The "People's Choice" is Pure Idiocy


Whenever I share a new Top Ten List or Critic's Group Nomination list, I'm always extra careful to be fair and respectful of other peoples' opinions. But after seeing what the "People's Choice Awards" handed out for 2005's movies, I just can't contain myself. It's simply too hilarious. Back to Article



Tyler Peterson

the list absolutely sucks
i don't think sith was a great action movie, not withstanding a drama
best action movie should of gone to the 2nd hour of King Kong

Jan 11 - 04:39 AM

Blue Arc

First Last

Awful. How awful.

Jan 11 - 05:40 AM


Eric Schulze

Star Wars Episode III was definetly a drama? Did you even watch it??? or were you too busy drooling over natalie portman?? (I was...and i still got the drama) Episode III was the best movie of the year. Im glad someone agrees.

Jan 11 - 05:58 AM


akash shetye

i agree i mean i ussally am with a critic but it is a drama a in the future drama

Jan 17 - 01:29 PM


Han Nguyen

I suppose you could say Batman, SW, or Coach Carter were dramas because they had dramatic moments. Hell, 40 year old virgin had moments of drama. But in a classic sense of what the word means as it relates to movies, none of those three are "drama films." Entertainment Weekly and the people that voted are idiots! 'Nuff said.

Jan 11 - 06:23 AM


Bobby Brown

[b]Maybe This List is Sorta Right[/b]
I know the Peoples Choice Awards are sort of stupid, but sometimes they are actually more reliable than critics. Critics seem to like a movie if it is well made, not if it is entertaining. Like The Aviator. I think Star Wars deserved to win, because it was a very entertaining movie, and pretty well made.

Jan 11 - 06:30 AM


Brian Helmick

I cannot put any stock in a list that nominates Hitch for Favorite anything. And as much as I liked SW and loved BB, they simply do not belong in the drama category. And Coach Carter as another fav? That's just confusing.

Jan 11 - 06:41 AM


Christopher Haskew

[b]Peoples Choice, Who's People[/b]
Star Wars III Best drama, not even in a galaxy far far away..........

Jan 11 - 07:15 AM


Samuel Ewing

argh why can't people get over the fact that the overwhelming majoirty of people have different tastes than that of most critics and addictive RT users. I don't think this is a very good list but I don't see any problem with it except for the fact that it kind of looks like someone confused best with highest grossing, Well anyways viritually every awards association and top ten list is dedicated to the choices of film elites. I don't see why people have to bitch because one pseudo awards association puts up a counter-balance whether they like it or not

Jan 11 - 07:49 AM


Nancy Elizabeth

THe one that bothers me the most is Christian Bale not even geting recognized for his action role in Batman Beyond. He did AMAZING in that movie and although I enjoy Matthew McConaughey's work, he does far better in comedies.

Jan 11 - 08:21 AM


Brian Bara

[b]Ridiculous Choices by Ridiculous People[/b]
The problem is that anyone with a computer and Internet access can vote for the People's Choice Awards. So you have 12 year-olds voting for "Star Wars" as best Drama (of course, the people who run the awards made it a choice to begin with). It's all a part of the dumbing down of America.

Jan 11 - 09:47 AM


Alex Reyes

[b]not necessarily the dumbing of America[/b]
The awards system is stupid. It by no means represents Americans well. Especially when considering that votes come from the Internet. Gather ten hardcore Sandra Bullock fans, and theyl'l manage to send in thousands of votes. Now, which movie has one of the greatest fan bases of all?? Star wars. How many computer star war geeks can be behind of such results? thousands perhaps.. The idiocy comes from the system of the awards itself. No strong conclusions about americans can be drawn from them.
I'd actually say there is a de-dumbing of America. People can idealize the fifities, but i think the 20s-80s are the years that actually cultivated the dumb image America has. This dumb image is not one that will easily dissipate, especially considering that other countries just love to hold it, which is simply expected....

Jan 14 - 09:07 PM


Kevin Levan

QUOTE People can idealize the fifities, but i think the 20s-80s are the years that actually cultivated the dumb image America has END QUOTE

While I would be inclined to agree with you about the 80s. Probably the worst decade of American filmmaking, I still think that the 70s still represents the best of American filmmaking and filmmaking in general. Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Bernardo Bertolucci, Stanley Kubrick, Sam Peckinpah, William Friedken, John Schlesinger, James Bridges, George Lucas, Stanley Kramer, Steven Speilberg, etc not only changed the entire way we look at movies but they also produced the best work of their careers. The 70s filmmakers were as bold as the French new wavers and the great Italian realists such as De Sica (Umberto D.) and Rosselini (Open City). Some of the smartest, well made and most socially conscious films arose from the 70s. The Conformist, The Conversation, The French Connection, The Wild Bunch, American Grafitti, Serpico, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, the Godfather films, Apocalypse Now, Dog Day Afternoon, Straw Dogs, 2001, Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia, etc, etc. Since then it seems that American movies are only about one thing. The almighty $$$. Hence why every other movie these days is a tired video game adaption or an overbudget Simpson/Bruckheimer/Bay action crapfest. There are still alot of great foreign and independent films being made and it's the reason why I still go and pay for movies. Call me old fashioned but I do believe that they don't make em' like they use to. In fact, if it wasn't for all the well made animated films I've seen in the last decade or so I'd have to say Hollywood has pretty much lost the plot for good.

That being said, I found nothing more entertaining this year than a little British film called 'Wallace & Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit'. Too bad it was overshadowed by that abomination called 'Chicken Little'. W&G are my heroes!!!!


Jan 14 - 10:57 PM


Alex Reyes

[b]To Kevin's post in previous page:[/b]
Yeah, I wanted to skip the 70's, but I had to include the 80',s and that?s why they all were included in my quick opinionated statement. But again, you are taking the best of the 70's and the worst of the 90's and of this decade. In the seventies there were many just lame movies and worse TV (which is a good representative of culture). The movie industry, if it is largely commercial today, it was still almost purely commercial in the golden years of old: from soon after its conception, all the way to the 80s. When cinema started, it had dreamer artists backing it, but once hollywood took force, it was all business, it was all a show, another Vegas down south. Only a few artists made it through. This started to show some changes when it became a vogue to be an intellectual existentialist in the 70s. So some such artists were allowed in Hollywood right after European existentialist movies proved to be somewhat accepted in the market. Still, this was only a wave with a few filmakers, empowered by the masses which at the time embraced this intellectuality for the sake of intellectuality. So much intellectual crap proved little and got a bit old, so Hollywood went to the extreme of superficiality and stupidity in the 80s, which in turn made people realize about the need of balance and reality, and hence flourished the 90s in which there was more of a realist idealism.
It was then when art became more respected as part of the pop culture. It became almost the new vogue to ?think by yourself? and be an artist; the ?alternative? suddenly became ?mainstream?; even business started to embrace creativity, art, and individuality as assets. This all is not good if people only followed it because it was ?cool?, but the spirit in general was in fact useful for those who were encouraged and given more of a chance to actually do art, while it was possible to make money.
Today, there?s more space for art in the media business and Hollywood has benefited from that. Just try to picture an average producer and an average celebrity from the 50s, and you are likely to get a dirty crooked fat businessman and a former dancer in a club who was suddenly converted into a money making deity. Today, it is more common to find people who love their jobs and enter the media or movie business for the love of it, because there are more opportunities for that. So you are likely to find a producer that is an educated man with respect and certain love to movies, but who is also good in business. You are likely to find relatively more stars who who have a stronger grip of reality thanks to the de-deification of ?the celebrity?: the unattainable celebrity who was incapable of such vulgar common things as sweating, has been now humanized to the extent that anyone can become one. Today, more than ever before (and for many many different reasons more than the oversimplified ones im mentioning), it is quite easy to find a good foreign movie embraced by Americans, good independent movies in a commercial theater, great artistic movies backed up by studios, quality commercial and entertaining films, and even some TV with some substance.
Sure, the bruckheimer/bay films still make money in America, and other nationalities enjoy making fun of Americans for making those movies, but believe me, Ive lived both in Mexico and France, where people feel too intellectual just because they are not American (and, in the case of the French, also for being French), but all these intellectuals would often end up going to the theater to see the worst of American films, films which even I who love movies like Little Nicky, cannot endure. French streets would be filled with propaganda of movies like the Cave, and people still ran to see them after bashing them. Seriously, it was hard to catch a good semi-independent American movie on a big theater in France (not in Mexico, I guess because it?s close to the US). Even most of the French commercial movies that thank God we dont get to see in this continent, are pitiful compared to say Adam Sandler movies. And there are many of such commercial French movies, against only a few serious ones, and fewer yet that are actually what is popularly known as good French cinema. Look at the European box office, and you?ll find that in proportion it is not that different from the American one.

