What I find most intriguing about this is two films you listed, both of the same genre, one at each end of the decade, that represent the differences of our social outlook over the course of a few short years. As you said, “Spiderman” was a great antitode to the sadness and tragedy we felt in the wake of September 11; we needed hope, idealism, and a good time at the movies, and we got in the form of a high-school kid swinging gleefully throughout the skyscrapers of our most iconic cities. Cut to six years later, after the insanity of our wars and political disorder, and we get “The Dark Knight”, which I fully agree is the most relevant, iconic film of the decade. Do we have breezy escapism? That's funny. We have a hero, one that may not be alright psychologically, who bends the rules to achieve what he believes to be the greater good, a villain who is the representation of the evil of our time, completely devoid of reason or motive other than to cause chaos, make us suffer and laugh in the wake of his anarchy, police who are corrupt, a city on the verge of collapse, and the shining beacon of hope ultimately succumbing to madness. And instead of patriotically closing out the day, our hero is chased off into the night, broken and bleeding, shouldering the blame for the transgressions of others, and hoping that the ends have been justified by his questionable means.

Looking back, I believe that this decade will be seen as a particular cruible. It's been painful, challenging, and confusing, but we've perservered and come out stronger because of it. Thank you so much for this article, man. It made me really reflect on the past ten years, and it was a joy to read.

I am completely on board with most of what is said here with a few minor differences. First, I think you nailed 2009. I'm at a point for the first time in my life where I actually dread going to the theater. I'm constantly disappointed, and (until recently) have felt a need to see every franchise sequel just to see it. Transformers 2 changed that attitude. After over 2 and a half hours of actual mental distress and a feeling of contempt for everyone that saw it, I will no longer be subjecting myself to these mindless films. I do think it's the year though. I fully believe that if Transformers 2 came out in the early 2000s, I would have enjoyed it. Not because I was different, but Michael Bay, the audience and the studios were different. 2009 can suck it.

Second, I think while you are right with 2002 being the true beginning (or beginning that actually took hold of an audience not as fluff, but actual cinema) of the Superhero (even the superhero reimagining of Count of Monte Cristo was that year), I think your breakdown of the spy character in early 2002 is off. Yes, Jason Bourne probably is the spy of the decade…I will submit that. But, you use Supremacy and Ultimatum to make your point. If you watch Identity today, you will see a pre-Supremacy, highly stylized, decent action movie with a “who-am-I?” character (something also waaay overdone this decade) made for the MTV crowd by Doug Liman. It isn't the classic spy-shattering image you paint it to be. Now, definitely, it's sequels could be taken in that direction. But The Bourne Identity is a amnesiac everyman thrown into a realistic version of James Bond's world. It's obvious that this was Ludlum's intent (the name alone gives that away), but it seems obvious that was not the intent of the filmmakers. In fact, I would wager that The Bourne Identity has more in common with Die Another Day and xXx than it does with The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum.

First, I'd like to remind people that Die Another Day was not hated when it came out. In fact, it got generally favorable reviews in 2002. And it was a fun movie. It was escapist. And that's the point I want to make. All three of those films, despite their flaws, were fun (well, xXx was intended to be…). Bourne didn't emerge as the spy savior until later with the truly revolutionary sequel. America and the world weren't looking for action films that did more than that in 2002. Remember, this is right after 9/11. People wanted to avoid thinking about terrorists and explosions and innocents dying. Bourne, Bond and xXx all did that. There was another spy film that year though. One that didn't. Jack Ryan in the criminally underrated Sum of All Fears. The movie was such a reminder that it bombed and people have blamed it for killing that franchise rather than restarting it. 9/11 was the beginning of the end for Ben Affleck's career, putting the first nail in the coffin that he could not headline a franchise (Daredevil finishing it later). Sum of All Fears made the spy real in a time that it was unwanted and the film failed horribly for it. But by 2004, people were ready and we got our real spies in Supremacy. We also got Team America: World Police to satirize the real world espionage world. The trend has continued until now and that's where we got Casino Royale in 2006. And how about Matt Damon's role in The Good Shepard in 2006 as the quintessential “real” spy to hit the point home?

As for your summary of Spider-man and it's place in culture…you are dead on. You reminded me of the feelings I had after seeing that movie. It was Rocky-esque. I was inspired, emotional, curious, depressed and hopeful all at the same time. I was also in high school, so it kind of catered to me, but that's beyond the point. A great pick with Spider-man.

Bottom line: Die Another Day wasn't that bad, dude. Brilliant article all around.

We're working on a film project that will further open doors for audience participation, insomuch as being completely interactive in nature. The audience will be able to partake in a two-way discussion with the makers of our feature film (Fandom), see every detail of the film's production process and even give their opinion on key production decisions. The internet has changed the way movies are being marketed. We're changing the way films are being made! Check us out! http://experiencefandom.com

I am completely on board with most of what is said here with a few minor differences. First, I think you nailed 2009. I'm at a point for the first time in my life where I actually dread going to the theater. I'm constantly disappointed, and (until recently) have felt a need to see every franchise sequel just to see it. Transformers 2 changed that attitude. After over 2 and a half hours of actual mental distress and a feeling of contempt for everyone that saw it, I will no longer be subjecting myself to these mindless films. I do think it's the year though. I fully believe that if Transformers 2 came out in the early 2000s, I would have enjoyed it. Not because I was different, but Michael Bay, the audience and the studios were different. 2009 can suck it.

Second, I think while you are right with 2002 being the true beginning (or beginning that actually took hold of an audience not as fluff, but actual cinema) of the Superhero (even the superhero reimagining of Count of Monte Cristo was that year), I think your breakdown of the spy character in early 2002 is off. Yes, Jason Bourne probably is the spy of the decade…I will submit that. But, you use Supremacy and Ultimatum to make your point. If you watch Identity today, you will see a pre-Supremacy, highly stylized, decent action movie with a “who-am-I?” character (something also waaay overdone this decade) made for the MTV crowd by Doug Liman. It isn't the classic spy-shattering image you paint it to be. Now, definitely, it's sequels could be taken in that direction. But The Bourne Identity is a amnesiac everyman thrown into a realistic version of James Bond's world. It's obvious that this was Ludlum's intent (the name alone gives that away), but it seems obvious that was not the intent of the filmmakers. In fact, I would wager that The Bourne Identity has more in common with Die Another Day and xXx than it does with The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum.

First, I'd like to remind people that Die Another Day was not hated when it came out. In fact, it got generally favorable reviews in 2002. And it was a fun movie. It was escapist. And that's the point I want to make. All three of those films, despite their flaws, were fun (well, xXx was intended to be…). Bourne didn't emerge as the spy savior until later with the truly revolutionary sequel. America and the world weren't looking for action films that did more than that in 2002. Remember, this is right after 9/11. People wanted to avoid thinking about terrorists and explosions and innocents dying. Bourne, Bond and xXx all did that. There was another spy film that year though. One that didn't. Jack Ryan in the criminally underrated Sum of All Fears. The movie was such a reminder that it bombed and people have blamed it for killing that franchise rather than restarting it. 9/11 was the beginning of the end for Ben Affleck's career, putting the first nail in the coffin that he could not headline a franchise (Daredevil finishing it later). Sum of All Fears made the spy real in a time that it was unwanted and the film failed horribly for it. But by 2004, people were ready and we got our real spies in Supremacy. We also got Team America: World Police to satirize the real world espionage world. The trend has continued until now and that's where we got Casino Royale in 2006. And how about Matt Damon's role in The Good Shepard in 2006 as the quintessential “real” spy to hit the point home?

As for your summary of Spider-man and it's place in culture…you are dead on. You reminded me of the feelings I had after seeing that movie. It was Rocky-esque. I was inspired, emotional, curious, depressed and hopeful all at the same time. I was also in high school, so it kind of catered to me, but that's beyond the point. A great pick with Spider-man.

Bottom line: Die Another Day wasn't that bad, dude. Brilliant article all around.

We're working on a film project that will further open doors for audience participation, insomuch as being completely interactive in nature. The audience will be able to partake in a two-way discussion with the makers of our feature film (Fandom), see every detail of the film's production process and even give their opinion on key production decisions. The internet has changed the way movies are being marketed. We're changing the way films are being made! Check us out! http://experiencefandom.com

You certainly hit upon several salient points. I know that you limited yourself, at least slightly, by including movies from each year. Given that, I might make some different choices.

I think The Hurt Locker is a much better example of the difficult nihilism that the Iraq War represents than Jarhead. Like Private Ryan, it sums up the futility of war and specifically the difficulties presented in this current war. (Perhaps I'm overtly biased since I loved Hurt Locker and I can barely remember Jarhead?)

I also don't know if I agree with your 2009 picks of Transformers and Twlight. I think the “pre-existing block buster francise” was set with Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter. I don't think that either of these films, despite their success, added anything of cultural signifigance or paved any ground not already laid out by the previous two francises. They made money, but I don't think they made an impact.

As for the Passion Of The Christ – Has that film really made an impact? It did make a boat load of money and turned Mel Gibson fron an A-List Star into a true impact player in Hollywood, but is the film talked about? It seems that the film “fell” off the map after its theatrical run. I'm sure it sold some DVDs, but I have not seen the next wave of religion in movies that I expected upon it's initial success. (Or am I just not reading the right magazines/websites?)

For myself, Lost In Translation had the same lack of impact. Granted, I am not a fan of that film, but I'm not sure how it paved the way for indie film? Clerks, Slackers and Sex, Lies and Videotape made far greater impact. (I mention Lost In Translastion alone since it seemed to be held in the highest regard. Personally, I liked Elephant and 28 Days much more, but I would not regard either of them as ground breaking.)

Anyway, great article. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

The Pianist, I was so moved by that movie. It was well written, the cast was excellent, beautifully directed. Reguardless about how people feel about Polanski he made a great film that touched people, at least for me anyway. I think because Polanski is a holocaust surviver himself, he really put himself into his work, he really wanted the film to mean something and it shows.