And yet, I feel that I’ve grown weary of the aforesaid action packed monsters. They tend to lack natural charm and charisma, or failing that they attempt to manufacture their own (either literally in the case of cyber Jeff Bridges from “Tron: Legacy”, or cynically in the case of, say, “Scott Pilgim vs. The World”). It doesn’t take hundreds of millions of dollars to craft a great film. All it really takes is a skillful acting/directing partnership.

The official list of nominees was announced earlier today, and as usual, I’ve spent the last few weeks leading up to this point deliberately trying to track down and watch the contenders for the top prizes. I’ve seen six out of the ten movies considered for Best Picture, which actually isn’t half bad. This should hopefully mean that my tentative predictions aren’t complete shots in the dark (for your benefit as much as my own).

Actor in a Leading Role
Javier Bardem in “Biutiful”
Jeff Bridges in “True Grit”
Jesse Eisenberg in “The Social Network”
Colin Firth in “The King’s Speech”
James Franco in “127 Hours”

My vote: Colin Firth
Likely winner: Colin Firth
Reasons why: It’s about bloody time. Jeff Bridges earned his for Bad Blake in “Crazy Heart” last year, and his performance as Rooster Cogburn in “True Grit” was virtually identical, if far less hygenic. Colin Firth also had a go for it last year with “A Single Man,” a portrayal just as worthy for the award, nevertheless still outdone by him in “The King’s Speech.”
Why I might be wrong: I have yet to see “127 Hours” and “Biutiful.”

Actor in a Supporting Role
Christian Bale in “The Fighter”
John Hawkes in “Winter’s Bone”
Jeremy Renner in “The Town”
Mark Ruffalo in “The Kids Are All Right”
Geoffrey Rush in “The King’s Speech”

My vote: Geoffrey Rush
Likely winner: Geoffrey Rush
Reasons why: Geoffrey Rush’s performance was arguably better than Colin Firth’s, and while I’m willing to concede that Christian Bale might put up a good fight, I have a hard time imagining a different result than as I’ve predicted.
Why I might be wrong: I have yet to see “The Fighter”, “Winter’s Bone”, and “The Kids Are All Right.”

Actress in a Leading Role
Annette Bening in “The Kids Are All Right”
Nicole Kidman in “Rabbit Hole”
Jennifer Lawrence in “Winter’s Bone”
Natalie Portman in “Black Swan”
Michelle Williams in “Blue Valentine”

My vote: Natalie Portman
Likely winner: Natalie Portman
Reasons why: If only out of sheer difficulty, and I’d call that reason enough. Apparently, Natalie Portman actually spent six months training just for the role, and did a considerable amount of her own dancing in the theatrical cut. That sort of physical commitment and investment ought not to be overlooked.
Why I might be wrong: “Black Swan” is the only nominated film I’ve seen. For all I know, the other contenders could all be phenomenal.

Actress in a Supporting Role
Amy Adams in “The Fighter”
Helena Bonham Carter in “The King’s Speech”
Melissa Leo in “The Fighter”
Hailee Steinfeld in “True Grit”
Jacki Weaver in “Animal Kingdom”

My vote: Amy Adams
Likely winner: Amy Adams
Reasons why: It’s true, I haven’t seen “The Fighter” yet, so this is nothing more than a shot in the dark. However I’ve been finding it rather difficult to overlook the buzz surrounding this performance, so I don’t mind going out on a limb. Helena Bonham Carter, aside from the fact that I can never endorse Tim Burton’s muse, had scarcely anything to do in “The King’s Speech,” while Hailee Steinfeld’s performance in “True Grit” was impressive, yet unremarkable.
Why I might be wrong: I have yet to see “The Fighter” and “Animal Kingdom.”

Animated Feature Film
“How to Train Your Dragon” Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois
“The Illusionist” Sylvain Chomet
“Toy Story 3” Lee Unkrich

My vote: “How to Train Your Dragon”
Likely winner: “Toy Story 3″
Reasons why: Although I personally liked “How to Train Your Dragon” more, even I won’t deny to where this Oscar is inevitably going. You just don’t bet against Pixar. And besides, “Toy Story 3″ was nominated in the proper Best Picture category while the other two contenders weren’t. That’s rather telling, isn’t it?
Why I might be wrong: None.

Directing
“Black Swan” Darren Aronofsky
“The Fighter” David O. Russell
“The King’s Speech” Tom Hooper
“The Social Network” David Fincher
“True Grit” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

My vote: “Black Swan”
Likely winner: “The King’s Speech” or “The Social Network”
Reasons why: In most cases, awards for Best Director and Best Picture go to the same place, and I’m hedging my bets on “The King’s Speech.” The reason I’m putting forward “The Social Network” too is because it’s no secret who are the front runners for every major award. I personally vote for “Black Swan” because there’s a rather particular skill set to directing effective horror/thriller films on which straight dramas don’t necessarily rely. Again, I have no doubts that my personal vote is incredibly likely to be wrong.
Why I might be wrong: I have yet to see “The Fighter.”

Best Picture
“Black Swan” Mike Medavoy, Brian Oliver and Scott Franklin, Producers
“The Fighter” David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman and Mark Wahlberg, Producers
“Inception” Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan, Producers
“The Kids Are All Right” Gary Gilbert, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte and Celine Rattray, Producers
“The King’s Speech” Iain Canning, Emile Sherman and Gareth Unwin, Producers
“127 Hours” Christian Colson, Danny Boyle and John Smithson, Producers
“The Social Network” Scott Rudin, Dana Brunetti, Michael De Luca and Ceán Chaffin, Producers
“Toy Story 3” Darla K. Anderson, Producer
“True Grit” Scott Rudin, Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, Producers
“Winter’s Bone” Anne Rosellini and Alix Madigan-Yorkin,

My vote: “The King’s Speech”
Likely winner: “The King’s Speech” or “The Social Network”
Reasons why: It’s a two horse race, plain and simple. Films like “Inception” and “Toy Story 3″ just don’t win prestigious awards like these simply for being either summer blockbusters or children’s animation. Of the rest, “Black Swan” and “True Grit”, I imagine, would be the strongest contenders (and yes, I ould indeed love to see the young Aronofsky properly honoured.) Again, I concede the possibility that “The Fighter” has a strong chance too.
Why I might be wrong: I have yet to see “The Fighter”, “The Kids Are All Right”, “127 Hours”, and “Winter’s Bone.”

Films I’ll be tracking down:
- “The Fighter”
- “127 Hours”
- “The Kids Are All Right”
- “Winter’s Bone”
- “Animal Kingdom”

Additional notes:
- Never let it be said that the Oscars can’t remember anything before September. “Inception” was indeed recognized, as was “The Kids Are All Right” (both films were released in July). And of course, there’s “Toy Story 3″  and “Winter’s Bone” (from June) and “How to Train Your Dragon” (from March). The Oscars indeed remember “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” and “Kick-Ass”; they just don’t care.
- Honestly, show of hands if you’ve even heard of “Winter’s Bone” and “Animal Kingdom” prior to the announcement of the nominees? This isn’t because I haven’t, but because I doubt that you have. The amount of worthy films that get released over the course of a year is staggering, but a considerable amount of them fall under the radar. In the same way you can argue that “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” and “Kick-Ass” escaped Academy consciousness, consider that a stellar film or two you haven’t heard of never even made it into yours.
- Between Nolan and Aronofsky, I’m far more pleased to know that the latter has a shot at Best Director. Nolan is great if you’ve only seen his Batman movies and “Inception”, but “Memento” and “Insomnia” easily eclipse his blockbuster work.
- I personally didn’t much care for “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World”, but even I’m willing to give Edgar Wright credit from some stellar directing. If that was a race of ten as well, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see him represented.

Funnily enough, I didn’t enjoy 2010 nearly as much as you might think. While my typical sort of people were scarfing down Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim and geeking out to new Mass Effect, Fallout, and Assassin’s Creed games, I was mired nostril deep in work and class, only managing to pull myself out of it on rare occasions to indulge in the mediocrity everyone else saw as brilliance. Trust me, I’m not trying to be deliberately counter-counter culture here when I say that I wasn’t particularly enthralled by anything this year.

Sure, there were a tonne of things I liked. But did I love any of it? Honestly, the answer is a resounding “no.”Maybe I’ve simply just been disappointed one too many times. Either that, or I’ve finally become eternally jaded (a prospect in which I find no satisfaction, believe me). Frankly, I think it’s because I’m resolutely grounded more in observer/spectator mode than in a general willingness to indulge and experiment. Very rarely are the things I say and do spontaneous, and thus I’m kept at a distance from pretty much everything. I’m not the sort that goes out in to the world searching for unique experiences and trying new things; I’ve got movies and video games through which to do that vicariously.

So I’m disappointed. What else is new? Well it’s the holiday season, for one thing. In my two weeks off, I’ve been splurging on Steam sales, sleeping in, and generally doing my best to relax. Now more than ever before, largely due to my crack at being an achieving undergraduate student this past semester for once in my life, I appreciate this brief respite of down time before I head into the hell of term work and exam headaches for another 12-16 weeks. It’s a time of rest and reflection, and, ever the imaginary legitimate writer/journalist that I am, the time has come that I take a few moments to jot down my thoughts on another year so remarkably bland.

You may recall that I wrote up a sprawling epic of the state of film in 2009 around this time last year. That… won’t be happening again. Partly out of habitual vegetation, mostly because I wasn’t quite as prolific a cinema patron from July to December as I was from January to June, and thus my impression of half the year is significantly compromised. That’s not going to stop me from doing a generic “Best/Worst __ films of 2010,” however. I have my own personal web space and openly identify myself as somewhere between a critic and a consumer sponge, so I’m pretty much honour bound by the laws of site ownership to do this anyway. So with that in mind, I present to you the best, the worst, and the “meh…”

You’re welcome.

The Worst

Legion: Does anybody remember this film? It was the one where an angel descends from heaven to protect a motley crew of unlikable human beings from becoming victims of the apocalypse in a rustic gas station in the middle of nowhere. If you really don’t remember it, then consider yourself lucky. At the very best, it’s a prime candidate for drinking games centred around laughably awful action/horror movies, and at the very worst, it’ll make you feel physically ill. I distinctly remember watching this movie as the picture of perfect health when it first came out in January, and I left the theatre in a state of partial decay.

Alice in Wonderland: When you take a step back and really, seriously consider the career of Tim Burton, you begin to realize that he’s never actually made a terribly good movie, and that he is mostly lauded for his bizarrely asinine aesthetic and frequent collaborations with Danny Elfman. I suppose you just have to be the sort who gets a kick out of that sort of crap in first place to really enjoy his films. Unfortunately, I’m not that sort, and Alice in Wonderland did not do a damn thing to change my mind. It was dreary, ugly, and miserable, featuring horrendous post-production 3D work and awful plot and acting. If nothing else, Alice in Wonderland should rightly expose Burton for the talentless hack that he is.

Clash of the Titans: Boring, stupid, and ugly. I can’t really say much else, despite the fact my classical education would normally demand I must. Really, this film just isn’t worth the words.

The Losers: Here’s another movie, much like Legion, that I truly doubt anyone really remembers. It’s one cast in the A-Team mould of philanthropic mercenaries having been framed, left for dead, and are now seeking a mixture of justice and redemption with bullets and explosions. Sounds exciting, right? So why is it that The Losers had all the energy and vigour of a dead battery? Every action scene was lifeless lacking a visceral punch, and the movie connecting those moments was every bit as plain and disinterested as the performances of its cast. I can’t think of such a rollicking premise so bland and mishandled as this. Well, except for maybe the A-Team, which suffered from even worse problems.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: A rather late addition to the 80s horror icon reboot train, Freddy Krueger’s reinvention couldn’t have further missed the mark set by the 1984 Wes Craven original. It traded humourous hyberbole for gritty gore in a routine and truly mundane pacing and presentation. Absolutely nothing here worth the time of anyone.

A-Team: So if The Losers was a lifeless and mishandled A-Team, then the A-Team was an inept and stupid version of The Losers. At least the former movie had a semblance of competence, but for the latter, there was seemingly no budget big enough to buy the necessary directorial and screenwriting chops to make this movie worth even a quarter of a damn. And my god, was that final action set piece ever ugly… A harbour strewn with colourful shipping containers looked more like somebody broke a garish Lego structure near the kitchen sink.

Salt: It’s generically generic. I doubt even Tom Cruise in the lead role would’ve fixed that if he didn’t take the time to do Knight & Day, an infinitely better and more enjoyable movie, instead. I can’t remember the last time I was so bored and disengaged with what was sold to me as a high-octane thriller.