In the US and outside, American commercial films are made to be liked, to be easy to watch, and they happen to excel in that, which is not necessarily bad. The main problem I started to talk about is that EW tried to falsely state that Americans believe that the movies in those awards are the ?best? films of the year. They state such a thing using such an ambiguous method as internet voting and who knows what method for the nominations, and thats just lame.

I guess Im just trying to go against the excessive stereotypes against both America and the present times (especially the recently gone

Jan 16 - 01:03 AM


andrew kruzel

[b]So the average American should have no say?[/b]
So you are saying that only uptight critics can nominate and vote for the best movies of the year and the average American,whose opinion is more important, should not count? I hate to tell you but even if they did this award show with a better way of receiving votes then the results would be close to the same because most Americans do not like the same movies that the uptight, loser critics like.

Jan 16 - 09:51 AM


Alex Reyes

well, the critics do have certain respectability for that, but no, im not saying that, i think there can be ways of determining what people think. Go to imdb, see the user's votes (which are way more in numnber than in EW, and there s less interest of fans to try to change the results to their own likes/dislikes), and you ll find that the general public in larger numbers than those who vote in EW, do vote more like the critics.
As another example, I think that the box office would be a better determinant than simple one-site, limited-time internet voting, but, of course, way less exciting, as the numbers are available all the time to all. Still, if box office results where studied and other variables were taken into account such as reactions through carefully carried polls, number of theaters where it was presented, amount of money spent in advertising campaigns among others, good results could be drawn. With the box office alone, the results would also include star wars and wedding crashers, but also march of the penguins and crash (and i wasnt a big fan of crash), would have had important mentions, as both were small movies that did surprisingly well in the box office. Im sure some of the results would have been similar, but some others would have leaned more to the general critic side. Critics are part of the people too, but neither you or them are losers for having different tastes, and all should be considered for a "people's choice" award.

Jan 16 - 11:37 AM


andrew kruzel

[b]whats the website?[/b]
what is the website i should go to?

Jan 16 - 12:17 PM


Kevin Levan

Are we talking 'Entertainment Weekly' the magazine? That's too bad. That's one of the few magazines I subscribe to because of their often satirical view of the Hollywood system. Their writers are hilarious (The EW 'predictions' for the new year had me in stitches). They're not afraid to often give movies and albums the Ds and Fs they deserve. I guess they're entitled to their mistakes like everyone.

To aknddon3, the website you want to go to is The Internet Movie Database. Or as I like to call it 'The Bible'. Anyone can send in their movie reviews and there are alot of great people who love all kinds of movies.


Jan 16 - 02:19 PM


andrew kruzel

thank you

Jan 16 - 02:35 PM


Kevin Levan

[b]You're welcome[/b]
Now, let's all get back to what we love to do most. Talk about movies. We all need to respect eachother's opinions.

I promise I won't start any more kindergarten grammar debates. :)


Jan 16 - 05:55 PM


Kevin Levan

QUOTE most Americans do not like the same movies that the uptight, loser critics like. END QUOTE.

