Jedi Council Forums - 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Films » Revenge of the Sith »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
DarthSparhawk Registered: Jan '06	Date Posted: 1/6/06 12:48pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	It's insulting. I respect Harry Potter a lot, but ROTS is the movie of 2005. Hayden did excellent in ROTS. The movie was beautiful, excellent. But you know, i don't give a **** to polls, to Awards, not even to the Oscars. What is important is the film itself - and it is the best.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ed-A_1978 Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 1/6/06 4:08pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	RolandofGilead posted: I understand the frustration, but let's refrain from commenting on the quality of Users on other boards. Slam IMDB all you want since Nominating RotS for worst effects is proof positive they have an agenda, but leave their peeps alone. You must be joking. When people vote GOF as best film of the year (as well as 3rd funniest film, 3rd scariest film, 3rd best action film and best popcorn (most entertaining) movie), Daniel Radcliffe as 2nd best actor, Emma Watson as 3rd best actress, Rupert Grint for 2nd best supporting actor and Emma Watson AGAIN for 2nd best supporting actress, then they deserve all the crap they get and long may it continue. I am actually quite offended by this farce of a poll.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
yoshifett Registered: Apr '04	Date Posted: 1/6/06 4:17pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	I feel out of my chair laughing when I read Daniel Radcliff was voted the second best actor of the year. He's a servicable Harry Potter, but not outstanding in any way. Compare his performance to Ewan's. It's laughable, nothing to get upset about. It must be pure 14 year olds voting.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
RolandofGilead Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Jan '01	Date Posted: 1/6/06 4:28pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	I sense a plot to destroy Revenge of the Sith -----signature----- Satan's not in a guitar pick, he's inside all of us. In here, in your hearts. He's what makes us not want to go to work, or exercise, or tell the truth. He's that little voice in your mind that says "**** you" to the people you hate.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GeneralDooku Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 1/6/06 5:02pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	Well, I just checked and Ian McDiarmid is the last one listed for Best Supporting Actor! Mabey if well all vote (or vote again) we can keep him on there! Yay! -----signature----- "Gettin pretty hot under these lights eh Seinfeld?" -NEWMAN
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
yoshifett Registered: Apr '04	Date Posted: 1/6/06 5:13pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	I'd agree with you general dooku, but I'm starting to think that it's more of an insult to be on that list than an honor.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
wcleere Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 1/6/06 10:51pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	Imdb is really only good for the following: Box Office and business Finding out which actors are dead and which are not Cast Lists and finally...seeing the failed acting career and horrible picture of yours truly -----signature----- Shameless Promotion: http://www.williamcleere.com "And so it is"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KILLER-CLONE Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 1/7/06 2:38pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	The fact that Doom rates lower that ROTS in the worst FX list should tell you plenty about the demographic of IMDb. Just a bunch of basher losers.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Anagorn Registered: Jul '03	Date Posted: 1/7/06 2:52pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	"What kind of nonsense is this?!" Seriously... Hayden was amazing in every way in ROTS! Nobody could have done it better! -----signature----- God Bless The United States Of EUROPA!
