War of the Decades: Best Pictures

With The King's Speech (2010) capturing the first Best Picture Crown of the Decade my thoughts began to turn towards Legacy. I'm curious about Trends in Best Picture winners - which decade ended up truly honouring the films that we still watch and quote with relevancy today. Naturally it's not often the Academy flows in such nice Census-Year lines but it's worthwhile for this debate. Now, the 1920s only have a pair of winners, and neither are that significant (Wings in 1928 and The Broadway Melody in 1929. Both involved significant firsts [The Broadway Melody for example, is considered first complete musical but kind of sucks] but aren't much beyond that). So let's talk about what movies we're still talking about today from each decade:

1930s - Depression...but WE GOT BOOZE BACK!
Time and shifting tastes have hurt this decade, but somehow Gone With the Wind (1939) is still relevant, quoted and parodied pretty regularly. Adjusted for Inflation, it's still at the top of the charts and really unlikely to ever fall at this point. It peaked at this awesome time when everyone everywhere had nothing better to do that go to the movies and it became that epic event movie. It also held the  All-Time Box Office Record from its peak in 1941 until it was surpassed by The Sound of Music (1966). In fact, with a re-release in 1971 it took back the all-time record! When a movie is the All-Time Highest Grosser for 26 years, destroying any other competition, it reamins part of the heritage. Not to mention that when it was first shown on NBC in two parts on November 7th and 8th, 1976 it was the most watched program in US History at the time and got an insane 47.7 rating. Can you imagine any TV movie ever EVER getting ratings like that these days? Of course without video or DVR or anything, when that shit was on - you had to tune in! Needless to say this movie really had an impact and makes up for everyone forgetting the rest of the 30s that weren't The Wizard of Oz (1939) and breadlines.

1940s-  Shit! There's a War!
The 40s had its share of great films but only one really stands out - Casablanca (1943). I suppose that during World War II our country had a few other things on its mind. It also doesn't help that the sheer number of films made in this decade was ridiculous, most of them cheap and forgettable. Casablanca though has a ridiculous ripple effect, you see it everywhere. It's the 40s single entry but it's almost as strong as Gone With the Wind.

1950s- Russians and Elvis
The 50s boast a nice little collection of Best Picture Winners. From Here to Eternity (1953) is apparently slightly more than a beach kissing scene, Brando's performance in On the Waterfront (1954) is still a huge innovation felt today and Marty (1955) has held up remarkably well. As the 50s progressed some of the bigger films such as The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) and Ben-Hur (1959) have their share of famous moments that echo throughout pop culture. At least with the Unforgivable Guy. Always good for a lean night.

1960s- Love, Peace and More War
When the 60s roll through we start getting some true classics. I notice based on my own personal criteria of "Shit I Recognize through Parody" we seem to favour the first half of this decade. This is probably because the second-hal of the 60s were Batshit Insane and people were lucky enough if they didn't have their cultural leaders shot or fall off a balcony while tripping on acid much less pay a nickel for the theater. There are definitely some immortal films here though like West Side Story (1961), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), My Fair Lady (1964) and The Sound of Music (1965). In fact I'd say the 60s got a lot of Best Pictures correct in the sense of honouring Cultural Value. We can add Midnight Cowboy (1969) to that list of relevant films as well.

1970s- Let's Go Disco Dancing!

Alright. I'll give it away - it's the 70s. The 70s win. Going through this decade is ridiculous. We start with Patton (1970)'s American Flag speech, move on to The French Connection (1971) chase, too many to count from Both Godfathers (1972 & '74) and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975). I still don't agree with Rocky's 1976 win over Network, but Rocky's probably the most permeating Best Picture of the decade (though nearly all of Network came true at some point and Peter Finch's catchphrase caught on). 1977's Annie Hall vs. Star Wars is almost the same deal, though clearly Star Wars is one of the most influential movies of all time but Annie Hall still rules. Lastly, The Deer Hunter (1978), that movie was hilarious.

1980s- I'm Paul Allen!
After a couple great decades that really again, rewarded maybe not the best movie of the year, but probably the most immortal of the nominees, the 80s are terrible. All I can gather is Platoon (1986) and Rain Man (1988). Actually I can barely believe either of these are Best Picture winners. The Me Decade has unbridled pretension and really started rewarding typical Oscar Fodder worse than any other decade. It's terrible. It's not like they should be getting pumped for Gremlins (1984), but this was also one of the last decades for really great Tentpole films like Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) or Back to the Future (1985). No love.

1990s- My Pants Have Eight Colors on Them Now
Maybe it's just that the 90s were more recent, but I feel like there's a lot more here than the 80s in terms of great influential and deserving Best Pictures. If not for the heavy influence it clearly had on MAVATAR (2009), I may have left off Dances With Wolves (1990) (read: ripped-off). The Silence of the Lambs (1991) echoes through our culture as does Braveheart (1995) and Forrest Gump (1994) very thoroughly. Hell, that flick's still on TV twice a week. I was hesitant but decided that both Unforgiven (1992) and Schindler's List (1993) should barely make my cut, as does American Beauty (1999). And just because everyone has seen it and it dominated so long of a zeitgeist in the late 90s, Titanic (1997) is really this decade's most epic film.

2000s- The Worst Thing That Happened Today was That My Ipod was Deleted.

I actually don't think that Decade we just wrapped up has a whole lot of Best Pictures that will last. I think The Hurt Locker (2009) is debatable if it can ever catch on, because it's an incredible movie and one of my favourites of the decade, but it remains the Least-Grossing Best Picture as far back as these records go. Yeah, without inflation.Other than that we're stuck with the twin blockbusters from early in the Decade, Gladiator (2000) and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003). The latter is likely the most immortal of this Decade tho the source material sure helps. After that we've already felt some cultural resonance from Million Dollar Baby (2004) and The Departed (2006), and I believe that No Country for Old Men (2007) will also stand the test of time. I really think that the latter two I mentioned are the only Best Pictures of this decade that can stand on equal ground with those of the 70s.

So there you have it. Argue and debate my criteria and picks as you like. In terms of mass cultural appeal decades beyond its time, I have to give the 1970s the prize for the Best Best Picture winners. The rest are shit. As for The King's Speech? I'm going to say that Inception (2010) and Chris Nolan's direction in particular are going to stay with us for much much longer.

War of the Decades: The Evolution of Video Game Movies

This is a rough topic. But it needs addressing today. This may be the day in history that we see the release of the greatest Video Game Movie every made in human history. As we'll see through this anticipatory post, that really wasn't that difficult to achieve.

Yes, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010) launches across the globe today and could very be the most successful film based on a video game both critically and commercially of all time. It already has the highest Rotten Tomatoes score of any Video Game film (um...yeah, at 58% pre-release). So, why does this genre have such comically low standards? That's what we're exploring in this long-awaited edition of War of the Decades: The Evolution of Video Game Movies.

1990s: Plumbers and Raiden
There are so many kinds of sources for films. Books, amusement park rides, anecdotes, toy lines, other movies, the list goes on and on. For the most part, these kinds of films based on questionable material are a bitrough. At the same time however, we can call out the exceptions to prove that source material shouldn't really determine the quality of a film. There's one pretty good film made from all these that proves that with the right story, writing and talent it's possible to make a good film out of just about anything. Except video games. There's nothing that compares to the widespread catastrophe that is the Video Game Movie. It's insane.

Video games first became pretty widespread, ie affordable in home domiciles and fully integrated into culture in the 1980s and has really only grown with technology from there. One of the most phenomenally popular early games was Super Mario Bros. (1985), so it made sense that this would also become the first film adapted from a video game in 1993. If you look even slightly closer at the Mario story though, you can immediately see this is a bad idea. It's a simplistic platformer at heart with bizarre enemies, friends and power-ups. None of this is possible to gel into a coherent story without either a ton of irony or massive retooling of source material. Actually to be honest, that 5-minute adaptation is far better than that Dennis Hopper film.