I tend to read alot of 'best of' lists at the end of the year for my own enjoyment. My friends and I all make our own best of movies, TV, books and music lists. We do it for fun and to share with eachother our favorite things that particualr year.

Critics may appear to be uptight losers, but they don't have an easy job. Sure they get to see alot of good movies, but since they are paid to see movies and write reviews, they have to see every movie. That's about 350 movies a year. That's not including all the festivals they attend where they watch up to 5 movies a day. Seems a bit daunting but for a real film lover it's a dream job. They're exposed to alot more movies from many different countries than the average filmgoer and because of that they see many movies that most people don't get to see because of reasons like lack of distribution and lack of theatres willing to show them. So when you say something like critics like movies that most Americans don't like (I don't know why you've singled out America since I've seen lots of horrible big budget crap from other countries as well) it's usually because most Americans haven't had the opportunity to see them. Martin Scorsese usually has all these obscure foreign films on his list because he spends most of his movie watching at festivals and travels around the world to find new movies.

If anything, I think that people give critics a hard time because of their 'my word is law' attitide. They seem to forget sometimes that they are just providing another opinion. As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes everybody has one.

As far as critics not liking what the average moviegoer (everyone, not just Americans) likes, here is a list of films this year that we're not only well loved by big audiences but were also critic approved as well:

Batman Begins
Sin City
Star Wars III
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory
King Kong
The Chronicles Of Narnia
The 40-Year Old Virgin
Wallace & Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit

This year alot of critics' associations also picked a great action comedy for their best foreign film of the year: Kung Fu Hustle. Even I was shocked. I've made alot of my friends watch it and they love it.


Jan 16 - 02:06 PM


Kevin Levan

[b]You make some good points.[/b]

It was very refreshing to hear what you have to say, especially since we're all so busy here bashing eachother's grammar skills. :)

I agree with alot of what you have to say and I don't think it's necessarily anyone's fault. Money is money and it speaks volumes. People don't seem to understand how hard it is to have an original voice in Hollywood these days. The major studios only put out about 15-20 films per year. Half of those are sequels and TV adaptations. Another 3-4 are possible tentpole/franchise films aimed at the summer audience and the rest are the few original movies aimed at the Awards season. Even alot of these so-called indie companies, which are really nothing more than off-shoots of major studios (Fox Searchlight, Warner Independent, etc), are following in the same mold. I'm sure in a few years we'll be seeing 'March Of The Penguins 2: Cuddly But Deadly'. Movies are getting so expensive to make these days that major studios are splitting the cost with other majors. I've even seen some films financed by 3 studios. It's unreal. Even a flop in America is not even a flop anymore. A recent example is 'The Island'. With a budget well over $100 million, the movie only managed to make about $30 million domestic and was written off as a flop. However, the movie did so well overseas that the company was able to make its money back and go on untarnished.

As far as celebrities being less 'deified' than back in the day, I'd have to disagree. Movie stars have always been movie stars. Not that that's necessarily their fault. Stars like Greta Garbo and Joan Crawford had just as many salivating fans and hugry media gossip as people like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie do today. I live in Los Angleles and many times tourists come up to me and say 'where can I find the movie stars' or 'wow, you live here, have you ever met so and so'. My lawyer lives in the same building as Britney Spears' mother and sister and everyday there's at least 3-4 guys with cameras perched outside all day and night. A few years ago I read Ingrid Bergman's autobiography and it was no different back then. When the whole Bergman/Rosselini scandal broke it was utter chaos. American people couldn't understand how a movie star that they so 'deified' and 'loved' could leave her husband to mary some Italian movie director. It almost destroyed her career. So, really, who's fault is it? The stars or the people who worship the stars? If anything we show less contempt for our stars then we did back in the golden days. These days the stars can cheat on eachother, take lot of drugs, physically hurt other people and no one seems to care anymore. Why? Because we've put them so high on a pedestal that they've almost become unreachable. In fact the only thing you can do these days to damage your career is to pledge your life to scientology (Battlefield Earth anyone?).

