing an FBI wire for 30 months. Along the way, incidentally, he was embezzling $9 million for his own use, a detail he neglected to share with the FBI. Steven Soderbergh's top-flight thriller, based on facts and shot on the original central Illinois locations, subtly becomes a human comedy. Four stars. View the trailer.

"What's the Matter with Kansas?"(Unrated, 90 minutes). Portraits of ordinary, likable Kansans, some conservative, some liberal, speaking for themselves, seen fairly in a film without narration or an overt message. The buried meaning is: In hard times, working people are voting against their own self-interest and accepting setbacks as the will of God. Kansas is recalled as a populist and socialist state at the beginning of the 20th century, and the film is a touching elegy of its current economic decline. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Amreeka" (PG, 96 minutes). A non-religious Palestinian woman (Nisreen Faour, from "The Visitor") and her teenage son start life again in a Chicago suburb, in a heartwarming comedy where she experiments with serving falafel during her job at a White Castle. Her son experiences some bullying at school (the war in Iraq has just started), but the principal (Joseph Ziegler) is supportive. Not a political screed but a funny, realistic, look at the immigrant experience. The debut of writer-director Cherien Dabis, a Jordanian raised in Dayton, Ohio. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"My One And Only" . (PG-13, 107 minutes). Appealing road comedy, set in the 1950s and inspired by a summer that set the course of George Hamilton's life. The film belongs to Renee Zellweger, who ditches a womanizing husband (Kevin Bacon) and hits the road with her sons (Logan Lerman and Mark Rendall) hoping to find a new husband to support them. Basically upbeat, but Zellweger lets sadness and love show through her display of pluck, and the strong supporting actors include David Koechner, who gives young George some rather unexpected advice about women. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Inglourious Basterds" A big, bold, audacious war movie that will annoy some, startle others, and demonstrate once again that Quentin Tarantino is the real thing, a director of quixotic delights. Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz (right) star as a hero, a girl and a Nazi in a virtuoso combination of action, droll satire, movie references, rewritten history and delight in filmmaking itself. Leave it Tarantino to provide World War Two with a much-needed alternative ending. For once the basterds get what's coming to them. Four stars. View the trailer.

"Julia" . (R, 140 minutes). Tilda Swinton in a great peformance as an alcoholic slut who agrees to help a mother with the kidnapping of her young son. But she's also am habitual liar, and talks her way into deeper and deeper waters, in a doozy of a thriller with acting as good as it gets, and the use of seedy U.S. and Mexican locations that look real because are they ever. Strong supporting work by Saul Rubinek as her one remaining friend, and Bruno Bichir as Diego, a guy she meets in Tijuana. You want to be careful who you meet in Tijuana. Directed by Erick Zonca. Four stars. View the trailer. "Julia" is available online via Amazon VOD.

"Paris". (R, 128 minutes). Filmmaker Cedric Klapisch's symphonic tribute to the city he loves, with each character a movement. Not a travelogue with beauty shots, however, but set in very specific places. It's unusual for an episodic film to involve us deeply in individual lives; we're genuinely curious about what will happen to these people next. Starring Juliette Binoche, Romain Duris, Fabrice Luchini, Albert Dupontel, and Francois Cluzet--all familiar faces. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"Still Walking". (Unrated, 114 minutes). A sensitive new film about a family reunion on the anniversary of the eldest son. The second son and his new bride attend reluctantly; this man senses his father believes the wrong son died. Nothing is spoken aloud, but it is all there, in another magnificent film by the Japanese master Hirokazu Kore-eda, who can fairly be called an heir to Ozu. Notice the way he frames interior spaces (left), and employs cutways to punctuate the action. Four stars. View the trailer.

"Passing Strange". (Unrated, 135 minutes). One of the best musicals I've seen, the story of a young black man from Los Angeles, rebelling against a loving, church-going family and breaking out on his own in the 1970s to move to Amsterdam and Berlin, and through punk and rock performing in a journey toward the meaning of life. Moving and exciting not only because of book, music and performances, but because of its intelligence, passion and heart. A Tony Award-winner, it has been filmed by Spike Lee, and goes out via Video on demand in Aug. 26. Written by the rock musician Stew, who plays the narrator. Four stars. View the trailer.

"You the Living". (Unrated, 95 minutes). In a sad world and a sad city, sad people lead sad lives and complain that they hate their jobs and nobody understands them. The result is in some ways a comedy with a twist of the knife, and in other ways a film like nobody else has ever made--except for its director, Roy Andersson of Sweden. Drab, weary people slog through another depressing day in a world without any bright colors. But the film is far from depressing; it's humor below laughter, if that makes sense. Andersson composes his shois with an implacable objectivity that has been compared to the work of Tati. Hypnotic. Four stars

"Ponyo". (G, 101 minutes). The word is magical.This poetic, breathtaking work by the greatest of all animators has such deep charm that adults and children will both be touched. A goldfish becomes human, and makes friends with a little boy, upsetting the balance between land and sea. One of those "family films" that is truly for all ages, which means adults can expect to enjoy it even without kids along. With the voices of Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, Liam Neeson, Tina Fey and Frankie Jonas. Directed by the great Hayao Miyazaki ("My Neighbor Totoro" the Academy Award-winning "Spirited Award" and the nominated "Howl's Moving Castle"). Four stars. View the trailer.

"The Beaches of Agnes". (Not rated, 110 minutes). The story of a wonderful life, told by the wonderful woman herself. Agnes Varda, a young and energetic 80, was one of the directors of the French New Wave, circa 1960, and is still active in a rich career. Here she revisits her memories and the locations of her films, and recalls her blessed marriage with the director Jacques Demy. Not a dry documentary, but a glowing, human, often funny film by a woman who has always been as skilled at documentary as fiction. Four stars. View the trailer.

"Lorna's Silence". (R, 103 minutes). Another intense film by the Dardenne brothers, about a young Albanian woman who has married a drug addict to become a Belgian citizen, and now, after the addict's anticipated death, has agreed to marry a Russian to allow him to get a passport. Sordid, sad people, driven by greed and desperation; Arta Dobroshi is touching as the woman, and Jeremie Renier brilliant as the druggie. A successful entry at Cannes 2009. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

Revanche. (Unrated, 121 minutes) A remarkable Austrian film that is both thriller and observant character study. Brings together an escaped bank robber, his grandfather, a rural neighbor's wife, and a cop who happened upon the robbery. Unusually for a thriller, we care about what happens because of these characters, not because of the devices of the plot. Written and directed by Götz Spielmann. A 2009 Oscar nominee. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

"The Cove". (PG-13, 94 minutes). A heartbreaking documentary and a certain Oscar nominee, about the use of dolphins in captivity and the mislabeling of the flesh as whale meat. Includes Richard O'Barry, who became famous as the trainer of the five dolphins who portrayed Flipper on the TV series, and now feels remorse for his role in the exploitation of this intelligent, human-friendly mammal species. He joins a dangerous operation to penetrate the defenses of a secret cove in Japan where dolphins are lured to their deaths by sonar. A combination of ecological outrage and the tension of a thriller. Four stars. View the trailer.

Funny People. (R, 1546 minutes). This is a different Adam Sandler, deeper, more thoughtful, in a comedy with thoughtful undertones about a show biz superstar told he has weeks to live. Writer-director Judd Apatow joins him with fine supporting work by Seth Rogen and Leslie Mann, avoids more than a few obvious clichés, and deals not just with mortality but with the cutthroat world of stand-up comedians. Eric Bana plays an outsize Aussie heavy, and look for Torsten Voges as a peculiarly chilling doctor. Three and a half stars. View the trailer. Ebert's interview with Judd Apatow..

Humpday. (R, 94 minutes). A shaggy old college chum turns up out if the blue, and reminds a happily married man of his wild youth. Somehow they find themselves entered in a local context for the best amateur porn film, and think they can win by filming themselves having sex. But is it quite that simple? A perceptive comedy written and directed by a woman, Lynn Shelton, that blows the whistle on buddy movies. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

Orphan. (R, 123 minutes). After seeing "Orphan," I now realize that the Omen was a model child. The Demon Seed was a bumper crop. Rosemary would have been happy to have this baby. Here is a shamelessly effective thriller based on the most diabolical of movie malefactors, a child. Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard star as the adoptive parents of a brilliant, artistic, polite prodigy named Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman) who has a funny way of being around when bad things happen. The climax rises to a pitch of horror. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

Munyurangabo. (Unrated, 97 minutes, no offensive content). Begins with a road journey undertaken by two young Rwandan boys and ends in greatness. A masterpiece by Lee Isaac Chung, a Korean-American raised on an Arkansas farm. With power, simplicity and grace, he sees these boys and the parents of one of them deeply and unforgettably. Visually and emotionally beautiful. Premiered at Cannes, winner of the AFI film festival. Four stars. View the trailer.

Katyń . (121 minutes). The director Andrzej Wajda's father was one of 15,000 Polish army officers massacred by Soviets in 1940 in a forest named Katyń. Now, at 82, Wajda tells the story of that day, setting straight a record long distorted by the Russians, who sought to rewrite history and pin the blame on the Nazis. Although the truth was long know in Poland, for 50 years it could not be said publicly, and this somber, powerful films repairs that wound. A 2009 Oscar nominee. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

(500) Days of Summer. (PG-13, 95 minutes). Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) had Summer (Zooey Deschanel) for 500 days in his life, and can't accept that they were numbered. She had absolutely no interest in getting married. A delightful comedy of bittersweet romance, stylishly inventive, charmingly acted, that tries everything from a musical number to a black and white sequence to deal with a story that refuses to be a well-behaved romcom. Directed by Marc Webb. Four stars. View the trailer.

The Hurt Locker. (R, 127 minutes). A great film. Jeremy Renner stars as a bomb defusing specialist who dismantles bombs under fire in Iraq. Not a phony action movie, no false alarms, but almost unbearable suspense in a story that asks: Why does he do it? Why must he do it? With Anthony Mackie as the head of his support team, who is driven crazy by what he considers Renner's reckless approach to the job. Director Kathryn Bigelow, a master of intelligent action ("Strange Days," "K-19: The Widowmaker"), superbly creates suspense out of the traditional tools of performance, story, timing and editing. In a movie about bombs, this one doesn't depend for its effect on blowing things up. Four stars. View the trailer.

Brüno. (R, 82 minutes). The title character is a flamboyant, cheerfully provocative gay men who ambushes innocent bystanders in his desperate bid for celebrity. Sacha Baron Cohen ("Borat") shows nerve in placing himself in real situations in front of a rabid wrestling crowd and an outraged TV studio audience. Among those not in on the gag are Cong. Ron Paul, who angrily flees an apparent seduction attempt. The needle on my internal Laugh Meter went haywire, bouncing between hilarity, appreciation, shock, admiration, disgust, disbelief and appalled incredulity. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

Il Divo. (Unrated, 117 minutes). Hypnotizing deadpan comedic evisceration of Giulio Andreotti, who has been an Italian politician in one office or another from 1946 until the present day. Linked to hundreds of deaths, widely believed to have once had Mafia ties, he is a figure of enigma and fascination, portrayed brilliantly by the gnome-like Toni Servillo and writer-director Paolo Sorrentino. Sort of a hybrid of "The Godfather" and Oliver Stone's "Nixon." Three and a half stars.View the trailer.

Public Enemies (R, 140 minutes). Shrugs off the way we depend on myth to sentimentalize our outlaws. Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger as efficient, violent, and hard as steel. Marion Cotillard is effective as Billie Frechette, his girl friend at the end, who masks her vulnerability with sweetness. Christian Bale is all business as FBI agent Melvin Purvis. Billy Crudup plays J. Edgar Hoover as a dreamer unfamiliar with the brass tacks of law enforcement. Directed by Michael Mann ("Heat") with precision, sidestepping cliches and sweeteners. Three and a half stars. View the trailer. Read my interview with Michael Mann.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. (PG, 93 minutes). The best of the three "Ice Age" films, involving the best use of 3-D I've seen in an animated feature. It also introduces a masterstroke that essentially allows the series to take place anywhere: There is a land beneath the surface of the earth, you see... There we meet Buck the Hermit Weasel, while the squirrel Scrat encounters a sexy Sabre-Toothed Squirrel named Scrattè With the voices of Ray Romano, Queen Latifah, John Leguizamo, Denis Leary, Simon Pegg, and Chris Wedge as the squeak of Scrat. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.
My Sister's Keeper. (PG-13, 104 minutes). An 11-year-old girl files suit to prevent her parents from making her donate a kidney for her very ill 16-year-old sister. An effective tearjerker, well acted, based on the best-seller by Jodi Picoult. Powerful performances by Sofia Vassilieva as the sick girl and Cameron Diaz as a mother passionately devoted to keeping he alive. Anna Breslin is persuasive the girl who is suing, Jason Patric tries to calm his family as the fatherm and Alec Baldwin avoids courtroom cliches before the judge (Joan Cusack). Directed by Nick Cassavetes. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

Big Man Japan.(PG-13, 113 minutes). Takes the form of a slice-of-life documentary about a man who occasionally transforms into a giant to battle weird monsters attacking Tokyo. And they are weird. The monster parts are worthy of "Infra-Man." The doc parts are played completely seriously, and so are funny in a different, sly, way. It combines satire on personal docs, monster movies, and reality TV, and never gets old until it ends with the longest and most tedious credit cookie in history, which may be satirical, too. Starring, written and directed by Hitoshi Matsumoto, who misspells both of his names in the credits. Little joke. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

Cheri. (R, 92 minutes). Michelle Pfeiffer is lovely and subtle as a 50ish courtesan who makes the mistake of falling sincerely in love with a friend's son (Rupert Friend), who is 24 years younger. Based on two novels by Colette, who tells us their tragedy is that they were destined to be the only perfect love in each other's lives, yet were not born on the same day. A story of nuance and insinuation, concealed feelings and hidden fears. Kathy Bates is over the top in the right way as a fancy womant. Three and a half stars.View the trailer

Seraphine (Unrated, 126 minutes) The story of an early 20th century French artist known as Séraphine de Senlis (Yolande Moreau) , a self-taught artist who mixed her own paints, painted in secret, and is now represented in major museums. When a famous Parisian critic and art dealer (Ulrich Tukur) discovered her, she was his maid. He encourages her, but eventually loses her to her delusions. Winner of seven Cesars from the French Academy, including best film and best actress. Four stars. View the trailer.

