Best Movies Of 2009

Solid! Spot on with Up and The Hurt Locker at #2 and #3 but An Education number #1? The final minutes of that film really let down all the brilliance preceding it. An unforgivably lazy conclusion, and it's a shame because Carey Mulligan was superb! I thought Up in the Air was one of the years best, along with Inglorious Basterds, District 9, Fantastic Mr Fox and the two previously mentioned.

Here elaborates the matter not only extensively but also detailly .I support thethe-boate write's unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can go those sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally

Great list and the reviews! I've watched Education thanks to it and found it totally worth the review complements.

Good points all around.Sorry you didn't enjoy Ingourious Basterds. You might have at least picked one of the movies on my list that wasn't nominated for Best Picture by all the big award ceremonies.If you're going to try mocking my general potential as a film critic, mock (Untitled), which even among film critics is rather unknown, not one of the movies that is on most every film critic's list.And, I didn't pick apart Avatar for being a little too long.

you seriously can sit there an mock avatar but you go ahead and put Inglourious Basterds as your number 9 pick. you sit there at pick apart Avatar for it being a little too long, sure it was but at least Avatar is a movie worth watching more than once i wouldn't even watch the beginning credits for Ingourious Basterds if you paid me! i would like to hear how you think its a good movie it defied history for one and had no interesting points through out the whole movie. the only part in the movie that you could remotely call funny is when brad pitt said he was Italian, but for the other movies on your list...ehh better luck next year trying to be a film critic.... do not quit your day job.

So, I'm really kind of bugged that I can't seem to understand everything that's being said in this movie... (On top of the 'odd' way that the English have of speaking, I'm also at the age where I can't seem to hear as well as I would like.) so.. I downloaded the script, (the original, I think) and discover that the movie uses the script as a road map and doesn't always, faithfully, follow said script.Now, let me say that a number of years ago (I shan't go into how many years ago that was..) I wrote a Christmas play. It took every blooming ounce of creativity that I possesed to do so. After many hours of faithfully following the play guidelines, I pronounced it completed. Ha!! In the following months, up to five days before rise, we were working with version # 6. Sigh.So I DO understand how script and final product can differ, however, the script for 'An Education' did explain scenes that I had been left saying to meself “What? What??” So, the combination of changed script, buggered hearing, and the English language conspired to keep me from enjoying (or at least understanding) this movie.However, having said all of that, let me further state that this is rather like a random door that I had wandered into, one that I would not have opened had I not read your blog and … I must admit that I had only “opened” that door because I was rather bothered by your remarks regarding 'Avatar.' I really don't want to go into all of that (and I will not get into a stephaniebarr type of discussion) other than to say, I would never (Well, I don't know if I want to say 'never'...) had seen the movie 'An Education' otherwise...So, as some are want to say, good show, carry on, and so forth...And.. thank you allowing me to play!

So, I'm really kind of bugged that I can't seem to understand everything that's being said in this movie... (On top of the 'odd' way that the English have of speaking, I'm also at the age where I can't seem to hear as well as I would like.) so.. I downloaded the script, (the original, I think) and discover that the movie uses the script as a road map and doesn't always, faithfully, follow said script.Now, let me say that a number of years ago (I shan't go into how many years ago that was..) I wrote a Christmas play. It took every blooming ounce of creativity that I possesed to do so. After many hours of faithfully following the play guidelines, I pronounced it completed. Ha!! In the following months, up to five days before rise, we were working with version # 6. Sigh.So I DO understand how script and final product can differ, however, the script for 'An Education' did explain scenes that I had been left saying to meself “What? What??” So, the combination of changed script, buggered hearing, and the English language conspired to keep me from enjoying (or at least understanding) this movie.However, having said all of that, let me further state that this is rather like a random door that I had wandered into, one that I would not have opened had I not read your blog and … I must admit that I had only “opened” that door because I was rather bothered by your remarks regarding 'Avatar.' I really don't want to go into all of that (and I will not get into a stephaniebarr type of discussion) other than to say, I would never (Well, I don't know if I want to say 'never'...) had seen the movie 'An Education' otherwise...So, as some are want to say, good show, carry on, and so forth...And.. thank you allowing me to play!