Alot of todays great actors (not stars) come from other countries where they mostly work for very little pay and come from an extensive theatre background. They know what it's like to actually struggle and work to attain your goal. Penelope Cruz did a few Hollywood films and now is mostly back making Spanish films again. Even working again with my favorite director Pedro Almodovar in his upcoming film 'Volver'.

Anways I could go on writing forever, but I think I've made my points. I'm glad to see that my friends and I weren't the only ones who like 'Little Nicky'. It was darker than most Adam Sandler movies and turned alot of people off. I thought it was hilarious (Popeye's chicken is the shit!). The same could be said for Jim Carrey's Cable Guy. I don't think people were ready at the time for a Jim Carrey black comedy. I loved it. I'd like to see Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey do something with The Coen's. Sandler has taken chances before. He was excellent in 'Punch-Drunk Love' and Paul Thomas Anderson wrote the script with him in mind. Well, enough film nerd babbling for one day.

As far as the French go, they can't help it...they're French. One of my buddies is French and he moved here to get away from the French. Seriously, though, nothing against them. I've been to France and the food is sublime. The chicks all seem to love the rude waiters. :)


Jan 16 - 01:40 PM


Alex Reyes

[b]ha! you like both Little Nicky and Punch Drunk Love![/b]
Thats awesome that you like Little Nicky too, it definitely makes me feel better as well by knowing I am not alone. I also LOVE Punch Drunk Love. After watching it a second time, it became one of my favorite movies. I just laugh like a baby with it by myself (not many other people seem that excited).

About the celebrity stuff, I do agree with what you say, but I guess that that same difference you mention between the celebrity craze of today and that of yesterday, is the one i was talking about when i mentioned that de-deification. Yes, people still worship celebrities, but they also have come to know them as what they are: human beings. Before, it was necessary to hide anything that made a celebrity look human. Today it is ok to allow an actor be seen as just a human, theres not the same pressure to hide it all. People still think celebrities live exciting lives and envy them, but with less supernaturality around them than before. Being a celebrity has become more normal, more possible, more accessible to anyone than before, hence that de-deification I talked about. The craze around hollywood celebrities is still insane, but just in a different a bit more rational way than before.

hehe i guess the French are very peculiar which is not necessarily bad, but good for your friend and his successful escape! :)


Jan 16 - 09:38 PM


James Humpula

This is what I see in this list - those who did the nominations are off their rockers. 'Nough said.

As for the voting, it looks like the actors who won (out of what was available to choose) didn't neccessarily have the best movies that year, but they are the most popular actors overall (media, movies from previous years, etc.). So for instance, the average person at their computer wasn't neccessarily thinking of Electra when they voted for Gardner, but possibly Alias instead.

As for movies, the average person voting online isn't neccessarily going to vote for the best movie that fits the catagory, but their favorite movie in the catagory. Since the choices were poor anyway, it's no wonder Star Wars won best film and best drama.

Jan 11 - 09:57 AM


mynameis mynameis

What a hilariously awful list. Is the average person that dumb?

Jan 11 - 10:28 AM

Jeremy Bristol

Kevin Johnson

[b]Just wait until the MTV movie awards[/b]
Oh, come on, though. Star Wars III has to be a drama. It wasn't funny, so it has to be a drama. :)

Jan 12 - 12:30 AM


Stephen Slish

[b]Fault People's Choice Organizers[/b]
Look, I'm not going to pick on the results of the People's Choice awards TOO much for being generally weird. To each his own right? Folks find Sandra Bullock charming when she's not making movies so they make her their favorite. Fine. She does seem more approachable than Kidman, who looks like she could freeze a man solid with a glance at 20 yards.

The real problem here is what got nominated. You want to make Sith the favorite movie, ok, fine, but why the hell was it even nominated as best drama? It's an action film, not a drama.

I could go through the whole list, category by category but that would take too long. My point simply is that you shouldn't lose faith in "the people" when the real problem here seems to be what they were offered (strange parallel to US politics isn't it?)