Moon (R, 97 minutes). Sam Rockwell plays a man serving the end of a three-year solitary tour of duty on a lonely mining outpost on the far side of the Moon. What kind of a man would volunteer for such duty? What kind of a corporation would ask him to? We find out. With a companion robot named Gerty (voice by Kevin Spacey) and interior design evoking "2001." Superior "hard" science fiction. Three and a half stars, View the trailer.

Food, Inc. (PG, 94 minutes) Alarming documentary that says our food is produced on assembly lines by multinationals, and the "family farm" is a myth. Paints an overall picture more frightening because the situation has grown out of control. The doc claims the steak you eat may have come from beef cattle raised on concrete floors and standing up to their ankles in manure. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

Away We Go (R, 97 minutes). Verona and Burt (Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski) are 30-somethings with a bun in the oven, ready to abandon their Impoverished Student lifestyle and settle down to grown-up lives. They engage in visits to family and friends in the U.S. and Canada, doing some lifestyle comparison shopping, in a whimsical, charming, sometimes heart-tugging movie of both edge and charm. Written by the novelists Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida, directed by Sam Mendes ("American Beauty"). Three and a half stars. View the trailer

Of Time and the City (Unrated, 77 minutes). An elegaic portrait of Liverpool by its native son filmmaker, Terence Davies, combining archival footage, classical and pop music, and his own deep, rich voice in a poetry-speckled narration. The remarkable historical footage evokes a reverie of times past, as the city rises, falls, and rises again. Three and a half stars. View the trailer.

Tulpan (Unrated, suitable for teenagers, 100 minutes). A deadpan comedy about an unmarried young man searching for a bride on the desolate steppes of Kazakhstan. Life in this outpost is astonishing; nothing can be seen to the distant horizon in every direction. it is hard, yet filled with humanity and humor, and the film is richly enjoyable. Winner of the Un Certain Regard prize at Cannes 2008. Four stars. View the trailer

The Hangover (R, 100 minutes). A very funny, very raunchy comedy about a disastrous bachelor party in Los Vegas. When the bridegroom (Justin Bartha) disappears, his buddies (Zach Galifianakis, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms) search for him, starting with such questions as: How in the hell do you wake up in a $4,200-a-night suite with a tiger, a chicken, a crying baby, a missing tooth, and a belly button pierce for a diamond dangle? Directed by Todd Phllips. Three and a half stars. View the trailer

O'Horten (PG-13, 89 minutes). A retiring Norwegian train engineer finds himself at wit's end in a delicious deadpan comedy. How can he live without a timetable? Odd Horten finds himself in strange and unanticipated circumstances, including being driven around Oslo by a blind man. Involving and charming in the manner of Jacques Tati. Directed by Bent Hamer. Three and a half stars. View the trailer

Up (PG, 96 minutes). Two cranky old men and a plucky kid, a house tied to ballons and a giant airship, a goofy bird and another animated masterpiece from Pixar's Pete Docter ("Monster, Inc."). You may be surprised by the story's emotional reach. With the voices of Edward Asner, Christopher Plummer and young Jordan Nagai. Rating: Four stars.

Departures (PG-13, 130 minutes). A jobless classical musician takes job in "encoffinment," the Japanese ritual preparation of the dead. The film is lovely, moving and wise, and the actors embody their roles--the young man, his fond wife, his wise boss, and the boss's encouraging, quietly sad assistant. Directed by Yojiro Takita. Winner of the 2009 Oscar for best foreign film. Four stars.

Goodbye Solo (Unrated, 91 minutes). In Winston-Salem, NC, a white man around 70 gets into the taxi of an African immigrant. He offers $1,000, paid immediately, he wants him to drive him in 10 days to the top of a mountain so windy that the snow falls up. The driver is not happy about this fare. Magnificent performances by Red West and Souleymane Sy Savané. A great, stirring, heartbreaking film by Ramin Bahrani. One of the year's best. Rating: Four stars. Read my blog entry about blog entry about Ramin Bahrani. View online or for sale via iTunes.

Knowing (PG-13, 122 minutes). Among the best science fiction films I've seen--frightening, suspenseful, intelligent, and, when it needs to be, rather awesome. Nicholas Cage plays an MIT astrophysicist whose son brings home a sheet of paper after a 50-year-old time capsule is opened at his grade school. The sheet is covered with numbers, which the scientist, despite all his training, becomes convinced mean something. Pluck this movie, and it vibrates. Rating: Four stars. Read my blog entry about "Knowing."

Silent Light (Unrated, 136 minutes). A profound meditation on the pain that true love can bring, set among a Mennonite community in Mexico with deep values. Awesome photography, rock-solid performances, a deep emotional impact. Slow paced, but not emotionally slow. Jury Prize, Cannes 2007. Gold Hugo, Chicago 2007. Directed by Carlos Reygadas. Rating: Four stars

Sin Nombre (R, 96 minutes) The interlocking stories of a young woman from Honduras and a young man from southern Mexico, who meet while riding on the root of a freight car on their long journey to the U.S. border. The trip is forged in hell, but the film also finds room for beauty and romance. Winner of the awards for best direction (Cary Fukunaga) and cinematography at Sundance 2009. Rating: Four stars.

Everlasting Moments
(Unrated, 131 minutes). The story, beginning in 1911, of a Swedish women who raised seven children in poverty, who has a husband who is kind when sober but frightening when drunk, and whose idea of herself is transformed when she begins to take photographs. A beautifully told story of striving, and of the varieties of love. By the great director Jan Troell. Four stars.

Two Thumbs Up™ is a registered trademark of The Ebert Company and Siskel Productions.

¶

119 Comments

By Deacon Godsey on July 2, 2009 12:21 AM

Roger,

As a fan of movies & one who gets to see them as part of my job (Creative Director @ a church here in Omaha), I'm often asked: What's your favorite movie of all time? That question, as I'm sure you know far better than I do, is almost impossible to answer...too many movies, too many genres, etc. to pick just one. So for me, I finally came up with this criteria to determine which movies are "the best" - WHAT KIND OF IMPACT DID IT HAVE ON MY HEART, MIND & LIFE? Based on that, the "best" movies I've seen, in no particular order, are:

1. THE MATRIX...I know that might sound strange given the criteria I just mentioned, but this movie had a profound impact on my heart/mind when I first saw it. It stirred something in me that had been dormant for a long, long time. Any movie that can do that is special indeed.

2. HOTEL RWANDA...I think I sat in the theater crying for almost 15min after the movie ended, devastated by my own ignorance of what went on (& in ways continues) in that nation. Where were the news reports?! Where was the outcry for assistance or military intervention?! I was dumbfounded & severely disappointed with myself, my faith community & my government. This also stirred a heart for justice, mercy & compassion in my like no movie I'd seen before or have seen since.

3. PAPER CLIPS...this seemingly small, out-of-the-way documentary literally wrecked me (& my wife, who is normally bored to tears by documentaries.) I often refer to this as "the best movie you've (probably) never seen, but should."

4. THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER...this didn't necessarily impact me on a deep, heart-felt level, but it did create an indelible movie-experience-memory I will never forget. My best friend & I were supposed to go see THE LORD OF THE FLIES for a school-related assignment, but his parents wouldn't let him see it because it was rated "R," so we were reluctantly forced to pick another movie to go to. "October" was opening that weekend, so we figured it was worth a shot, despite not having high expectations. I will never forget the feeling of absolute fascination I had when the film began, a feeling that stuck with me until the end. To this day, if that movie is on TV, it's incredibly hard for me to turn the channel. It just sticks with me, like few other movies do (CAST AWAY has a similar pull for me, but I have yet to figure out WHY...still exploring that one.)

By GB on July 2, 2009 6:42 AM

What I find very fascinating is that there always seem to exist similar film projects at the same time. sometimes it even seems that "technological spying" is involved.

This case I'm speaking of is seems absolutely fascinating to me cause both films are based on real persons, that shared exact fate and very similar life and lifestyle, bare almost exact little and came out within six month or so. I'm speaking of French films on bank robber Jacques Mesrine "L'instinct de mort" and "L'ennemi public n°1" and Dillinger film "Public Enemies", both men strive for publicity and repulsed banks, but at the end were just bank robbers and good ones, and both were gunned down by police cause they did not know the better way to cope with them. It's also interesting that both films star in demand French actresses De France, Sagnier and Cotillard.

This could not be just the case of studios competing.

Sorry for spelling, English is not my first.

By Marcus M on July 2, 2009 9:23 AM

I noticed that you put "The Girl from Monaco" on here even though you awarded it 3 stars. Is that a typo or did you think that it deserved to be in the cream of the crop?

Ebert: Whoops!

By jack on July 2, 2009 2:12 PM

roger, i didn`t see most of the movies that you put up there but i did see six of those movies. They are tyson,food inc(i am glad i am a vegetarian), moon(surprised me), ice age 3, watchmen and my sisters keeper. I think you are way too generous to two of the six movies that i mentioned above. i think you know which movies i am talking about. roger, are you getting softer as you are growing older? i always thought people get bitter when they get old

P.S: English is not my first language so i am sorry if there are any mistakes

By Jerry Roberts on July 3, 2009 7:40 AM

The best movies I have seen this year was "Up". This is the kind of film that you want every kid in America to make as their first moviegoing experience. The folks at Pixar tell stories worth telling. They have imagination and a generosity with their visual landscapes. These films are going to be remembered and watched 50, 60, 70 years from now because they are ABOUT something.

Speaking of films that are really about something, I finally FINALLY got to see Peter Yates "The Friends of Eddie Coyle" featuring perhaps the best performance of Robert Mitchum's career. He plays a blue collar criminal Eddie "Finger" Coyle, not a mastermind but a guy who works efficiently on the edges of the criminal world who and is facing a two year prison sentence in New Hampshire. He is forced to sell out his friends to get out of it because he has a wife and kids.

Eddie isn't the smartest man in the world, but he tries to impart his wisdom on a young arms dealer to keep him from making the same mistakes. This is one of those crime films that doesn't depend on the crimes themselves, but focuses on the interior world of these men. It is almost like a documentary. I love this film, I just want to tell everyone about it.

By Jeff W. on July 3, 2009 3:04 PM

Roger,
I recently saw "Chop Shop" on DVD. This film affected me more than any other recent movie I have seen. I saw it based on your recommendation, otherwise I would have never even heard of it. Thank you, Roger, for another great review that has added to my ever-developing sense of what it means to be human, living in this (our) world.

By Jeremy Knox on July 4, 2009 4:07 AM

Of all these movies, I've only seen UP and Sita Sings The Blues (To which I must must must send in my review for.) and both are quite good in that their animation helps us unconsciously lower our suspension of disbelief to a level where it is possible to enjoy the film for itself rather than nitpick it to death for not being "realistic"... as if any film could. Up has more heart and soul than just about any mainstream release in a decade, and Sita's storytelling is so fresh and alive that it's like watching the toybox of someone's mind kicked over, letting all the contents spill out beautifully over the carpet. It has more imagination in five minutes than some franchises have had in five films.

My own list of best films would have to include: "Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon" which is not only the best and smartest slasher movie ever made, but also one of the best horror movies of all time. It does this by avoiding being a parody or a hommage, but instead dissecting the slasher genre itself and showing that there's a lot more to a guy in a mask chasing a cheeleader than you might have ever realized. It's a smart and clever film that never ever bores you.

Another great film is the Japanese "Ping Pong", which is exactly like "Balls of Fury" except for the fact that it's charming, fun, well written, intelligent, touching, deep, introspective, original and subtitled. Oh, and for the fact that it isn't one bit like "Balls of Fury", but then again that'll make any film great.

By reality_writer on July 6, 2009 2:57 AM

what do you think will be the best movie of the summer.
i think it'll be judd apatow's funny people.
although i don't think sandler could give a better performance
than the one in punch-drunk-love

By fizzy lizzy on July 8, 2009 12:45 PM

I was glad to read your review of Away We Go and find that you enjoyed it. I just saw it with my husband this past weekend and I left the theater with a very warm, happy feeling. I agree with you that Burt and Verona have a lot to be smug about.

I mostly wanted to say that I was glad to see that you discovered the 826Valencia link via Dave Eggers. Had you heard of it before? Eggers has 826 projects in several cities, including Chicago and New York (Brooklyn, where my brother is a staffer). They had an early showing of Away We Go in Brooklyn, which I sorely regret having missed. Maybe you should mosey down to the 826Chicago (826Chi.org)?

By Joshua S. on July 8, 2009 5:07 PM

I worked at an art house theater in Philly that carried "Punch-Drunk Love" when it came out. I always found time to pop in and watch it every day and it still casts a spell.

By Andrew Polino on July 9, 2009 1:37 AM

Food Inc. was one hell of a documentary. I don't think I'll ever eat processed or corporate foods again if I can avoid them, so I guess that's the sign of a successfully shocking documentary. What's especially stunning is the fact that food corporations can sue people for millions simply for criticizing them or for not using their products. The political influence of these companies was really unsettling, from the fact that companies have successfully prevented the passage of food safety laws that common sense would demand be passed. Not to mention the fact that Clinton and Bush let the heads of these corporations run the FDA and the USDA.

Food Inc. was effective enough to turn me "green hippie" and resolve to buy organic and farmer's market food as often as possible and stay away from corporate food. I'd like to add another George Carlin quote to the ever growing pile on the blog. "Want to know how I stopped eating processed foods? I started picturing the people that were processing them". He had it easy. I SAW the people doing the processing on film.

By Zach Brutsche on July 9, 2009 8:25 PM

It's unlikely that I'll get to see "The Hurt Locker" here in Sedona, as the one movie theatre usually goes for more plebeian fare. However, every now and again, we're surprised with a good independent film, if enough people ask for it. We have a decent film festival here every year, so we'll see. So, I'll have to make do with watching the talented Mr. Renner on the new TV show that he leads, ABC's "The Unusuals." He has a very direct, but subtle, acting style, which works very well. If he does get an Oscar nomination, this will be a very good year for him, indeed.

By Tom on July 10, 2009 1:53 AM

I was not as enamored of 'The Hurt Locker' due to what I felt were unrealistic scenes. I find it hard to believe that this EOD team consisting of three soldiers were going all over Baghdad by themselves, in one humvee. Is it not standard protocol to travel in much larger groups due to safety issues? In one sequence these three are out in the middle of an open desert detonating explosives. They would have been prime targets for insurgents. The most unrealistic sequence has the same three running all around the city at night, going on a hunt for a bomb maker.

Yes, the performances were excellent. The scenes involving bombs and defusing them were without equal. But the dramatic liberties taken for the sake of artistic impact lessened the movie in my eyes.

Ebert: Frankly, I don't believe they had the money to pay for backup troops. And if they had, they would have lost the freedom to make this movie.

By Wes Lawson on July 10, 2009 2:05 AM

I saw The Hurt Locker last year at a friend's house (a DVD screener of it has been leaked for months since the movie has been on the shelf forever) and it was without question one of the best films I saw last year. I can't wait to see it on a big screen to experience it again and most likely name it one of the best films of 2009. An almost unbearably intense, superb action/drama that you are right on the money about. Everyone who can should see it this weekend.

By Hastor on July 10, 2009 4:22 PM

Glad I wasn't the only person that liked Knowing, but I wish I knew someone to enjoy it with in person! I can't believe how hated this movie is. I just saw it Wednesday, after renting the Blu-ray that came out Tuesday. My gf watched it with me, and she claims that it totally offended her non-religious view of the world, and expected her to buy "A bunch of Christian meaning and imagery" after seeming to build itself in the opposite direction. I didn't leave thinking the movie was trying to change my mind about anything, or had made up its own mind. I thought she was about to break up with me for liking it! My beliefs are the same as hers as far as religion goes, but I had no problem with this very entertaining movie that raised a lot of questions for both sides. Even in trying to convince her why I liked it, she thinks it should have done more explaining if it didn't intend to be a Christian message. I just felt it used imagery gathered from humans, perhaps put there by The Strangers (as they are listed in the credits, an obvious homage to Dark City) to begin with. This is the first movie I've liked this much yet have found NO ONE to enjoy it with. I need to start learning to enjoy movies by myself, something I've not had to do most of my life. I watch them alone, but usually to decide if they are something I want to show to friends or not, I depend too much on the vibes of others for enjoyment. Of course they don't affect my opinion much or I wouldn't have liked Knowing so much. I just didn't have a good time watching it because I was too concerned about my gf hating it.

By Wes Lawson on July 11, 2009 2:41 AM

Here's another reason to feel good about about this summer, since we're kind of discussing filmmakers who don't compromise and have their dividends pay off: The Hangover.

According to Variety, Todd Phillips (the director) gave up his salary and gross position to become an equity investment partner in the movie for one reason: to get the cast he wanted. Not a single person in The Hangover was a proven star who had carried a movie prior to its release. Because he insisted on his cast, Jeff Robinov (a high up at Warner Bros.) gave him a budget ceiling of $34 million, and the only way Phillips could make that number was to work for scale and use salary and gross to buy his way into being an equity investor. So in essence, everyone on the film worked for scale and made it as they would an independent film.

As of today, The Hangover has grossed $275 million worldwide ($212 million in America and counting- it hasn't left the top 5 since it opened), is the sixth highest grossing R rated film of all time, and the second highest grossing R rated comedy. Todd Phillips looks to earn at least $35 million because of his compromises, a sequel to the film is already in the turnpike, and the actors in the film, particularly Galifianakis, are getting movie offers left and right. Sure, this is a fairly mainstream comedy made by a director who's made successful films before, but I think it's nice that in a summer of bombastic big budget extravaganzas, little films can find their niche and become small success stories, and directors who take risks get rewarded with critical praise and box office success.

By J.R. on July 12, 2009 4:24 PM

I'm still pissed you didn't get what really went on in STAR TREK.

You've gotta be the smartest dude out there when it comes to movies, and NEVER have I found one you're recommended I didn't like.

However, you blew it here. This is THE BEST movie of all that have come from this franchise, THE SMARTEST one of the bunch, and the one that was the MOST ORIGINAL of all.

And it went WHOOSH!!, right over your head.

Next one that comes out, I'll buy the popcorn and we'll go see it together....I guarantee you won't miss what really happened in it, I'll be happy to go thru it point-by-point.

(Now, laugh, movie-man, that's a joke.)

By Nighthawk on July 12, 2009 6:05 PM

Why does the bad movies column have 159 comments, and the good movies column have only 16?

Ebert: Misery loves company?

By Nighthawke on July 13, 2009 4:51 PM

Well, my misery doesn't love company.

I hope to see "Moon" in a couple of weeks, and hope to see "Public Enemies" soon as well.

May I never see another bad movie as long as I live.

Granted I don't always agree with you (I hated "Entrapment," liked "Dirty Dancing," liked "Quantum of Solace," didn't like "Henry Fool," and liked "Celebrity") but I have an odd feeling that we would agree on "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen" (the whipping boy of the moment). I think we'd disagree on "Transformers" though.

Any way I can talk you out of reviewing "G.I. Joe?" I guess I shouldn't say that, for all I know the film could come out decent in spite of itself. But, based on the unappealing trailer, I think I'd like to bury "G.I. Joe" if I could.

-Nighthawk

By Warren Gamache on July 14, 2009 7:28 PM

Man, did I have a piece of crap day today. Ya just, ya don't wanna know from it. SO, I think I'll skip the gym tonight and go see (quickly scans the list) Up in the hopes that it cheers me. Thanks!

By Nighthawk on July 15, 2009 3:53 PM

I suppose I should put this in the bad movies blog.

I'll put it here in the hopes that the 5th film in the series is good?

Regarding the Answer Man about "Rambo 4?"

Here's the scoop. (I have seen NONE of these films in their entirety. I have noted their title issues over the years, however, with a benign amusement, so I feel well-qualified to write....Not about the films, but about their titles.)

First film: "First Blood."

Second film: "Rambo: First Blood Part 2."

This film, however, established "Rambo," not "First Blood," as the name everyone knew, and hence the franchise name

So, the third film: "Rambo 3."

(Hey, what about Rambo 1 and 2? Technically they didn't exist. Maybe in foreign markets where I've read "First Blood" didn't translate well, so it was called "Rambo." But I don't know that for sure and don't entirely trust the Internet.)

Years later, following his apparent triumph with "Rocky Balboa," I say apparent because I didn't see that film either though I hope to at some point, decided to follow the same title pattern with the next Rambo film.

Fourth film: "John Rambo." (This led me and a friend to wonder aloud if he'd now make films called "Marian Cobretti" and "John Spartan.")

For some reason, though, they changed the title for the DVD release, to just "Rambo." Not the same as "Rambo: First Blood Part 2." Not at all the same. Just a ridiculous attempt to make something not quite the same, but that would trick people into buying it. I've never heard of the film being called Rambo 4 except informally, and was surprised to see your reader calling it that.

I now learn, to my surprise, that they are making a:

Fifth film: "Rambo 5."

Which, of course, must be the sequel to Rambo 3. What happened to Rambo 4? For that matter, Rambos 1 and 2?

I read that plot-wise Rambo 5 will be set in the USA and will involve Rambo rescuing his daughter (he has one??) from either a cult or a right wing group.

*shrugs*

I haven't seen any of them...So why do I know so much about the titling of films I haven't seen?

It's EXTREMELY amusing.

Don't you agree?

If you ever get around to seeing "Rocky Balboa" you should tell us what you thought; your stand-in REALLY liked it, as did a lot of other people. I'd be curious about you. You are one of the few who seems to recognize that Stallone CAN act, he just usually doesn't. (As was the case with Charles Bronson.)

-Nighthawk

By Sean Kelley on July 15, 2009 11:44 PM

In your review of "The Hangover," you wrote "This movie is written, not assembled out of off-the-shelf parts from the Apatow Surplus Store." I was wondering what Judd Apatow should take from this. Recently, it seems like the whole Apatow crew has been catching a lot of crap for repeating the same formula over and over, and I find this kind of perplexing. If the formula is making comedies that contain both a brain and a heart, and have you laughing the majority of their running time, why should they change it? Judd Apatow has only written and directed two movies, "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up," and those were both hits with audiences and critics alike. I feel like the movies he gets a bad rap for are the ones in which he had no creative involvement.
I'm kind of just thinking out loud; because I think you intended this comment more as an observation than an actual attack on Judd Apatow; but either way I feel like this guy has caught a lot of flak for no reason.
On a sidenote, have you had a chance to see "Knocked Up?" It was one of the best reviewed movies of 2007; A.O. Scott said it struck him as an "instant classic," and Kamal Al-Solaylee of Globe and Mail said "Look at what else is playing in multiplexes across North America at the moment and, if you can find a film that entertains and touches as effectively, give us a call." I know it's not a perfect film, but I really love it, and I've always really wanted to know what you thought of it.

By jerryroberts2006@hotmail.com on July 18, 2009 12:17 AM

I saw "Knowing" tonight and I was really surprised how much I enjoyed it. Until the opening credits, I had no idea that this was directed by Alex Proyas and I got excited because I remembered how much I had enjoyed "Dark City" ten years ago. I am a fan of films that develop their stories slowly and offer me time to contemplate and process the mystery. So many movies today just bore me because they don't stimulate my mind. They ask nothing of me. All through "Knowing" I felt I was hearing the director over my shoulder saying "Wait, it gets better".

"Knowing" has the kind of narrative that you read in a great novel. You get involved with the characters, the situation is built from a solid story and nothing is added for sensationalism. Never for a moment did I feel that the film was throwing anything at me for fear that I would get bored (I only get bored when the director loses confidence).

Proyas shows here, as he did with "Dark City", that he is a very patient filmmaker. He trusts his audience's intelligence and asks us to trust him. All will be revealed and he doesn't disappoint. I admit that I sat for the first third of the film thinking I knew what was going to happen next and I had the wonderful experience of being wrong. As the third act was unfolding I found that I had I leaned forward, I was engrossed in what was happening and why it was happening. This is a great film.

Ebert: Even today, it has only a 66% score on Metacritic. Looking over those reviews, some loved it and other were left completely cold. For me, it was a slam dunk.

By jerryroberts2006@hotmail.com on July 18, 2009 9:41 AM

"If you ever get around to seeing "Rocky Balboa" you should tell us what you thought; your stand-in REALLY liked it, as did a lot of other people. I'd be curious about you."

I agree. You should check it out. Most everyone who sees it has the same reaction. They are expecting a tired retread of the same formula but it really is a film that Stallone made from his heart. It shows him going back to his roots and lets us stay for a while in his world as it is and has it has changed. It was really pleasantly surprised.

By jerryroberts2006@hotmail.com on July 18, 2009 10:21 AM

Ebert [On 'Knowing']: "Even today, it has only a 66% score on Metacritic. Looking over those reviews, some loved it and other were left completely cold. For me, it was a slam dunk."

Over at rottentomatoes.com, it has 14% on the tomatometer from the Top Critics but 54% from the RT community. I was disappointed in Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly, a critic I sometimes admire, who gave the film a D+. He compared it to some of M. Night Shyamalan's recent work. I think he was way off.

My wife and I were split. I think it left her a bit cold but I found it to be a very well thought out story. You can't believe the film for a minute but you also aren't distracted by giant holes in the plot.

*** SPOILER WARNING ***
I like the logic fact that the men that are following Caleb don't speak vocally. Most movies have aliens speak properly in the Queen's English but I like the idea of telepathy. I also liked the idea that they are here to spare us, not to destroy us. That logic works because, let's face it, in this movie the people of Earth have enough problems already. Plus, I was as dazzled by their beautiful spacecrafts as I was in "Dark City" when we got to see the Earth. I love science fiction that imagines and doesn't just bang around.

Ebert: The Metacritic score was for "Dark City." The "Knowing" scores are inexplicable.

By Dave Rome on July 19, 2009 1:09 AM

Don't know if it's been pointed out, but it seems that Harry Potter is on your list, even though you only gave it a 3 star rating. You said this list requires a at least 3 and half stars.

By Leslie Adams on July 19, 2009 11:38 PM

Dear Roger. Have you noticed a disconnect between yourself and other critics lately. Or even between yourself and general audiences. I have read your reviews for over ten years now and have found myself some times in agreement and sometimes disagreeing with your review of a film. I do respect your opinion despite what my personal thoughts are on a film. Lately I have noticed that you have been at odds with other film critics. Movies like "The Happening", and "Knowing" you have had high praise for, yet they have scored very low on rotten tomatoes. Then in movies that have been critical and commercial hits, you seem to stand outside of the general consesus. Take for example "Star Trek". This has been a box office smash, and has recieved almost universal praise from critics. Take a look at the "Harry Potter" series as another example. The latest film has recieved probably the best reviews of the series, and even though you gave it a favorable response, you didn't seem to like it neary as much as some of the earlier films. The last one in fact you gave a negative review to. Seems as the series grows darker and more intense, the less you enjoy it. Yet the consensus on Rotten Tomatoes is that this series just keeps getting better. Any thoughts or comments on this at all?

Ebert: Most critics are in general agreement most of the time. With "Knowing," if you look at the comments, a great many people thought I was correct. With Harry Potter...remember the delight in the earlier installments? Now the sense of wonder seems to be leaking out.

By Nighthawk on July 20, 2009 3:40 PM

I think I may be the only one who had a middling reaction to "Knowing."

OK, it was better than middling; I liked it a lot, just not as much as you did.

I wonder if the ending turned people off. It was very....Spielbergian.

(If that's a word.)

Too big. Almost to me like the ending of.....Damn I forget the name now, the movie with the intelligent robots called mechas. (I sometimes affectionately call that movie "the Matrix prequel.") Anyway almost like the ending of that film in it being only semi-related to what went before.

I also have to wonder if "Knowing" drew inspiration from Arthur C. Clarke's book "Childhood's End." A book I didn't much like.

-Nighthawk

ps: You should start saying the people who don't like "Knowing" are too old to be critics!

By Leslie Adams on July 21, 2009 2:43 AM

Dear Mr. Ebert. Thank you for your response. My only regret about my viewing of "Knowing" is that I did not get a chance to see it on the big screen. I wish all 'end of the world' themed films were filled with so many ideas and mystery as opposed to simply showing us non-stop action. I just found it odd that so many critics simply hated it while you praised it so highly. The two fellows who replaced yourself and Roeper on "At The Movies" tore the film apart. But everyone is entitled to their opinion and I guess sometimes we stand alone. Hope you are in good health. Take care.

By JeffreyVC on July 22, 2009 5:09 PM

There is a bit of arguing over what movies here are good, what are bad, and whether Roger is right. The real problem is that 36 of these films NEVER came to a theater near me. I got lucky to find Whatever Works in Lansing, MI (I really enjoyed it, my first Woody Allen film). But it's not just Lansing, it's most of Michigan. Every theater has the same 5-10 big movies and no one is carrying the small ones. Small theaters just carry older big movies. The only time I ever get to see many independent films is if they're nominated for Oscars. To me, that's sad. I don't remember it always being this bad.

36 (a vast majority) of what you think are the best movies of the year, most people can't see or haven't heard of unless they live in a major metropolitan area. With the economy the way it is, are theaters being even more picky about the revenue potential of films they carry?

(I've been a reader for nearly a decade now. I read a lot of scores and blurbs from reviewers on sites like movies.yahoo.com or rottentomatoes, but your reviews are the only I consistently read. I don't always agree with you, but I can usually understand where you're coming from. I've actually started writing reviews myself this past year.)

Ebert: My new blog today may suggest a rescue operation.

By Jim King on July 22, 2009 5:47 PM

"The ancient Romans--although, curiously, their signification was different (Sideways = "Spare the gladiator" and Down = "Kill him")."

The Romans used thumb-inside-the-fingers (the way you're not supposed to do it when you punch someone) to mean "spare his life" and a thumbs up for "kill him." It symbolized the sheathed and unsheathed gladius.

By jerryroberts2006@hotmail.com on July 22, 2009 11:08 PM

There is a copy of "Sita Sings the Blues" that has been sitting on the table in my living room for at least a month collecting dust. A friend had given it to me and encouraged me to try it out. I fully intended to but it just kept sitting there.

Last night, despite having 900 channels I could find nothing of interest to watch on television and all of my Netflix are in transit. So, what the heck, I'll give this Sita business a whirl.

I was stunned. Stunned by how much fun I was having. Stunned at how much I enjoyed the music. Stunned how much I enjoyed the varying animation styles. Stunned that this story was so wonderful. I am telling you, every time Sita started to sing I got excited, leaning forward because every jazz tune that she sang felt like a movie all it's own. The animation gives her performance such a vibrant life.

This movie is pure magic.

By Paul Arrand Rodgers on July 23, 2009 9:43 AM

JeffreyVC--

I have no idea where in Michigan you live, but the Birmingham 8 (in downtown Birmingham, a few blocks off Woodward Ave.) tends to play some things. Right now, the Birmingham 8 has Cheri and Away We Go. On Friday, they start playing 500 Days of Summer. It ain't much, but it ain't a sojurn to Lansing, either.

By David Ferrell on July 23, 2009 1:33 PM

It saddens me that The Hurt Locker is not showing in less than 100 theaters across the U.S. Fortunately, the local theater I frequent is currently showing it and I had the opportunity to see it last night. Wow! A very powerful film that shows the effects that war can have on a man by not making an action movie full of sound and fury, but instead creating nail-biting suspense and characters that the audience has the ability to invest in. While I thought Anthony Mackie did a great Oscar-deserving performance, I found myself mostly relating to the (spoiler warning) guy who gets shot in the femur. He seemed to be the every day man who happened to be in a uniform. I don't know the actor's name, but will look it up on IMDB sometime.

This film has made me appreciate our men in uniform even more than I already did. Any guy that's willing to go back to war a second time to risk getting blown up again has my utmost respect.

Here's hoping word of mouth will garner this movie with more attention and allow more people to see this movie at their local theater.

By Nighthawk on August 9, 2009 2:26 PM

"Moon" was awesome, redeeming the science fiction genre after the over-rated, over-done, disappointing "Star Trek."

I was surprised to read there was some confusion about the film....I found it rather clear.

(Spoilers, I guess.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Once upon a time, the main character was....Well, "real." Was the "original."

He did his 3 years. Or however long it was.

But it was cheaper to replace him with clones than it was to hire someone new. The clones were appeased by messages from the wife back home, messages that appear to have been shown him pretty much at random. As long as he did his job, who really cares what his emotional state is? The mere fact that he has apparent contact with home is enough to ensure he doesn't figure out what's up.

The clones who survived the tour were killed by being vaporized.

The original is, I feel, likely not in on the cloning plot. From the way they present the character, it didn't seem like he'd be in on that kind of thing, though of course we can't know for sure. (And, frankly, if he's like me or most people, the right price can take care of a lot of nightmares, and it'd be VERY hard for many people, me included, to see a clone as a real person especially when laid against the possibility of comfort for my family.)

(Actually, the thing that most suggests the original didn't know about the clones is that the corporation would be too cheap to pay off the original. They gotta be rolling in it and could easily afford one more employee....Even including his salary and benefits, that facility has got to be cheap to run compared to, say, their investment and lobbying operations, which you know they have. Yet, instead, they did the cloning thing. Cheap and short-sighted, just like our real life, present-day capitalists.)

So the clone gets home, and it's immediately verifiable that he's a lone (court order to test the original, lay it against the clone, and there you go!), and he was lucky that the government and media found him before the corporation did.

Now, of course, the extreme right (in the presence of a Rush Limbaugh sound-alike thrown onto the film at the end) considers him an "illegal immigrant" and wants him gone.

They should think longer-term. Once they get rid of the clean H3 fuel, they can go back to oil!

Though the film floats an interesting notion....Is H3 as safe or clean as the corporation says it is? If it is, then why do some of the clones die of radiation poisoning. Of course, if it's NOT as safe as they say, how did the original survive.

So there are SOME un-answered questions, but just of the "background" variety. The essential plot points seemed clear to me.

What was the confusion over the essential points, which to me seem pretty clear? Why enough confusion to warrant an "Answer Man" answer? What am I missing?

-Nighthawk

By Sean Kelley on August 9, 2009 4:13 PM

I just read the article about Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott taking over "At the Movies" in September, and I think the change is definitely going to be for the better. The show had kind of turned gimmicky since you and Richard Roeper left, with the majority of the segments devoted to clips of films and the outlining of their plots, rather than any actual discussion or critique. Ben Lyons in particular mugged the camera like a local weatherman with delusions of grandeur.
I've read both Michael Phillips' and A.O. Scott's reviews before, and I think they're much more suited to the show as it was originally intended, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say. One thing, however, I am still going to miss quite a bit is the overwhelmingly positive and optimistic view you brought to the movies. While I've enjoyed both Phillips' and Scott's reviews, I've noticed that they're much more negative than positive (as most critics' reviews are), and that was something that you've always differed from. I've read work by dozens of critics, and the vast majority of them come across as just that: critics. You, however, come across more as a lover of film who also happens to make a living writing about them, which you do so with intelligence and humor.
In spite of this, I do plan on tuning into the show in the fall. It will be nice to hear some intelligent discussion on movies, even if much of it is devoted to putting them down.

By Leslie Adams on August 9, 2009 7:48 PM

Dear Roger,

I have to say that the box office performance of "Funny People" has really annoyed me. Not so much the amount of tickets being sold, but the fact that it will not make nearly as much money as Judd Appatow's previous directorial efforts. This is his best movie to date in my opinion. Certainly the most moving. But the opening weekend was considered a dissapointment and now in it's second weekend the film has lost %65 of it's business. Is the film recieving really bad word of mouth? I find that very unlikely. The saddest part is that when movies like this do not perform well, they tend to become harder to get financed and made. I was hoping that this movie would have been considered for some award recogntion but sadly, the pitiful box office performance will probably take it off of a lot of people's radars. Any thoughts??

By Tim on August 12, 2009 11:53 AM

Hello Roger,

I've noticed that a great deal of my favorite movies are rated 3.5 stars by you. (Rescue Dawn, Kingdom of Heaven, The Green Mile, Lars and the Real Girl among them) What in your mind separates a really good movie from a great one? Is the difference between 3.5 and 4 merely instinctive or based in something else?

By Hastor on August 15, 2009 1:06 PM

Finally, "The Hurt Locker" has made its way to upstate South Carolina. In two theaters even! However the theater I normally go to, 20 minutes away, (a 14 plex) holds a 5-in-a-row streak of bad framing for me. I've become the snob that complains until the subtitles or faces are on the screen. I can tell I've become the disliked customer. When I complained about framing during "Land of the Lost" (told them it was too high), they moved it even higher. When I complained again, the projectionist moved it up and down for over a minute as if to taunt me. I'll be driving 45 minutes away to another theater, owned by the same chain, but known for getting limited releases and being the film-lover's cinema of the area. Too bad they are owned by the same chain, so I'm not really affecting who I support. Both are Regal Cinemas that also love to show you two previews and a behind-the-scenes featurette on the movie you are about to watch. I doubt this will be the case with "The Hurt Locker", but for more mainstream movies I often have the magic of the effects ruined for me before I watch them, so all I can see are the separate elements of the effects that were just revealed to me. At least I'm getting to see "The Hurt Locker" tomorrow, which I didn't think would happen at all.

Ebert: It's amazing how some projectionists have no feeling at all for framing.

By Eric on August 15, 2009 8:57 PM

The philosophy I take on a critic is that if they feel like they are betraying your interests as a movie-goer and exist as an antithesis to your opinion, read a critic who isn't.

By Hastor on August 16, 2009 7:31 PM

Just got back from "The Hurt Locker". Thanks very much for keeping this film on my radar until it made it here. It was worth the 45 minute drive and it was properly framed, as I'd hoped. I experienced some of the most constant suspense that I have in a long time. I dragged 2 friends along, and at least one of them liked it. Even with a couple of chronological flaws jumping out at me, the experience of the movie wasn't affected at all, because it was about the characters and anything could have been substituted for the same prop. I did notice that in 2004 they had 2007's iPod Touch, and 2005's Xbox360 on which they were playing 2006's "Gears of War". This was one time where none of that mattered though, only the people mattered (I don't intend to sound like a sourpuss at all, but rather state how effective the movie was with its characters to where such trivial things were meaningless, to a person that is often bugged by such errors when a movie is dependent on said technology being present. No one used the iPod to disarm a bomb so I'm fine). This will be a purchase for me on day 1 of the Blu-ray (here's to hoping that there IS a Blu-ray). One of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

Ebert: And 45 minutes back, too. That's a movie lover for you.

By richard voza on August 16, 2009 10:24 PM

have to admit, i had trouble enjoying ponyo. we had four adults and two kids. this same group roared and cried at up! we've been thrilled by many films from lassiter/disney and others. but we all kind of looked at each other and wondered what we had just seen and if we had enjoyed it. the two kids walked away laughing and singing the song from the closing credits.

i think part of the problem is the translation. for example, after the great flood a boat caravan floats by a small group and asks, "is everyone all right at this time?" at this time? and the dialogue about the soup, the sandwich, and breast milk? wtf? sometimes i have to wonder what was really written before the american team got hold of it. or, perhaps my thoughts have been so americanized that i was unable to really appreciate the exchange.

regardless, $71 for six people, two sodas, and one popcorn did not feel like money well spent.

By Dave on August 19, 2009 12:25 AM

It appears that your compiler was zealous to include some 3 star films: Those mentioned in published comments appear to have been removed, but I note that Every Little Step (not commented on til now) is a 3 star that still remains.

Living in Houston, I am lucky than many have appeared locally, even if in only one theater. I count that I have seen 25 on your list, and hope to see 10 more that are currently showing. Still I missed Wendy And Lucy, Everlasting Moments, and Away We Go before they left town. And there are still some that have not shown at all (and presumably at this point will not): Just Another Love Story, Silent Light, Tokyo Sonata, Hunger, Sita Sings the Blues, Nothing But the Truth, Tulpan, Of Time and the City, Seraphine, Big Man Japan, Il Divo, and one film, Secret of the Grain, that I saw a preview for back in January, but the theater must of changed their mind about giving it a run.

No doubt it is better to err on the side of being more inclusive than exclusive for your list - now if only the theaters would practice the same philosophy.

By Daniel D. on August 20, 2009 12:57 AM

I saw Ponyo today, and what a fantastic film! Simply sweet and beautiful. It was like a butterfly landing on your arm as you walk to work. You see it and smile and your day is better.

By Damon on August 21, 2009 9:03 AM

I just noticed that the running time listed for Funny People is 1546 minutes. Yeah that's certainly what it felt like.

By James Dunbar on August 25, 2009 12:28 PM

Roger Ebert is one of very few individuals who can look at a B-movie and still see it for what it is..good or bad , and then give it the thumbs up or down.
Also, if you are someone who enjoys foreign ( asian ) movies as I do, then you will find many of his reviews helpful in finding some of the best cinema you will ever see.
You will discover that some of your favorite films are based on foreign films...and are not done justice. ( although The Departed was an exception)
Just watch the terrible remake ( if you dare ) of one of Korea's funniest coming of age comedies My Sassy Girl, and you will see what I mean.
For those of you who enjoy the wierd ( Takashi Miike ), the wonderful ( Johnnie To ) and the beautiful ( Kim Kee Duk ), dont miss out on what you dont know.....Shinobi, Departures, Lump Sugar, Bittersweet Life...begin there and get lost in a world you did not even know existed.

By Nighthawk on August 25, 2009 9:37 PM

I regret that I may not see "Inglorious Basterds" simply due to a lack of interest. It hits too many "not my thing" buttons. Kind of like people who can't stand movie violence regardless of context shouldn't bother seeing most other movies by that director, because they can't possibly react well to it no matter how much they may come to appreciate it, on a semi-objective level. Or those people who can no longer take Tom Cruise seriously no matter how hard they try, or how well he plays a given character in a given film.

-Nighthawk

By Garrett on August 25, 2009 9:57 PM

Roger,

A suggestion for your next "great movies" entry: Pleasantville.

Best regards,

Garrett

By Dave on August 26, 2009 8:48 PM

James Dunbar, I concurr with what you wrote: Among others, Departures affected me deeply regarding what we do and how we do it, and its relationship to our relationships. It is a movie that has a sensibility/sensitivity that I do not see in Western films. it actually had me recalling another Japanese movie with a completely different approach, but touching on some similar themes, which I have not seen in many years: Ikiru (To Live). I could see it remade in the West, although probably it would seem different.

Different cultures or not, that speaks to a main reason I see and enjoy good movies so much: They give me a window into other existences and hence, possiblities.

I will have to check out the other 3 movies you mention.

I will also add that I particularly enjoy Roger's writing in addition to using him as a source for good films (and those to avoid) Aside from the insight, I usually experience pleasure and delight in reading his art, much as I do with Robert Christgau on music, or inventive, yet immersive fictional writers like Gene Wolfe or Phillip Pullman.

By Tom Dark on August 27, 2009 9:06 PM

Forgot to mention I watched "Sita Sings the Blues" the other night.

How unusual... I'm not sure it provoked my thoughts so much as it provoked my psyche.

By Gunnar on August 28, 2009 4:27 PM

I was very glad for your review of "You The Living"; you proved me wrong. I saw the film at TIFF and loved it, but thought that a non-Swede (I'm a Swede transplanted in Toronto) wouldn't have the same reaction because they wouldn't have the same feelings for the Swedish 'environment' and 'people'.

Just goes to show that the best films can make experiences universal.

By pablo souza de almeida on August 30, 2009 9:17 PM

Hey Roger. I know I should use this place to comment on the films on your list. But speaking of good movies are you attending the Toronto Film Festival this year?. It´s just great when you share your enthusiasm on such treasures as Juno or Slumdog Millionnaire. Here in Brazil people always ask how do I find out about these movies even before they hit the theaters in the USA.

Ebert: Yes, I'll be blogging more or less daily from Toronto.

By Robert Blenheim on August 31, 2009 7:52 PM

Let me second Garrett's suggestion for Gary Ross's "Pleasantville" for your Great Movies. It starts out seemingly like an old-fashioned film than becomes a uniquely subversive little masterpiece with a deep and profound message under its light surface. (I also love Ross's "Seabiscuit" as well.)

By Mike Miller on September 1, 2009 9:18 PM

I have two young kids, so I don't get to the movies much these days. I use your reviews to help guide my decisions, as I trust them from the days back before children when I used to go at least weekly. The two on the list that I have seen in the theater are "The Hangover" and "Up". Went with friends to see "The Hangover" and everyone had a great time. My stomach muscles actually hurt at the end from laughing so much. Took my 3 year old son to watch "Up", and we both loved it. Pixar makes good movies, but this is definitely its best. I actually cried at an animated movie! They did a horrible job marketing it though. I had no interest in it at all until reading your review. Needless to say, I will continue to use your columns to help guide my decisions. Thanks for all the great reviews.

By Nighthawk on September 3, 2009 5:07 PM

I have hopes of being able to see "The Hurt Locker" this weekend.

Weird...It's playing in the comparatively small, rural chain multiplex that's next to a Wal-Mart, but is not playing in the 2 nearby upscale multiplexes located in semi-upscale, suburban malls.

Even if it wasn't playing at either multiplex there's the art house. But the art house is a little further away.

-Nighthawk

ps: Just so you know, it's not like it's "Hurt Locker" or "G.I. Joe" or something...It's "Hurt Locker or "Inglorious Basterds" or nothing, basically.

By Patrick Riley on September 4, 2009 12:55 PM

Hello Mr. Ebert,

I first want to say that I am an ardent reader of your reviews and enjoy visiting At The Movies and watch your old reviews as you debate with Siskel and Roeper.

However, I have a question about your views on the Harry Potter movies. I've read on one of your responses here that you claimed that because the Harry Potter movies are getting darker with each new installment, that the wonder is "leaking out."

I also noticed that you gave a negative review to Order of the Phoenix (my choice for the best in the series) because it was too dark. However, the books themselves grow darker with each new entry, and the films have basically gone the same route and grown darker themselves. Fans of the books will expect the movie to be DARK, so isn't it just a little unfair to say that people shuoldn't see it because of that? I mean, the book was darker than the movie was, and the Order of the Phoenix did still retain the since of wonder and thematic complexity of its cinematic predecessors (even though I grant you it was the darkest film by the point).

Take care and God bless!!!! :D

By Dutchman on September 4, 2009 1:20 PM

It's always fun to make lists and I agree with most of your reviews.

But I find I have the most fun reading your reviews when I don't agree.
I usually read them after I've seen a film.
It's like having a friendly argument.

By Mattie on September 6, 2009 11:32 AM

Dear Roger,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you have ever given a Michael Mann film four stars. I feel that Heat and The Insider deserve another look. Both hit the spot emotionally and the latter perfects handheld camerawork.

Love your work

Matt

By Jay Fraz on September 7, 2009 9:58 PM

Long time reader first time poster, boy that makes for a REAL connection doesn't it? :)

In the 'Funny People" review the run time appears a tad long at over 1500 minutes, that or this is one seriously mispromoted arthouse piece.

Much love,

The Fraz

By Cygnus on September 9, 2009 6:32 AM

Howdy Roger: How did you miss a wonderful movie 'How the Garcia girls spent their summer.' You do encourage young people and this is our all american girl. You need to check it out and encourage her.

By David Hertzig on September 10, 2009 5:06 PM

Thank you for introducing me to "Vanaja" and its creation. I look forward to following the career of Rajnesh Domalpalli. "Vanaja" is a recent **** not mentioned above.

By Joe Balestri on September 11, 2009 5:09 PM

My five favorite films so far this year are "Up", "The Hurt Locker", "Departures", "500 Days of Summer", and "Paper Heart". I believe you gave positive reviews to all of these. My wife feels your reviews have been more positive in the past few years. Do you agree? I wish I could write like you. You reviews are inspiring. Thank you for being there for us. We love the movies and see about 75-100 new films a year. It's our date night. We use your reviews as a main guide source. Thank you.

By pablo souza de almeida on September 12, 2009 12:49 AM

Hi, Roger.What a wonderful list of films you got here. Speaking of good movies again I recommend you to watch a great Brazilian movie called Redeemer(Redentor). It´s directed by the son of our beloved Central Station´star Fernanda Montenegro.It´s a smart and touching human comedy about a family that needs to deal with poverty and corruption in a society that so often neglects its citizen.The movie deals with tough issues in an honest and tactful way and also manages to be really funny .I left the theater crying with my tears.

By Drew Shelstad on September 16, 2009 12:15 AM

Ebert you are the only movie critic that I actually pay attention to or care what is said. I agree w/probably at least 80% of what you say. I think the DVD commentary on "Dark City" & "Citizen Kane" are absolutely brilliant. However just like others have said where you believe in "Knowing" although it is still made by Mr. Proyas, I was completely dumbfounded. Besides a couple of cool sequences it is weak to say the least. I didn't love "Citizen Kane" when I was younger. In fact when I saw it in one of my film classes, I was bored & couldn't care less. However seeing it later in life I have grown to find it to be timeless & one of the best things ever to be put on film. "Knowing" is not that film or will it ever be. I even tried watching it again & it made no difference. It's not the devil-incarnate like others have said, but the glowing review is hard to believe. Just like "Kane" I will try watching it again someday to see if I missed some untold nuances & plot-points. I miss seeing you TV & there is absolutely no one that I respect or care what they say. At least the terrible two were on "At the Movies" are gone & been replaced. I will continue to search out your reviews & your interesting perspectives even though you'd loved "Knowing." LOL

By Don on September 17, 2009 6:19 PM

My use of the thumbs . . . with the mysterious "horizontal thumb . . . it's reasonable for me to award them both of my thumbs. This, beside the picture of a golden hand, thumb up. I’m afraid you’re giving Dennis Miller some irresistible material here.

(Remember his “Leaving Las Vegas” comments when you and Gene were on the Tonight Show?)

By Sean Kelley on September 17, 2009 10:09 PM

I wanted to revise my earlier post about the new "At the Movies." In it I wrote that I respect both Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott's writing, but I felt they were more negative than positive. I have since come to realize I was wrong, and that they love movies just as much as you do. I think I got more caught up in writing a fanboy letter than I did in actually making an intelligent statement. Everything I said about you being my favorite critic and one of my favorite writers was true, but what I said about criticism in general I regret writing. I love watching movies, and I love reading about them almost equally; and as much as I love what you have to say, it wouldn't be the same if you were the only person writing about them.

I haven't seen the new "At the Movies" yet, but I've been reading a lot of reviews by both Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott, and plan on catching up with the show online.

By Tom Dark on September 18, 2009 11:33 PM

Just now got back from watching "The Informant!" Four stars, you bet. High kudos to the whole cast!

