The Top Ten Films of 2005

Jandy Hardesty

Jandy is especially drawn to classic, off-beat, and foreign film, but loves a good blockbuster action sequence, too. You can find her on Flickchart as faithx5. She also writes at The Frame, and co-hosts the occasional podcast Not at Odds at Row Three.

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. Martin Coyle Martin Coyle says:

    Kingdom Of Heaven was completely underrated.

  2. No Pride & Prejudice? Best film of the decade!

    • Jandy Hardesty says:

      It’s in my personal Top Ten, Christopher! I definitely think it’s underrated. Looks like it’s #29 on Flickchart’s global 2005 list.

  3. David Conrad says:

    I strongly disagree with Travis that the first two Potters are merely juvenile and that the third was the one that waded into universe-building. The *second* had the great universe-building, while the third was mired in time travel (the bane of fantasy and sci-fi franchises) and was a rocky start for a new Dumbledore.

    It’s been said that the Chris Columbus ones look like BBC productions, and I reply that that’s exactly what I want from a Potter movie.

    • Jandy Hardesty says:

      I’m not Travis, but I guess I’m pretty much along the Potter party line, too – Azkaban is easily my favorite of the series (book and film), and Chamber of Secrets is my least favorite (book and film). I like all the entries, but the series really improved for me after they started getting darker. The first one gets a lot of points for getting across the sense of wonder as Harry enters the wizarding world (the whole Diagon Alley sequence is amazing), but the second one doesn’t even have that anymore.

      Also, time travel is awesome. Time travel of any sort in anything automatically raises it like a 100 spots on my chart. :)

    • With respect, David, I think you’re unnecessarily defensive here. I didn’t use your adjective “merely” because I didn’t use the term “juvenile” as a pejorative. The first two Harry Potter films are adventure films in which the protagonists are juveniles. I’m not sure why you interpreted it as anything more than that. What you, or anyone else, wants from a Potter film is outside the scope of my overview of this entry in the series. This isn’t a review of the film, but merely one-tenth of a survey piece about films of 2005.

      I’ll concede that the second film introduced universe-building elements, but the third was more about that than it was about adventurism, which is why I described it as such. I also stand by my characterization that the fourth film is the series’s coming-of-age episode.

    • David Conrad says:

      I didn’t mean to sound defensive, this is just one of my favorite Potter rants to pull out.

  4. David Conrad says:

    Jandy, you’ve got me wanting to see The New World. It sounds almost Herzogian. I didn’t like Tree of Life, but I bet there’s a Malick movie out there for me, and this might be it.

    • Jandy Hardesty says:

      I don’t know if it’s Herzogian – I think of Herzog’s nature being kind of harsh and unforgiving (while also still beautiful). Malick’s is softer, more inviting. The New World has a bit more plot than The Tree of Life, and isn’t as meanderingly philosophical, but tonally, they’re not that far off.

    • David Conrad says:

      Good point, Herzog often feels objective to the point of disdaining his subjects. I don’t get that vibe from Tree of Life, to say the least–quite the opposite. I’m definitely intrigued by the content, and I’ll let you know what I think when I get to it (estimated date of that part of the Netflix queue: spring 2016)

  5. Connor Adamson says:

    The first two Potter films were pretty great and well done. The third is the height of the franchise of course, with the fourth being the worst. It’s slow, disorganized, leaves key elements from the book, etc.

    Also, I think Walk the Line is a lot better than you give credit for. A great film with a moving love story and some of the greatest music of all time.

    • Jandy Hardesty says:

      I don’t think Travis was denigrating Walk the Line at all, Connor! Johnny Cash is one of his favorite artists, and I think he was just acknowledging that any film version of his life is going to leave stuff out, but that this film did an excellent job capturing what made Cash so memorable.

      It’s hard for me to pick between the Potter films (especially 4-8, when they settled into a similar tone/style), but I kind of agree that the fourth is one of the weaker in the series – I still love it, though.

    • Connor, I think it’s important to keep in mind that this was a survey of films of 2005 and not a dissection of the Potter franchise. How it stands relative to the rest of the series is marginal to the overview I gave, except that I needed to establish the context for why I characterized it as the coming-of-age outing.

      As for Walk the Line, my remarks were directed more at the inherent issues that any biopic of Johnny Cash would face, and I concluded that it acquits itself well enough to be a great starting point for delving into his life’s story and music. I would agree that it works quite well as a film, but it’s hard for me as a longtime fan of Cash’s to watch the it without the frustrations I named.