Jan 11 - 10:46 AM


Josh Jones

[b]Awesome commentary[/b]
That list just made me wince when I first read it, but it is excellent to see inspired commentary on the site that logged the true course of 2005 movies. Right on!

Jan 11 - 10:58 AM


Harry Myland

I definately agree that in the end it was the choices that were odd, not necessarily the winners. I mean, Sith has a fair amount of drama in it: best friends fighting eachother, people turning their back on others (i.e. Anakin invading the temple, etc.etc.), the scene where all the Jedi are dying and Yoda grabs his heart in what is probably the most heart wrenching CGI ever done, blindly fighting for love while it's destroying you. I'm sorry but if you were watching that film thinking it was purely an action CGI fest you didn't WATCH the movie, you just saw it. Was it the best drama of the year? Certainly not, but with the other choices I can see why it won, I mean Sith was more of a drama than BB, and Coach Carter was a terrible, terrible movie so. You have to be stupid to think that Brokeback Mountain or Goodnight and Goodluck would win anything...THEY WERE ALL LIMITED RELEASES! A.K.A Not many people have seen them!! Of course it was the blockbusters that pretty much got nominated for everything, because that is what was in wide release, what people saw. Hell, perfectly good movies that were in wide release got completely snubbed by the American public and these award committees..can we say SERENITY!? That movie had some of the best acting, effects, story, drama, action that I have EVER seen in a movie, and it doesn't get a nod for anything! Oh well, that's all I gotta say. I'm happy Star Wars got recognition for something, whether it really deserved it or not.

Jan 11 - 12:06 PM


Isaac Prevost

This makes me feel like quoting Triumph.

"This list is good....for me to poop on"

Jan 11 - 12:25 PM


Mark Gougeon

Holy God, that was wretched...

Jan 11 - 01:32 PM


David Gonzalez

Star Wars Episode III best drama? Are you kidding? It should have been nominated for best comedy. It was one of the funniest movies of the year. I guess I can see why they think it is a drama, but did they take the dialogue between Anakin and Padme seriously? Every time that movie tried to be dark, dramatic and serious, they ruined it with a horribly delivered line that made me laugh uncontrollably. Moments like Mace's death ("What have I done?!"), Anakin's defeat ("You were the chosen one!"), and Vader learning that Padme is dead ("Noooooooo!") could have been dramatic if it weren't for the writing and the acting. The apocalypse is here people.

Jan 11 - 01:32 PM


Sam Dunning

It's shows like the people's choice awards that give a bad name to America and American taste. They should have another show in which the choices are not based off of a bunch of twelve-year-old girls sitting around saying that Brad Pitt is the best actor in the world because he has a nice ass. It should be called, The People with Brains Located Above the Waistline's Choice Awards. I would watch that one.

Jan 11 - 01:58 PM


Merlin Ambrosius

[b]What's with the Diss?[/b]
These are called the "People's Choice" awards for a reason. People chose them. I don't know about anyone else, but I feel the film industry has a tendancy to pat itself on the back about five-awards-shows-per-year too often. At least this one isn't a bunch of actors and directors voting on who the best actor and director is. It's like freakin' high school; totally ridiculous. Besides, who are we to complain about how the vast majority of Americans are stupid for liking different movies than we do? As if movies aren't completely subjective?!?!?! Please. Get off your high horse people! As if everyone else is stupid, and you have the vast, superior intellect needed to decipher what is and isn't s good movie? Just say what you liked and why, no need to rip other people's choices.

Jan 11 - 01:58 PM


Kevin Levan

Well said!

Jan 13 - 03:18 PM

What's Hot On RT

Critics Consensus
Critics Consensus

Transcendence is a Sci-Fi Snooze

Total Recall
Total Recall

Johnny Depp's Best Movies

24 Frames
24 Frames

Picture gallery of movie bears

Good Friday
Good Friday

50 movie posters gallery

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile