The Best Films of 2010
BY ROGER EBERT / December 16, 2010
The year’s best feature films:
1. “The Social Network.”
2. “The King’s Speech.”
3. “Black Swan.”
4. “I Am Love.”
5. “Winter’s Bone.”
7. “The Secret in their Eyes.”
8. “The American.”
9. “Kids Are All Right.”
10. “The Ghost Writer.”
“A Small Act”
“Exit Through the Gift Shop”
“Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work”
“Last Train Home”
“Waiting for Superman”
“35 shots of Rum”
“Father of My Children”
“Book of Eli”
“Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
“How to Train Your Dragon”
“Toy Story 3”
Why are Thrillers in a separate section? And why is Fish Tank a foreign language film?
British people don’t know how to speak American Ari.
And why does he make a difference between the year’s best feature films and foreign language films? Not to mention that his selections for both “categories” are mostly random mainstream films. There isn’t much difference between him and the Academy Awards.
Why so many questions about Ebert’s list?
Makes perfect sense for Ebert…
“British people don’t know how to speak American Ari.”
But considering The King’s Speech is #2, logic must be “upper class or royal Brits in a period piece” is eligible for best feature film while “working class Brits in present” is strictly foreign language.
Goddamn it!! Will you people stop questioning the list?! This is freakin’ Roger Ebert we’re talking about here! ROGER EBERT!!! If he thinks thrillers should be separated from other movies or that foreign films should have there own category, then that’s it, end of discussion. Maybe when you have a nationally syndicated television show you would understand the deeper reasons behind this brilliant selection of films, perfectly ordered as they are, but until that time I suggest you just sit back and bask in the glow of critical genius at work here.
Or, you know, carry on…
“And why does he make a difference between the year’s best feature films and foreign language films?”
The big question here is….why not simply list English-language films as his best and let the “foreign” films in a separate category? For what it’s worth, The Secret in their Eyes could easily be part of the “foreign” category, is Secret something special that’s ABOVE the inferior category of “foreign language films”?
Ebert is getting old (plus he has had a bad year health wish). Lets just pat him on the back and say, glad you made another list pops.
“Or, you know, carry on…”
Come on, what’s more fun than bitching at these lists? Anyway, overall, his is no worse than most of the others circulating just bizarrely premised.
“If he thinks thrillers should be separated from other movies or that foreign films should have there own category, then that’s it, end of discussion.”
Hey Greg, I’m glad Ebert’s doing it HIS way but…don’t you find it weird he’s listed “foreign language” films in his top 10 of the year and then creates a separate “foreign films” category with completely different selections? I’d say pops has lost it since….forever!
“For what it’s worth, The Secret in their Eyes could easily be part of the “foreign” category, is Secret something special that’s ABOVE the inferior category of “foreign language films”?”
Yes, it’s Argentine.
Oh, god, I hoped it was obvious I was kidding, I’m not really much of an Ebertian in anything other than having a sort of general respect for his career and efforts. I find the lists as odd as everyone else does I think.
Most of the films in the world are not in English, but Ebert has to cast them like Oscars into a separate minority category. But i presume he’s still widely considered more enlightened on the old international cinema front than most? So Fish Tank (did this come late to US?) is more “foreign” in US than I Am Love- i must say i fancy seeing that, with Tilda Swinton.
This is from his website, where he published the list. It appeared between his Top 10 list (which was followed by another general Top 10) and the lists of other categories:
“Overall, 2010 was not a great movie year, but it has many great movies. On my blog I’ll write in more detail about the best in the categories below. Why categories? They provide a way to list more good films. If a “best film” list serves any purpose, it’s to give you ideas."
Here’s his 11-20 which is supposed to be in no particular order…
All Good Things
Never Let Me Go
Context is sometimes good.
Not saying I agree with his lists, but still.
Yeah, Roger’s a funny guy and the last of a dying breed. Is his “worst of” list out yet? I tend to have more of my favorites on his worst of lists than on his best of lists.
yeah, even with his disclaimer, it’s still odd and makes about as much sense as his regular method of evaluating and rating movies for what they are trying to do. If he wants to give more choices, he could simply list more films in a sort of preferential order that way someone might know whether Book of Eli, being the best (?) thriller of the year is roughly equivalent of Winter’s Bone or Solitary Man or much worse than even that. (Wouldn’t Inception or Ghost Writer fit as thrillers by the standards he seems to have by the way?) But Ebert thing is to try and thread the needle and be sort of egalitarian in his ratings, which is part of the reason why so many people like him so much I assume, but also why his lists and taste is rather suspect to others of us. He’s sort of the equivalent of MOR music or classic rock, there are things he likes that I can also like, but as a whole there is something kinda depressing about hearing his tastes in large doses.
I’m pretty sure that he has a Foreign films list because he wanted to bring special attention to those films beyond our waters, but he didn’t feel deserved places on his top 10. It makes sense to me.
I think the reason is that he wants to separate the movies his audience has heard of from movies his audience has not. By having a separate category for foreign films, he can put mostly popular movies in his ‘Best’ list, make his readers happy, then say ‘By the way, these films most of you have no interest in watching are also good’.
He’s got mostly good movies in his top ten, but the order is clearly influenced by peer pressure and market demand.
That top ten list is pretty awesome, from what I’ve seen of them at least.
The other lists he made are strange though… like the thrillers are kind of weak (Book of Eli and Green Zone? Meh.) and I think I saw Chaser about 2 years ago.
EBERTS WORST MOVIES 2010:
Just offhand, I’m not understanding Despicable Me love. I watched it recently after hearing some great things about it and for all the recommendations from people whose opinion I trust, it really didn’t do anything for me. The animation was fine but not great, the humor visual and dialog were predictable, and the story was very simple and flat.
Repo Men is one of the lamest films I have ever seen. Seriously Ebert? Seriously?
Seems like he’s now just sort of arbitrarily expanding the list via splitting it in to categories to include more films.
Why are ANY of these categorized…just give us your ten faves or your forty faves. Why does Inception make it into the top10 but not the top 10 thrillers? This is goofy.
that said…BOOK OF ELI? SALT? if these are in, where’s RED?
Forgive me but I always thought Girl With Dragon Tattoo was a foreign film…
and didn’t it come out last year?
Ebert lists are based on when they premiered in Chicago.
Good list of films.
Seems like there are a lot of wise guys here but not many braniacs. Ebert has an overall list of best films which includes every kind of film. Then, rather than just list 10 more and 10 more and 10 more, he breaks the remaining films up into categories. Seems pretty obvious to me as well as preferable.
After all, once you get past 10 films who really cares what is #16 versus what is #18? I mean who can in all honesty make such a distinction once you get past 15 films? And does it matter?
I used to work with a critic who named his year-end list ‘Ten interesting films" and put them in alphabetical order. He was smart enough to know it’s all pretty arbitrary.
I agree with you Matt. I mean, Ebert says in a good number of his reviews that he wishes that he didn’t have to give them star ratings and could just let the review speak for itself. He also says pretty often that lists and rankings are pretty arbitrary, which is why his Great Films books were always just in alphabetical order I believe. While I may not agree with every movie he lists, the way that he organizes them makes sense to me.
He gave Bounty Hunter and Repo men negative reviews, there is now way he made a thrillers list that is wrong.