Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!



Missile Defense's Real Enemy: Math

howlingfrog Re:21st century warfare doesn't rely on missiles (589 comments)

Good question, but short answer, yes, I do.

Long answer, the degree of insanity required to make a ruler sabotage their own nation by attacking an economic ally is pretty high, and the bigger and wealthier a country is, the harder it is for someone that out of touch with reality to come to power. Think about how far away Michelle Bachmann was from becoming President, and how far away she is from being crazy enough to start a war with China. It would take someone way crazier being way more politically successful to cause the kinds of problems we're talking about here. Ultranationalist looney toons can become dictators of small poor countries relatively easily, but those are precisely the ones who will use guerrilla warfare and terrorism rather than high-cost high-tech high-manpower 20th century warfare.

about 2 years ago

Missile Defense's Real Enemy: Math

howlingfrog Re:21st century warfare doesn't rely on missiles (589 comments)

I disagree. The Cold War needed mutually assured destruction to keep the peace because the capitalist countries and the communist ones weren't trading with each other. And it didn't even do that good a job of keeping the peace. USA and USSR never spilled each other's blood, but Korea and Vietnam were more proxies for USA and China to make unofficial war on each other than anything else. There's no reason to believe we wouldn't have kept finding excuses to get involved in opposite sides of Asian civil wars if we hadn't started trading with each other.

MAD keeps people who want to fight each other from throwing the first punch, or maybe just from escalating after a punch is thrown--shared economic interests keeps them from wanting to fight each other at all. MAD is a last line of defense, nothing more.

about 2 years ago

Missile Defense's Real Enemy: Math

howlingfrog 21st century warfare doesn't rely on missiles (589 comments)

Plenty of people have already pointed out the idiocy in the details of TFA's argument, so I won't go into that. The core assumption underlying the whole thing is wrong too: wars are not fought with missiles any more. The nations that can afford enough missiles to pose any kind of threat at all to each other are the wealthy, highly populated ones. All the wealthy, populous nations are economically interdependent now, and always will be. Economically interdependent nations don't wage war on each other. All wars for the foreseeable future will be started by second- or third-world rogue states using terrorism and guerrilla tactics, and ended by first-world superpowers using espionage, tactical bombing, and drone strikes.

Nobody capable of launching ICBM's at us could conceivably ever want to. There is nobody we'll ever need to launch ICBM's at ourselves.

about 2 years ago

The Trouble With 4K TV

howlingfrog Re:Who cares about uncompressed size? (442 comments)

I'm a projectionist at an all-digital theater. Content is sent to us in proprietary file formats, so I can't tell you for sure what's going on inside them, but I can make a pretty good guess based on file size. A 2K movie (which is virtually all movies, only one or two a year are distributed at 4K) in 2D will be about 1 GB per minute of runtime. Uncompressed video at 1080p resolution, 24fps, 24-bit color is more than 8 GB per minute. So it's definitely compressed, and the compression ratio is probably too high for any lossless algorithm to be plausible. But an 8:1 compression ratio for a lossy video codec is still almost absurdly high quality, much better than Blu-Ray, which is already excellent quality. You could make a JPEG of each individual frame, not even taking advantage of the similarity of consecutive frames, and get 8:1 compression.

about 2 years ago

The Trouble With 4K TV

howlingfrog Re:Who Wants This? (442 comments)

That's an anti-aliasing issue, not a resolution issue. I'm a projectionist at a theater with all digital 4K projectors (except the digital IMAX which is 2K but fraudulently marketed--by IMAX, not by my employer--as 4K, don't get me started on those fucking scam artists). One thing you probably don't know is that virtually all movies are distributed at 2K. There are only one or two 4K movies a year--Skyfall was not one of them. Avengers was not one of them. Hobbit was not one of them. Almost everything you watch will be 2K even if you're in a 4K-capable auditorium. I see just about every movie that gets released, and I can tell you that for text, AA makes a MUCH bigger difference than resolution. There's almost no visible difference between 4K AA text and 2K AA. 4K non-AA is slightly but noticeably worse than 2K AA, and 2K non-AA is much worse than 4K non-AA.

You may well ask why any studio would put non-AA text in a movie. Or why some movies would have AA text but not others. Hell, in the year 2013, why does non-AA text still exist anywhere at all? If you figure that out, I hope you'll tell me.

about 2 years ago

Does 2012 Mark the End of the Netbook?

howlingfrog Netbooks are more popular than ever now! (336 comments)

The conceptual purpose of a netbook is to be an extremely portable computer with good battery life that's primarily used for web browsing and media consumption, with just enough internal storage to serve as a local cache of data from the internet. They exploded in popularity when Steve Jobs figured out that touchscreens were better input devices than keyboards for that use case.

about 2 years ago

Has 3D Film-Making Had Its Day?

howlingfrog 3D movies were never more than a Trojan horse (436 comments)

...to force theaters to switch to digital projectors, and pay for it themselves. Digital distribution is orders of magnitude cheaper than 35mm film distribution, which is why the studios wanted the change. They could say to small independent theaters, "We're not sending you 35mm prints any more, so you better switch or you'll go out of business." But the MPAA needs the big chains like AMC and Regal as much as AMC and Regal need the MPAA. If AMC stops showing Universal's movies, AMC goes out of business, but so does Universal. There were originally negotiations about sharing the cost of the equipment rollout, but no agreement was ever reached. So the studios started making boatloads of 3D movies and hyping them to death so audiences would demand the change. Audiences are starting to catch on that it's just a gimmick, but it's done its job. Most theaters are digital now and the last few exceptions will be switching within the next year or so. And the studios didn't have to contribute a dime.

about 2 years ago

Facebook Ordered To End Its Real Name Policy In Germany

howlingfrog Wait, what? (471 comments)

You mean Facebook enforces its real name policy? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?!?!

more than 2 years ago

In the 2012 U.S. presidential election:

howlingfrog Re:Green Party (707 comments)

A hell of a lot of Obama's broken promises are due to the most obstructionist Congress in history. But the ACA was passed when Democrats had a majority in both houses, Congress has very little say in the DEA's policies and none in their priorities, and there was never any attempt to close Gitmo for Congress or the DOD to obstruct. Those three things really are Obama's fault. As is the fact that FOIA compliance is even worse than it was under Bush. As is the deliberate decision not to prosecute the literal criminals who caused the financial collapse or the literal traitors who started a war with Iraq on false pretenses. As is the fact that he has never acknowledged the existence of the Occupy movement. As is the fact that every response to whitehouse.gov petitions has been blind support of the status quo. As is the circle-the-wagons, shoot-the-messenger response to Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks.

I live in Ohio, so I still voted for him without hesitation, but the image he presented of himself four years ago as a once in a generation world changing reformer was an outright lie. Not something he honestly but unrealistically aspired to be, a lie as deliberate and calculated as any of Romney's various contradictory versions of himself. The moderate left's defense of him is almost as delusionally counterfactual as the far right's criticism of him. He's a competent but unremarkable business as usual centrist.

more than 2 years ago

Physicist Explains Cthulhu's "Non-Euclidean Geometry"

howlingfrog Zermelo-Fraenkel-Cthulhu set theory (179 comments)

Back in college, a friend and I were trying to figure out what could possibly make people go mad from the mere sight of Cthulhu. We decided it must have uncountably infinitely many tentacles. A mere countable infinity of tentacles could be visually comprehensible, so long as each one is half the size of its predecessor, or if they were arranged in a fractal tree structure of tentacles upon tentacles. But uncountably many tentacles would drive you insane at first sight.

more than 2 years ago

Malaysian Cyber Cafe Owners Liable For Patron Behavior

howlingfrog Re:whereas... (119 comments)

He faced a situation where he judged the consequences of breaking his oath to be less onerous than the consequences of keeping it. That's not relativism (as opposed to absolutism), it's act utilitarianism (as opposed to rule utilitarianism).

