So many people called this year a slow and even bad year for movies, myself included, but the more I think about it the more I am not so sure. Last year was an incredible for innovation and freshness in movies, there were movies left and right that I respected a lot. Yet I can't think of more than two or three from last year I could watch again and again Into the Wild, There Will be Blood, and maybe Juno, outside of that the movies were too heavy, too solemn, too focused on being masterworks. This year while there were some crappy films, the ones that were good told stories I could see finding their way into a long history of cinema, films like WALL-E which told a timeless love story, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button which told a very human and heartfelt story in a very fresh way, Slumdog Millionaire, an underdog love story, Milk one man's fight against the machine and the generation it inspired, The Dark Knight a fun, complex, and thrilling story able to be watched again and again. Rachel Getting Married was a steady, lovely, and passionately made film that enraptures anyone who watches. The Wrestler, once again, is the underdog story, the comeback story, the character piece. It was a year of story not technics, tho benjamin button was about that too, can we please give credit to this year for telling stories that allowed us to escape into new worlds rather than showing us the monstrosities in the world we live in (No country, TWBB, Michael Clayton, etc)?

The type of films in a year are irrelevant to if it was a great year...how many great movies came out this year to me thats what matters.

My reasonings for calling this a bad year are simple, when you roll around to October or even late September you have Oscar movies galore...usually there is at least 1 movie you HAVE to see every week...this year...not so much...only like 8 movies I couldnt wait to see this year and 3 of them turned out to be huge disappointments as opposed to last years like 20-25 films i couldnt wait to see and like 15 of them were fantastic...

This year 6 great films, 2 near great comedies, 2 flawed masterpieces, the others good or below

Last year, 13 great films, 2 near great comedies(its hard for me to see a truly GREAT comedy)4 flawed masterpieces...

The difference is pretty clear...

You can't just shout out numbers, Andrew, I want names.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Benjamin Button fresh. But 2008 had it's share of great films, big and small. I think it can be said for just about every year. Maybe not as much as previous years but there is no denying some of the films from last year.

Ok Anonymous...

THIS YEAR

Great films: The Dark Knight, The Wrestler, Che, Frost/Nixon, Revolutionary Road, Milk

Near great comedies; Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Burn After Reading

Flawed masterpieces: The Fall, Snow Angels

LAST YEAR

Great films: No Country for Old Men, Michael Clayton, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Ratatouille, Zodiac, There Will Be Blood, The Bourne Ultimatum, Into the Wild, The Lookout, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Once, Grindhouse & 3:10 to Yuma

Near great comedies: Knocked Up & Juno

Flawed Masterpieces: Eastern Promises, Sunshine, Lust Caution, The Savages

thank you, I forgot to put my name sorry about that

Honestly I thought last year and the year before were just mediocre if not bad years for movies. 2007 had the incredibly overated NCFOM and the great but not masterpiece TWBB. Michael Clayton was really good but not 7 nominations worthy, and Juno was a good movie that became a fad and then people soon forgot about it. Last year I loved Into the Wild but that was really about it.

2006 was probably the most forgettable of all. Besides The Departed and The Fountain I didn't see any really good movies, nor remember any of them. The hyped up Chris Nolan flick The Prestige turned out to be flawlessly directed and acted but incredibly predictable and boring by the end. 05 was also quite dull and morose except for Good Night, and Good Luck (which I still love by the way). Crash was interesting and well written but should NOT have won best picture.

I like to call 05-07 the independent years. Propelled by 04's great Sideways, independent movies started to flourish and soon that was all the Academy paid attention too. The extreme drop in viewers shouldn't have been a suprise to anyone at all since only a slim amount of the population was actually seeing the movies being nominated. 04 at least had some commericial movies and star power (The Aviator, Clint Eastwood, Johnny Depp), but after that it was independent movies galore!

I'd like to think that 08 was the start of the Academy going back to movies people did actually see (Benjamin Button and The Dark Knight)and an end to the independent craze that has taken over the Oscars for the past three years. Slumdog was kind of an exception to the "indie" rule, but it's growing popularity and the fact that it's a great movie hasn't really helped it at the box office.

I sincerley hope the Academy is going to change its ways and get out of the feeling that "Ooh it's independent/foreign! Let's nominate it because it will make us look smarter and more intellectual!" This type of thinking has alienated the Oscars from people and, if they keep doing this, soon the results will just be printed out in the morning paper instead being cast live on TV (I really hope not tho ). There are some very exceptional independent movies, but just because it's independent doesn't mean it's good.

The Wrestler was independent. I really wish that was nominated for best picture and In Bruges

"Just because its independant doesn't mean its good"

I'm so sick of this 'independant' backlash. It happens on here, it happens in the press, mainly from entertainment 'journalists.'

Thank god there's an institution that's willing to recognize small films that dare to challenge the audience on a moral and intellectual level. Thank god the Academy's appreciates masterfully crafted stories and performances. Thank god somebody's willing to reward the tremendous amount of work that must be done to get these films made.

Sure, not all indies challenge us or provide layered acting and plot. Case in point: the most recent best picture winner. But that's not to say Slumdog Millionaire wasn't worthy of the honor. Danny Boyle delivered an exquisatley crafted, incredibly entertaining product at a fraction of a typical studio budget. That's why it's deserving; it was stellar popcorn fare produced for nearly nothing. It pisses me off how most projects can be handed 60 million and bring back mediocrity.

Its unfortunate TDK wasn't nominated. It displayed depth when depth is no longer required by major studios. Nolan went that extra mile because it was the right thing to do, not because his job depended on it.

The Academy should be scolded for leaving it out. But this argument that they never nominate what "the people" want and deserve to suffer because of it is absurd. The public's selections are based on star power and familiarity; and projects that feature star power and familiarity are seldom, if ever, Oscar worthy.

Independent backlash should occur. It's making me sick to see all the critics and "intelligent" people keep praising indie movies over and over again. I think the Academy has drained that institution dry, and I think Slumdog was interesting and successful bridge between the art and mainstream type of films.

In 2005, (what I think was the year of the independent movie) I thought Batman Begins was a more deserving than Capote was for a best picture nom. But the Academy has to get those independent movies in there just to show the rest of us "normal" people that wwe really don't know movies at all. Hell, it seems like any one who makes an independent movie that has a sad and depressing ending gets notice from critics and awards circles and it really makes me roll my eyes when this happens.

On the other hand, there are some very good and thought provoking independent movies. I really liked The Wrestler and really REALLY liked Frost/Nixon. But when I see movies like Wendy and Lucy and I Loved You So Long getting incredibly overpraised for there "real" depictions of life it makes me really wonder why I pay attention to critics anymore. I can be sad watching CNN or (even worse) Fox News.

While there are some exceptional indies out there, its a shame to see the Academy going out of their way to honor them, not because they are good films (just look at The Reader), but just so it can make them looked intellectually superior to people who just go to the movies for fun. And while I agree that the American people shouldn't just be fed popcorn action films with happy endings and incredibly beautiful women all the time, it would be nice to see the Academy lighten up a little and broaden their range to other types of movies (TDK).

That's my take anyway.

"But when I see movies like Wendy and Lucy and I Loved You So Long getting incredibly overpraised for there 'real' depictions of life it makes me really wonder why I pay attention to critics anymore. I can be sad watching CNN or (even worse) Fox News"

Great. You do that. Doesn't mean those films shouldn't be made or praised.

"so it can make them look intellectually superior to people who just go to the movies for fun"

What proof do you have of this? I highly doubt the 5,000 members of the academy joined the institution to spit on "le people." They joined to celebrate the art of filmaking.

Their decisions wont always match up with yours. Hell, not one of my favorites got a BP nom: WALL-E, The Wrestler, In Bruges, Burn After Reading, Doubt, all shut out. But I got over it. I opened my mind and appreciated what they nominated, knowing that nomination came from the combined prowess of the most talented filmakers in the world.

"Oh but Ferris, your just blindly following what the academy is telling you!"

No. I'm just not asinine enough to believe my own preferances are the be all and end all of everything.