So basically in the 1990s, people didn't really know how to make the movie bigger than the game. They tried attaching loose or weak stories to mediums that worked best with no story. Honestly, who really remembers why the fighters in any Mortal Kombat game were fighting? It's not important - it's not why you play video games. Films lack the level of direct interaction integral to video game experience. Weak stories are supplanted by good gameplay. When this medium is transferred to a more passive film medium without proper adaptation and forced padding, the result is lacking.

Regardless, Mortal Kombat (1995) is probably one of the best video game movies, although remember, the best of this crop is still fucking awful.

Early 2000s: Increased Scope, Zombies and CGI
By the time around Ocarina of Time (1998) came out, video game storytelling was getting to become more advanced. With the increased memory and graphical capabilities of Sixth Generation Consoles, video games started to become more cinematic by their nature. Two games I included on my Top 5 Video Games of the Millennium list, Conker's Bad Fur Day (2001) and Halo: Combat Evolved (2001) included heavy cut scenes as well as a more film-like focus on depth of story, from there the industry changed. I can't believe a Halo movie hasn't been pulled off yet. Truth be told, my guess is that for the most part, the games already simulated the filmic experience. There's not much left for a film to cover after playing these games with both their high-arcing stories covered both in cutscenes as well as actual gameplay.

So certainly video games themselves were moving more towards the quality of film. By the end of the past decade there were easily a handful of video games with stories to rival great films. So how did film respond? By just throwing up the same shit really.

Definitely larger budgeted and more mainstream than Double Dragon (1994), the decade led off with Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) and never looked back. This definitely resembles a lot of other early 2000s movies like Charlie's Angels (2000) or The Fast and the Furious (2001), just flashy rapid action-humour with a constant nod towards the extreme. It's important that a video game film finally got a big budget and a big, A-List cast, I mean, this film actually made some careers! ...But it sucked, though.

The early part of the decade wasn't all too bad really, you got Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) which bankrupted Square Pictures but is actually a good landmark in film and CGI use. Then there's the Resident Evil franchise which I think is actually one of the best ways to transfer video game action into action movie action.

The Resident Evil films are not really good films by any standard, but they're pretty watchable. They also merge video game and film format to a very high degree. They all have a good amount of wandering and exploring to reach a set goal point, hundreds of enemies that merges the Stormtrooper Effect with common video game tactics of defeating smaller enemies, and the films even have the Big Boss at the end. Again, these aren't great movies, but if you're going to adapt a video game, they pull it off flawlessly. The story doesn't matter at all, but the films are built on a game-like progression, which is cool. To demonstrate that this doesn't come automatically with watchability, just Netflix Doom (2005). I've proven my point.

Let's flash to the future for another film/comic series that seems to have virtually introduced video game-like principles seemlessly into the rules of its universe, check out the trailer for the upcoming Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010):



Notice a few things - the film (from what it looks like) appears to integrate video game lingo, tropes and styles into an entertaining and refreshing package. Video Game Movies should attempt this level of integration and assimilation, acknowledging their own tropes and strengths rather than bill themselves as something they're not. Innovation, not imitation.

Late 2000s: Utter Shit
Once Uwe Boll threw his hat in the ring things really went to shit. I mean, he's directed 5 video game adaptations and his highest RT rating (by far) is Postal (2007) at a whopping 8%. Beyond this we've got a lot of misguided attempts at making pretty naturally cool video games into forced-cool movies like Hitman (2007) and Max Payne (2008). I'll keep talking about Resident Evil (2002), that film is well cast with characters and plotting that make the film work rather than hokey shit that purports the movie to be more than it should be.

Again, it's tough to make something cinematical out of a medium that more and more is becoming cinematical in its own right. When you're adapting a novel or even a comic book there are elements that are exciting because its source material either exists in a completely mental realm or at least a 2-D, soundless realm. Adapting a complex video game who may make up for its sub-par story and cutscenes with excellent gameplay is difficult, if not impossible.

2010s: Persians!?
So, here we are. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2003) is a really well done video game. It's well done, however because of the aforementioned cinematic quality. It's scope is huge, gameplay intriguing and characters compelling. As I've postulated this entire post, all this seems to point towards the failure of its adaptability rather than success.

It's funny though, as it seems like the producers are stars are well-aware of this fact. This of course makes their imminent failure slightly more painful. They are trying so hard not to make just another shitty video game movie. At any rate though, this is definitely more Tomb Raider than Hitman. Whether or not it has some genuine action and drama as well as finding something interesting to do with the video game's time-dagger gimmick we'll find out. Gyllenhaal already looks painfully miscast, though and any semblance of plot from the trailers is indiscernible. Also we can talk about Mike Newell turning the best Harry Potter novel into the worst Harry Potter film somehow.

In the end, this still has a good chance to be the greatest video game movie ever made, if only because the two decades prior have thrown so much shit into the wind. I guess we'll just have to find out. At any rate this film's success, critically, commercially as well as how well it adapts its source material, should determine the path of video games as they become even more immersive in the next decade. They've always got some potential, but the mediums at this point seem incompatible.

War of the Decades: The Gnarly Undead Throwdown

Welcome to a very special edition of the War of the Decades! This week I'm shifting gears a tic in honour of...the second week of release of Zombieland, examining each decade's contribution to the Zombie Horror Sub-genre. Now, there are thousands of campy zombie movies released every minute of every year so for sanity's sake I attempted to stay with the major releases if there were any. Or at least just the ones I've seen. Let's begin:

1960s: Romero, Turbulence and the Apocalypse

The Sixties contain one major film, but it is essentially the most important of any on this list. George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1968) founded the entire sub-genre, modern zombie archetype and revolutionized horror in general with greater splatter and gore effects as well as placing the genre outside of spooky caves and castles and into suburban lawns. It also had much to say about Civil Rights and Vietnam (whee!). The most important way this changed Horror, not to mention the zombie genre, is the nature of the monsters.

Zombies aren't conscious vampires sentient towards their actions, nor are they powerful space beings. Zombies have no more power than an ordinary human, albeit an ordinary human stripped down to only one basic instinct: FEED. Zombie movies are always interesting to me for this particular reason. It shows us our true capabilities. Zombie Apocalypses are much more possible than Alien Armageddon or a Meteor Strike, if only because all the possible danger zombies could cause are present at this exact moment (maybe besides the persistent survival in the face of non-cranial attacks). They're a really cool enemy in this regard, because whereas one zombie is never much trouble, it's the Inherent Apocalyptic Capability of Humanity that makes Horror like this stay with a viewer much longer than a brief jump scare.

1970s: Imitators, Consumers and the Fucking Goofy

Night of the Living Dead wasn't an immediately stellar commercial hit but ended up grossing $42 million worldwide within a decade of its release (on a $114,000 budget). Naturally, in the succeeding decade there were imitators, most of which missed the original zombie message in favour of excessive gore with no story such as Zombi 2 (1979) or with general levels of extreme stupidty such as Tombs of the Blind Dead (1971). Naturally the decade never found its rightful heir until Romero returned to helm Dawn of the Dead (1978). The zombies mindlessly drawn to the shopping mall are clearly reminiscent of mindless American consumers, whose undead lives had barely changed (you know...except for the flesh-eating). Shaun of the Dead (2004) tends to nail this idea pretty well, too (ie, using zombies in service industries, mindless labour). In many ways, this critique on consumerism seems to have a better place in 1980s decadence, thus Romero's commentary on zeitgeist was ahead of the times.

1980s: Explosion of Insanity

The Eighties began this trend of directors using zombie films as great tools for Horror/Comedy. Unlike Zombi 2, 1980s zombie movies were very much intentionally goofy and oftentimes legitimately scary and gory as well, if sacrificing a substantial message. This includes Return of the Living Dead (1985) and its sequels, famous for a slightly different canon zombie than the Romeran zombie, although by present day this zombie is almost unheard of, yet has seeped into public consciousness. It's like the AFL of zombies. We also get The Evil Dead (1981) and its sequels as well as Re-Animator (1985)...and its sequels. Another great trend of zombie films, they spread and sequelize like the undead themselves.

Finally, Romero's last and weakest entry of the Twentieth Century, Day of the Dead (1985), which had less to do with big sweeping ideas about humanity, and more to do with the nature of zombies, what they can learn, do and act. It also does touche on military excess and pride, the breakdown of small society in face of Armageddon and the general doucheyness of heartless scientists. Neat stuff.

1990s: Video Games, Irrelevance and Decline

Zombies were hard to find in the 1990s. Other than some sequels to the aforementioned films and Peter Jacksons' directorial debut, Braindead (1992) (which is really only notable for killing hundreds of undead with a lawn mower), there isn't too much else in cinema. 1990s Horror tends to be really self-reflexive (see Scream series) or parodic (see later Child's Play series). Braindead itself with its playfully excessive gore can be seen as parodic of of some of the 80s splatter films. Zombies did find a home in video games though, with Zombies Ate My Neighbors (1993), Resident Evil (1996) and House of the Dead (1996). In particular, Zombies Ate My Neighbors stands out the most to me as a successive collection of 50 years of horror dating back to the Wolfmen and Gill-men present. Zombies are the foundation of the game, presenting both the earliest adversary and the least deadly, at least until there's dozens of them bearing down on top of your little spiked head. It's a pretty cool beacon of collected horror culture.

2000s: Resurgence, Camp and Cultural Dominance

See here. But really, the biggest development the New Millennium brought to zombiehood has to be the sprinter. As I noted in the above post I dislike the sprinter for reasons other than simple implausibility and slight disregard for Romeran Canon. Yes the slow-moving hobbler is easy to dodge and run from, but it represents inevitability. It's death itself. You can run and escape one slow zombie, two is a bit trickier, hundreds are a pain in the ass. The point of the slow zombie is that no matter how far you run, they WILL catch you eventually. In hobbler Romero films there was ultimately no escaping Armageddon, the slow zombies would lead the humans to think they had an edge up until the burst into the farmhouse and bite their throats out from behind. It's a slow crawl and creep, a steady descent into madness and death. And that's pretty cool to me, much cooler than an extravagantly fierce sprinter zombie.

So until next time, make sure to check the backseat and happy hunting!

War of the Decades: 1974, 1984, 1994, 2004

Welcome boys and girls to our ongoing discussion of which year in which decade produced the greatest films. On the 5th, 15th, 25th, and 35th Anniversary of these years, today we'll look at the '4's. That is, 1974, 1984, 1994, and 2004. I'm very interested in tracking how some different genres evolved through the ages here, so I will be taking a slightly different approach than I did with this go-around.

It's a Laugh! Wha-Hey!

There's some very interesting fluctuations in comedy over the past 35 years, ranging from genius to moronic slapstick. 1974 is a powerhouse year with the double shot Mel Brooks flicks, "Blazing Saddles" and "Young Frankenstein," creating the foundation of the genre spoof, while simultaneously hitting at some deeper issues, an assuredly strong year. 1984 leaves me in a bit of quandary, though. There are instant classics like "Ghostbusters" and "This is Spinal Tap," among cheeky throwaways like "Police Academy" and "Revenge of the Nerds." While the former was a hallmark for comedy/horror/scifi (which clearly had a wide influence with such films as "Ghostbusters II" [1989] and "Bubba Ho-Tep" [2002]), the latter two built in a misdirection derived from "Animal House" (1978) and were sure forerunners for many, many shitty teen comedies to follow.

There's only one name in 1994 Comedy, Jim Carrey's Holy Trinity of "The Mask," "Dumb and Dumber" and "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective." I dore these movies based on the fact that when they came out I was eight years old and loved poopie. I've been riding nostalgia ever since. Considering his six MTV Movie award noms and two wins, he did put out some stellar performances. Finally, 2004 is the quintessential "Frat Pack" year (I still hate that term) with "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy," "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," and "Starsky & Hutch." All very funny, but none nearly as memorable 25 or 35 years down as Mel Brooks and Spinal Tap are. Maybe Ron Burgundy.

Eek! A Monster!

Each decade also contained very different horror movies. 1974 brought us a gritty realism and innovative, first-hand filming techniques with "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." This 70s realism descended into 80s fantastic slasher silliness with "Nightmare on Elm Street," forgoing the grittiness imaginary horror for straight up slashin and dashin. I couldn't find much great horror movies from 1994, if any of you dear readers come up with any comment below. The best I can come up with is the 90s attitude of self-referencing and reevaluating its films. Something like "Ed Wood," in a great stretch of the imagination, can lead to something like "Scream" (1996) in the vain sense that they both analyse, sometimes ridicule, and ultimately honour the horror giants that came before it. By 2004, however, we've let everything all hang out and introduced to sweet sweet torture porn with "Saw." Admittedly, the original "Saw" is still probably one of the best horror films of the decade. The rest of the 2000s would see nothing but remakes and sequels and...oh wait it's just like every other decade for horror.

Get Animated!

"The Lion King" in 1994 assuredly holds its own against "Shrek 2" and "The Incredibles" from 2004. The years preceding these were horrendous animation years and do not have too much to offer. Unfortunately, much like Jim Carrey, my overpowering nostalgia for "The Lion King" causes me to lean heavily in its favour, but its certainly debatable. Does "Team America: World Police" count as animation? I'm giving it to 2004.

Thanking the Academy...

Let's call this the Oscar-bait movies. 1974 is a tough year to argue with, its high points and biggest winners commercially and critically being "The Godfather Part II," "Chinatown," and "The Towering Inferno." Yes, "The Towering Inferno." It won like three Oscars. 1984 seems a little weak to me know, all we have are the character studies of obsession and nuance with "Amadeus." The 90s here I believe are very strong, with "Forrest Gump," "The Shawshank Redemption," and "Pulp Fiction," which I think could stand against the 70s. Maybe. Countering again, 2004 seems week with "Million Dollar Baby" bringing home the Best Picture, which I never thought was that memorable, which leaves the quirky dramadies "Sideways" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" as some of the best films of the year. Great films, but no "Chinatown."

Impressive Starts!

In many of these years, a director or actor got a big break or a great start to an excellent, sometimes ok career. 1974 is somewhat lacking, I couldn't find many people who got their big breaks here (besides being the birth year of Chris Bale and Leo D). 1984 is huge both with James Cameron's first non-piranha movie, "The Terminator," Ethan and Joel Coen premiering "Blood Simple," and Christopher Guest in "This is Spinal Tap." 1994 is the start of a lot of the indie-type comedy directors, providing the first go around for Kevin Smith in "Clerks" and Benny Stiller in "Reality Bites." The only major debut was on this side of the pond for Edgar Wright with "Shaun of the Dead" (add Simon Pegg and Nick Frost for that matter), as well as the incomparable Jared Hess with "Napoleon Dynamite" (and Jon Heder!), which of course has led to many innovative, profitable films. And of course I don't want to leave out the break-out sensation known as the Lohan with "Mean Girls" (I'll legitimately honour Tina Fey's first written feature film here).

So, What did We Learn Today?

1974 seems to be a stand-out year, with heavy quality over an egregious quantity of forgettable films. Or maybe we just forgot all the forgettable ones by now. Who knows. But one thing is for sure, 2004 will always be remembered as an incredible surplus year of terrible, terrible mindless action movies. Check out the list:

AVP
Alexander
Chronicles of Riddick
Hellboy
Van Helsing
King Arthur
I, Robot
The Punisher
Spider-Man 2
The Day After Tomorrow
National Treasure
Ocean's 12
Catwoman
The Passion of the Christ

1984 and 1994 have some very good features, but 2004's sheer catalog tends to be overpowering, and also serves recent memory. The most classic films on this post are all from 1974, it's a tremendous year and I'd probably call it the winner of "Blazing Saddles" alone, but the true winner may only be decided if you judge for yourself. Comments appreciated below...

War of the Decades: 1989, 1999, 2009

My inspiration for this next article comes in a sort of round-about way. I was reading this article featured on IMDB today proclaiming 1984 to be a great year for movies and in the comments section, as people must argue with this kind of thing, some went for 1939, 1994 etc for a better year. This kind of thing is up for debate all the time around film sites like this. It's really pretty dumb, in my opinion to argue good movie years. Does one singular incredible film make an entire year an awesome movie year? I don't know. No one does. Stop debating it.

Anywho, the whole point is that it got me thinking, this guy clearly loves 1984 (in essence, Terminator, Ghostbusters, Spinal Tap, Bachelor Party, in his opinon), someone else loved 1994 (Forest Gump, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank), another said '74 (Chinatown, Godfather II, Blazing Saddles, Texas Chainsaw). Personally, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for 2004 (Spider-Man 2, Hellboy, Anchorman, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle are all personal favourites here. Not to mention Asskaban, my fav Harry Potter, thats just the tip o' the dick).

So, can it be possible that there are a series of good or similar movies that come out once a decade? We'll find out in our first WAR OF THE DECADES!!

For the first go around here, I've chosen the past three years ending in "9." Why? It's a handy twenty or ten year anniversary for most, and also a way to judge our current year. Also, the previous two years were big ones for shifts in cinema which heralded new trends in the following, which I'm curious if 2009 will live up to that hype. So, without further ado, I bring you...1989!

1989

The combined force of "Batman," "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," "Lethal Weapon 2," "Ghostbusters II" and "UHF" made the Summer of 1989 one of the first truly blockbuster seasons. "Batman" in particular ushered in an era of comic book franchise films that we are still suffering through today. Here is an article just dealing with "Batman" that is a must-read supplement to feel the full brunt of my point here. You may notice in that last list that all but two were sequels, and all but one were part of some of the greatest money-making franchises of all time. Add November's "Back to the Future Part II" into the mix, and you have the makings of a year not that unlike our own.

1989 paved the way for that style of movie to continue through the 90s, with the advent of many other franchise movies. Now, granted, there were of course always sequels, and Star Wars made the franchise possible years earlier, but '89 was the first year that had FOUR sequels in its Top Ten Highest Grossing, not including Batman, the first in its series. In comparison, '88 had ONE, '87 had ONE, '86 had TWO, only one of which came out in summer. The only comparable year is 1984, which had a staggering Top 6 movies that were all the first in line for sequels to come. 1989, and Batman in particular made the a big opening weekend a big deal. Some of these effects were not seen for a few years in the early 90s, but certainly by our time now, the opening weekend determines the entire fate of a movie. Of the top opening days of all time, 8 out of 10 came out in the past three years. 10 out of 10 in the past five years. This traces its earliest roots to 1989 and "Batman."

On a lesser scale, a few notable films and stars came out that would influence the next decade. Steven Soderbergh hit the map with "Sex, lies, and videotape," while Keanu Reeves gave his first whoas with "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure." In addition, Brad Pitt got his first on screen rolls in "Cutting Class" and "Happy Together." James Cameron's use of CGI in "The Abyss" garnered an Academy Award for Special Effects, which helped legitimize CGI's usage in film, leading to more advanced, breathtaking use in "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991) and "Jurassic Park" (1993). All this and Michael Moore directed his first documentary, "Roger & Me."

Needless to say, 1989 changed a lot of what film was in the 80s. Broader, more merchanidisable adventures such as "Batman" and "Back to the Future Part II" paved a way for action films out of swath of Rambos and Commandos that had dominated just a few years earlier. Bruce Willis in "Die Hard" (1988) also helped steer away from the muscled, perfect soldier into a more relatable, everyday hero that the 90s adored.

1999

Most of my views on 1999 can be found here but I'll expand a bit for the purposes of this article. In addition to the flawed, spirituality-seeking protagonist that dominated the 2000s, 1999 ushered in new trends in cinema in different ways.

"The Phantom Menace," "Toy Story 2," and "The Matrix" were the first in a ton of early 2000s franchise trilogies that dominated the box office. "American Pie" reinvigorated the long-dormant Teen Sex Comedy that had come to a head in recent years. "Deep Blue Sea," "Wild Wild West" and "The Mummy" were very much the heralds of the intense, terrible CGI action movies that were everywhere in the early 2000s, while "Blue Streak" was a very 90s action comedy, perhaps the last of its kind.

Regarding the influence of horror, "The Sixth Sense" started the career of M. Night Shyamalan, for better or worse. "The Blair Witch Project" was the first of many movies to rely on viral marketing and hype that has been used both with success ("Cloverfield" 2008) and sheer failure ("Snakes on a Plane" 2006) in the past decade.

2009

So, what's to come from 2009? Here are my predictions:

I think 2009 will always be remembered as a weird year at the box office. In the first winter/spring season the greatest successes were "Paul Blart: Mall Cop," "Taken," and "Fast and Furious." Are these really the movies we should think back on fondly when we think of this year? Damn I hope not.

The biggest studio influencers of 2009 will be "Watchmen" and "The Hangover," as two sides of the same coin. "Watchmen" proved the deathnell of the R-Rating for mainstream action movies. I don't consider it an exact commercial or critical failure, but it surely underperformed, especially (and ironically) in the fanboy community, basically because it stuck too closely to its source material. Before this becomes a review of Watchmen, let me get on a tangent here: I've been debating with multiple people the past few days about "Harry Potter and the Ass-Blood Prince" Book vs. Movie. I contend, usually to no avail, that they are two different mediums, impossible to compare, and that they both are great successes in their own mediums, because the film version did some things different that work better on film, the book did great things you can only do in written word. "Watchmen" will go down as studios giving a director great leeway to do his own thing trying to stay very close to source material and utterly failing. The R-Rating for anything outside of "Crank 2"-type movies will be dead for a while.

Likewise, the late 2000s, culminating in 2009 will see the ultimate rise of the R-Rated comedy. This has been boiling for a while, ever since "Wedding Crashers" (2005) and "Knocked Up" (2007), but "The Hangover" is currently the #4 Domestic Grossing movie of 2009 (It's also #1 R-Rated, followed by "Watchmen," which has almost half its gross). It's notable for doing this well and being a Non-Apatow movie, it's been a while since the funniest and most commercially successful movie of the year could stake that claim (since I dunno...2003 maybe?! "Old School" with Todd Phillips again haha). These movies, both for their success and failure with influence the next decade.

Other than that, the only major film that will always stick out to me at least, in 2009 was "Observe and Report." I've read a ton of reviews, and even the group I saw it with ranged from absolute love to a near-walk-out. I think if it ever finds a good cult audience its brand of pseudo-comedy, pseudo-intense thriller/psychological piece can be refined and made into some great films in the next few years.

So, without further ado, here's my predictions here for films that we will talk about when I have the Ten Year Anniversary of this post in 2019:

1. Wolverine/Star Trek; Terminator/Transformers -- the shift between good and bad and deliciously bad blockbusters.

2. Moon/District 9 -- Intriguing SciFi on tiny budgets, if District 9 does well, either among audiences or critics, there should be more small films like it to come, also giving Neill Blomkamp a career.

3. Inglourious Basterds -- This will either be Tarantino's return to form or his next shithole. Could influence where his career goes in the next decade.

4. Where the Wild Things Are/Fantastic Mr. Fox/A Christmas Carol -- New directions in animation, both CGI, stop-motion, and motion-capture. One major opinion I have is that the 2000s will always be known as the decade of really shitty CGI ("The Mummy Returns" [2001], "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" [2003], "Van Helsing" [2004]) while I'm hoping the 2010s will be known as the decade of really awesome CGI, or at least well-used CGI (in the vein of "Iron Man" [2008], "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" [2008], "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" [2009]).

5. Avatar -- incredible hype, apparently just blew away crowd at Comic Con, I have seen nothing major from it. Either way, Sam Worthington here and in good performance in "Terminator" may just establish him as the go-to action star of the next ten years.

6. Sherlock Holmes -- I'm going to say it here: The next ten years will be forever known as the DOWNEY DECADE. Starting in 2008, he has amassed lauded performances in "Iron Man," "Tropic Thunder," and "The Soloist," and coming up he's got Holmes, "Iron Man 2" and what's sure to be a shitload of Avengers movies. He's the man, career couldn't be going better right now. As long as he avoids cokes and hookers, I'm pumped for the DOWNEY DECADE.

So, that's that. Each year a tremendous influence on the following decade, as to which movie year comes out the best, I think I'm going to tend to side with 1999, but who knows what the last five months of 2009 will bring...Looking back there, I listed off quite a bit of highly anticipated films coming out. Who knows.