I really appreciate your taking the time to comment.I think that basically your reaction is actually exactly what I hope for in this "job." I mean, people simply don't have the same taste when it comes to what's best, and if you have 20 best of the year lists that all tell you the same thing, how helpful is that to you really?Lots of people love the classic movies that are frequently mentioned as the best ever (Casablanca, Citizen Kane) which I don't particularly love, but that's just the way it goes.If you don't think An Education is great, fair enough. For me, I played some role in getting you to watch a film that you might not have otherwise, and at least it was "very good." That works for me.An Education is probably a film that works for me more than it will for a lot of people, just like (Untitled), which I'm sure many people will think is awful. That's par for the course in this sort of game.I can really only put my list out there, try to be as honest about it as I can (which I don't think a lot of critics do frankly), and hope that people get something out of it. I doubt that what many people will get out of it is full agreement on the order and/or which single film is actually "best." If some people find some movies that are very good, that's good enough for me.And, maybe the list serves as a sort of reference point when I review movies in the future.To be honest, I'm pretty vocal about my general dislike for lists, but they do serve to at least give an idea of overall tastes. In some sense I think they are a bit meaningless though, because if you take, for example, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, (500) Days of Summer, and The Young Victoria, I don't think there is a lot of meaning in putting them in order of how good they are.You just have to take what you can from it, and I hope you feel like you got some value.Thanks again for the comment.

After reading your list of 'best' movies of 2009, I decided to, at the very least, watch some of the ones in your top ten. So... starting from the very top, I watched 'An Education'. And then again. And then one more time. Because if this was your very best movie, I wanted to be sure to not miss anything that was there in the story.Now, I'm sure that there are very good movies, even great, perhaps, in France, Italy, Russia, etc., etc. (Well, perhaps not Russia LOL), however, I will never know. Because... yes, you've guessed it, I DON'T SPEAK THOSE LANGUAGES! So, with “An Education', that falls into the almost same category: It is a decided strong ENGLISH movie. (oh, yes, BBC) I don't speak English – I speak American. (I'm reminded of the opening scenes in 'My Fair Lady' where Professor Higgins is lamenting about the fact that so few people in Great Britain speak “proper” English, and he goes on to say, or words to the effect, that in America, they haven't spoken it in years!)So, back to 'An Education'. After watching it (for the THIRD time), I found that I truly enjoyed it (although I never did completely pick up all of the accents, etc.). In fact, I felt, and still feel, that it is a good movie. No, I take that back. It is a very good move. But great? Really? (Well, I guess I should have been able to pick up on that when I saw your “greatest” movie of the decade.) So, I have watched the “top” movie of 2009. I hesitate to start watching any more. I mean, if the rest are inferior... Well, I guess I should have saved the best for last, huh?

After reading your list of 'best' movies of 2009, I decided to, at the very least, watch some of the ones in your top ten. So... starting from the very top, I watched 'An Education'. And then again. And then one more time. Because if this was your very best movie, I wanted to be sure to not miss anything that was there in the story.Now, I'm sure that there are very good movies, even great, perhaps, in France, Italy, Russia, etc., etc. (Well, perhaps not Russia LOL), however, I will never know. Because... yes, you've guessed it, I DON'T SPEAK THOSE LANGUAGES! So, with “An Education', that falls into the almost same category: It is a decided strong ENGLISH movie. (oh, yes, BBC) I don't speak English – I speak American. (I'm reminded of the opening scenes in 'My Fair Lady' where Professor Higgins is lamenting about the fact that so few people in Great Britain speak “proper” English, and he goes on to say, or words to the effect, that in America, they haven't spoken it in years!)So, back to 'An Education'. After watching it (for the THIRD time), I found that I truly enjoyed it (although I never did completely pick up all of the accents, etc.). In fact, I felt, and still feel, that it is a good movie. No, I take that back. It is a very good move. But great? Really? (Well, I guess I should have been able to pick up on that when I saw your “greatest” movie of the decade.) So, I have watched the “top” movie of 2009. I hesitate to start watching any more. I mean, if the rest are inferior... Well, I guess I should have saved the best for last, huh?

We are not going to be able to reach each other. Thanks to a call with my sister, I even know why. Feel free to put whatever interpretation you want on it. I'm out of here. Carry on amongst yourselves.