If you are defending rule utilitarianism, you are defending the Nazi soldiers who were just following orders when they murdered six million Jewish civilians.

If you are defending rule utilitarianism, you are condemning every whistleblower who has ever broken an oath, violated an NDA, or betrayed the trust of a personal friend to blow the whistle--which is all of them.

more than 2 years ago

Ask Slashdot: Is the Rise of Skeuomorphic User Interfaces a Problem?

howlingfrog Re:Shit Editors (311 comments)

If only hyperlinks were identified by a picture of a computer mouse next to a monitor with a stylized mouse cursor hovered over a picture of a linked chain. You could visit the target of the hyperlink by clicking your real mouse on the left button of the picture of the mouse.

more than 2 years ago

Ask Slashdot: Explaining Role-Playing Games To the Uninitiated?

howlingfrog It's the karaoke version of theatre (197 comments)

Instead of unrehearsed singing for your own entertainment, you're writing and acting out an unrehearsed dramatic or comedic story for your own entertainment. The DM is the director, the players are actors, and they all collaborate as writers.

But rather than explaining what it is to someone, just have them tag along. Bring a book in case they get bored, but they might just want to join in next time.

more than 2 years ago

When I need a robust business solution, I prefer it ...

howlingfrog Re:George Carlin would have a great time with this (275 comments)

Wait, so "price" means a single value, that is, a point on the number line of prices? And "price point" means a range of values, that is, a segment of the number line, that is, not a point?

I agree with your analysis, but the terminology is hilarious.

more than 2 years ago

Who Is Your Favorite Fictional Robot or Android?

howlingfrog Re:Mitt Romney! (608 comments)

I'm not convinced Mitt Romney is any less fictional than Steven Colbert. Naming the character after the actor doesn't turn the character into a real boy.

more than 2 years ago

To me, lotteries represent ...

howlingfrog Re:Ugh. (301 comments)

Given that the test included only 44 beers and the article lists a number of megacorporation-owned large-batch beers, all of which are lagers rather than ales, I would guess that it was exclusively a test OF megacorporation-owned large-batch lagers. While I can personally verify that Europe's cheapo macrobrews are much better than our American cheapo macrobrews, it's still a bit of a stretch to call the winner of that competition "one of the best beers in Europe." Hell, calling it the 44th-worst beer is probably closer to accurate.

more than 2 years ago

Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process Exposed

howlingfrog Dog Bites Man is not news. (181 comments)

Man Bites Dog is news. Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process is not news. YouTube Takedown Process Works As Intended is news.

more than 2 years ago

Ebert: I'll Tell You Why Movie Revenue Is Dropping

howlingfrog Re:Also (865 comments)

The MPAA can bully small independent theaters like that. I'd be surprised if they weren't. But too much of their revenue comes from AMC, Regal, Century, and the other megachains for them to make changes that big and expensive by fiat. It'd be like a wholesaler trying to make demands of Walmart. Their realistic choices were to help pay for the transition (which was discussed, but I don't know to what extent it's actually happening) or to create audience demand.

about 3 years ago


howlingfrog hasn't submitted any stories.



My thoughts on the Oscar nominations

howlingfrog howlingfrog writes  |  more than 4 years ago

In each category, nominees are listed in alphabetical order, followed by my personal favorite.

Best Picture:
Avatar: The worldbuilding is amazing. One of the most important ways to separate good sci-fi/fantasy from bad is by how well fleshed-out the fictional universe is. If it's possible to role-play or write (halfway-competent) fanfics that use the setting but not the main characters, it passes the test. You can roleplay in the Wheel of Time universe without playing Rand or Egwene, but Sword of Truth fanfics without Richard and Kahlan are barely recognizable. Or look at Buffy vs. Charmed. Considering only movies that aren't based on books or TV shows, I'd put Avatar third-all-time behind Star Wars and The Matrix (fourth if you give the Kristy Swanson movie credit for the whole Buffyverse, but I don't think that's fair or even logically sound). Pandora is a world in which you can tell a wide variety of interesting stories. However, Avatar's script is NOT one of them. The premise is a flimsy excuse to get humans involved--Cameron himself stated that unobtanium (as joke names go, only mcguffinite would have been better) has nothing to do with the bio-computer-network that defines the world, it's just coincidence that there's a big deposit under the Navi village. The science team is led by someone who is somehow both a botanist and a zoologist, but none of the other members even HAVE specialties. The entire plot revolves around the idea that ex-Marine Jake is the closest thing to a real cultural anthropologist who has ever been avatarized, which is profoundly stupid. For the most part, no attempt at all is made to develop characters. In one case--Trudy's change of heart--this failure at characterization actually creates a plot hole. It's only believable that exactly one military-type would end up on the side of the scientists and natives if she has any unique perspective. The only thing that distinguishes Trudy from any other grunt is screen time--and even that is mostly post-reversal. Even her line when she changes her mind--"I didn't sign up for this!"--is patently false. It's precisely what she signed up for, she just no longer believes it's right. And her first act of treason, changing sides in mid-battle, is completely unpunished. In the case of the Navi, the absence of character development beyond stock aboriginal stereotypes is an offensive crutch propping up the bullshit Noble Savage idea that nobody in their culture could possibly benefit from technology or specialized labor, which itself is the only justification for the third-act war. Giovanni Ribisi's only two character traits are caring about results and being willing to listen to reason, but the war starts when, and because, he suddenly decides not to listen to reason precisely when Jake is actually starting to get results. The character's only reason for existing is to start the war, but his only character develolpment establishes that he would not do so under those circumstances. After Jake, Trudy, and the other scientists escape from the military, one scientist stays back as a spy. That he could do so without being caught is implausible, that he could actually break the others out of prison in the first place without being caught is impossible--are there really no security cameras? The supposed climax of the plot is a faceoff between Jake and the scar-headed leader of the military (who, if not for movie-magic, would have died half a dozen times already) because that's what the formula says should happen. But that's the second half of the mentor-and-protege-on-opposite-sides formula, which is the wrong formula. Jake and Scarhead have an arrangement that is purely business, with little direct communication and no emotional bond. The final showdown is part of that formula to bring the character arcs full-circle. It has to happen because the first half of the formula sets it up. I'm no great fan of cliche, but things become cliche because they work. If you're going to use part of a formula, either you have to use the rest of it too, or you have to have a reason to subvert it and set up the subversion properly. The film as a whole is somewhat elevated by the worldbuilding and spectacle factor, but the flaws are too big too many for it to deserve consideration for Best Picture.

The Blind Side: Every character, white or black, is an offensive stereotype. The movie displays no respect for the viewer whatsoever--everything that can be dumbed down is, any moral issue that is (intentionally) raised is discussed by the characters at length but not in any depth. There's not a single thing in this film that isn't handled with more subtlety and honesty in Remember The Titans. "More simplistic than Remember The Titans" is not a compliment. If you take everything I don't like about RtT, combine it with everything I don't like about Crash, you get this. The paternalistic, White Man's Burden portrayal of the main character is simply shocking. To be fair, it's a basically competent piece of filmmaking. A lot of the movies I have to see make me wonder how anyone involved even has a job in the industry, but this is at least a real movie. There are no plot holes and nobody ever behaves drastically out of character. It has decent acting. The camerawork isn't distractingly artsy or misframed. If it was the worst movie I had seen in the past year, I'd be pretty happy. But that's about as backhanded as praise gets.

District 9: This is not a metaphor for apartheid. Well, it is, but that's not the point. The superficial anti-apartheid message is cover for the more subtle but more central and better developed commentary on the military-industrial complex. The South African government and United Nations have outsourced the entire project of dealing with the aliens, and the whole movie is an exploration of the consequences of that decision and the ways the private sector and public sector naturally and necessarily have different motives. That has to be addressed delicately because it's very politically charged. When you talk directly about a politicized issue, you only get through to the people who already agree with you. Everyone else will feel like they're being preached at, and they'll be right. Aside from simply avoiding being off-putting, the "show, don't tell" rule lets you make a better argument by demonstrating the reasons behind your belief. By hiding the real issue under something generic that everybody agrees about, like "apartheid was bad," Blomkamp was able to make a much stronger and more openly partisan case against corporate militia than he could have otherwise. Not to mention that it's all contained in a story entertaining enough to satisfy the unwashed masses. If your primary criterion for film is how well the various elements (acting, directing, main plot, subplots, character development, cinematography, philosophical message, entertainment value) of flimmaking fit together into a coherent whole, then this isn't just the best film of the year, it's the best of the last several years.

An Education: I haven't seen it yet. We're getting it at Lennox this weekend, so I will soon.

The Hurt Locker: It's hard to describe this film in any way other than "see it." This year was a good one for fans of psychological character studies, and this might be the best of the bunch. There's a scene near the end, while Jeremy Renner is back home, that contains my favorite minute of film of the year. If you've seen it you know what scene I mean.

Inglorious Basterds: There's a lot to like about it, but it's not anywhere close to the film it could have been if Tarantino didn't surround himself with yes-men. Usually my favorite thing about QT is that he knows which characters and plot elements to focus on and which to leave as recurring, undeveloped leitmotifs, but the biggest flaw of this film is its utter failure in that department. Shosanna and Col. Landa are the most interesting, complex, developable characters in the film, but combine for maybe 40 minutes of screen time in a 150-minute movie. The titular Basterds are riotously entertaining five minutes at a time, but one-dimensional and monotonous. Most of them don't even have names or lines. They get the remaining 110 minutes. It's not just that the film is a perfect beginning, a perfect ending, and two hours of filler, it's that it didn't have to be.

Precious: If I was given a short plot outline of this movie, I'd guess that it was a superficial, unintentionally racist, shameless Oscar-baiting mess. To make it work at all, it had to have character development and penetrating honesty, both taken to all-time-great extremes. Fortunately, that's exactly what it has. It has none of the surface trappings of a horror film, but that's what it is. A teenaged girl (Precious) and children (her toddler and infant) trapped in a creepy house (literally, a filthy apartment; figuratively, the culture of self-perpetuating urban poverty) with/by monsters (her parents, more literally than you would believe), struggling to escape with the protection of an outside hero (her teacher), eventually succeeding but not without paying a harsh price (which would be a spoiler). Several scenes, particularly the mother's attempt to justify her behavior to a social worker, are much more horrifying than anything in the so-called horror genre.

A Serious Man: I enjoyed it thoroughly, but I'm not sure it's Best Picture material. If it has anything to say at all, it's not me it's saying it to. Middle-class Jews who grew up in the 60's in midwest college towns make for a pretty narrow target audience. The comedic take on the Book of Job is a clever idea, and the execution is terrific (which goes without saying for the Coen brothers), but it's a one-note song. Well worth seeing, borderline worth nominating, but one of the Coens' shallowest films.

Up: When you're a child, there's a pure, unadulterated joy associated with watching a movie. When you've seen enough movies to understand that some of them are good and some of them are bad, that joy is very difficult to recapture--you're always dissecting the bad ones and waiting for the other shoe to drop in the good ones. It's a rare film that can make a jaded cynic like me feel like I did the first time I saw Mary Poppins.

Up In The Air: I strongly disagree with the message of the film--that nobody can be truly happy living the lifestyle that George Clooney's character does. But it's still one of my favorite movies of the year. That's how good the other parts of the film are, and how well it follows "show, don't tell."

Unless one of the three I haven't seen really wows me, I think Precious deserves to win, but it's a close call over D-9 and Hurt Locker.

Best Director:
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker: The film is a character study and an action movie and a soldier-friendship drama, which call for different directorial skills and styles. All three are done well.

James Cameron, Avatar: The nomination is justified by the technical aspects of directing alone. My problems with the movie are 90% Cameron-as-writer, 10% Cameron-as-director, and 0% Cameron-as-producer. That 10% is still big enough that I don't think he should win, but it won't be a gross miscarriage of justice when he does.

Lee Daniels, Precious: When that many unknowns (Gabourey Sidibe, Paula Patton) and no-talent hacks (Mariah Carey, Mo'Nique) turn in performances that good, it's a safe bet that the director is the reason why.

Jason Reitman, Up In The Air: If you're making a comedy-drama, the darker the comedy, the harder it is to keep it balanced--dark comedy is not a tension-relieving change of pace from drama like laugh-out-loud comedy is.

Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds: As with Cameron, my problems are more with the writing than the directing, but the distinction is much blurrier in Tarantino's case.

I like Bigelow, but if you prefer Reitman I won't say you're wrong.

Best Actor:
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart: This performance rivals The Dude as Bridges' career-defining role. My big thing with acting is how much the actor does beyond what's explicitly in the script, and I have some major complaints about this script. Bridges and T. Bone Burnett get just about all the credit for the whole movie.

George Clooney, Up In The Air: He faces the public perception of him as a superficial playboy (a reputation for which he has nobody to blame but himself) head-on in this role. It's certainly a good performance, but I don't think he would have been nominated if not for the connections to his own life. Contrast with Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler, whose performance would have deserved the Oscar no matter what his personal life had been like.

Colin Firth, A Single Man: I never once thought of Mr. Darcy in Pride & Prejudice while watching this, a comparable accomplishment to Bridges playing someone who doesn't remind me of Lebowski.

Morgan Freeman, Invictus: He was nominated basically for being Morgan Freeman and playing Nelson Mandela. He evokes Mandela's appearance and mannerisms impressively, but gets just as much of the blame as the writers for sanitizing and oversimplifying a deeply complex person. It's a travesty that he was nominated over Sharlto Copley in District 9, Vincent Gallo in Tetro, Sam Rockwell in Moon, Joseph Gordon-Levitt in (500) Days of Summer.

Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker: Most actors would have gone too over-the-top with this role. Not on purpose, but because it's a tightrope walk to get the character right. Renner never falters, but the performance isn't as memorable as the other nominees.

Colin Firth is the best here, but in ways probably too subtle for the voters to pick him over Bridges, who is almost as deserving.

Best Actress:
Sandra Bullock, Blind Side: She's one of the only worthwhile things about the film. For an actor this famous, it's an accomplishment if I'm thinking of her character as "Leanne" rather than "Sandra" by the end. But there's absolutely nothing challenging about the role, no decisions for her to make that a community-theater actor couldn't get right.

Helen Mirren, The Last Station: haven't seen it yet.

Carey Mulligan, An Education: haven't seen it yet.

Gabourey Sidibe, Precious: The most subtle, gradual performance as a dynamic character I saw from any actor or actress all year. Only Firth and Gallo are close.

Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia: The epitome of going beyond the script. Took a deliberately superficial film and gave it depth.

Of Streep and Sidibe, I'm more certain that Streep gets the credit, rather than the writer or director. Both are worthy.

Supporting Actor:
Matt Damon, Invictus: He pulls off a difficult accent, but the script neither provides anything interesting or difficult for him to do nor gives him the leeway to embellish.

Woody Harrelson, The Messenger: It's very hard to give the audience a look inside the head of an emotionally-closed off character.

Christopher Plummer, The Last Station: haven't seen it yet.

Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones: In a way, he's too good. It's not believable that someone that creepy isn't a suspect.

Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds: He's the biggest reason nobody noticed the major problems with the film.

Waltz, hands down. Might be the first unanimous vote in Academy history.

Supporting Actress:
Penelope Cruz, Nine: Inexplicable. Everyone involved in the film sets a new career low. Her only job in it is to look good in sexy lingerie. She succeeds, but I didn't know they gave out Oscars for that. Don't be surprised if Julianne Moore "accidentally" spills red wine on Cruz's dress at the ceremony.

Vera Farmiga, Up In The Air: My favorite thing about the performance is a plot spoiler.

Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart: Like Matt Damon, it's the script's fault she's undeserving. She has a little more to work with than he does, though.

Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air: She manages to steal scenes from George Clooney.

Mo'Nique, Precious: So good that I'm at a loss for words.

Usually the supporting categories are too close to call and the lead categories have obvious choices. Other way around this year. It's Mo'Nique's.


My top 100 movies of the 00's

howlingfrog howlingfrog writes  |  about 5 years ago

This list is purely subjective: it's about how much enjoyment I personally got out of each of these. It should not be construed as an argument that Zombieland is a better film in any objective sense than Capote or Waltz With Bashir or Frost/Nixon. It's not. I just had more fun watching it. All right, enough disclaiming, on with the list:

    1. Spirited Away
    2. The Incredibles
    3. Up
    4. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
    5. Serenity
    6. Hot Fuzz
    7. Shrek
    8. Batman Begins
    9. Pan's Labyrinth
  10. The Queen
  11. Ratatouille
  12. The Wrestler
  13. Monsters, Inc
  14. District 9
  15. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
  16. Wall-E
  17. Revolutionary Road
  18. 500 Days of Summer
  19. Gone Baby Gone
  20. In the Valley of Elah
  21. Moon
  22. Precious
  23. Tetro
  24. Paranormal Activity
  25. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
  26. Stardust
  27. Fido
  28. Memento
  29. Shaun of the Dead
  30. V for Vendetta
  31. Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
  32. O Brother, Where Art Thou?
  33. Big Fish
  34. High Fidelity
  35. Spider-Man 2
  36. Burn After Reading
  37. Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day
  38. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
  39. The Bourne Identity
  40. A Christmas Carol (2009)
  41. Sideways
  42. Kill Bill Vol. 2
  43. American Splendor
  44. Lost in Translation
  45. Star Trek 2009
  46. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
  47. X-Men
  48. Hellboy II
  49. Coraline
  50. The Illusionist
  51. Slumdog Millionaire
  52. Zombieland
  53. Rachel Getting Married
  54. Hero
  55. Capote
  56. Eastern Promises
  57. Fantastic Mr. Fox
  58. Bright Star
  59. Up In The Air
  60. Drag Me To Hell
  61. Ponyo
  62. Waltz With Bashir
  63. Gladiator
  64. A History of Violence
  65. There Will Be Blood
  66. State and Main
  67. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
  68. Kill Bill Vol. 1
  69. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
  70. Spider-Man
  71. The Boondock Saints
  72. Almost Famous
  73. The Hurt Locker
  74. Bolt
  75. Pineapple Express
  76. Casino Royale
  77. The Dark Knight
  78. Unbreakable
  79. Remember the Titans
  80. Holes
  81. Chicken Run
  82. Shadow of the Vampire
  83. Sin City
  84. Minority Report
  85. Watchmen
  86. The Simpsons Movie
  87. Adventureland
  88. Iron Man
  89. Frost/Nixon
  90. Taken
  91. Milk
  92. Tropic Thunder
  93. The Aristocrats
  94. Sherlock Holmes
  95. The Bourne Ultimatum
  96. Doubt
  97. Superbad
  98. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
  99. The Triplets of Belleville
100. No Country for Old Men

The following movies didn't quite make the list. I liked them enough to mention them, but can't justify taking anything out of the top 100 to put them in:
Amazing Grace
Bend It Like Beckham
Brokeback Mountain
The Cove
The Departed
Fantasia 2000
Finding Nemo
Good Night, and Good Luck.
Kung Fu Panda
Lucky Number Slevin
Ocean's Eleven
Over the Hedge
Ready to Rumble
The Tale of Despereaux
Titan A.E.
Where the Wild Things Are
Wonder Boys

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?