Every December, Slate hosts a listserv-like roundtable discussion on the year's movies. This year's discussion features Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, David Edelstein of Slate (the best reviewer writing today?), J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, Sarah Kerr of Vogue, and A.O. Scott of The New York Times. It's not as good as last year's discussion, but still definitely worth reading.
Among the surprises: Roger Ebert a) is intelligent and knowledgable about film, b) is respected (revered?) by his peers in the film criticism world, and c) has pretty good taste. I've always been dismissive of Ebert, but I'm ready to give him another chance. (Or am I?)
The biggest surprise, though, is that there were apparently many good movies released this year. For the most part, I sat this year out (something about panic attacks, psychiatrists, ineffective prescription drugs, etc.), but from the outside it looked like a dismal year in cinema. In 1999, so many mainstream movies were ambitious, intelligent, and original:
But, before I dismiss this year's crop, I need to watch the following: