PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars & The Best and Worst of 2005



Lowly Bantha Cleaner
01-04-2006, 09:15 PM
The Internet Movie Database has launched a fan poll that asks viewers opinions regarding the best in Cinema in 2005. There are several different categories in which one can vote on, including best/worst flick, actor/actress, supporting actor/actress, independent film, trailer, poster and family movie (among other categories).

Star Wars Episode III unfortunately racks up a few dubious awards including worst screenplay and is up there with worst actor and actress (Hayden & Natalie respectively). Go and cast your vote using the links below.

http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2006/poll/bestresults

http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2006/poll/worstresults

JediTricks
01-05-2006, 05:15 PM
Seems like they don't like it, poor Nat gets listed in 2 "worst actress" categories for the movie ("worst" and "worst supporting"), that's gotta suck!

Slicker
01-05-2006, 06:19 PM
Whatever. These people are nuts. I've heard of only a handful of the movies on the best list but I've seen 90% of the ones on the worst list. Does that mean that I choose crappy movies or that the critics suck? I personally will go with the latter.

Elliejabbapop
01-06-2006, 08:47 AM
Whatever. These people are nuts. I've heard of only a handful of the movies on the best list but I've seen 90% of the ones on the worst list. Does that mean that I choose crappy movies or that the critics suck? I personally will go with the latter.

Well said. I'm a film critic and I can assure you critics never agree but unfortunately only 10% of the world's critics are involved in these polls, which means only 10% get to decide what's good or bad. Does that seem fair to anyone? Not to mention many reviews are born out of spite or trust without considering all the elements. This goes even moreso for ordinary people: would so many people have voted for Katie Holmes as worst actress for "Batman Begins" (in which she was fairly good) were it not that she's been involved in the Tom Cruise scandal?

JediTricks
01-06-2006, 02:44 PM
This goes even moreso for ordinary people: would so many people have voted for Katie Holmes as worst actress for "Batman Begins" (in which she was fairly good) were it not that she's been involved in the Tom Cruise scandal?Well yeah, she was AWFUL in that film, even before the Tom/Katie thing really heated up, she was the single weak element in an otherwise outstanding film, that really affected the issue, the film flew high and she didn't meet that (though I blame WB and the casting director for choosing her in the first place, she was all wrong from the start). This poll was voted on by anybody who was on IMDB when the polls were live, so I don't think it had anything to do with elitism.

Elliejabbapop
01-06-2006, 03:09 PM
Well yeah, she was AWFUL in that film, even before the Tom/Katie thing really heated up, she was the single weak element in an otherwise outstanding film, that really affected the issue, the film flew high and she didn't meet that (though I blame WB and the casting director for choosing her in the first place, she was all wrong from the start). This poll was voted on by anybody who was on IMDB when the polls were live, so I don't think it had anything to do with elitism.

I think that's overdoing it: what about Alicia Silverstone in "Batman and Robin"? And when I said "this goes even moreso for ordinary people" I obviously meant "people who are not critics", so this "elitism" comment is quite inappropriate. The fact that I said critics are "involved" in these polls doesn't mean I think of them as direct voters. This is a mere assumption.

JediTricks
01-06-2006, 03:58 PM
I think that's overdoing it: what about Alicia Silverstone in "Batman and Robin"?She was pretty weak there, no doubt, but when you're bad in a bad movie nobody really singles you out for it. Plus, it was a decade ago.

Elliejabbapop
01-06-2006, 04:14 PM
Plus, it was a decade ago.

That is no excuse. It was a bad movie, but "Batman Begins" was an excellent movie (your opinion of it is clear from your post, unless you expressed yourself inappropiately) and in order to be excellent all the elements must have been in the right place, including Katie Holmes. "First Knight" had excellent actors, engaging scenary, lovely costumes, a solemn score and a good script but Richard Gere's terrible performance turned it into a mediocre film. If Katie Holmes' performance had been that bad she would have ruined the movie.

JediTricks
01-06-2006, 04:31 PM
You said I was overdoing it by singling out Katie Holmes and you used Alicia Silverstone from Batman & Robin as a counter-argument, I replied that the time factor is at issue there because I was trying to point out that nobody talks about that movie in current terms since it's not current. If this were 1997 and we were voting on "worst actress" lists, then talking about Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl would be a fair comparison, but it's not.


"Batman Begins" was an excellent movie and in order to be excellent all the elements must have been in the right place, including Katie Holmes. "First Knight" had excellent actors, engaging scenary, lovely costumes, a solemn score and a good script but Richard Gere's terrible performance turned it into a mediocre film. If Katie Holmes' performance had been that bad she would have ruined the movie.I disagree, lots of excellent movies can have sour notes in secondary roles and still come up smelling like roses, and Katie Holmes was most definitely a secondary role in Batman Begins. Look at the original Batman Begins thread here in the forums after the movie came out, nearly everybody singled out her performance as the single weak spot of the film.

Elliejabbapop
01-06-2006, 05:00 PM
You said I was overdoing it by singling out Katie Holmes and you used Alicia Silverstone from Batman & Robin as a counter-argument, I replied that the time factor is at issue there because I was trying to point out that nobody talks about that movie in current terms since it's not current. If this were 1997 and we were voting on "worst actress" lists, then talking about Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl would be a fair comparison, but it's not.

I referenced her because, just like Holmes, she's part of the Batman franchise so I think mine was a fair comment. Isn't that what you do all the time with the SW prequels? How can you compare them with the originals since we're not in 1983? :rolleyes:


I disagree, lots of excellent movies can have sour notes in secondary roles and still come up smelling like roses,

Such as?


and Katie Holmes was most definitely a secondary role in Batman Begins.

By these standards she shouldn't bother you at all. Since she is not Christian Bale she had no effect on the outcome of the movie. However, you said she weakened it so you're obviously contradicting yourself. It's a pure syllogism: if "sour" doesn't bother "the roses", Holmes doesn't bother the film.


Look at the original Batman Begins thread here in the forums after the movie came out, nearly everybody singled out her performance as the single weak spot of the film.

What does it matter, since the movie "smells like roses"? :rolleyes:
BTW I know better than following the masses without reflection.

Devo
01-06-2006, 05:24 PM
Off topic but I'll post anyway. I lost all respect for Katie Holmes over the Tom Cruise thing. Not that I hate Tom cruise - I just think he's a wierdo, which makes her an even bigger one for going along with the whole thing. She turned away from her catholicism and her personal ban on sex before marriage as soon as the famous 80s pin-up took a liking to her and reeled her in with his seniority. Clearly Chris Klein just couldn't do that. And don't get me wrong - I'm an atheist - I don't care that she dropped her catholicism like a hot turd - it just seems so weak to me that she changed tack so easily.

As to her performance in Batman Begins - I must say I don't have a problem with it, I agree with Elliejabbapop's point about her being criticised unfairly because of the Tom Cruise thing...and also because of her background in Dawsons Creek perhaps.

Elliejabbapop
01-06-2006, 05:34 PM
...and also because of her background in Dawsons Creek perhaps.

Well, I hear Michelle Williams didn't do so bad for herself in "Brokeback mountain".

Slicker
01-06-2006, 05:39 PM
Wow this got quite off topic (imagine that :rolleyes: )











BTW, Katie Holmes is nasty especially with her down syndrome lazy a55 eyes.

Deoxyribonucleic
01-06-2006, 07:40 PM
Wow this got quite off topic (imagine that :rolleyes: )


No kidding. :yes:

I missed this poll on IMDB...did they give the list of movies for people to vote on or could you just put in whichever movie you wanted for each catagory as long as it was from 2005?

Elliejabbapop
01-07-2006, 03:17 AM
You can put whatever you like.

General_Grievous
01-07-2006, 11:26 AM
How the hell is it that Ian McDiarmid lost out to friggin' Ron Weasley? And Ewan McGregor is on the worst supporting list? I swear, the imdb is rubbish. And slightly off topic, but how is Sin City an independent film? And how did King Kong make it onto the Worst Visual Effects list?

Devo
01-07-2006, 05:55 PM
And how did King Kong make it onto the Worst Visual Effects list?

Because of the occasional effect sequence that reportedly wasn't up to scratch. I haven't seen the film but I read that the brontosaurus stampede looks a bit dodgy. Of course I've also read that Kong himself is an even better achievement than Gollum - high praise indeed. I think Gollum is the single best piece of CGI since the T-Rex in the first Jurassic Park so I'd certainly like to see what Kong looks like.

And semi-related to the Katie Holmes discussion I can think that the only reason Tom Cruise is on the worst actor list for War of the Worlds is because Tom Cruise, the man, has become unpopular of late - there was nothing wrong with his acting in that film. Does he need an oscar for it? No. But theres no justifiable reason for him to top a worst actor list or even be on it at all IMO.

Elliejabbapop
01-09-2006, 10:08 AM
the only reason Tom Cruise is on the worst actor list for War of the Worlds is because Tom Cruise, the man, has become unpopular of late - there was nothing wrong with his acting in that film. Does he need an oscar for it? No. But theres no justifiable reason for him to top a worst actor list or even be on it at all IMO.

I'm sure you are right, I haven't seen "War of the worlds" so I can't judge for myself, but lately his performances have had good outcomes. However, voting for Tom Cruise on the "worst actor" list after his recent behaviour and lack of brightness (I mean come on! Doesn't he understand Holmes is with him for the money? :stupid: ) must be damn satisfying... :twisted: