As for the list itself, I only have two real issues with it. One is that Ultraviolet isn’t on there; the other is that, as usual, it’s the hundred worst mainstream American films of the decade. If you’re going to shamelessly generalize, hit the video store first.

I’m not sure I’d trust the judgement of anyone that masochistic.

highlyverbal, RE:

“These would all deserve italics in my book, because I can’t consider 2000 as part of this decade.”

1st, a decade doesn’t have to mean `the 90s’ or `the 80s’ or whatever as, while that’s it’s common usage, the word can be used to mean merely `10 consecutive years’ (i.e 06/14/1876 to 05/14/1886 is a decade) and the list clearly just says `the decade’.

But even if we’re applying the common usage the convention has been to bound a decade by name i.e. 1990-1991 so I can onyl assume your objection is based around the old `there was no year zero’ misconception. Since our whole calenda was made up years after `the fact’ anyway, speaking in a strick mathmatical sense any given two number lines can overlap so there is no porblem in considering 1 BC to ALSO be 0 AD and 1 AD to also be BC. This effectively removes the issue and is more inline with the general idea of what a whole number is (the end of a transition from the previous whole number, not the begining) so rather than thinking of the year 2000 being the 2000th year one can consider the year 2000 to being the incomplete 2001st year in the AD sequence.

Hey, man they’ve sure made some bad movies this decade haven’t they?

I mean, it’s not like anyone decided to experience these movies with any illusion that they’d be enjoyable, unless you were marooned on a satellite with a few wisecracking robots.

The year zero was spent in 2000 years worth of leap years. Get over yourselves.

Then again, a Top # of Anything List is designed solely to generate traffic, comments, and arguments, these days. Plus they’re easy to churn out on a deadline, which is I’m sure why so many websites do Top # of Anything Lists.