Says Wachtel, “We know the web series medium is not the most popular. But to date there has never been a serialized, online show about the entertainment industry created by the insiders themselves. We want this to be branded as a show made by Hollywood assistants, for Hollywood assistants. And because we want to direct in the future, this is a way we can hone our skills and stay busy. Anyone can make a short film – why not make many short films, and make them for a specific audience?”

The series is expected to satirize many fixtures in Hollywood – the producers are taking liberties with the humor and are apparently not concerned with how offensive the show may be at times. The first episode is said to feature a mockery of Michael Bay.

Wachtel and Copeland plan to release episode 1 entitled “The Voice” online October 2nd, which is the anniversary of the first ever airing of Rod Serling’s “The Twilight Zone” television series. The two see this as a fitting homage to a filmmaker who gave them inspiration for their own series. Wachtel sees serialized entertainment as an asset to companies like Funny or Die, College Humor, Break.com and even Deadline.com who rely so heavily on relevant content. His short term goal is to co-produce Season 2 of the series with said companies while pooling from their access to celebrity talent. Wachtel and Copeland are looking to involve as many entertainment professionals as possible in the process.

Follow the show on Twitter @The30MileZone or “Like” The Thirty Mile Zone on Facebook for news and updates.

Kevin Smith speaks about his film "Red State" at Sundance 2011.

In what distributors considered a self-aggrandizing, eulogistic rant, Smith snubbed buyers when he revealed at this year’s Sundance Film Festival that his new film Red State wasn’t even up for sale. He has instead decided to release the film on his own on the 17th anniversary of his 1994 Clerks release. Emphasizing a reactionary approach to indie filmmaking, Smith explained how he believed his film would generate more profit if distributed by himself and without the burden and price-tag of involving a studio.

“It’s not enough to just make the movie. We have to learn how to release the movie because true independence isn’t making a film and selling it to some jackass. True independence is schlepping that shit to the people yourself. And that’s what I intend to do.” At this point of Smith’s speech, most of the crowd welcomed his words with a lengthy applause while others (namely distributors) felt slighted and prematurely walked out.

Smith is convinced that if his film can successfully generate a profit without the middle-man distributor, that he will open the doors for the masses to bring their films to a theater near you without the requirement of having deep pockets. The question then becomes, is it appropriate or even wise for the designated entertainees to take part in the actual entertainment that is intended for themselves. This is a little bit of a Haily Mary for Smith, that will either leave him looking like a genius or a fool. We’ll check back later to see how his plan holds.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Leonardo DiCaprio in "Inception."

It’s easy to credit the American movie-going public with having the highest theatrical IQ of anyone in the world. Yet somehow whenever a Christopher Nolan movie hits theaters, that all seems to change.  And then all of a sudden, routine movie-goers magically turn into amateur movie critics, declaring films like Inception to be the cinematic equivalent to the messiah. Professional critics themselves search for reasons to boldly resurrect Christopher Nolan in all his glory as the Pied Piper of Hamelin, leading us through the dark annals of Michael Bay’s 21st Century Hollywood nightmare. “Hallelujah for Christopher Nolan! The most brilliant filmmaker in the history of worldwide cinema.”

More like the most brilliant illusionist. Chris Nolan’s movies (and this discussion can exclude Memento, which I think most can agree is a fantastic and sensible film) have a strange power of turning theater-goers’ brains into mush, convincing them that what they have just seen is better than any imaginable vision of heaven. I bet this all sounds pretentious–and to some extent I hope it does. Because taking the stance I’m taking may be the only way to get people to see the same thing that I’m seeing. Which is that post-Memento Nolan is a talentless hack who pulls the same brainwashing gimmicks from film to film.

It really is as if viewers are dreaming under a hypnotic Chris Nolan spell when they watch his movies, disabling the functionality of their brains once the credits start rolling. Equally baffled by this is David Edelstein of NY Magazine who “truly [has] no idea what so many people are raving about,” claiming that “it’s as if someone went into their heads while they were sleeping and planted the idea that Inception is a visionary masterpiece.” In fact, so many critics are in overwhelming agreement over the greatness of Inception that Roger Ebert questions whether or not anyone is allowed to disagree!

Working hard? Or hardly working?