"I understand that, and, if I agreed with your assessment, I would probably agree that this movie couldn't be the greatest movie ever (I'm not even sure that such a designation could exist, but it doesn't matter. Your point is that it can be precluded objectively, an error of fact)."To be honest, all I really care about is that you said (or implied) that something can't be the best movie ever.I don't really need to connect Harry Potter to any degree more than that they are both wildly popular, because it was all the connection I was looking for. I don't need a closer analogy for my point, just because you want one. I was only looking for something that lots of people love (and call the best ever), that just can't be the best ever.The point about your sister is really resolved with your implication that something can't be the best book ever. It isn't arrogant to correct someone who made the statement, especially in a college English class, any more than it is arrogant for any other professor to correct any student about anything else. Just like if some student reading Shakespeare in a class said that they thought Romeo & Juliet was a story about dancing monkeys taking over Mars. Some interpretations are open possibilities, and some are wrong. The student can't just say, well, that's your opinion.I get that you think the character is very real. It isn't really a central point. I don't think he's real, and I don't think that pointing to real people makes him so. I know people like everyone in every movie I've ever seen. So, there are no bad characters?I think you might be too close to this film to look at it objectively, in some senses anyway. The science that you love about it, and it's great that you love that, isn't (as far as I've seen) one of the components of great film. Being believable with regard to real science maybe, but even that isn't a necessity. Moreover, the themes seem to cause in you a very personal reaction, which to some degree or other don't really enter the arena of objective discussion of the film's merits. That's what I meant by saying that what you think is great about the film is that you thought it was great. Your entirely personal reasons for liking the film are great, and everyone has those sorts of reactions and loves films or books, or pieces of art for such reasons. But, they aren't statements on the work's actual merits. There are, I think, personal and objective reactions to such things, and if there aren't then we're sort of dismissing all criticism. You don't, for example, teach a film class and say things like Indian Summer is a really good movie because I went to camp ever year as a child and I really get what this film is about. That may be why you like it, but that doesn't make it good.I didn't really say anything about space travel itself as any fault, but the idea that you put forward yourself as more expert in the mining and space travel capabilities of a fictional future world sort of proves my point. Not that, maybe you aren't actually, but it's a focus that misses the point.My point about mining, and other things, was only that the whole situation is a created problem, and in a kind of silly way for a movie that wants to be taken so seriously. And, the point is really all of the things together, not just anything about mining, as though anything about mining were some major flaw. I agree that it is more humane to use gas, and try to pressure them out, etc., but surely it is odd to think that the battle would play out the way it did. Once we have decided that we are just going in, considering the future we're in, why wouldn't they just use cruise missiles or whatever? Well, because what sort of fight scene does that get us in film? That's the only point about anything technical, simply that the situation itself seemed forced given the technology available. Surely, there is some weapon we just fire from space, or other deposits, or whatever. And, while I would probably hire you to tell me if I could, now, here, tunnel over to some mineral deposit, you can't know that they don't have such capability, and it seems to me that they could. But, to really delve into the technical aspects is to miss the point. My point is that the situation feels very created, and what's the counter? It isn't? It is actually, and the only point is that it stood out as being so. And, I don't see him at all as not being interested in killing them for entertainment. It seems to be his chief goal from the very beginning of the film. He spends his entire time itching for someone to give him the green light to start shooting.There are obviously differences of opinion on what makes someone crazy, or boringly moronic as well, but if you're going to insist on fighting to the death, when you have the option not to, winning the fight wins you nothing in the big picture, and your nearest reinforcements are years away, then I think you're tediously stupid at the very least, and not an interesting character. Some fact about a real person who is that stupid doesn't make the character more interesting, or more real.Of course, the single character isn't going to make or break the movie, and it isn't really the point.At least, it isn't my point. The point is that at the end of the day, I don't remotely think I'm omniscient, or that I can't be wrong. I think we're arguing about something that it is possible to be wrong about, and though you say, "I would probably agree that this movie couldn't be the greatest movie ever," you don't seem to be approaching things as though that were true.This can be one of the best movies ever is something that is as much an objective statement as this can't be, but you seem to go back and forth on what needs proof and what doesn't. I say he's hollow, boring, and unreal, and you say he isn't and I have to prove he's a bad character. But, you can't prove he's a good character. You can only say things that, in your opinion, make him a good character. But, as I said, we shouldn't get too locked down on this one character, as though that were some single point that somehow would give us the answer one way or the other.Assume I'm right, and he is a bad character, that fact alone doesn't really decide the thing anyway. The thing is, really, I think, that we aren't having a discussion about whether or Avatar can be or not, even though that it is what comes up. In the end, if we were having that discussion, I am quite open to the idea that you could convince me I'm wrong. I don't think you are. Possibly because there is some semantic thing going on in which you don't think there is any such thing as a best movie ever, and therefore how could anyone be wrong about what movie that is, or what movies it possibly could be?This is where the discussion seems odd to me, because if there is no such thing, and basically I'm only making a semantic mistake by saying that it can't be one of the best movies ever, why are we talking about it?If there is some "real" discussion that is possible on whether or not some movie can't be the best movie ever, then there is a "real" discussion on what movie can be, and they both only have the same sort of support available. You can't just keep saying, well, that's your opinion, or you'll never have anything that can to the same degree I'll never have anything that can't.What's the position?As an aside, I think you should (and me too, it's not an attack) keep in mind the lack of tone possibilities in whipping out responses in comments.If I thought you were stupid I wouldn't spend four hours or God knows what responding to you. If I thought that you thinking Avatar could be among the possibilities for best movie ever meant that you were an idiot, why would I reply? So I could tell you that you were an idiot? I have better things to do, and I hope that you know me better than that.I don't review movies so that I can say, Here lies the correct interpretation of this film, and if you don't agree with what I say, then you're an idiot.I don't think that you're stupid because you think Avatar is the best movie ever (even though you don't say that), just like I don't think the people who voted for it for Best Picture are stupid. I think they're wrong. I don't really have to prove they're wrong to any greater degree than they have to prove they're right. It isn't a personal attack to say that you're wrong, even if I say that the movie was designed with a lot more attention to mass appeal than any real desire to make a great film.I didn't say that people who like this film are stupid (though I would probably say that a lot of stupid people like this film). That's what Ebert said about people who like Transformers 2, and I did my best to call him out for it. He was wrong.

In the interest of having a comment that isn't three letters wide, I'm starting a new one. It will work to your benefit, too. Let's start again and I will try to explain why I disagree. As I understand your contention, Avatar cannot be the greatest movie ever because, at least, the story is insufficient and the characters are "hollow and boring", completely unrealistic. I understand that, and, if I agreed with your assessment, I would probably agree that this movie couldn't be the greatest movie ever (I'm not even sure that such a designation could exist, but it doesn't matter. Your point is that it can be precluded objectively, an error of fact).The problem I have is that you have yet to provide any supporting and inarguable facts to support your case. In your review, you gave several reasons. Many having to do with mining and space travel, both of which I could say with assurity I'm more expert in, and both of which I explained your fallacies. You treat the story as trite, but that is a matter of opinion not fact, even if it has been done a thousand times in movies. It's played out more in real life. It happens today, so clearly the lesson has not been learned.You have compared it Harry Potter. Alright, you see them in the same light. I do not, nor have you given a single reason to connect the two other than wild popularity. So no popular books were ever classics? Among the great ones?You have to provide the connection to the analogy or it's meaningless. Right now, you have two connections - you think they're analogous (which means nothing to me or anyone else) and they were both bestsellers. That is insufficient for me.When it comes to challenging experts, I expect them to prove their points, in controvertible data. Repeating their expertise or making comparisons or allusions without demosntrating connections doesn't work. Nor does telling me that the "math is complicated. You wouldn't understand it." Though that last has been tried (and I don't mean you).I didnt' defend my sister and what you said about her because it was an "If-then" situation. I've never asked her if Harry Potter was the best book ever. I don't think English teachers generally would say such a thing. I do feel confident, if one of my sister's students did say so about Harry Potter, my sister would not be so arrogant as to correct her or, be offended that she thought so. Why?Because greatness is where you find it. Vlaad the Impaler is still regarded as a hero in his homeland of once Wallachia, despite cruelty and stupidity that puts the Colonel to shame. True he killed between 100-300K people in the few short years he was in power, but the crime rate was never lower. And he kept the Turks at bay, using methods he learned from them (you see the power of knowing more than one culture).I don't like the colonel. I'm not supposed to. I also don't see what you see. He is not a robot. He is manipulating the situation, not the other way around. He does see things in black and white; many military leaders do (look at those who advised the atomic bombings of Japan despite documented evidence that Japan was already ripe for surrender). And still, his responses are not without subtlety. He's not out to eradicate the Na'Vi per se. He wants them to know who's boss and topple their god, a favorite of conquistadors and missionaries alike. He wants to control them, find their weaknesses and exploit them.You'll note that Jake had no report to the Colonel about the sacred tree, that he discussed it with Augustine's team, but not with him. The colonel figured out the significance himself.The colonel believes that the Na'Vi are a direct threat and, like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor thinks a decisive and devastating blow that wipes out their god and their primary force will cow them into submission. The Japanese were wrong about Pearl Harbor. So was the Colonel.Do I like the Colonel? Nope. Do I think him shallow, hollow and meaningless. No. I have provided examples (that can be looked up to compare the situation) and explained the similarities. He is not a single character. He is the product of years of lessons learned, and therefore highlights the lessons we haven't learned because we've chosen not to. He is more humane that many historical bad guys, including trying to drive out the Na'Vi with gas and persuasion (I think he half-suspected Jake could win them over and then take them over - insane but crazier things have happened. Look what happened to the Incas or the Aztecs). He's more humane that the carpet bombing and cruise missiles of today.He doesn't see the Na'Vi as human (common for all wars - dehumanizing the enemy, whether they look like you or not), but he isn't interested in killing them for entertainment. But he will do anything to protect the interests of the humans as he sees them and he see everyone who entertains any other priority as a traitor. He's not obviously crazy, a brilliant tactician, a brilliant mastermind (as if those haven't been done to death) or unpredictable. I'm afraid that I find the Colonel a great deal more real than that.

What does it take for you for a character to be unreal?The marine is a moron, and the quintessential "black hat" - a character that is part of the reason the idea of stock, hollow, cardboard characters began to get bandied around in the first place. He is, for people studying character, a bad example by definition."In the best movies, our good guys work against such win-at-all-cost psychos, as they do here."You are hopelessly mistaken in this viewpoint."He's not crazier or more insane that Hitler or Himmler or Stalin or Custer (righteously slaughtered by the Sioux) or even Napoleon, who would have made a fine leader if he hadn't been so damn greedy. I don't get why this is different."In these cases, and the others you mention, yes he is. You are uninformed historically if you think any of those people were moronic. Especially, for the love of God, Richard the Lionheart. You might as well say that anyone who ever was involved in leading people to war was a psychopath.Take, as a different example, Christoph Waltz' character in Inglourious Basterds, he's evilish for sure, but he's smart and multi-faceted. You're not sure what he's going to do, and there's a lot going on in him.Avatar's marine has nothing going on. He's an evil robot, going along with the nastiest possibility even when it makes no sense at all. Are there real people like that, and have some people in history actually been like that? Sure. Does that make him real?You might as well say that Hitler in Inglourious Basterds was "real". I mean, hey, there's even an actual person we can point to. But, he was a caricature... on purpose, how could you call him real?

You have confused me. Originally, you said, "They're hollow and most of them are nonsensical. They aren't real people by a billion miles. " then you said: "I think we disagree on the idea that if you meet someone who is just like that character, then the character is thus "real". "Well, damn, what do you need for real characters? People you'd like to know (even as villains)? What the people in "The Secretary" that made your top ten of the decade? Hollow and boring, maybe not (though I might very well think so in real life), but real? Sigourney Weaver said she was channeling Cameron himself. But not just him. Swap being overweight for smoking, and she could be me directly, both of us fighting politics for the good of other people and refuse to put a price tag on them.The marine is a man who pit himself against a planet and sees the Na'Vi as personifying the planet. He wants any excuse he can to go after them. He doesn't care about money or the operation. He cares about taming Pandora his way. He's no more unreal than the warmongers and best generals throughout history and there are endless (and some excellent classic) movies about war. In the best movies, our good guys work against such win-at-all-cost psychos, as they do here. He's not crazier or more insane that Hitler or Himmler or Stalin or Custer (righteously slaughtered by the Sioux) or even Napoleon, who would have made a fine leader if he hadn't been so damn greedy. I don't get why this is different.There's like five minutes of screen time for the money guy, but that's OK, he's not what's important. It's the marine that matters because, to him, it's personal. Just like it's been countless times in history. When I've read history, I've read about these guys endless times, Richard the Lionhearted, leaving his country fallow to fight endless Crusades, Henry V who overcame impossible odds at Agincourt, but couldn't stay alive long enough to see his son born, Alexander the Great who conquered a huge swath of the world before dying at 30. The list goes on and on. For each of the great military fruitcakes (who often left their own land unstable in the greed for more and the need to constantly fight wars) , there are undoubtedly thousands more who never left a mark on history except, perhaps, with spectacular failure because they had the drive, but not the skills and tactical abilities - or they ran against people who wouldn't be conquered so easily.They may be hollow and boring to you. Not to me. And, no, I'm not a history professor. But I could have been.

Glad to see An Education and Moon on your list.

See, here's the thing... well, sort of... I'm an English teacher. I bad mouth Harry Potter in the same way I bad mouth Avatar. I liked the movie, and I like the books. The books are cool and fun, and a few of them have something to them.I have no problems with people liking Harry Potter, much like I have no problem with countless other enjoyments.But, look at it this way. If I have a student who is twelve or so, and they love Harry Potter, and even if they say it is the best book they've ever read, I would say Bravo. My son, 8, is reading them now, and loves them. Awesome. With no hidden sarcasm or anything, I couldn't be happier. But, if my son turns 30 and tells me that Harry Potter is still, in his opinion, the best book ever written, then I would be sadly disappointed in us both, and he would be wrong. It isn't. It just isn't. The End.If he told me he still liked it, and/or found similar books enjoyable, brilliant.It's the same with Avatar. Like it? Think it's really good? Great. No one likes to have fun at the movies more than me. But, the best movie ever? It just isn't.I suppose there is a point when you say that because I didn't get the "it," it can't be a truly great movie... and this you don't have to agree with. The problem is that you can say that about any movie, and it carries the same weight. I can say that Saw VI is not the best movie ever, and you can just say that just because I didn't get it, doesn't mean there is no it to get.If that's all there is to it, why discuss it at all?I don't think the problem is that I don't get the "it" of Avatar, or Harry Potter, or Titanic, or Forrest Gump, or The Spice Girls... the problem is that I do. I just don't care for that it very much. To be honest, in the end I think that what you really think is great about it is the fact that you think it's great. Which is fine, but then we're just arguing about whether or not Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.I understand well about the whole idea of being open to other people's ideas, their beliefs, and even the widespread possibilities of what moves them. There are probably more than 100 movies that if someone said they thought one of them was the best movie ever, I'd have to say, well... fair enough. Many of them I don't even like a little. But, at some point it just ain't so.I don't know where the whole thing about being a follower or a fool came from exactly, and at the moment I don't want to reread the whole conversation, but I don't think you're a fool. The follower part really loses me, so I don't even know what to say there. I don't know where I mentioned anything about it.I don't think, for example, that people who think some American Idol winner is the best singer ever are fools. Same thing really with people who are over 20 and think Harry Potter is the best book ever. I don't think they are fools. I think they are wrong.

I think we disagree on the idea that if you meet someone who is just like that character, then the character is thus "real". The marine nutjob, for example, I mean, the point is not that I don't believe there are idiots, and just because there are doesn't make the one on screen in any way real. The idiots you meet aren't real either.I mean, stereotypes exist for a reason. There really are people who are hollow and boring, and are summed up to perfection by tossing out a few stereotypical thoughts based on their role or position. That doesn't mean I want to watch a movie about them.A romcom is a romantic comedy.

What I meant on Harry Potter was that, though I didn't get "it", why so many people adored it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't assume, because I don't see the point, that the readers must all love it because their friends love it or because they're too stupid to realize it ain't all that great. Many of the people I know who love it are brilliant and never follow the crowd just to follow it. For me, I assume I'm the one missing it for whatever reason. That doesn't bother me. It's enough that others get it and are happy.Clearly, you don't get "it" about Avatar. I'm not willing to concede that that automatically means that there is no "it" or that we're all too stupid to know better, that it can't actually be great. You can believe so; I don't have to agree. You can say that because you didn't get "it," it can't be a truly great movie. I don't have to agree. You saw many things in movies you recommended (that I watched) that I never really got or enjoyed. I didn't assume you were a fool for seeing what I didn't see. I assumed I missed it and chalked it up to the world being full of individuals. I don't care for the assumption that something great can't exist, even if I see it clearly, just because someone else does not.But then, I don't normally consider myself a fool either.

I don't care for Harry Potter, but I do think they are great. They touch people of all ages and in many countries. I don't have to get it to appreciate they couldn't do that if they weren't good.I didn't know a single person who had seen it and liked it when I went to see Avatar. My husband (and then my daughter) who were both dead certain they wouldn't like it, turned out to like it (my husband described it as "the best movie ever.") He didn't want to like it. But he did. We are not, as a general rule, blown away by special effects either. So, I don't think anyone decided for me I would like it. I don't agree with you on the characters because there isn't a single character there (NONE, including the marine fruitcake) that I haven't met in real life. Not the Na'Vi (color and particular skills notwithstanding - my grandmother's father was a Native American Shaman). I've met them all. They are real because I've met them, I knew them all, and what the did made perfect sense because of the people I know. Perhaps its because we hang out with different people - I know a lot of ex-military, contractor, Native American, new age, pilot, technical, and scientific types. This is one of my favorite stories ever. I've seen it play out a thousand times in history and in movies/books/etc, though, in reality, it usually ends tragically. I love how it played out, what it said and how it said it. Can you blame me for hoping we finally learn?I have no idea what a romcom is.

Well, but take books instead of movies, and use Harry Potter instead of Avatar. Plugs into everything you just said pretty much the same (well, I mean, not science, but is it really relevant?).I actually reach for completely non-extreme reasons not to love it. I do like it.The best movie you've ever seen is a qualification that can't really be worked around. You like it best is a fact that you can't be wrong about. But, to the exact same degree as the person who likes Transformers 2, Saw, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, or anything else. But, assuming we aren't all just saying, "Hooray Vanilla," at each other, and we are talking about whether or not it actually is the best movie ever, if you think it is, you're wrong.There are, for good or ill, other sides to everything you say. The characters I'm not so sure about, because they don't stand up to support in my opinion. They're hollow and most of them are nonsensical. They aren't real people by a billion miles. As to the story, there are other reasons stories keep getting told. You can't just take every half-ass romcom that comes out, and say, well, there's a reason they keep telling that story.

I didn't think we were that different in what we were looking for either, but I'm thinking so now. I not only think Avatar was, without doubt, the best movie of 2009, I think it's the best movie I've ever seen. I am all about the characters and, so far from seeing them as cardboard or caricature, I found them vibrant and alive. I found the plot not trite or stupid but brilliant (as I feel about any great story retold in a new and riveting way - see A Christmas Carol. It is a great story, or it wouldn't be told so often and, yet, we still haven't learned). I have not seen science this sound since, well it's been years if not decades and found the story more than plausible for reasons I explained. This movie demonstrates for me why I love movies, why I love science, why I believe in people even with all the greed and ugliness out there. I find it intriguing that so many people have reached for such extreme reasons not to like that while labeling movies much weaker in these aspects higher. Like, if everyone likes it, it can't be good. It strikes a cord in me and reminds me why I got into the thankless world of science.I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but I won't apologize for loving it either. I wasn't terribly fond of Titanic, not like I've enjoyed other Cameron movies, but it occurred to me that it wouldn't have been so successful if it hadn't touched people in some way. I feel that is at least as true for Avatar. If that's so, isn't that what movies are supposed to do?Truth is, I'm as confused by your immunity to its power and beauty as you are by my embracing of it. I didn't mean to get into the Avatar discussion again. I accept that it's not your cup of tea. But, to many of us out there, it's why we love movies. And we don't have to be ashamed of that either.That doesn't mean you're wrong. Or me either.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me either, and didn't think that's what you were saying, but I think that just because 9 is on the list isn't exactly a reason to go all "we don't look for the same things" on me. :)I thought both Avatar and Star Trek were good movies, they were just, IMHO, far from the best thing ever. 9, and I think I mentioned this, wasn't worthy of mention because it was awesome. There's something about the whole story that was really cool. It's a ten-minute student film that Tim Burton saw, and thought to himself that the creator was someone who deserved a chance. It didn't work out perfectly, but it was interesting and fun. I was disappointed as well.For me, I'd much rather watch someone try to do something really inventive and different and fail, rather than watch someone throw tons of money at something designed to attract every common denominator of the masses and succeed fabulously. Cameron's creative process has more in common with Ad companies than filmmakers.His next movie will sell tons of tickets too, just like the next American Idol will sell records. And really, there's nothing wrong with that.The movie isn't horrible. It's a good time and a lot of fun. It just isn't remotely in the league of other things. It doesn't have characters, except the ones it CGIed in from 1930's B Westerns, and it doesn't have much of a story. But, neither do a lot of things that are perfectly respectable 3 1/2 or 4 star movies. I think ultimately it only sounds like I really don't like it, because I'm in the position (not specifically at you) of defending against it being the best thing ever. As Roger Ebert said, to paraphrase, that just isn't the case. Ebert, by the way, who talked the movie up something fierce and gave it a great review. I know you said you don't read other reviews much, but he really went to town on how awesome he thought he was. But, when it won the GG for best picture, he had a fit.As Ebert famously points out from time to time, Siskel used to have his statement on people talking about opinion and so on. Everyone has different opinions, and that's great, but Siskel would say that there comes a point where opinion blurs into error of fact. Ebert went off on Transformer 2 about this, though he despised it whereas I only thought it was not so great. But, if you liked Transformers 2, though it was fun, had a good time watching it, etc., fine, but if you think it was the best movie of the year, you're just wrong. I have to agree with him there, and when he says it about Avatar, even after talking about how great he thought it was, I agree with him there too.Take, for example, Ferris Bueller's Day Off (just because that popped into my head). It's got pretty much universal popularity. Who doesn't love it? First of all, it's unfair, because it's way better than Avatar, but... is it the best movie of the year? No way. I love it, and I'm sure I will watch it again and again for years, even still, but it isn't the best of the year.If you see all the movies in the top ten on this list, and come back and tell me that Avatar is better than all of them, then I guess I'll have to say, wow, we really do look for different things in movies. And, other than that, I really won't know what else to say.It's really like Titanic all over again. Sure, fun to watch I guess. Certainly not a bad movie really. But, is it still the most fantastic thing ever? Really?I don't actually think we do look for different things in movies, it's just that these two didn't do it for me to a degree that warrant a lot of attention. I heard tell that you were all about the characters, and I find it hard to believe that you've latched onto this movie so strongly.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I'm just saying I don't agree with you, not because you're an idiot but because we clearly are looking for different things in movies. I found 9 a terrible disappointment and left feeling disheartened and cheated. To each his own.

There are many of these that I have not seen and I agree with what stephanieebarr stated that we don't see movies for the same reasons. One movie that has gotten positive reviews that I really didn't care for is District 9. I thought the plot was so common and cinematography was fair but not really something that I would want to write home about. You have given me some ideas of some movies that I would like to view in the future. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks for the comment. I know a lot of people who say that about Fox, and I can see it frankly. It was really good. It was the most bizarre year in animated films.Up in the Air was really good as well, and I can see people liking that one more than I did too. I enjoyed it immensely while I was watching it, but at the end it didn't leave me wowed.Again, I appreciate the comment.

Well, I don't know, give me a break, I can't mention everything. Star Trek was good, and I gave it a pretty high rating, but I didn't love it and there were things that weren't so great about it.9 could use more mentions in general. It wasn't awesome either, but it was a lot more inventive than a lot of things.

Wow. I really need to check out (Untitled). I can't believe I missed that one. I loved An Education as well. Carey Mulligan is a revelation. Up was fantastic, but as animated features go, I have to go with Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox just slightly ahead of Up. The Young Victoria was one of my biggest surprises of the year. It was just a great movie. Jim Broadbent was so much fun in it. I have to say, no movie this year hit me like Up in the Air did. I thought it was incredibly brilliant. I've seen it three times now and it keeps on getting better.

The idea that something else is the year’s best film, or that someone else is the year’s best actress, is even a worse idea than that someone else might have been a better supporting actor than Christoph Waltz. It’s just laughable.

You know I don't agree with you at all with Avatar (but then the populace is voting with its hard earned money), but I knew how you felt about it so I'm not surprised. But no mention of Star Trek? And 9 gets an honorable mention?Sorry, buddy, I can't agree with you there, either. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own opinion - you most certainly are - but I'm just not able to see eye to eye with you. I haven't seen any of your top ten (except Up), but I'm beginning to think I just won't get what I look for from them. That's OK. We don't all go to see movies for the same reasons.