The Fallacy of IMDB Ratings

Never use IMDB as a measure of how good a movie is going to be. Sometimes I wonder what kind of birth-time oxygen deprivation the members have gone through based on the voting results.

To give you an idea of what I'm talking about... take a look at the current results of the "Best of 2005" Poll:

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

Best Picture: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Sin City? Star Wars Episode III? The Chronicles of Narnia?

Not to be too pretentious here but *come on*. You can just tell that the Harry Potter books are getting so long that they are getting very difficult to turn into movies. The plot felt so scattered and disoriented, going into so many underdeveloped subplots that it couldn't possibly be intended for anyone who has never read the books (like me).

Best Actor: Daniel Radcliffe in 2nd place? I must say, I have to give him credit for doing such a good job um... well... yeah.

Best Actress: Emma Watson. More Harry Potter. See a pattern anyone? Angelina Jolie from Mr. and Mrs. Smith? Charlize Theron? Wasn't North Country a bad Lifetime Movie Network special? Well, I'll save that rant for post oscar nominations.

There's even more... I don't feel like going into it all. But I will say this. Harry Potter is not only on the list for Best Picture... but also Funniest Movie (is it funny?), and Scariest Movie (is it scary?). It is no longer there, but it even used to be in Best Foreign Language Film and Best Dcoumentary. Perhaps an IQ test should be required to vote?

Don't get me wrong... I thought Harry Potter was good for what it is, a nice and entertaining diversion movie. But hardly an artistic masterpiece is all.