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MissPadme Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 1/7/06 4:49pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	Right...it's what Kevin Smith called the he-man Lucas haters club, or those who suffer from what I call Lucas Derangement Syndrome stuffing these polls and from what I understand IMDB is full of them. --MissPadme -----signature----- http://lazypadawan.livejournal.com The Star Wars Prequel Appreciation Society http://starwarsprequelappreciationsociety.wordpress.com/ I spent too much on collectibles! Where's my bailout?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
LuliaOlenska Registered: Aug '05	Date Posted: 1/7/06 8:24pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	You know, some days, it's not easy being a SW fan! I bought (as I have been doing for about 12 years now) the Entertainment Weekly year-end issue, and man, snarkity-snark-snark-snark. I mean, you guys, it is SO uncoolTM to like Star Wars! It represents everything that's wrong with H'wood! Hayden sucks! George Lucas can't write! But Yoda is kinda cool! And Chewbacca too! I'm being sarcastic, of course. I think that Gl would have let, I dunno, some arty-fartsy "great" screenwriter do the script, cast Jake friggin' Gyllenhaal (he's, like, the best thing since sliced bread!) as Anakin and shot entirely in exteriors (blue/green screen is so the death of movie-making!) and they still would have bashed it. Why? Beats me. -----signature----- One may smile and smile, and be a villain -W. Shakespeare, Hamlet
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
CuppaJoe Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 1/8/06 10:08pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	JamesBatista posted: The only polls I believe in are metal ones that are shiny... that and Poles like John Paul II and stuff. And these guys: What a killer band. -----signature----- MADMARTIGAN! August 15, 2008! What would Lando do?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Blue_Jedi33 Registered: Aug '03	Date Posted: 1/8/06 11:10pm Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	You know what these polls tell us is that there are more internet type people that really hate SW than dedicated fans. Some of the votes go against all reason. How can ROTS be in the voting for worst movie of 2005 when it made the most money. Broke over 6 records. Clearly millions of movie goers enjoyed this movie. Yet movies like "Doom" and "The Cave" which are way down the list making $25 million and $15 million aren't even on the list. You could add up the 10 worst movies of 2005 and they wouldn't even come close to the ticket sales of ROTS. Anybody with half a brain cell can go look at the 2005 ticket sales at www.boxcofficemojo.com look at how 150 films are ranked, and come up with a better list than IMBD How about these movies in no particular order Electra The Cave Doom Aeon Flux Lord of War The Honeymooners Dark Water The Fog House of Wax Stealth Now that is a more realistic list you don't take the top grossing movies of 2005 and put them in worst movie catagory, you pick the bottom grossing movies. These guys are brain dead. -----signature----- What is worse, the ignorant uneducated fool, or the educated defenders of that fool?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tyranus_the_Hutt Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 1/9/06 10:53am Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	How can ROTS be in the voting for worst movie of 2005 when it made the most money. Broke over 6 records. Clearly millions of movie goers enjoyed this movie. Common sense would suggest that a film which raked in that sort of money would be liked by at least a portion of its audience. While I don’t think that box-office success is necessarily indicative of the underlying worth of a picture, it does at the very least speak to the popularity of a particular film at a given time – in other words, someone must have enjoyed it. Yet movies like "Doom" and "The Cave" which are way down the list making $25 million and $15 million aren't even on the list. You could add up the 10 worst movies of 2005 and they wouldn't even come close to the ticket sales of ROTS. I am going to reiterate what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, which is that a picture’s financial haul does not equate to its artistic merit; many good or even great films have fared poorly at the box-office, and yet have found audiences and endured on home video/DVD. Frank Darabont’s "The Shawshank Redemption" is one of the most infamous examples of this trait; a movie’s box-office failure cannot always be determined by focus groups, statistics, charts, etc. – sometimes, a picture fizzles for reasons that defy any sort of traditional logic. As for the two films you mentioned, I avoided "The Cave," but I have seen "Doom," which is unequivocally one of the worst pictures of the year. Andrzej Bartkowiak, who directed the picture (and is also a respected cinematographer) has made some bad movies in the past ("Cradle 2 The Grave" – which was, astonishingly, based on Fritz Lang’s "M" – "Romeo Must Die," and "Exit Wounds") but this languid video-game adaptation is perhaps his single worst achievement as a filmmaker. And yes, I recognize that given Barkowiak’s filmography, that is quite a statement to make. Anybody with half a brain cell can go look at the 2005 ticket sales at www.boxcofficemojo.com look at how 150 films are ranked, and come up with a better list than IMBD Forget about the financial return of the motion pictures in question, that IMDB poll surpasses absurdity on its own merit. Let’s look at it more closely: Best Actor: (in the categories I address below, I will not explore all of the nominees, just those that I find to be mystifying) Daniel Radcliffe, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – GOF is a terrific entertainment, and Radcliffe is very good as the title characters, but honestly, is this performance worthy of a "Best Actor" citation? Johnny Depp, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" – Depp is of course a wonderful and gifted actor, but his performance in Burton’s film was completely miscalculated; I admired Depp’s willingness to reinvent the character of Willy Wonka, but the absence of a certain humanity in his characterization prevented the movie from being emotionally engaging. Christian Bale, "Batman Begins" – I thought that "Batman Begins" was one of the best pictures of last year, with Bale giving the deepest and most resonant performance in any of the "Batman" pictures thus far – he penetrated the psychology of his tortured protagonist, and yet...once again, this is not exactly the sort of role that warrants award consideration. Nathan Fillion, "Serenity" – Fillion was wonderful as Mal in Joss Whedon’s "Serenity," but his inclusion as one of the finalists for Best Actor is utterly perplexing (see above). Best Actress: Emma Watson, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – Yes, I enjoyed the film, and yes, I enjoyed Watson’s engaging performance, but really, Best Actress? I don’t think so. Summer Glau, "Serenity" – I liked "Serenity," and Glau certainly has screen presence, but to consider her among the candidates for Best Actress is beyond ridiculous. Angelina Jolie, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" – Once again, I liked the picture, as well as Jolie’s performance, but this isn’t what you might traditionally describe as "great acting." Best Supporting Actor: Rupert Grint, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – Grint is perfectly well-cast in the "Harry Potter" films, and I could not imagine the series without him, but this isn’t Best Supporting Actor material. Adam Baldwin, "Serenity" – I enjoyed the film, but alas, not Mr. Baldwin’s performance. How is he even the Best Supporting Actor in "Serenity"? If you absolutely must nominate someone, how about the marvelous Chiwetel Ejiofor? With all due respect to Baldwin, why in the hell is he in contention for this award? NOTE: I have some difficulties with a couple of the other nominees in this category, but for the purpose of brevity, I listed only the most contentious above. Best Supporting Actress: Emma Watson, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – No (see above). Dakota Fanning, "War of the Worlds" – If a juvenile performer must be nominated in this category, what about Flora Cross’ extraordinary work in the overlooked "Bee Season"? Fanning was good in WOTW, but not outstanding to the extent that her performance merits a nomination of this sort. Jessica Alba, "Sin City" – Ms. Alba is very attractive and has an alluring screen presence, but she does little in "Sin City" that warrants an inclusion on this list (or rather, given the list’s absurdity, perhaps she does fit in just fine). Best Director: I have fewer issues with the list of names included in this category, but if I had to single out a couple of names, they would include the following: Joss Whedon, "Serenity" – I will reiterate that I enjoyed this film, but Mr. Whedon’s direction, which was appropriate to the material, and mostly efficient (there is one specific instance of sloppy filmmaking that I am not going to address here), is in no way, shape or form comparable to the many other great feats of moviemaking, commercial or otherwise, that were on display in 2005. Mike Newell, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – The middle section of this epic fantasy picture is as well-crafted as one could hope, but the first and last acts are thrown together awkwardly, making the film as a whole remarkably uneven. I hate to be so critical of Newell’s work here, as I greatly enjoyed his picture, but unfortunately I cannot support his inclusion in this list of nominees. I would go off on Nolan and Lucas, but I think you get the point here. Best Picture: It should be noted that only three of the films included on this list of titles ("Brokeback Mountain," "Sin City" and "Munich") are on my "Top 10" list for 2005. That said, I did enjoy all of the movies included here, three of which (aside from the two I already mentioned) I consider to be four-star pictures ("King Kong," "Batman Begins," and "Star Wars Episode III – Revenge of the Sith"), so the only titles I would question here are "The Chronicles of Narnia," "Serenity," and to a much lesser extent, "Crash" and "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." I can live with the inclusion of the latter titles, but the others are a little bit confounding. Funniest Movie: "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – Collecting a whopping 30% of the votes, it sits in second place behind "Wedding Crashers." Since when is "Goblet of Fire" a comedy? I must have missed something. "Serenity" – Once again, I fail to understand how this film classifies as being "comedic"? It has its humorous moments, but it is hardly a laugh-riot. Scariest Movie: "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – The fix is in. Best Documentary: "Walk the Line" – This may be a docu-drama, but it certainly isn't a documentary. Worst Picture: "War of the Worlds" – This isn’t necessarily my favorite film of 2005, but I cannot fathom how it can be in contention for Worst Picture of the Year. "Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith" – This was one of the year’s great entertainments, and in my opinion it stands as the best of the Lucas-helmed "Star Wars" pictures. Obviously, I am in the minority. "Brokeback Mountain" – Ang Lee’s sensitive love story is one of the year’s best films – certainly it is not among the worst offerings in a year that has given us junk like "Elektra," "Wolf Creek," "Monster-in-Law," "A Sound of Thunder," "XXX: State of the Union," "Mindhunters," "The Man," "Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy," "Fun With Dick and Jane," "The Longest Yard," "Guess Who," "Stealth," "Chaos," "Dirty Love," and so on. "King Kong" – Another of the year’s great entertainments, it is confounding to see that Peter Jackson’s majestic picture, along with the three aforementioned films in this category, are (according to this list) worse than the likes of "Get Rich or Die Tryin" "Fantastic Four," and yes, even "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo." "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – Why is this marvelous entertainment included on this list? Worst Actor: Tom Cruise, "War of the Worlds" – I suppose I am virtually alone in thinking that Cruise was actually quite convincing in this film, bringing energy and conviction to his performance which sort of held the episodic narrative together to some degree. I wonder if Cruise’s recent antics have anything to do with his inclusion on this list. Hayden Christensen, "Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith" – The frequently maligned Christensen contributed what I thought was a passionate and moving performance in the final chapter of the "Star Wars" saga, but I suppose I can understand some of the criticisms directed towards his work, even if I do not agree with them. Daniel Radcliffe, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – I have already expounded upon Radcliffe’s work in this film, and so I shall not reiterate my points, but suffice to say that it is utterly baffling to see his name among those in contention for Worst Actor. Orlando Bloom, "Kingdom of Heaven" – Although I felt that Bloom’s work in Ridley Scott’s vastly underrated epic was not as convincing as it needed to be, given his role in the film, I would not for one moment suggest that his performance was "bad." Worst Actress: Katie Holmes, "Batman Begins" – I suppose that I am one of the few people who have not been critical of Holmes’ performance in this film; while I don’t consider her work here to be exemplary by any means, she was more than adequate in this picture, especially given the nature of the material with which she had to work. Natalie Portman, "Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith" – As unpopular as this might seem, I actually enjoyed Ms. Portman’s work in this installment, particularly in the film’s second hour, where she brought an emotional quality to the picture that made its concluding act considerably more affecting. Angelina Jolie, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" – Jolie was terrific in this part, expertly negotiating the heroic, sexy, and comedic aspects of her role. Why she is included on this list I do not know. Worst Supporting Actor: Where to begin... Jack Black, "King Kong" – I was one of the few that did not consider Black to be miscast in this picture; I enjoyed the comedic energy and lacerating wit that he brought to the production. Indeed, his delivery of the movie’s last line is not very skillful, and yet I can think of few actors that might be able to pull off such an awkward bit of dialogue. Tim Robbins, "War of the Worlds" – I though Robbins’ manic presence in the latter part of Spielberg’s invasion epic was quite appropriate and well-managed. I fail to understand why it is that Robbins was included on this list. Rupert Grint, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – I’ve said enough about GOF; needless to say, I don’t know why Grint is in contention for Worst Supporting Actor. Jake Gyllenhaal, "Brokeback Mountain" – Clearly, something is amiss, as Gyllenhaal gave a nuanced, sensitive performance in Ang Lee’s haunting film. Ewan McGregor, "Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith" – McGregor was once again outstanding as Obi-Wan Kenobi in this picture; why he is a nominee for Worst Supporting Actor is beyond me. William Hurt, "A History of Violence" – Hurt gave a virtuoso, scene-stealing cameo performance in Cronenberg’s best film; yes, Hurt’s acting leans somewhat towards melodrama, but given the context of the performance, that is quite appropriate. Worst Supporting Actress: Katie Holmes, "Batman Begins" – See above. Dakota Fanning, "War of the Worlds" – See above. Emma Watson, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – See above. Natalie Portman, "Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith" – See above. Worst Director: George Lucas, "Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith" – As heretical as this may seem, I think that "Episode III" contains some of Lucas’ best directing for a SW film; yes, there are some routine performances and wooden dialogue, but the coherence and visual symmetry of this picture is astonishing. "Sith" is a grand spectacle, a terrific entertainment, and a dazzling piece of showmanship. Steven Spielberg, "War of the Worlds" – This is indeed one of Spielberg’s weakest efforts in some time, but that does not in any way suggest that he should be in contention for Worst Director. "War of the Worlds," despite its flaws, does contain a couple of virtuoso set pieces, which are skillful enough that a director not in possession of Spielberg’s gifts would be hard-pressed to realize. Peter Jackson, "King Kong" – No, it isn’t perfect, but Jackson’s "Kong" is a magnificent epic – a fusion of spectacle and intimacy told in terms of sweeping gestures. Jackson’s accomplishment here is to embellish the relationship between Ann Darrow and Kong, making it seem more tender and plausible than its characterization in the 1933 Merian C. Cooper original. Michael Bay, "The Island" – I had a mixed reaction to this film on my initial viewing, but having considered it again, I am of the mind that it is actually one of Michael Bay’s more accomplished and entertaining works. Yes, the film is a bit of a mess – two disparate halves stuck together awkwardly – but the movie is dynamic and intriguing, with two very efficient lead performances by Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. Ang Lee, "Brokeback Mountain" – This is getting so ridiculous that I am beginning to wonder why it is that Ingmar Bergman failed to make the short list for this "award." Mike Newell, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – This being one of the more entertaining installments in the series, I fail to see how it is that Newell can be one of the candidates in this category. It is amusing to note that Uwe Boll is leading this category for his work in the film, "Alone in the Dark." This is a movie that grossed just over $6 million worldwide, and we are supposed to believe that enough people have seen it to honestly weigh in on the voting? I get the sense that Boll’s reputation for directing bad films probably led to his inclusion in the list. Worst Screenplay: "Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith" – I suppose this is more or less an obvious target for voters, with its stylized verbiage, and clunky love scenes, yet I can think of few popular entertainments whose narratives are as complex and rife with many intricate allusions as this particular film. "War of the Worlds" – The screenplay is not perfect, but I don’t think it qualifies to be among the worst of the year. What about Jenny McCarthy’s script for "Dirty Love"? Doesn’t that merit consideration in this category? Of course not; instead, we can pick on the screenplays for ROTS, WOTW, KK, GOF, and yes, "Brokeback Mountain." "King Kong" – Yes, there is some clunker dialogue in this screenplay, but what is most astonishing here is the manner in which the story precariously negotiates the intimate and the spectacular; there are so many ways in which the narrative could have become encumbered in solemnity, but the script avoids such pitfalls and works wonderfully as a multi-tiered epic. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" – The farce continues...one of the most literate adaptations of J.K. Rowling’s material to date is in contention for Worst Screenplay? "Brokeback Mountain" – I get the feeling that there is some degree of hostility being exhibited towards this film… Worst Visual Effects: I am not going to elaborate, but to see "King Kong," "The Chronicles of Narnia," "Star Wars: Episode III," and "War of the Worlds" get more votes for Worst Visual Effects than "Doom," "A Sound of Thunder," and "Stealth," it utterly ridiculous, and yet consistent with the level of absurdity being maintained in these various categories. There are a few other categories, but I am not going to explore them as I feel the point has been made. How about these movies in no particular order Electra The Cave Doom Aeon Flux Lord of War The Honeymooners Dark Water The Fog House of Wax Stealth I thought that "Lord of War" was an excellent film, and I will continue to defend it. "Dark Water" was not exactly brilliant, but director Walter Salles brought a distinct visual style to the material that made it kind of interesting. The rest of the titles are either horrid or unseen by me ("The Cave"; "The Fog"). -----signature----- "The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle." - Stanley Kubrick
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
RolandofGilead Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Jan '01	Date Posted: 1/9/06 11:14am Subject: RE: 2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com
	I love you Tyranus_the_Hutt. And before RotS is executed in the arena, I wanted you to know that. ~sniff! -----signature----- Satan's not in a guitar pick, he's inside all of us. In here, in your hearts. He's what makes us not want to go to work, or exercise, or tell the truth. He's that little voice in your mind that says "**** you" to the people you hate.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Films » Revenge of the Sith »