Addressing Nolan’s struggles at making sense of his own script, Movie Line critic Stephanie Zacharek admits that “Because Nolan can’t connect his visuals, he has to use words, and lots of them, to let us know what characters are doing and why we should care.” This is why 99% of the film serves an expository purpose.  Zacharek further remarks that Nolan’s lifelong reliance on Hans Zimmer’s score as a means for anchoring our interest into what we’re seeing on-screen makes Nolan less fit for “directing” and better suited for “directing traffic.” No truer statement.

The musical cues tell us when we should feel anxious or afraid instead of allowing the visuals and emotions of the film to achieve this (which clearly they’re incapable of doing). Hans Zimmer’s score (which, eyes-closed, pleases the ears) is so heavily relied upon by the incompetent Nolan that the entire film plays a 2.5 hour+ non-stop musical track. The track even plays during exposition. It plays throughout everything. Remove this track and I promise you that each person steps out of the theater complaining how much of a bore Inception was.

Adds Zacharek, “If the career of Christopher Nolan is any indication, we’ve entered an era in which movies can no longer be great. They can only be awesome, which isn’t nearly the same thing.” From this I take the following: Special Effects and visual imagery now supersede quality stories with competent scripts and technically-sound directing. Avatar brought new meaning to this. The Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese and PT Anderson among others are continually working against this.

Inception is a great concept for a movie. But the movie itself serves as little more than a misinformed psychoanalytical instruction manual with little to no story or characters worth investing emotions in. Sure we find it cool. Some of the visuals are candy to the eyes. But I can’t help but think about how much of a rip Inception is off The Matrix. If I had to rename Inception, it would be “The Matrix (for dummies).” Have we no sense of recent film history to pick up on this? Every little thing that happens in Inception has to be explained. Nothing is left to the imagination. The whole reality vs. the dream world concept is recycled for the worse.

One false notion is that Inception is confusing because it’s “supposed to be”–it is a mind-bender after all. No! Inception is confusing because it makes absolutely no sense! Let’s stop giving the director credit for not doing his homework instead of making excuses for him. Nolan has done a poor job of creating his story and a poorer job of defining the boundaries of the story’s world. Rex Reed of the New York Observer agrees, adding that “[nothing] adds up to one iota of cogent or convincing logic. You never know who anyone is, what their goals are, who they work for or what they’re doing.” These are things which must be addressed. Moviegoers habitually give credit to directors like Nolan for “blowing their minds” when in fact the sum never adds up to all of its parts.

Let’s talk the whole “Dream within a dream” nonsense. Dream-themed films such as The Matrix, Total Recall, Strange Days, Dreamscape and even the original A Nightmare on Elm Street define the rules of their worlds well enough without relying too much on exposition. Having dreams within dreams within dreams within dreams is not a calculated strategy of Nolan’s, but rather a cop-out. The 2010 version of A Nightmare on Elm Street uses the same strategy. It’s technically acceptable to use this strategy so long as there is an indication that one dream has ended and the next one has begun.

The story-line is laughable and seems to only serve the hollow purpose of making the $160 million + summer psych-thriller into a run-of-the-mill Bourne Identity-like actioner. In the disastrous disaster flick 2012 we had something “on-the-line” to worry about: hello? the end of the world?” With Inception the value of the story is so insignificant and the characters so flat that there’s nothing to invest in emotionally.

Casting-wise, Inception is an utter mess, reminding us that Ellen Page is still Juno and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is ultimately too boyish for the big screen to be the next leading man outside of an art film (Shia Lebouf is doing an ok job and he’s five years younger!) As much as we all embrace post-Titanic Leo DiCaprio, his typecast is becoming a nuisance at this stage of the game and he’s simply overexposed. Michael Caine’s presence in this movie is a complete joke and another reminder of Nolan’s recent Batman blunders. And listening to Ken Watanabe is like trying to guess the English translation of R2D2’s dialogue in Star Wars.