Red: I was actually looking forward to this movie. Quite a bit, in fact. I bought into the hype of Helen Mirren with guns just like everyone else did, and I liked the idea of Bruce Willis in a back to basics ass-kicking romp. I liked crazy old John Malkovich doing what he does best, and I liked Mary Louise-Parker being improbably hot for a middle aged woman (46 years old would not be my first guess, let me tell you that). But Red much like many other movies on my bottom list, suffered from the same general listlessness and inept filmmaking/screenwriting combo that can so easily ruin otherwise sure fire successes. Such a shame, really…

The Best

How to Train Your Dragon: Much like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs last year, I was pleasantly surprised by just how good this non-Pixar project turned out to be. It was fun, creative, clever, gorgeous, and very well made. I don’t normally applaud Dreamworks, but this was a very well done film that managed, in my eyes, to surpass its yearly Pixar rival for the first time ever. Simply delightful.

Knight & Day: This movie is pure fun, plain and simple. I don’t care that Cameron Diaz resembles a charismatic lump of plasticine, and I don’t care that Tom Cruise is bonkers with Scientology. I wouldn’t even care if this film ate one of my legs. This year, there was simply no film as kinetic and entertaining as Knight & Day, and when taken strictly as a reminder of how much fun can be had at the theatres prior to the idiot Hollywood fascination with comic book heroes, it’s so charismatic as to be nearly impossible to hate.

Inception: Chris Nolan is a very good filmmaker, and my week long summer time sojourn exploring just why that is means I have a more thorough appreciation for him than I imagine most folks do (not to sound condescending, but he was a firmly just a cult figure with Memento before someone at Warner Brothers decided to hand him the reigns to the Batman reboot). And while I don’t think Inception is top of the pile in his stellar filmography, it’s still a terrific movie. It’s an inventive and challenging movie full of gun fights and science fiction malarkey. What’s not to love?

The King’s Speech: Even though Colin Firth definitely deserves the best actor Oscar this year, I’m actually looking forward to when he gets snubbed in favour of… oh, I don’t know… somebody who isn’t Colin Firth. The main reason for this is that it means I get to look forward to another immaculate drama by him in 2011, and presumably every year thereafter until he finally wins it.

The King’s Speech isn’t the most unique film, not by any stretch of the imagination. It’s simply a character study of an historic royal figure from a time and place we have some very odd recollections of (England in the 1920s and 1930s, to be precise). But everything about The King’s Speech screams (or should I say stammers?) utter perfection. The performances, the script, the score, the cinematography, every second of it is simply glorious.

The “meh…”

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and Kick-Ass: Being a twenty something who spends most of his free time in front of a monitor/TV screen and who knows far more about web/geek/nerd culture than he would readily admit, these two movies would seem to be right up my alley. The former is drunk on hyper-stylized urban adolescent geek daydreams, and the latter is an ultra violent vigilante caped crusading crime saga. I should be embracing and lauding these films like the rest of the internet, and yet I find myself utterly disenchanted with the concept.

The problem I find is that these films celebrate things that rightly ought not to be celebrated. They’re weapons in this whole “my fandom/sub genre culture trumps your fandom/sub genre culture” war, and this is something I simply want no part of. I already dislike films that presuppose I have a familiarity with their source material, but these two films take that a step further by presupposing that I have some sort of emotional investment or, worse still, an allegiance to the media. A part of me feels sickened. It’s all so cynical, so contrived, so deceptive…a product sold on the anaphoric alliteration of “awesome” and “epic” to an insignificant imaginary microcosm of a market. I’m glad these films tanked. Hopefully it’ll be a slap back to reality.

To be fair, these films aren’t bad, and what I’ve said above does, in retrospect, strike me as being rather harsh. Kick-Ass certainly had its charms, but it was wildly uneven, while Scott Pilgrim was far too fickle, despite the impressive filmmaking. I just don’t like their potential implications. The impact of this pandering to a culturally pop-ironic and regressed generation… that’s my concern.

Toy Story 3: When you get right down to it, this film was pretty unnecessary. After the sublime Wall-E and Up, a sequel felt like a step backwards, and indeed for me that’s exactly what it was. To be certain, Toy Story 3 was as well made and delightful as any other Pixar movie you care to name, but there’s nothing fresh or exciting about it. With it, there’s an air – even a threat, if you will – of stagnation. And the upcoming Cars 2 next year, sequel to a movie many disliked but I personally adored, does little to assuage my fears.

Iron Man 2: The first Iron Man was brilliant, just start to finish excellence. Of course the sequel would fare poorly against it, even if it featured Mickey Rourke with electric whips, Sam Rockwell in a scene stealing sleazy corporate type role, and, lest we forget, Scarlett Johansson in skin tight black leather (and she even has a few lines in Latin, for Christ’s sake!). Frankly, there are three key problems that held it back. The first being the absence of any semblance that this movie could be anywhere near as fresh and invigorating as its predecessor. The second being the change in Lt. Rhodes, both with respect to actor and recharacterization. And finally, the fact that this movie was more interested in setting up whatever the hell The Avengers will be about (which is yet another thing that disgusts me, if I’m honest).

Tron Legacy: The faults of this film are too many to name. In fact, I should probably write up a full review of it in order to best convey them. But for what it’s worth, Tron Legacy is a loud and profoundly stupid movie. The script is simply atrocious and its unbelievable that the narrative as it stands made the final cut. Plot holes, inconsistencies, and idiot logic abound, which are pretty glaring faults for a movie whose predecessor was lauded for its ability to engage and inspire the mind, if nothing else (even back in 1982, however, Tron wasn’t a particularly strong film on its own merits). It’s pretty enough to look at (aside from some botched “young Jeff Bridges” CGI) and Daft Punk do indeed rock the score, which I suppose is barely enough for it to earn a near pass in my book. I can at least recommend it based on its tech if nothing else, but just don’t be surprised if you discover that the film and franchise have been irrevocably lobotomised. In fact, I suppose it’s a good thing that it plays as more of a remake than a sequel, if only because it can be rather effectively distanced from its own legacy.

The verdict

For me, 2010 marked the end of my optimism, which you shouldn’t by any means take to mean that I was a terribly bright-eyed person a scant twelve months ago. At the end of last year, Avatar caused me to believe that it was always possible for films to live up to their expectations, no matter how inflated they may have become. Yet even with modest expectations for the films that piqued my interest in 2010, I nearly consistently left disappointed. It got to a point where I would enter screenings with no enthusiasm, and despite being determined to be open minded, I would leave no happier.

Towards the end of September, a colleague of mine once described me as being “too British,” which I have since taken to mean as being too impartial and too… aloof, if you will. While I’m not immediately British, my mother is, however, Scottish, so I suppose there might be a kernel of truth to his assessment after all. At any rate, he’s right. I am at a distance and generally opposed to the same sort of fervour people, I find, tend to have towards their media consumption. Whether or not that makes be a better critic – a better judge, even – remains to be seen. Perhaps I’ll find out in 2011…

Shortly, god willing, I’ll have a few words to say about video games in 2010. I also intend to elaborate on just why Super Meat Boy is so damn awesome. If you haven’t experienced it already, you should probably go and fix that. Immediately.

When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences doubled the number of nominees for Best Picture from five to ten back in June, quite a few heads were turned. The logic behind this move was that there are many great films that go uncelebrated by the Academy, and it’s necessary to give many of these films their due. Is this a response to the backlash from The Dark Knight’s unsurprising snub when the announcements of the nominees for the 81st celebration were made? Or does the AMPAS truly feel that Hollywood has entered another golden age not seen for decades, and that there really are so many good films out there that need to be celebrated?

Whatever the case may be, the decision to expand certainly seemed like a good idea at the time. 2008 was quite a good year for movies, with or without The Dark Knight. While The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader, and Frost/Nixon were the five competing in that particular race, there was actually quite a bit of competition for Best Picture. Doubt initially seemed to like a front runner, as did Aronofsky’s sublime The Wrestler. Even Clint Eastwood’s acting swan song, Gran Torino, seemed poised for more than a few nominations, yet ended up completely empty handed. And of course, there’s The Dark Knight, which many felt was deliberately snubbed. While I personally disagree, it’s still a film I’d much rather see up for Best Picture than Milk or The Reader.

I would not have minded The Dark Knight over this garbage.

Given the heat and contention in 2008, delirium from the success and hope for the future is entirely reasonable, if a bit optimistic. 2009 was quite young when the announcement was made, nipping at the heels of the first batch of summer blockbusters gone by and The Hangover shattering all expectations. The future seemed bright indeed. Naturally, people speculated as to what films we’d see in the AMPAS’ freshly expanded Best Picture category come February 2010. People tossed around The Hangover, in equal part jest and seriousness. Rolling Stone was quick to bless Apatow’s Funny People with Oscar buzz, while others trumpeted the documentary’s resurgence with Food Inc., The Cove, and yet another Michael Moore piece, Capitalism: A Love Story. Even science fiction may yet rise again with Moon and District 9 over the summer, and Avatar concluding the year.

Not only that, but the Academy itself is taking measures to diversify themselves. Those snobbish old fogies responsible for the notorious bland and overlong ceremonies are opening up their ranks to likes of Anne Hathaway and Mickey Rourke. Younger, more relevant, and more audacious individuals in the industry are becoming responsible for selecting the movies that receive the highest honours. The AMPAS has been resuscitated with a breath of fresh air and enthusiasm for the incoming generations of film. It’s just a shame that instead of the Academy letting down 2009, 2009 has let down the Academy.

82 years of parties the rest of the world wishes they could attend.

As I reflect upon the year, I can’t help but feel slightly disappointed. There were a plethora of “good” movies, to be sure, but the “great” and “excellent” movies are notably absent. Giants like Pixar and Tarantino made good movies with errors in narrative judgement. Eastwood’s Invictus seems to be underperforming (though I can’t in good conscience say that definitely since I’ve yet to see it for myself), as does Gilliam’s Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Even the low-key dramatic pieces that the Academy typically adores appear to be quieter than usual. Not very much has been said about A Single Man, Crazy Heart, and Me and Orson Welles, and many people don’t seem to realize that a Coen Brother’s picture has come and gone without much word of mouth (A Serious Man).

On the bright side, however, this should hopefully make for a very interesting Oscar season as nobody really knows for sure what to expect. Up in the Air seems to be the surest bet so far, as does Avatar. The other eight films are anybody’s guess. Up could very well graduate from the amateur Best Animated Film race, as could The Princess and the Frog due to its traditional animated appeal. Tarantino’s alternate history of WWII may very well get a few glances too, even if it is just because of Christopher Waltz. There’s even plenty of room for either District 9, Moon, or Star Trek.

Really though, the underwhelming display of traditional Oscar bait, coupled with the expanded Best Picture race, equates to one very interesting truth: your favourite film of 2009, be it Watchmen, Star Trek, The Hangover, District 9, etc., could very well be the Best Picture of 2009. When Sid Ganis, president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences says that he can’t wait for that list of nominees to be released in February, it’s hard not to get the same feeling. The 82nd Academy Awards are going to be interesting.

Hopefully.

Blockbusters, when it comes to movies, are the types of films that shatter expectations. In the traditional sense, blockbusters are usually associated with explosive testosterone action flicks, Die Hard perhaps standing as the ultimate example. These are the sorts of movies that are roller coaster thrill rides; movies to be experienced, not merely witnessed. The typical blockbuster is the sort of kinetic monster that bombards the viewers with action and excitement; the sign that lets filmmakers know they’ve done their job well being when the audience walks out with an exhausted sigh of satisfaction, followed by the words, “Now that’s entertainment!” (preferably with the scent of buttered popcorn lingering in their breath).

Yet wall-to-wall action isn’t the only qualifier for blockbuster status. The block often being busted, in this case, is the block of financial expectation. When a film over performs by leaps and bounds, either by fully recouping a multi-hundred million dollar budget (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, The Dark Knight, Avatar, Titanic, Harry Potter), or by constantly multiplying a modest cost of production (Paranormal Activity, Blair Witch Project, Mad Max, The Hangover), such films earn the blockbuster label. These aren’t necessarily films designed thrill so much as they’re films which earn the title through success instead of receiving it by default due to its membership in the action adventure genre.

Considering the latter definition (the financial qualification), 2009′s top blockbusters were Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Avatar, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Up, New Moon, The Hangover, Star Trek, The Blind Side, Monsters Vs. Aliens, and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.

Thinning the above ten movies by considering the former definition (the action qualification) as well as the latter, only Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Avatar, and Star Trek seem to qualify. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 2012, G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, Taken, Terminator Salvation, Inglourious Basterds, and Sherlock Holmes, would be next in line to fill out the remaining seven positions, assuming we’re skimming down the top grossing movies of 2009. The idea present being that not only were these the year’s big action/adventure movies, but also that these are the big movies that everybody seems to have seen. New Moon, The Hangover, and The Blind Side must be omitted from the list for being of the wrong genre. Up, Monsters Vs. Aliens, and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs are films largely considered to be animated first, and action/adventure second. The case could certainly be made for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to remain on the list as a “true blockbuster,” but wands and wizards are something I consider to be a different kettle of chips from guns and explosions.

If it isn’t already clear from my unabashed eagerness to bend the traditional definitions of genre and success, I think it’s certainly worth pointing out now that this particular segment of my “Year in Review” is less fact based and more opinion based. That having been said, isn’t it peculiar how the movie most closely resembling a “true blockbuster” by fulfilling both financial and genre expectations is Taken, the 18th highest grossing film of 2009 made with only $25 dollars? To put that into perspective further, Taken had the lowest production cost of every aforementioned movie in this article. How much did it cost for an angst ridden teenage girl to swoon over a sparkly vampire for over two hours? $50 million. How much did it cost for four guys to get lost in Vegas for a weekend? $35 million. And what about the price of Sandra Bullock’s preachy feature pining for Academy recognition? $29 million. Yet Liam Neeson’s rollicking ninety minute international adrenaline rush, chock full of gunfire and car chase, cost less than the drama and comedy smashes that, while admittedly reasonably priced, shouldn’t necessarily cost that much in the first place.

Taken was far more of a blockbuster than most of the inflated monsters that swamped the box office in a mire of mediocrity in the summer months after its January release, which is why the modern blockbuster – the “true” modern blockbuster – feels like it’s currently in decline. Movies like Taken, and to a certain extent the Crank movies, are a dying breed. The straight forward actioners of yore which thrived on their protagonist’s sixth sense for witty one-liners and feature the simple pleasures of a thrilling car chase and a heroic dive for cover after the mother of all explosions are being replaced with cinematic naval gazing, cynicism, and titanic egos. Levity is being replaced with pathos, as people are beginning to favour the brooding enigma to the charming everyman. The delivery of “more of what you want in a movie” is done with extreme contempt as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen aptly demonstrated by abandoning the fundamentals of basic moviemaking so that it could flaunt the depth of its pockets. A film’s director is no longer an omnipotence restricted to being revered by colleagues and staff as the word “visionary” is becoming an increasingly common prefix for the job; celebrity Twitter updates deluding people into believing they’ve established a covenant with God.

It’s not entirely hopeless, though. While the conflicted and complex childhood superheroes now thrust into the position of leading Hollywood for the foreseeable future are largely responsible for the recent demand for more blockbusters with humble and modest protagonists, perhaps it’s somewhat ironic that one of their own is now standing as a hotrod red beacon of hope. Iron Man represents the best elements of John McClane and Bruce Wayne, fused into my personal vision of the ideal superhero. The affluent billionaire who’s not above getting down and dirty, has no regrets or patience for trite sentiment and nostalgia, and can instantly charm the pants off any woman he chooses with or without the money, fame, and glory, is the subject of not only one of the best movies of the decade, but one of the premier summer blockbusters of all time. Is it so wrong to believe that the most impressive movies of the year should be as fun as they are successful?

Joy, spectacle, and wonderment should be products of an adroit and skilled filmmaker and not of coincidence from a pyromaniac frat boy told to run wild with $200 million. Here’s hoping that Iron Man 2 is no less than equal to its predecessor, and that more traditional blockbuster experiences begin their return to screens, with or without a superhero at the wheel.

Several films were released in 3D this year, six of which I have seen (My Bloody Valentine, Coraline, Monsters Vs. Aliens, The Final Destination, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, Avatar). While Up was released in 3D, I instead opted for the traditional two dimensional route. Speaking of Pixar, Toy Story and Toy Story 2 also had a brief theatrical re-release in October with additional 3D, although the precise contribution of the synthetic addition to any film developed without the intent to use 3D in the first place is ultimately negligible, and the Toy Stories are no exception.

Coming into 2009, much discussion was built around whether or not 3D would ever be taken seriously with regards to its replacing of the traditional 2D filmmaking method. With the exception of schlock horror, kiddie fare, and Robert Zemeckis, 3D simply doesn’t seem to have a place in modern cinema, and 2009, for the most part, wasn’t any different. My Bloody Valentine and The Final Destination continue to prove that there will always be a demand for filmmakers who make their livings throwing objects very suddenly at the screen, while Dreamworks, Pixar, and Sony Pictures Animated Division all used 3D for their animated features (Monsters Vs. Aliens, Up, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs respectively) further validating the continued use of 3D in those markets. And yes, even A Christmas Carol reminds us that Zemeckis’ obsession with the dimension is still alive and well, for better or for worse.

'It's like I'm looking up at a couple of stop motion children from deep inside a trippy tunnel, dude...'

Really though, when people disputed the validity of 3D in the future of filmmaking earlier this year, what they actually meant was whether or not James Cameron’s Avatar would be able to settle this particular debate once and for all. The other handful of 3D movies released throughout 2009 did nothing for anybody’s argument with regards to that debate, beyond prove the obvious point that those snobbish and discerning teenagers and toddlers will continue to watch whatever makes the best use of blood and primary colours respectively. And did Avatar settle the debate? Eh… yes and no.

Avatar is a truly fantastic movie, there’s no two ways about it. And yes, Avatar’s 3D was nothing short of the superlatives of the words “breathtaking”, “phenomenal”, “octopimp”, etc., and it certainly validates the use of the dimension in science fiction/fantasy as well as in horror and animated. The only problem is in the logistics of it. Avatar is the most advanced, high-tech, and futuristic movie lying and the bloodiest part of the bleeding edge, and it’ll likely take anywhere from another couple of years to a decade for the technology Cameron was allowed to get away with using to become cost effective for the average filmmaker. Cameron single-handedly gave the crazy 3D concept some serious legs, but we’re still years away from seeing it deployed in average, run of the mill films. So while it’s nice to have folks like Cameron and Spielberg come out and fully commit themselves to the use of 3D in their future feature films, as well as animated studios placing their full support behind it, the future is logistically still quite far away.

But what about the average movie? Dramas, comedies, romances, satires, and everything that could reasonably be made on a budget under $40 million? Is there a future in 3D for them? To film a movie in 3D, or to master a finished movie so that 3D can be applied, typically seems to cost around an additional $10 – $15 million. What this means is that adding 3D actually has meaningful financial consequence for studios that choose to go that particular route. It’s terribly easy for a cynical audience to look at a movie title, notice the 3D suffixed to it, and dismiss it as a terrible gimmick. While it indeed grabs the audience in the same way that a tourist trap grabs gullible out-of-towners, it isn’t necessarily such a thoughtless addition. Studios need to feel confident that the movie their funding has a chance to recover its production and marketing finances. More thought goes into applying 3D than audiences give studios credit for. As 3D becomes polished and perfected over the years, costs for its application will drop and we’ll probably start to see its use in a more diverse spectrum of genres. There certainly seems to be a future in 3D, providing issues surrounding comfort and visibility are soon dealt with. Many antagonists of the 3D debate point to cheap, tacky glasses that become an encumbrance almost immediately after the film begins. It’s a petty quarrel that clever filmmakers possess the power to alleviate, and once again let us look to James Cameron to lead the way.

Good riddance.

The inherent problem with many 3D movies is that the picture’s contrast moves beyond high into extremes; the blacks are too dark, the whites are too bright, and there’s often a dim, fuzzy rim around the edges of the screen. 3D scenes with a lot of activity also tend to track poorly, and the optimal viewing angle is quite narrow. Cameron actually did quite a lot with Avatar to address these problems. By beefing up the brightness to an almost blinding degree when the glasses are removed during 3D viewing, the visuals are far more consistent, lush, and clear with the glasses on. Flawless image tracking is still a technology that requires perfecting, however, and until the time comes when garish 3D spectacles are abandoned altogether, there’s only going to be so many seats in a theatre that enable the person in them to receive the images the way they were meant to be.

And in the end, that’s what it comes down to: when are those god-awful glasses going to become a relic of film history? With Cameron, Spielberg, Sony, and many other companies pouring tonnes of money into that particular R&D for solutions, it really can’t be very far off. If Avatar is any indication, there’s certainly a demand for the next evolution of 3D beyond it. All that’s left is to wait for the eggheads to deliver.