By Robert in Beijing on September 19, 2009 4:26 AM

Roger,

I can't but help notice: With a few exceptions, such as "The Hangover", "Inglorious Basterds" (which I absolutely loved) and "The Informant" (which just came out), everything else in your "Two Thumbs Up!" category is either foreign, independent, or both. I must say a lot of foreign or independent films are just weird or childish. "I Love You Man!" is a perfect example. I rented it, and nearly fell asleep watching it. (A better choice would have been "Adventureland"; it's about the same era (late 80's), but much more fun to watch.)

Are blockbuster films just doomed for failure or mediocrity in your opinion? Or is this pure coincidence? For example: As a Trekker (not Trekkie, like people who are clueless would say), I would have to say that the new Star Trek (2009) restored my faith in the franchise and is one of the best movies that I have seen recently. Yet, it's nowhere to be found.

"I love you Man!" (and have watched you since the early 80's) - But I have to question your bias in favor of foreign and/or independent films. Just because it's about or from somebody from a different country, or was made with a low budget, doesn't mean it's high quality entertainment. Enough with the artsy-....sy stuff.

Thanks,
Robert in Beijing

Ebert: It's not a bias. I approach every film fresh.

By Jerry Roberts on September 23, 2009 12:29 PM

I know that this thread is generally involved in new films but, Roger, I have to tell you the amazing discovery that I had the other night. Based on a recommendation by Michael Phillips I rented the 1932 Marx Brothers comedy "Horse Feathers". Now, I have been only a casual fan of the brothers, I saw "Room Service" when I saw a kid and I've seen "Duck Soup" (Great!) and "A Night in Casablanca"(Yeesh!) but I have never really through about them as comic artists.

Watching "Horse Feathers" the other night, I found a new appreciation for the sustained anarchy. Most especially Groucho, who never seems to miss a beat. I love the moment at the beginning when he tells his son "Don't talk to me, you snob! I'd horsewhip you if I had a horse". I'm going to check out "Animal Crackers" next, I can only hope they are as brilliant and as sustained as they were in "Horse Feathers".

By Steven V. on September 26, 2009 10:08 AM

Mr. Ebert,

I'm curious: what separates a "Two Thumbs Up" or a Four-star review and a Great Movie? Does a great movie have to have a huge impact on society, introduce a new concept, or something along those lines? Or are the great movies just a selection of your favorites?

Ebert: The latter.

By Kathleen Courian Sanchez on September 27, 2009 10:24 AM

Mr. Ebert,

Thank you for your work, and trustworthy analysis and love of film. I am not sure what we'll do if you retire!!! I love that you provide lists and their ratings. You usually confirm what I was deducing about a film before I spend dollars on it. I'm sorry you have to sit through the terrible stuff, BUT if nothing else it shows how difficult it is to craft something truly good. Thanks for all your years of passion shared with us!

By A.B on September 27, 2009 5:58 PM

Hi Roger
Of course Im a fan. I love your reviews and i watched most of the movies on this list not all the foriegn ones though they're hard to find but i prefer foreign films over Americans they always have more depth and soul. I wanted to ask do you prefer foreign films or American?

Ebert: The better ones more than the worse ones. :)

By Holden Francois on September 28, 2009 2:09 AM

I would definitely have to see "Bright Star" and "Seraphine". I saw "(500) Days of Summer" twice, but I don't think I'll see it for the third time. "Inglorious Basterds" was real good. I had seen it twice and feel that I need to see it again. It is real stupid, but that scene at the cafe where Shosanna was speaking to the soldier and smoking fast was something I really enjoyed. I remember that the most and also the scene at the salon. "Bright Star" seems to me one of those movies filled with beautiful and sensual imagery that will torment me. Who goes to the movies for a peace of mind anyways? I may see more, but I also have to save up to see "Persona". I read your review about it, Roger, but I am the more cautious for it because all of Bergman's movies are so depressing and dreadful.

By Nighthawk on September 28, 2009 7:42 PM

(Quick spoiler warning I guess, though what are you doing here if you're afraid of spoilers??)

I saw "Inglorious Basterds." And damn am I glad I overcame my resistance to movies about historical events that don't remain true to them, and my resistance to that horrendous trailer with Brad Pitt's bad, overly-exaggerated accent.

Such a long buildup in the basement bar, leading up to such a brief, confusing, violent, critical action scene. That director sure does take his time and we the audience are much better off for it. That sequence is but one terrific example.

The characters.....Talk in the languages they are actually talking in!! Oh my, how remarkable, how refreshing. The Germans talk German, instead of we hear English but know they are "really" talking in German.

The title characters.....Are really background characters, and the "real" story is that of those who use every means at their disposal to fight the unearned privileges of the Nazis. The Jewish girl uses films. The American soldiers use bullets and knives. The British spy uses spycraft. "The Jew Hunter," knowing his unearned privilege is about to end, uses the same skills that he used FOR the Nazis against them.

And there has not been a movie since "Goodfellas" that captures as well the fear that unearned privilege engenders among those who are not privileged.

If the film has any flaws, it's that we have to fill in too much of the context (poorly educated, history-less kids who aren't quite aware of the extent of Nazi evil might I fear not quite get it), and the weird sequence of Brad Pitt and the "Basterds" talking in Italian at the end. Frankly it would have been funnier and more effective if their Italian was letter-perfect. As it was, with Brad Pitt talking Italian in his exaggerated American Southern drawl, it was really just a distraction.

But....All told? Such a compelling, remarkable experience. Like most of that director's movies, I don't think I'll ever forget it.

-Nighthawk

By Stryker on September 30, 2009 10:41 AM

Dear Roger,
You have "Every Little Step" on the list, but when it came out, you gave it a 3. Is this a mistake?

Ebert: Yep.

By pablo souza de almeida on October 1, 2009 9:40 PM

Hi Roger. Is it just me or don´t you think Arta Dobroshi uncannily
resembles Ellen Page on that Lorna´s silence picture?

By Keith Nelson on October 1, 2009 11:55 PM

I struggled with the Invention of Lying. It had some really funny scenes, but lost me when it switched from light comedy to "message film" -about ... a romance between two nasty people? Atheism? Either way, what was up with the drunk driving scene? And the continuous harping about genetics by Jennifer Garner's character - how could you root for such shallow selfish people?

By craig on October 4, 2009 1:50 PM

You recently gave a good review of a movie that I do not know the name of. I think it's about Red Germans who rob banks to support their cause. I think it's a period piece. Can you please give me the name of that movie? Thank you.

Ebert: "The Baader-Meinhof Complex"

By Jerry Roberts on October 7, 2009 1:11 PM

I am overjoyed at the news that the restored version of "Metropolis" will start making its way to the public in 2010. "Metropolis" is one of the films that made me fall in love with the movies in the first place. I am always impressed by the fact that Fritz Lang had such a brilliant visual imagination at a time when movies didn't even talk. This film is exhilarating and if you haven’t seen it, you must find the best copy possible. Don’t let the fact that this is a silent film deter you. This is a film that you must make part of your life experience.

Over the years I have seen many of the attempts at restoration and those who have tried – bless their hearts – didn’t have much to work with. Some of the restorations work for me but most do not so I sometimes wonder what an experience this must have been like in 1927. There are scenes that were degraded and crumbled to dust and some of the restorations have tried to patch together the missing elements using still photographs

Of the versions that I have seen, the restored version released on DVD in 2001 was the best. It was based on a digital restoration at 2K resolution from all available sources. This is, by far, the best version that I have seen and I would highly recommend it if you haven’t seen the film yet. The worst is a 1994 print put out by GoodTimes video which contains no restoration. The print is grainy and difficult to see and it doesn’t even have a soundtrack.

I tagged the GoodTimes Video version as the worst because I am still ambivalent about the 1984 restored version by Georgio Moroder with color tinting (good), sound effects (not so good) and a soundtrack that includes songs by Loverboy, Freddy Mercury, Bonnie Tyler, Adam Ant and Pat Benatar (abomination!). That version may have worked 20 years ago but today it is a little odd that the film hasn’t dated but the songs have.

Yet, having seen the 2001 version, I am wondering what is left. I know that some of the footage was beyond help, but I wonder what scenes exist that we are missing. Does it enhance the story at all? Roger, you said “The longest version seen in the United States has been 123 minutes. The restored version is 210 minutes long!” That is nearly 90 minutes of new footage. That’s almost an entire movie by itself! But what’s in that footage?

Ebert: Those are the running times mentioned in the article I saw. I found them hard to believe myself. I true -- incredible!

By Jim Parsons on October 8, 2009 7:08 PM

Okay, my question regarding Paranormal Activity is; when it ends up sucking eggs so badly, it could give grandma lessons and lands itself in the books as the next generation Blair Witch Craptacular, will you refund all the cash from folk foolish enough to trust this review as we did the witch thing?

Truly, in the 30-odd years I have listened to your advice, the witchcrap film was the acme of poor notice to your public. I will never forget the utter torment for the 30 of us in that small theatre in Albany,NY as the screen flickered relentlessly with griping about a map and stupid stick figures. Ooooh, how terrifying. I was relieved to get up from my seat to go the restroom to be, well, relieved. In the restroom ahead of me was a young teen washing his hands, looking at me he said, "Ahhhh, maaap. Who's got the map?" Yes, a great scare.

Actually the true waste that day was not the money the four of us threw into the bottomless pit, rather the time we left behind in the dark. Time never to be retrieved. So, perhaps the better question to you about this new bit of newness, will you build a time machine and give us all free use to reclaim more lost time? Else, save the raves and let's queue up, "Being There" on Netflix.

Ebert: I guess you didn't like it?

By Martin Johns on October 9, 2009 1:20 PM

Patton Oswalt mentioned Roger during the 'Big Fan' Q&A at the Music Box last Friday. He thanked Roger for his review of Big Fan, sited Roger and in influence growing up for pointing out that you can be cool for the things you like, as opposed to the things you don't like, and mentioned that he'd always wanted to visit the Music Box after reading about it in Roger's columns and articles. This link leads to a clip from that Q&A featuring the Music Box mention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XTUUd65FvA

Ebert: It would not have occurred to me that Patton Oswalt visited this site. I am impressed.

That's very much a movie worth seeing, BTW.

In that clip, Oswalt reveals neither he nor Kevin Corrigan know zip about sports.

By Omer M. Mozaffar on October 10, 2009 5:56 PM

"Paranormal Activity" was deliciously entertaining, except that I kept wondering why they were leaving the door open at night. I didn't expect it to be so funny, and it would have been awesome even without the humor.

But, I didn't like the last ~2 seconds. The character's expression was the expected expression for that moment. I think an opposite expression would have been more satisfying. That last moment actually knocked me out of the movie.

Of course, it's a tribute to the film that I'm complaining over 2 seconds and a door.

I hope all is well.

Omer M

By Jim Cook on October 10, 2009 10:27 PM

Although I cannot agree with your rating for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, I have tremendous respect for this type of film. It is a new subgenre deriving from the Mockumentary film. I refer to it as the Indexical Mockumentary or in a less theoretical term the “Found Footage” Mockumentary. That is a “filmmaker” is out to document the truth, perhaps to unravel a mystery. We learn what the filmmaker learns which not very much. The experience is ominous because we are seeing what is left of the filmmaker; his/her captured truth from some sort of medium. Not all is explained. We are left with perhaps more questions. What is for certain is that there is evidence of a presence. Like footprints in the sand.

Maybe it’s a giant monster like in CLOVERFIELD (nauseating but cool flic) or rabid man-eaters ala QUARANTINE (nauseating and dreadful). Some of that presence does not have to be so obvious either. THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (nauseating but, scary) and now PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (nauseating but, whatever) are good examples of this. The former of the two being the better film. And oh yes, the majority, if not a good portion of the film, is shot with hand held camera work, cinema verite style. For better or for worse.

I will continue to see films like PARANORMAL ACITIVITY. The formula can work and it was worth the experience watching this film. I just need to remember to bring the Dramamine next time.

What are your thoughts on this new "Found Footage Mockumentary" subgenre?

By Mike on October 10, 2009 11:44 PM

I can appreciate this system of continuing the 'Thumbs'. It makes the term 'Two Thumbs Up' all the more elusive. What ever became of your plan to form a new show featuring the 'Thumbs'?

By Jerry Roberts on October 11, 2009 5:11 PM

Recently, I've been keeping up with the news of the discovery 90 minutes of lost footage from "Metropolis". I recently posted about the best and worst versions that I have seen.

Last night, I did a comparison of two versions that I have own, one from 2001 and the other from 1984 (both those years are symbolic if you know what the film is about). First was the DVD restored version from Kino Video that was released in 2001 with a full orchestral score that includes all the available footage. That film has been fully restored, making for a very clean print.

The other was a dusty old VHS version from 1984 with a synthesized soundtrack by Giorgio Moroder and modern pop songs by Freddy Mercury, Pat Benatar and Bonnie Tyler. That version uses some odd colour tinting and splices together some of the missing footage using still photographs.

Whether or not you’ll enjoy the soundtrack by Giorgio Moroder is up to you. I have spoken to a great many people who have been able to enjoy the film with the modern soundtrack. If you’re a purist, you lean toward the 2001 Kino version on DVD because the orchestral score plays to the action, while the Moroder score draws attention to itself.

If you haven’t seen either version, I seriously recommend that you seek out the 2001 version. That version is longer and there are a great many more scenes that explain a lot of the story that the 1984 version lacks.

Either way, when the full version comes along next year, I think every movie lover needs to see this film. It should be part of our life experience.

Ebert: Enjoyed them both, but Holy Cow! (I did it as a GM.) The longest extant version is about 90 minutes, and the rediscovered print runs 210! In the world of restoration, this ranks up there with rediscovering "Greed."

90 210

By Jerry Roberts on October 11, 2009 9:38 PM

The Kino version on DVD is actually 123 minutes long. That is about the longest version I could find. There are 90 minutes of lost footage that have been discovered. Watching the film again last night, my passion for the film was reignited. I can't imagine what exists in those other 90 minutes.

By Jerry Roberts on October 15, 2009 8:11 PM

I am continuing my journey through the madcap world of The Marx Bros. I hadn't given them much mind until a few weeks ago when Michael Phillips on "At the Movies" called the 1932 classic "Horse Feathers" one of the films that inspired him to love movies. Based on his recommendation, I have been on a journey through their work. Before I had only seen "Duck Soup" and their unfortunate farewell as a group in "A Night in Casablanca"

Thusfar, in my journey, I have revisited "Duck Soup"; I've seen "Horse Feathers", which was brilliant and so far my favorite. I was sorely disappointed in "Animal Crackers" which found the boys in perfect form but the movie was marred by boring supporting players and a dumb subplot about the theft of valuable painting.

This week, I saw "A Night at the Opera" which contains some of their best scenes including the State Room scene and the "Party of the first part bit". Yet, the film is clunked up by an overly-familiar romantic subplot involving Allan Jones and Kitty Carlisle. YET, I have to say that Allen Jones makes a far more entertaining straight man for the boys then Zeppo ever did.

By CW on October 19, 2009 5:02 PM

In regard to the comment that the Harry Potter series is losing its sense of wonder, isn't that how life works? And isn't that the only way that the series could work? The older we get the more familiar things become, and therefore, we are less amazed by them. In the Potter series, Harry has lost his sense of wander because he has seen everything. And I can't help but think that it is inevitable that the viewer will do the same. No matter your age in this life,you have never seen the things that have taken place in the early installments of the Potter series. But, like Harry, the more we watch, the less amazed by the magical world in the Potter series we are. So, if the later installments tried to run on a sense of wander only and did not try and be true to life, it would not work because viewers would not be intruiged. After the first installment of any series we become less intruiged by the world and more intruigedby the human relations. In Star Wars five we learn thatVader is Luke's father and in six we learn Luke is princess Leah's brother. There was more of a story behind the humans and it was necessary to make up for a lack of itruige for the world. I will admit with the Star Wars series especially the first time watch them, you are always intruiged by the world. But you will never be as intruiged as you were when you first watched A New Hope. Also, since it is October, look at the first two Halloween movies made by John Carpenter. The reason the first movie worked so well is the fact that a movie had never accomplished such an eerie and frightening feeling created by unexplainable evil. In Halloween two Carpenter knew he couldn't match that same feeling, so he tried to make up for it (in this case unsuccessfully) with human stories: 2 establishes that Lori is Michael' sister, wait 2 is when Michael even becomes Michael. So, the fact that the Potter series is losing its sense of wander and gaining a sense of human relationships is necessary. Harry, like us, is losing his sense of wander. And, unfortunately, in real life, as we feel less and less from merely exisiting, we must depend more and more on other humans to make us feel.

By Ken Campbell on October 19, 2009 11:24 PM

The strongest reaction I've ever had to a film happened toward to end of Bergman's Virgin Spring. I was in a film appreciation class at the Univ. of Kansas back in 1975, and had seen few if any foreign films. I had been attending the films the campus film society was sponsoring so I was getting a broad education, finally, in some great movies. But the end of Virgin Spring, especially the water coming up from the ground, produced a visceral impact, as if something had hit me. I sat there stunned as everyone else left the classroom. I was thinking, "How can you just get up and go after seeing that!" I remember tears welling up as I caught my breath -- it had left me breathless. I've never forgotten how a great film at just the right time can change the way one sees the world.

I'll be attending the Tallgrass Film Festival in Wichita, KS this weekend (Oct 24 '09) hoping to see something just half as good as Bergman.

By george kaplan on October 22, 2009 2:44 PM

I submit that if An Education starred a real live 16-year old girl, instead of an obviously 24-year old accomplished actress, the reviews would be a lot different. And justly so. Imagine the same film shot by Tony Richardson in about 1960, with Rita Tushingham and, say, Peter Finch. More truth, less covert wish-fulfillment( and the wrong wishes at that),a creepier, better movie. Cinderella's foot fits the slipper, yes, but it's a fairy tale, not an education.

Ebert: In that case, you'd want to cast Ellen Page:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060427/REVIEWS/60421003/1023

By alan smithee on October 22, 2009 5:51 PM

Antichrist sounds like a Lars Von Craven film. Dana Stevens' review in Slate seems to say that it isn't a misogynistic bad movie, just a bad movie.
The problem for filmmakers trying to explore the extremes of psychosexual themes on film is summed up in one word: Bergman. As Pauline Kael said of those who wanted to follow Godard," He's burned up the road"

By george kaplan on October 22, 2009 5:55 PM

Ellen Page is too freaky grown-up, but what an actress! Good thought, though.

By george kaplan on October 22, 2009 6:14 PM

Jessica Winter in Slate links Von Trier to Dreyer. Hmmmm.

By Paul Arrand Rodgers on October 22, 2009 9:30 PM

Roger,

I saw Juno, and, I'm sorry to say, I was not as impressed with it as everybody else was. I loved Ellen Page in Hard Candy, and, as a fanboy, I'll always love her for her extremely tiny bit part as Kitty Pryde (the girl who can walk through walls) in X-Men, and I've yet to see a Michael Cera movie I was disappointed in (mostly because I haven't seen Year One), with the exception of this movie. A huge part of me thinks that I never gave the movie a fair chance--I saw it on DVD, and maybe six months after it was released in the format, simply because I was really, really tired of the people on campus who would have entire conversations in dialog from the movie--dialog that they could never hope to have come up with on their own. And I kept thinking about that throughout the whole movie; how bands that I liked, Italian horror flicks I appreciate, and clever turns of phrase were made cheap by people I can't stand.

But I've been thinking of re-watching it this weekend, when I've got nothing to do because Anti-Christ, A Serious Man, and plenty of other good movies haven't been released in Cincinnati yet (unless Amelia is some great shakes). So, and I promise this'll be the only time I ever ask you about a star rating, do you think this movie will rise in my estimation if I try to put the person down my hall who actually uses a goddamn hamburger phone out of my mind, or am I just some lost cause who'll never understand your four star review?

Your help is greatly appreciated.

By Steven Escolar on October 22, 2009 11:19 PM

First and Foremost..... ROGER EBERT is the MAN!!!!! You are the truth!!!!!!

Secound... FIGHT CLUB is one of those moviesthat shook me up and opened my eyes. I understand your point about the movies decission to take a darker more unecessary path. But thats what the movie sets up from the go.... The movie takes u away from the convention... It wants to take us to dark paths, to question.. just like Edward Norton questions throughout the movie.... A necessary evil to realize of how unecessary it is. It attacks itself. By the end of the movie Brad Pitt becomes everything he fights against... A system of control. The acting is prime... the direction is focused.. These people fighting are not in it to huirt others... These are individuals who volenteer to share their pain and embrase another's pain and anger. You're interview with Bill Clinton about the movie was exelent in revealing his thoughts.. Bill embrased the idea of exploring the minds of the tourtured, angered citizens of his country. You may not agree with their method, but you agree with their motive to help one another to be more contious of what happens around them. Fight club is not about killing one another... It's about tearing one bare and then rebuilding them, remolding.... Together.

By Albert Mora, MBA, Musician, Author on October 23, 2009 12:03 PM

ANTI-ANTICHRIST

I have followed and loved your work for years, and I estimate that my tastes and opinions are around 99% correlated with yours. This time I have a difference, so I write...

My profile: I am 51. I grew up in East Chicago, Indiana, near the South Side of Chicago. I made a living playing music full-time in nightclubs from 1980 to 1991. You have certain experiences in this environment. I guess I was a fairly "cool dude" but I was never reckless. I went to college during the day and received an MBA from the University of Chicago in 1993. I've worked in investment banks and large corporations since then. I have been happily married for 20 years. Have five wonderful children. Still play music all the time. Recently published a nice book for young teens. Life is good, in spite of the tough times we are in.

My intent is not to change your mind (or anyone else's). Just to offer something I'm not seeing from others on quick review of this blog.

Before I go further I must say I have not viewed "Antichrist" so my "Anti-Antichrist" title might be better "Anti-Anything Strontly Sexual."

Also, I love Willem Dafoe and do not know (or do not recall) who Charlotte Gainsborgh is, so my comment is not a reflection on them.

I noticed I felt fear as I read your review of Antichrist. Why? Because I wish Lars on Trier could convey the same power and messages without using sex as one of his tools. I guess I'm a sexual esthetic. To me sex is a beautiful, poetic, extremely personal expression of love. I feel pain when it is utilized or interpreted as other things.

Roger: Thanks for all your fantastic work, which has multiplied my enjoyment of film and even life itself, including my music, writing, and love-making! And thanks for the opportunity to offer my opinion here. Your loyal fan.

By Albert Mora, MBA, Musician, Author on October 23, 2009 12:03 PM

ANTI-ANTICHRIST

I have followed and loved your work for years, and I estimate that my tastes and opinions are around 99% correlated with yours. This time I have a difference, so I write...

My intent is not to change your mind (or anyone else's). Just to offer something I'm not seeing from others on quick review of this blog.

Before I go further I must say I have not viewed "Antichrist" so my "Anti-Antichrist" title might be better "Anti-Anything Strontly Sexual."

Also, I love Willem Dafoe and do not know (or do not recall) who Charlotte Gainsborgh is, so my comment is not a reflection on them.

By Albert Mora, Musician, MBA, Author on October 23, 2009 3:34 PM

ANTI-ANTICHRIST

First...

I am 51. I grew up in East Chicago, Indiana, 20 minutes from White Sox park. I played guitar in nightclubs to pay for school. I've been married 20 happy years and have five wonderful children. I'm a political moderate. I get both sides of the debate.

Now...

I have loved your work for years and I estimate that my opinions and tastes are 99% correlated with yours.

Now I have a difference on something that is important to me, so I write. It's about our culture's attitude toward sex.

Your review of Antichrist is favorable - four stars. However as I read the review, I felt fear. The same fear I feel when I see sex exploited in TV commercials. The same fear I feel when I see teenage girls dressed immodestly. The same fear I feel when I a comedian relies heavily on sex to get laughs. The same fear I feel when I see teenage pregnancy statistics. Etcetera.

I didn't see the movie, but I trust your artistic judgment. If I weren't worried about how casual attitudes towards sex are impacting our culture, I would probably love the film. I recall that when I was younger, I was not affected by this. But as my concern about our cultural values has increased, I have stopped enjoying the use of other than light sexuality in the all media. Granted, the title, your review, and the movie's rating communicate the sexual theme to viewers, so clearly no one should be caught off guard. But I suggest we all be very very careful in the message we send to our youth. Whether or not we feel responsible for impacting youth is not the critical question to me. The critical question to me is: Are we going to be able to look back someday and be comfortable that we served our youth as well as we could have in this regard?

By this message, I am trying.

I suggest that every review of a movie with strong sexual themes include some kind of message for younger readers to help them keep a clear separation between art, which of course must be free to express itself, and inferences about the meaning and appropriateness of sexual themes in the media.

I am a sexual esthetic. To me it is a beautiful aspect of love, and a form of art in and of itself.

But, considering the impacts on the participants, any offspring, affected families, and the possibility of disease, it can be the most dangerous thing a young person's life.

If we don't tell our youth this, I think they get the message that we don't really care about them.

Thanks for your fantastic work through the years. You have multiplied my understanding and enjoyment of movies and the industry behind them. And thanks for the opportunity to share my opinion here.

Ebert: I hear you. BTW: Three and a half stars.

By Ken Campbell on October 23, 2009 6:41 PM

I'll be attending the Tallgrass Film Festival in Wichita, KS this weekend (Oct 24 '09) hoping to see something just half as good as Bergman.

By Erik Klempnauer on October 24, 2009 1:30 PM

By EDK on October 24, 11:16 AM

Great job Roger putting up the best films of the year--in my opinion--so far. I loved SIN NOMBRE, THE HURT LOCKER, GOODBYE SOLO, and WATCHMEN. One observation though: Where is FLAME AND CITRON? I wasn't expecting much when I went to see it since I've scene nearly every WWII genre film out there. But to my surprise, FLAME AND CITRON proved a compelling, suspensful, thriller with great performances from the cast, especially Mads Mikkelson, who might get greater recognition from American audiences instead of just being known as the Bond "villain" from CASINO ROYALE! Mads has racked up many great performances over the decade with such diverse roles as the wounded Human Rights Activist returning to Denmark in AFTER THE WEDDING to his turn as an ex-con in PUSHER II.

By richard voza on October 25, 2009 12:26 PM

i haven't seen an education, so i clearly can't judge the film itself. however, i am concerned that it shines a positive light on a highly inappropriate relationship between a 16-year old girl and a 30-something year old teacher. had he a different profession, it would still be inappropriate of course. has there ever been a time, in america or europe, in which such a relationship was acceptable?

Ebert: He's not a teacher. He's "in property."

By richard voza on October 25, 2009 2:19 PM

i'm not sure what "in property" means, but i am sure that i don't know because i didn't read something carefully.

regardless, what about the inappropriate relationship?

Ebert: It is beyond inappropriate. But this isn't the first movie about an inappropriate relationship.

By Rosie on October 26, 2009 8:28 AM

A month or so back I decided to rent some of the movies you listed in Great Movies that I hadn’t seen before. That brought me to Aguirre, The Wrath of God. I was amazed, well, better put: I was spellbound. I remember thinking, does anyone really like this movie or is it that we just can’t stop watching it? Aguirre stayed with me for several weeks (I so love when that happens) and I immediately launched into Herzog’s filmography. Aguirre was also the first time I ever beheld Klaus Kinski. I say “beheld” because I have never been so overwhelmed by an actor’s screen presence, if you will, before. I have become familiar with the goings on of his and Herzog’s working relationship through My Best Fiend, Burden of Dreams, and by the commentaries on those and films like Fitzcarraldo (a film I just treasure) and Cobra Verde. At this point, I am awaiting the other two collaborations, Woyzeck and Nosferatu, the latter, I am sad to say, is not currently being released by Netflix and has been relegated to the other films gathering dust in my Saved queue.

I can’t tell you how much I relish Director’s commentary on a DVD. Until Herzog, Oliver Stone was my hands down favorite when it came to commentary. But Herzog is such a fascinating individual. His narration in Encounters was great but his commentary on that film was something else again. White Diamond, Grizzly Man, and Wheel of Time: these hours I have been spending with Herzog are just wonderful.

Let me get back to Klaus Kinski. I realize that this collaboration must have been a very trying one for all concerned on so many levels. Obviously, Kinski had, dare I say, issues and I can’t imagine life in his skin was a comfortable experience (I am currently trying diligently to find a copy of his autobiography that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg). Clearly, working with this man probably shortened Herzog’s life and five films together alone is a testament to Herzog’s dedication to the importance he placed on what happens on screen. In moments of sheer selfishness, I wish there had been more but, truly, I am thankful for every frame of work those two managed to create together.

Basically, this is a thank you note to you, Roger. I was given The Great Movies by a friend when I retired. It’s alphabetical and I have, again, had to put it down due to being sidetracked. I say, again, because I started in the “D’s”. You wouldn’t believe what happened after “La Dolce Vita”....

Ebert: Yes. He gets to you that way.

Unthinkable that his "Nosferatu" is unavailable.

By Rosie on October 27, 2009 7:40 AM

Oh, yes, he most certainly does. And my life has been richer for the experience. Incidentally, I called Netflix about Nosferatu. I was told that the DVD is out of print and, thus far, Netflix has not been able to gather enough copies for distribution. I have run into this situation with them in the past and have seen that they are eventually able to come up with the number they need. However, in this particular case, I can’t bring myself to wait. Besides, Fitzcarraldo has been beckoning and Amazon.com has the goods. I bought them both. I am hoping that I might be able to talk Santa into leaving that Kinski autobiography under the tree for me...

Best wishes, Roger, and, again, thank you. This is a detour I would not have wanted to miss.

Ebert: Do not miss "Bad Lieutenant!"

By Natalie on October 27, 2009 2:19 PM

Away We Go, 3.5 stars, seriously? Yes it was a whimsical romance comedy, that was COMPLETELY PREDICTABLE and BORING. I like the insight story into this couples' lives, but it's nothing magical or fancy. Should not be on this top list.

By pablo souza de almeida on October 31, 2009 10:46 AM

Hi,Roger. Do you have any idea why Amelia was panned by most american critics?.You seem to be the only one who actually appreciated the film for what it really aims to be. That tomatometer needs some real adjustments!

Ebert: It was a perfectly sound biopic with no phony melodrama. Not great, but good.

By john in denver on November 3, 2009 2:02 AM

Have always been fond of Barry Lyndon. Fortunate to see a fabulous remastered version a few years back. This was after I'd become aware of the special lens apparatus that Kubrick used to film the candle lit sequences. That really heightened my appreciation of its technical brilliance. But your, and Jim Emerson's, reviews and the cool interview with Michel Cement really enhanced my understanding of the meaning of the film.

Was looking around for an interview Gene had supposedly done with Kubrick in the early 70's. No luck but I found this gem which you may have missed, and thought you'd get a kick out of. I surely did.

Google: Notes from the War Room by Terry Southern.

The first meeting between Slim Pickens and James Earl Jones-well, all I can do is quote Mr. Jones,"I am beginning to think I imagined it."

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0081.html

By Petar Vidjen on November 3, 2009 10:58 PM

Hi Roger,
I was curious to know your one criticism of Antichrist, since 3.5 stars were awarded.

By Zack on November 5, 2009 11:02 AM

I am rather curious as to how many disagree with your views on Ice Age 3 and Bruno, among others on this list. I only saw the latter, which I thought was hysterical, and then I find people calling it worse than Borat. Borat had the social commentary, I thought Bruno was funnier though.

By Brad Ruhle on November 6, 2009 3:40 PM

"Ponyo" is the best film I've seen this year. Granted, that may not be saying much, since I have missed out on a lot of films. I did see "Inglorious Basterds" and I loved that movie, too. I rate it a close second on my "Ten Best" movies list. I have seen "Up" and "Coraline", and they are both excellent films, animated or not. ("Up" also goes on my list.)

"Ponyo" was not only a wonderful movie, but my movie experience of watching it was a delight as well. I went to an evening show and there were a very large amount of kids with their parents attending. During the movie it was like somebody sedated the entire crowd. Nobody was acting rude, no babies crying, just several instances of kids and parents laughing--not laughing rudely at the movie, but laughing in delight. The parts that made the kids laugh made me laugh, too. I didn't look at anyone's faces, but the little ones must have been watching the movie with a look of joy and wonder in their eyes.

I remember that you gave Miyazaki's previous film "Howl's Moving Castle" a 2 1/2 star rating and couldn't bring yourself to recommend it. I enjoyed that movie a lot, but it didn't make my best movie of the year choice. I agree that "Spirited Away" and "Princess Mononoke" were a lot better. (Both of them earned my choice for the best film of the year when they came to the U.S.) I was delighted that you loved "Ponyo" and awarded it four stars.

I remember Gene Siskel called "Babe: Pig in the City" the best film of 1998 before he died. You wrote in your tribute that you were not surprised, since you loved the movie as well. I wish he had lived to see "Princess Mononoke" and "Spirited Away". I think he would have loved them as well. He might have given "Spritied Away" the Best Movie Of the Year choice in 2002.

By pablo souza de almeida on November 6, 2009 10:05 PM

Hello, Roger. I´m glad you liked the Invention of Lying and in particular Jennifer Garner´s performance.I also think she should have been nominated for Juno.She´s usually underrated as an action star and now she shows what a range she has.Is there any chance of a nomination this time around considering that comedies are usually an anathema for most academy members?
Thanks for answering my last question.

By Tom Dark on November 6, 2009 11:12 PM

Just returned from watching "A Christmas Carol" in 3D. I concur with our Favorite Critic's assessment, including about the 3D effects, tho' they're still going to have to go a distance about smoothing out the not infrequent flicker. My eyes have a tendency to try to follow each frame when a flicker happens -- they're at 28 fps, right? -- sort of like singling out a single blade of a spinning fan. That can be a strain.

A little girl about 5 said "mommy, this is creepy" and wanted to leave when Marley's ghost arrived and got scary. But she toughed it out, and didn't drag her mom out of the theater after all. There were a fair number of little kids there; they chattered as little children will do, entirely inoffensive, and were soon enough drawn into the story.

It was showing in 3D and 2D; after watching the 3D I stepped into the 2D version -- about the same number in both audiences. Have to admit my eyes did adjust so that the flatness of the 2D looked less exciting in comparison... could be, 3D will one day be the standard, but not yet. There were certainly a lot of trailers for upcoming 3D flicks.

But they're doing something sleazy, Rodge. Boxes set up to collect the 3D glasses afterwards, with the message "Recycle!" on them.

That ploy will stop working soon enough, if it's working now. We paid for 'em, they're ours. What'll happen is that moviegoers will save them, pay for a cheaper ticket and go see the 3D film with their glasses.

And/or some clever entrepeneur will sell better quality 3D glasses. These are too small, for one thing. Wraparounds would work better.

By Nighthawk on November 7, 2009 7:45 PM

Given your admiration of "Antichrist" and your distaste for video games, do you have any thoughts on the film having a video game sequel, called "Eden?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist_%28film%29#Video_game

-Nighthawk

Ebert: What will they...do?

By Zeke Pliskin on November 8, 2009 5:12 PM

Roger,

Have long enjoyed reading your well-balanced and educated opinions. You quite rightly reflect that although people bemoan Hollywood for various reasons, the fact is that truly great movies are still being made by people in it's employ. And you never fail to answer the question "Do I want to see this movie?" which is the one that too many amateur blog reviewers seem to forget.

On a more personal note, as someone who has devoted their life to the entertainment industry, I have a question for you. As an aspiring actor and musician, decent enough at both to be at least average perhaps a little better, I often lose faith in the lack of good roles I am given and the people I have to work with, finding it difficult to put in the same level of committment to create great performances. What is the key thing that has motivated you to continue even in the face of adversity, before you landed the role(s) that defined your career?

Many thanks.
-Zeke

By Brian on November 9, 2009 1:18 AM

Mr. Ebert just wondering if you are ever going to critique Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. That was a film that divided critics in 2006 but we never got your opinion.

By reality_writer on November 9, 2009 1:29 AM

oh god i am tired of reading half-assed reviews for a movie i really
want to see.
have you seen dr parnassus yet?
i heard it was at cannes.
for some reason they pushed the release date to christmas day!.
(i hate the weinsteins)
can i at least hear if you enjoyed it or not?
i trust your opinion more than any other critic (although i do
very much admire manohla dargis)

By Small Time on November 12, 2009 9:42 AM

Having just read your review of "2012," I'm having some difficulty figuring out what makes Emmerich's new film better than, say, "Transformers 2." Tons of special effects, well-executed, in service of a paper-thin story, seems like an apt description of either film. Whatever separates the 3.5-starred from the 1-starred in this case, I shall likely, sadly, never know.

By movies_madder on November 12, 2009 2:38 PM

just to clear up confusion i am also reality writer and evening
coconut.
i spend a lot of time on the computer so i post here frequently.
i am not a troll. XD
i wanted to say i really liked your review for pirate radio
you seemed to know a lot about classic rock music.
although it upsets me that pirate radio stations would play Avril
lavigne. i'll just take it on good faith cause' they also played "just like a woman"
i wanted to ask you also about roland emmerich's new 2012.
it sounds like a good movie, as you usually put it stuff gets blowed
up real good like in it.
or torn apart, or whatever. i still think you we're harsh on
independence day
any movie where jeff goldblum and will smith smoke a cigar while
about to blow up a ship-full of aliens can't be all that bad.
anyways.
i wanted to make a bet with you.
to my ears. Roland Emmerich is the first "openly" gay action movie
director although i am sure that there are plenty more i can't
think of.
and we all know that in action films there is the leading man and
the leading lady.
it's just what the audience want. and i don't think that will ever
change.
to put it simply i do not think that there will ever be a gay
leading man in an action film.
it's a shame. i am far from a homophobe. but i just think it's
an unreality.
i'd be willing to make a 50 dollar wager on it.
what d'you say rog.
if either one of us croaks before it happens
you can send the money to my family or i'll send it to your wife.

something to think about. XD

btw i'm posting this to facebook.

By Steven Veach on November 12, 2009 3:05 PM

Mr. Ebert,

I just thought i'd point out an anachronism in your recent review of 2012:

"When St. Peter's Basilica is destroyed, Leonardo's God and Adam are split apart just where their fingers touch (the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel having been moved into St. Peter's for the occasion)."

God and Adam was painted by Michelangelo. Credit to RT user Sanjuro:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/2012/comments.php?reviewid=1854785

Name (I understand that the information I provide here will be published with my comment)

Email Address

URL

Comments (Your comment needs to be approved before it will appear. Thanks for waiting.
You may use HTML tags for style. )

Twelve months, 92 million visits at rogerebert.com.

"Top-ranking film critic on the web." -- Alexa.com

"He gets comments that are the envy of anyone in the business." -- New City, Chicago

"America's #1 pundit." -- Forbes

recent Two Thumbs Up® reviews

119 Comments

Leave a comment

Roger Ebert

Search

Tweet / Facebook

Recent Comments

Pages

Categories

Monthly Archives

Recent Assets