So no people. I will not see Inception an additional time to have my “mind blown” or to try and see if I actually “get it.” I get it completely and I hate it. I got The Book of Eli and I hated that as well. Films which we need to see more than once are more often than not failures from the get-go. Inception is no exception. If you care to see Memento more than once then I encourage it.  The movie makes sense and the story is told purposefully and brilliantly. But come on now. It’s about time to start lambasting Chris Nolan and seeing the rest of his movies for what they really are: garbage in disguise.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

Now for the highest hurdle. (Between you and me), I’m not so sure Congress is enthusiastic enough about film futures to embrace them for the long haul. Nobody wants another Bernie Madoff on their hands. And I bet film futures isn’t “top of the list” for these guys. Take a gander at the shady insider mess going down at Disney and you’ll see just how problematic this whole film futures idea may be. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the  F.B.I. intercepted an attempt of an assistant to Disney’s head of  corporate communications, who tried to transmit Disney’s early quarterly reports in return for cash.  Shortly thereafter, unreliable reports blitzed the internet that Disney had plans to sell ABC.

This is before the Film Futures Era. Just think of the potential magnitude of corruption and fraud this new kind of business can breed after the fact.

Film futures could very well turn the Tinseltown tradition into a trigger-happy, every-man-for-himself proverbial war-zone. Think about all of the possibilities for corruption that exist. It takes hundreds of people (more often than not) to put together a theatrically-distributed film. These people all have a stake in the process and are therefore all empowered to contribute to the success of a film. That being said, these people may as well be termed Hollywood day traders–their work and involvement in the film will largely determine whether the American public sees their film, which in turn determines how much money the American public will profit.  So think about the possibilities here, folks.  For all we know theatrical exhibitors can become the NBA-equivalent of referees, being paid off to allow or bar certain films from being shown in their theaters.

With these ideas considered, it is still impossible to physically make someone pay for a movie ticket. Though I doubt there isn’t someone out there already figuring out a way to conquer this.

Film futures has its merits. By directly involving the American movie-going audience into the process, the industry itself is bound to garner a lot of interest and attention, potentially resulting in another golden revival for Hollywood. The audience with the highest cinematic IQ can now apply a financial perspective to the business (again, for better or for worse). But admittedly, there’s no country better prepared and more experienced in movie-watching to take on this kind of challenge.

Stay tuned for more commentary on film futures. I’m not quite sure how this will all go down, but I guarantee there will be drama.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

The other day, an editorial plea was made on behalf of the owners of a self-proclaimed “inspirational” and “distraction-free” working environment for screenwriters called “theOffice” concerning the company’s struggle to pay rent and stay afloat financially. If you’ve never actually heard of the Santa Monica-based company, your initial reaction to this news might be one of genuine sympathy for the owner. And Lord knows it can be hard for writers to find that perfect place for inspirational writing.

But when you learn how much the owner is charging people to simply sit and write in the comfort of its zen-like environment then you’d be hard-pressed to find a better reason not to join this money-sucking machine. Members of this pretentious excuse for a business essentially pay good money to feel as if they are working in the peaceful equivalent to living inside of one of Mr. Miyagi’s bonzai trees. They are afforded the convenience of (dare I say!) wireless internet, dictionaries and thesauruses (GREAT SCOTT!), comfortable couches and even parking! But at what price, you ask?

A glimpse into theOffice, a working environment in Santa Monica designed to meet the inspirational needs of screenwriters.

I’ve been told by the owner himself that membership rates range from $189-$409 per month. This means that at most some members (if there are still any) are paying nearly $5,000 per year for a workspace that gives them nothing more than what they can get at a local Starbucks!

Some Hollywood writers can’t even afford to dish out that much money a year on rent. Now how can this even be taken seriously? Is it any wonder that this is a failing business? Sure theOffice has “alumnis” like J.J. Abrams and Paul Haggis who used to write in their facility. Writers who I’m sure could afford the experience.

Now I gotta say that the philosophy behind theOffice is very reasonable. It’s extremely difficult for many writers to try and get their work done at home. That being said, if the owner wants to capitalize on running this facility as a business then he should be smarter about membership fees. You can’t simply just expect starving artists to flock to your facility when there are dozens of other options for peaceful working environments in Los Angeles. Writers do after all already write their way out of infinite sticky situations. Additionally, if theOffice seeks to stay somewhat relevant, it should actually offer its members competitive incentives to maintain their membership to offer an experience that can never be duplicated by a coffee shop. 24-karat writing pads of gold? That just might do it for your members considering the amount of money their paying.

Otherwise, quit whining about your rent for chrissakes. Your target market isn’t six-figure salary executives. It’s no-figure, no-salary, no-steady-paycheck, no-nonsense writers who can easily eliminate the expense of overpaying for WiFi and space.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

Debbie Reynolds and Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain."

Last night I had a conversation with a couple of Hollywood screenwriters about the effect 3D will have on the industry. After some healthy discourse, we all arrived at the conclusion that not only is 3D detrimental to the quality of movies, it is even worse for screenwriters. As hard as it is to get a spec paid attention to around this town, it will be even harder for writers to adapt to what I will call the increasing “productification” of forthcoming blockbusters. No longer are scripts going to be the sturdy foundation for most movies. Rather it seems their purpose may be diminished to something less than even a blueprint. For all we know, 3D scripts of the future (and scarily today) may just be notes scribbled down on a notepad–only to later be doctored by writers-for-hire.

You know who else this is bad for? Movie-goers! Can you believe it? As if paying for a movie and popcorn wasn’t already taking its toll. Exhibitors raised the price of admission for Dreamworks’ How to Train Your Dragon by 8%! How much is too much? Well they’re about to find out. If you go out with your family to see a 3D film you will more than likely be spending over $100. In some cases, that’s more money than it would cost to go out to see a Major League baseball team play. But can we blame them? No, not really. After all, last year was probably the most profitable year for American movies ever. Now the people responsible for filling the wallets of so many people have to start being both stingy and picky. Won’t be long before execs start scrambling to recover their losses on DVD sales.

What is fundamentally alarming about the industry’s rapid adjustment to 3D is the fact that many of the movies that are being released in 3D were never even shot in 3D. So essentially you are paying for a product that is not quite what it’s advertised to be. You end up paying about six to eight dollars more just to experience the post-production tinkering on a movie that was never meant to be experienced in 3D. That’s like if an ice-cream vendor runs out of chocolate ice-cream and douses vanilla ice-cream in brown food coloring with the intention to sell it. It’s just not the same.

Films which need to be converted into 3D after-the-fact wind up costing production companies around $100,000 per on-screen minute. Avatar is the exception to this since James Cameron chose to integrate the 3D technology prior to shooting. Cynical towards the industry’s knee-jerk reaction of more 2D films being retrofitted after the game-changing success of his own film, Cameron remarks, “After Toy Story, there were 10 really bad CG movies because everybody thought the success of that film was CG and not great characters that were beautifully designed and heartwarming.” Sounds like Cameron is starting to feel like Oppenheimer (after he created the atomic bomb).

James Cameron is starting to suspect that shooting Avatar in 3D may have set a terrible industry precedent.

So who else should be worried about 3D? You guessed it. Directors. There seems to be a great deal of concern that studio execs are going to be making the crucial decision on behalf of directors when it comes to the 3D question.  In lieu of the prospect of Transformers 3 undergoing a 3D transformation, the infamous Michael Bay has even taken a purist’s approach:

“This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not.  Avatar took four years. You can’t just shit out a 3D movie.”

So if James Cameron and Michael Bay aren’t quite sold on 3D, will anyone pay attention? Will they even have a say five years from now? Only time will tell. In the meantime, it’s important to consider who else the 3D boom is going to affect (or sink). Independent filmmakers.

How will the indie market adapt? Tough to say. Hard to believe we’ll be seeing a 3D version of Precious anytime soon–though the way things are going such a preposterous hypothetical may certainly become a reality. While some may contend that indies can benefit from being the cheaper alternative, I fear that they may be considered second-class films.

It’s wrong to dismiss 3D as just “a phase” or even as an evil. There are tremendous possibilities to be found through 3D. But as it stands now, 3D is proving itself to be a monstrous threat to both filmmakers and the medium of film. It’s time for more traditionalist visionaries to stand up and denounce the current direction of 3D. James Cameron sought to enhance film through 3D. And now he’s fighting to stop 3D from ruining it.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for  The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

The recent announcement of the 82nd Annual Academy Award’s Best Picture nominees had a few nice surprises, but overall they came as expected. The decision to dignify ten films instead of the usual five was an all-around good one, but it was rendered moot by the Academy’s steadfast refusal to acknowledge films that have traditionally been ignored because they weren’t tonally or aesthetically in line with the usual bait. Charlie has already compiled his Top-10, but I thought I’d offer another take on a year that has given us mostly shitty films, but also a handful of really good ones.

10. INVICTUS

Morgan Freeman was born to play Nelson Mandela in a movie, plain and simple. And finally, we have Invictus, from master filmmaker Clint Eastwood. It could have gone the predictable route and been about his imprisonment, or his fight against apartheid, but instead it gave us a refreshing, unexpected story about the South African people united through a common passion.

Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon in "Invictus."

9. DRAG ME TO HELL

Sam Raimi’s return to horror was a triumph on every level possible, and it’s truly a shame that he’s been wasting his talent for the past several years on those crappy Spider-man movies. Drag Me To Hell is like Evil Dead with a beautiful girl as the lead. If you can’t enjoy this film just a little bit, something is seriously wrong with you.

8. DISTRICT 9

The most pleasant surprise of all the Oscar surprises this year was that Neil Blomkamp’s $40 million (!) masterpiece was actually nominated for the Big Kahuna prize. The most creative and audacious sci-fi flick of the year – maybe of the decade – will stand the test of time. The sequel can’t come soon enough.

7. (500) DAYS OF SUMMER

It was a surprise this wasn’t nominated for Best Original Screenplay, let alone Best Picture. Creative as hell, and probably the closest thing to an Annie Hall we’ve gotten since, well, Annie Hall. Oh well. At least the Globes noticed it.

Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in "(500) Days of Summer."

6. WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

This was marketed as a kid’s movie, which I guess is fair, but it felt more like a nostalgic experimental film for adults. A lot of kid’s movies came out this year, but none came within an inch of the emotional gut-punch this delivered. Okay, maybe one…

5. UP

Another pleasant surprise from the voters, and it’s about time Pixar got some legitimate recognition instead of an obligatory Best Animated Feature statue. The nomination here is itself its own reward, as this is only the second time a fully animated film has been nominated for the top prize (the last instance being 1991’s Beauty and the Beast). And its nomination virtually guarantees it a win for Best Animated Feature. Unless it wins here, which of course it won’t.

4. MOON

The fact that Sony didn’t send out screeners of this film for awards consideration says a lot about what kind of idiots run Sony. Moon is an exceptional piece of cinema that deserved way more attention than it got. Sam Rockwell, who is awesome in literally everything he’s ever done, raised the bar even higher for himself with this audacious one-man show. If you haven’t heard of this film I don’t blame you because Sony sucks at marketing, but seriously, check it out.

3. THE HURT LOCKER

I was afraid this one would slip under the radar because of its painfully low theater count, but in this particular case, quality trumped quantity. The Hurt Locker is a raw, apolitical glimpse behind the curtain of that confusing and terrifying clusterfuck happening overseas. It’s the best film to come out of the Iraq debacle yet (not counting HBO’s so-realistic-it’s-scary Generation Kill.)

2. AVATAR

Do I really need to say anything? It’s fucking Avatar. It surpassed all expectations, and then some. A lot of people whine that the story is unoriginal, and you know what? They’re absolutely right. What they may not know is that it’s based on a certain story structure that has been around forever. So go and bitch about originality somewhere else, Avatar-cynics; the only reason you love to hate it is because you want to seem cool and against the grain.

Zoe Saldana in "Avatar."

1. THE ROAD

The biggest disappointment this year is that the grittiest, most devastatingly powerful film of the year was completely shafted. I understand that it’s not for everyone. It’s very depressing, and no one was expecting them to garnish it. But it’s the best post-apocalyptic film I’ve ever seen, and what’s even more depressing is that it didn’t earn a single nomination in any category. Seriously, they gave Harry Potter and the Dear God Is This Series Over Yet a Best Cinematography nod and not this? And there are only three nominees for Best Makeup. Three. And one of those is for Star Trek. Really, you chose fucking Spock ears over Robert Duvall’s decaying face? Up yours, Academy.

Viggo Mortensen in "The Road."

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

BRONSON – It was really hard to leave this out of the top ten. A bold, stylistic, all-around badass prison movie. If there were eleven spots, this would be in, no question.

WATCHMEN – Remember this one? I think everyone forgot it came out this year.

PUBLIC ENEMIES – A really good film, probably Mann’s best since The Insider, but just not memorable enough to warrant serious consideration.

STAR TREK – Loud, clunky, and full of gaping plot holes. But it was really fun, and anyone that can make Star Trek enjoyable deserves some sort of recognition.

PRECIOUS – Very well acted and dark as hell, but ultimately the amount of tragedy befalling her character got so ridiculous that it collapsed under the weight of its own seriousness and became kind of hilarious. ZOMBIELAND – An awesome zombie-comedy (zomedy?) but it’s no Shaun of the Dead. Not by a long shot.

A SERIOUS MAN – I’d probably appreciate this more if I were Jewish.

ORPHAN – Fuck you, I liked it.

UP IN THE AIR – Meh. It’s good, just not worthy of all the praise it’s getting. I felt the same way about Gran Torino last year.

OBSERVE AND REPORT – An underappreciated comedy that underperformed at the box office, but will probably gain a cult following over the years.

Zach Copeland is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade.

Each film on this list has a special place.  So without further qualification, here are what I consider to be the year’s best films (And would you believe it? This list has two films starring Mike Tyson)!

# 10.  PRECIOUS

I said it once before, and I’ll say it again: Precious is a brave film with brave performances, seen by people brave enough to sit through it all. Not much else needs to be said. Mo’Nique and Mariah Carey rocked audiences and exposed their souls through their characters. Gabourey Sidibe wasn’t so bad either. Here is a film which brings hope for Black Cinema, an ailing Hollywood institution that has since been ruled by a monopolizing Tyler Perry.

Why it’s ranked # 10: Choosing a tenth film for this list was not easy. Other considerations for #10 were Star Trek, Avatar, The Lovely Bones, and Drag Me to Hell. So go ahead and spew your venom, Avatar fans. But when all was said and done, the performances in Precious were just too good. The script and overall message of Precious continue to make me question its worth. For this reason, it sits up here at # 10.

# 9. THE HANGOVER

Pure comic escapism. For a film made in 2009 to so effectively permeate American pop culture and catch fire as well as this film did, it deserves all the accolades it gets.  Judd Apatow’s comedies sought to make us laugh, think and cry. With The Hangover, Todd Phillips asks us only to laugh. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Why it’s ranked # 9: I did not expect this film to be a Top-10 contender after I first saw it in theaters. But the characters and storylines grew on me and somehow the Las Vegas setting seemed to take on a different, more iconic meaning. Bet you can’t think about Las Vegas without thinking about The Hangover.

# 8. STATE OF PLAY

This taut, political thriller set against the backdrop of the doomed newspaper industry seems to fly under everyone’s radar. Director Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland) and scribe Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton) deliver a pulse-pounding story with an exciting series of twists complemented by intense performances of Ben Affleck, Jason Bateman and Russell Crowe. Well-crafted political thrillers are rare and difficult to pull off. The Macdonald/Gilroy duo makes it look all too easy.

Why it’s ranked # 8: Call me a sucker for well-made political thrillers. The reason this isn’t ranked higher, however, is because of the film’s odd ending which I still have trouble wrapping my head around. The script was very ambitious. Just seems that some plot points were left unresolved and the ending was somewhat unfulfilling. Take my word though: the 2hr+ running time for this film flies by real fast.

# 7. THE COVE

There’s nothing like a good “breaking-the-rules,”  activist documentary that gets people fired up and motivated to take action. The Cove centers on the systematic killing of thousands of dolphins at a Japanese cove in Taijii.

Why it’s ranked # 7: “If you aren’t an activist you’re an inactivist.” At times the documentary felt a little too much like a public service announcement. Maybe I wanted more from this one. Further, it seems a bit unfair for someone like Ric O’Barry to target his efforts towards solving the issue of captivity without addressing other species, such as domestic animals. The documentary also seems to lose focus,  with a hidden agenda of denouncing human consumption of seafood altogether.

# 6. WATCHMEN

Forget Avatar folks. This is the year’s most visually stunning film. Chances are, if you saw this film you either loved it or hated it. If you loved it, you probably remember the film for its visuals or its unique approach to the Superhero film genre. If you hated it, you were probably irked by the frequent sightings of Dr. Manhattan’s blue penis or disappointed by the film’s downer climax. Or maybe you just didn’t “get it” or thought it was far too long.

Why it’s ranked # 6: Some of the aforementioned grievances I would even agree with. At times the film loses focus of its own soul. Many of you may even argue with me over Watchmen’s inclusion in this list. Perhaps this is one of the few films that requires its viewers to read the graphic novel in order to make peace with its approach. Loyalists rarely agree with the cinematic adaptation of their favorite piece of literature. Such is not the case with Watchmen. I will say that the film has some flaws. But there’s no denying that Zack Snyder is a true visionary.

# 5. TYSON

Regardless of what you think of Mike Tyson, I can guarantee that this documentary will change your opinion of him in some way or another. Without relying on any high-tech editing tricks or fancy camerawork, James Toback’s Tyson is a meat-and-potatoes, candid story about the misunderstood life of Mike Tyson. Told in the form of personal interviews from Tyson himself inter-cut with archival footage of Tyson’s life in and out of the ring, viewers are offered access into Mike Tyson’s shockingly-complex inner consciousness. The film may as well be called Being Mike Tyson. By the time the credits are rolling, Tyson has been so honest and forthcoming about his life that we almost feel we know him like a friend.

Why it’s ranked # 5: This is simply one of the best stories of the year. Tyson’s brutal honesty opens up a window to his soul. For a man who has spent his whole life being defined by the media, we finally get to know the real Mike Tyson.

# 4. DISTRICT 9

What I love about District 9 is the fact that the story is completely absurd and yet we are asked to accept it within the first few minutes of the film. Using the apartheid as a political backdrop, the filmmakers present a world that formidably echoes the political climate in Africa.  District 9 is more effective at tackling the political issue than Avatar, a film which shares an awful lot in common. Both films attempt to politicize their respective stories by having the main characters undergo physiological transformations in a way that makes it dire for both humans and prawns/Na’Vi to come to an understanding and establish peace.  Avatar’s Jake Sully battles to save the Na’Vi while Wikus Van Der Merwe of District 9 is hellbent on saving himself.

Why it’s ranked # 4: When an ambitious group of people get together and decide to bring an original idea to the big screen in an uncompromising effort, magic is made.

# 3. A SERIOUS MAN

At times both hysterical and depressing, the newest film of the Coen Brothers is tough to swallow and even harder to classify. I’m pretty sure I might be the only person in America to have understood this film, from the opening fable of the Yiddush couple to the intense sucker-punch of an ending. A friend of mine once told me why films of the Coen Brothers often require multiple viewings in order to be understood and appreciated. He said simply, “When you’re watching their films, you have to bear in mind that they’re smarter than you.”

Why it’s # 3: A wonderful performance by Michael Stuhlbarg and a truly haunting conclusion to the film. The only reason this film is ranked third…the two films ahead of it are that good.

# 2. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY

Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat in "Paranormal Activity."

Borrowing the technique used in Michael Haneke’s Cache, Oren Peli takes the independent filmmaker’s approach of proving that sometimes one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Never has more suspense been generated from a single take and a still frame then when Katie and Micah fall asleep in their bed. Never has a movie (and one with blah production value) been able to exponentially increase its scare-potential in a home entertainment setting as much as Paranormal Activity, which transforms the viewer’s home into a haunted house.  Think about it. If you watch this film while laying on your bed, in your room, how can you not be scared? Talk about a meta-experience.

Why it’s ranked # 2: A monster triumph for independent filmmaking and proof that high-concept documentary style films can still be conceived and made for cheap. Proportionally, Paranormal Activity may be the biggest box office surprise in the history of cinema, next to Halloween (1978) and The Blair Witch Project (1999).

# 1. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

Wouldn’t it be cool if history really happened like this? That was probably the first question in Quentin Tarantino’s mind before writing this brilliant film which bursts with creativity, irony and non-stop fun. The Nazi filmmaking puppet, Leni Reifenstahl (Triumph of the Will) was gifted with the ability to craft German propaganda in such a way that outright betrayed Germany’s own history in order to maintain national morale. With Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino too revises history only to reinforce a popular world perspective on the Nazi regime. And in such a way, it serves as its own form of propaganda.

Why it’s ranked # 1: When I walked out of the theater I turned to the person next to me and said, “That was the greatest theatrical experience of my life. I loved it.” What really makes the film is the epic conclusion in the French cinema, where Tarantino really has us convinced that the Basterds’ plan may very well go to shit.  It’s scary…we want history to end the way we think it’s going to end in the movie. Tarantino uses the entire film to prepare us for the final scene.  So when the final scene finally plays out, the result is a meta-theatrical, cinematic orgasm of epic proportions.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

In a Nutshell…

After emerging as the victor of the VHS/Betamax format war of the mid-70’s, VHS tapes revolutionized the entertainment industry from top to bottom. A myriad of newly resurrected films could now be easily accessed, viewed at leisure, and most importantly, preserved. Surviving the debuts of various other formats, including the infamous Laserdisc bomb of the 80’s, VHS dominated home entertainment until the DVD was introduced in the 90’s. If VHS was the reefer of home entertainment, then DVD was the crack-cocaine. It revolutionized movie watching even further, offering better clarity, sound and video options like subtitles and language tracks, and a variety of other goodies such as trailers, behind-the-scenes featurettes, and audio commentary tracks. In the past couple of years we’ve witnessed the advent of a new generation: Blu-ray (the victor of yet another format war, beating out HD DVDs in early 2008), which currently stands as the capstone of home entertainment.

Anyone with a 72-inch 1080p television with a surround sound system and Blu-ray player will tell you that when it comes home entertainment, there really isn’t much more that needs to be improved. But technology doesn’t just stand still. The next bigger-and-better thing eventually comes around (digital downloads may already be making discs obsolete).

So where do we go from here?

Phase One: 3-D

The logical next step for home entertainment is in fact currently being developed by media companies. Although 3-D film technology was adapted even before its initial boom in the 1950’s, its popularity has since ebbed and flowed, never really gaining a firm grip with the moviegoing public. But with the evolution of CGI at last approaching its pinnacle (or so it seems, at least), and confirmed by the unprecedented success of James Cameron’s 3-D Avatar, it certainly appears that this time around, the technology is here to stay. Time to Consummation: 3-5 years.

In John Carpenter's "They Live," Roddy Piper is able to see subliminal messages created by an alien-run government whenever he puts on special sunglasses.

Phase Two: Choose-Your-Own-Adventure

You know those books where you get to choose what the characters do at the end of the page? Imagine that concept applied to films. You’re watching Saw 23. Jigsaw’s latest captive is hobbling through a labyrinthine warehouse armed with a meat cleaver and comes upon a bleeding man – a known antagonist – chained to a water heater about to burst and crying out for help, when suddenly the screen freezes and a menu pops up with three choices: 1) try to free the man, 2) get out of there and let him boil, 3) hack him to bloody pulp with the meat cleaver. This would be a nightmare for filmmakers, who would have to shoot several times more footage than usual, and cinema purists might complain that it compromises the integrity of storytelling. But this new media form allows for a lot of fun new possibilities. The concept could be expanded to create video game/movie hybrids (many video games already feature extensive cinematic sequences, and a few, such as Enter the Matrix, even incorporate live-action scenes shot specifically for the game). Small indications of this technology have already surfaced on DVDs, with multi-angle features, alternate endings, etc. Time to Consummation: 15-20 years.

Phase Three: 4-D… and Beyond

Where do you go from 3-D? Really, how much more do we need to be immersed in the world of a film? Well, you know, people have other senses besides vision and hearing. Imagine… When the Tyrannosaurus Rex first approaches the idle vehicles in Jurassic Park, the ground literally shakes. When the Doomsday device is activated at the end of Dr. Strangelove, a wave of heat washes over your body. When the cowboys around the campfire toot bean-music out of their asses in Blazing Saddles… well, you get the idea. Some theme parks already have theater-style attractions with little quirks like these. Jerking seats when there is a tumult, a spray of mist when someone sneezes… Retrofitting theaters for this kind of mass sensory-immersion would be daunting, but feasible. And the creative possibilities are virtually endless. However, applying this kind of technology to consumer home theater systems is, at this point, rather outlandish. The most likely result if this ever comes to fruition would be a customized La-Z-Boy recliner that wirelessly syncs to your TV/media player and perform various sensory functions on cue, based on whatever film you may be watching. Don’t look for this to be available any time soon. Time to Consummation: 30-35 years.

Phase Four: Full Immersion

At this point, we’re pretty much in the Matrix. Virtual reality to the nth degree. There is little noticeable difference between the real world and the entertainment world. Life doesn’t imitate art or vice-versa because they are literally one and the same. Time to Consummation: 100+ years.

This is just some food for thought. Please post any other ideas of what you think the future of home entertainment might have in store.

Zach Copeland is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade.