Dark Knight? Best Picture? Really? I saw it pretty late in the game and all the hype really raised my expectations and I ended up a little disappointed.

Like you with Iron Man, I enjoyed it. It was a great movie that had tons going for it. Unfortunately the plot had too many little problems for me to ignore completely.

Again, like what you said with Iron Man: Is it a fun movie that deserves all of its success? Absolutely. Should it be considered one of the best pictures of the year? Probably not.

And - good call with Speed Racer. Glad to see John Goodman working, but ouch.

Does the Academy give out posthumous Oscars?

Also, haven't seen WALL-E yet, but have heard nothing but wonderful raves about it, so I'll probably be seeing it over Christmas break.

Delynn:

It does give posthumous awards -- the most notable being to Peter Finch in Network.

I must be a soul-less goon because I put Wall-E in the same general class as ET - a big over-rated yawner.

I do agree with your assessment of Speed Racer. I'm in the demographic, too. We used to run home from school to watch it. If I remember that far back, my Barbie dated Speed for a while. Just hearing the music makes me grin like an idiot. I wanted it to be good so bad. Instead, it was just so bad.

As usual, Scalzi, you've hit every nail squarely on its head.

Sometimes I question my own taste in films, especially after reading a write-up like this.

I enjoyed Speed Racer. I wouldn't say it was the best movie ever, but I did at least think it was fun - enough so to watch it a couple of times. It was cheesy and cornball and predictable, sure, but it was an enjoyable viewing for me.

I loved Iron Man, but the one thing about it that almost pulled me out of the story was the physics of the thing. Doing the sorts of things he does in that suit should have done bad things - very bad thins - to his innards. But it's a superhero movie, so I was willing to suspend my disbelief a little further for the sake of enjoying everything else about the flick.

Hum. I have to say, I agree with you wholeheartedly on Wall-E... for the first 40 minutes of it, or so. Once aboard the Axiom, with the toony humans and their dialogue, the movie becomes about 85% less special. Point one, the human figures clash *horribly* with the photoreal environment and with Wall-E. Point two, if they'd *just* stuck with a near-dialogue-free movie, then it would have been so much better. Unspeaking acting worked *so well* to start with that I was genuinely sorry when people started talking.

Just my tuppen'th worth.

I have a few slight disagreements.

Speed Racer. I thought it was fun, if nothing else. I didn't go into it expecting Oscar-caliber material, just eye candy. And I certainly got that. Maybe I'm not the right person to judge because I never really watched the series, but I enjoyed the movie for what it was.

Wall-E. God, what a smug movie. I totally agree the first half of it is downright brilliant, but I don't care what Andrew Stanton says: That movie is a diatribe against humanity, and it ruined the movie for me.

I'm with you on "Wall-E." And "Cloverfield" is doubly amazing for packing such a wallop on what passes for a relatively frugal budget these days. But "The Dark Knight" didn't quite do it for me. The action scenes were choppy and incomprehensible, and although Ledger was great, the Joker, as written, seemed so omnipotent, and the forces of law and order so stupid, that my willing suspension of disbelief was taxed to the breaking point. As for "Speed Racer," at the urging of my 7-year-old daughter, we saw this one at an Imax theater. She loved it. I felt as if I had been trapped inside giant kaleidoscope for a couple of hours, an experience that, when I look back on it, wasn't entirely unpleasant.

I'd say that one of the biggest problems with Speed Racer is actually demographic confusion. Adults who grew up with Speed Racer went in and wound up disappointed. However, I went with my wife and kids (9, 7, and 5 - with the middle one being a typical 7-year old boy). We all loved it! I think if I went in with my geek hat on as a grown up, I would have been disappointed, too. Fortunately, A) I'm a just a few years too young to have had Speed Racer be as much a part of my childhood as other cartoons, and B) watching it with kids makes it much easier to watch it on their level. However, it wasn't really marketed as a kids movie, not to mention having way too high budget for a kids movie - so it needed the adult demographic and failed.

As for Iron Man, what I find so incredible about it is that it is the closest I've seen so far to a perfect "comic book" movie (that and Robert Downey Jr. was the perfect Tony Stark). Something like Dark Knight really left the superhero genre behind and was a drama with superhero elements to it (and, of course, that made it incredible and actually groundbreaking). Iron Man was still firmly in the superhero genre, but executed very well. I see it as the culmination of the Tim Burton Batman, Spider Man, X-Men, Spider Man 2 series of making increasingly better superhero movies that are still firmly rooted in the genre. Hopefully, it'll continue to improve from here and not let Iron Man be the peak of high quality superhero movies.
(Besides, Iron Man was also so good they made it twice, but called the second one The Incredible Hulk.)

I also have to echo your comment about Pixar being one of the only studios to understand the importance of characters and story. It is very clear in the animation arena with Pixar's ironic pairing with Disney. Disney has been telling pretty much the exact same story in their animated films for decades - and it wasn't even a good story back then! Pixar movies could be hand drawn stills on lined notebook paper with amateur narration and still be good movies! It'd be nice for Hollywood to realize that someday. Dreamworks animation flirts with that idea on occassion (Iron Giant), but too often thinks they need to mimic the Disney formula. Good live-action sci fi is rare enough that I actually don't know which studio does what.

I guess I'm a 7-year-old boy, I loved Speed Racer. I haven't had such a wild light show since 2001, and for me, it

was

I do agree with the poster above about the physics of Iron Man. I can swallow the impossibility of the flying hunk of bulletproof metal.... but crash landing in the desert without turning into a film of raspberry jam on the inner surface, and absurdly falling through the ceiling -- it broke me out of the movie.

Truly, though, it's been a slow year for SF&F. Klaatu didn't impress, Caspian flopped, Hancock is a yawn, Bond isn't SF anymore, and Boyle, after making two excellent SF films (Millions and Sunshine), went for a contemporary film (Slumdog).

I spend part of the time watching Iron Man wondering why his legs weren't ripped off. He must really like his Thigh Master. That being said, it was a fun movie if you didn't stop to think about it.

Superhero movies can be tricky when trying to decide if they are SF or not. Would you consider Superman to be SF? He comes from another solar system and derives his powers from the difference in radiation between our sun and his home planet's. You labeled Iron Man SF and The Dark Knight not SF even though Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne are almost mirror images of each other (save for the massive power supply in Starks' chest). Is Batman not techno-geeky enough to qualify, even though most of his gadgets seem to exceed our current technological capabilities?

John H:

I've actually discussed Dark Knight SF-ness here. I don't think it's overtly science fictional enough to qualify as being in the genre, although it's really a judgment call, and other people are free to disagree.

I was prepared to hate Speed Racer when I saw it on a plane flight, but, in spite of the fact that I become absolutely insomniac on plane flights--it actually managed to put me gently to sleep.

So I'll actually be looking to score a cheap copy to use as an in-flight red-eye cure for sleeplessness in the future!

The best production design in a 2008 SF movie was the underground city in City of Ember, which was a disappointment otherwise, especially in comparison to the book. The city was built as an actual set (in the same facility in Northern Ireland where the Titanic was built). A digital version of the city was also created and edited into several sequences. They did a hell of a job; one reason that the movie disappointed is simply that audiences saw too little of their work onscreen.

Scalzi:

I suppose you're right that TDK is less obvious, but Bruce Wayne would not be Batman without the technology he employs. Like I said, deciding a superhero movie's SF-ness is a tricky task. For me, TDK reaches that threshold.

It does beg the question, though: If Iron Man is SF because of all the techy stuff in the movie, would future sequels not be if they don't introduce more new techy stuff? (i.e., since we already have the back-story on how Tony Stark became Iron Man, would it stop being SF if the sequels focused on his crime-fighting and downplayed the tech a la TDK?)

I'm hoping to be able to finish WALL-E soon. We've had it from Netflix for a few weeks now, but weirdly, that little guy reminds us so much of our recently deceased dog that my husband and I can't get through it without breaking up.

ITA with your points on TDK. I think Batman, in any medium, has always worked best when treated as straight drama that just happens to have superhero/SF elements.

Ken - Iron Giant was directed by Brad Bird, who, as you probably know, is now a prominent part of Pixar (Incredibles, Ratatouille).

re: Iron Man physics detractors - I think you guys missed the point, which is fine. I, too, typically prefer realism in my real-like SF. And was at first thrown off by the crash in the desert. But by the time the movie gets to him testing the boots where we get one of the best pratfalls in recent memory, it becomes clear that the movie isn't trying to take itself too seriously. It's a comic book movie, and it's stretching physics appropriately. If you can view the movie on those terms, which I think is what was intended, you will probably find it much more enjoyable, and not be bothered by those elements that previously knocked you out of the movie. Just my take.

Mr. Scalzi said: that Pixar is the only studio to actually understand that story and character are just as important to science fiction as explosions and special effects.

If I were the type of person to say, "amen, brother" then this is where I would say it. For every movie like Shark Tale, Robots, and Polar Express (which is a danged shame) that I simply can't stand to watch for how horrible a story the film tries to sale me, there fortunately is a Nemo, Incredibles, and Ratatouille to make me happy. Even the weakest Pixar film (Ratatouille did bore me a bit) is still stronger than most films in the animation genre.

Of course, you were talking sci-fi, not animation, but hey, I'm no Pixar...

Best movie you've never seen: Repo! The Genetic Opera. It's dystopian rock opera - like Bladerunner beat up The Rocky Horror Picture Show and took its lunch money. It features the most peculiarly eclectic cast you've ever seen - including Anthony Stewart Head of Buffy fame (and it includes a scene where he uses an eviscerated corpse as a hand puppet), former Phantom of the Opera star Sarah Brightman, Paris Hilton (who looks nothing like herself and sings quite credibly), and Ogre from Skinny Puppy - and was directed by Darren Lynn Bousman (of the Saw franchise). Lionsgate gave them about enough money to make the film, then decided it didn't have an audience - and Darren believed in the film so much that he and one of the co-creators are touring the film around the country themselves. I saw it here in Phoenix at the beginning of the month and it was an experience not to be believed.

If you're not lucky enough for it to be showing in your area, the DVD is scheduled to come out January 20th.

loved WALL-E, but couldn't understand the people calling it a comedy... i was near tears the first half of the movie

Scalzi, you have totally lost my faith in your movie taste. Come on, Cloverfield? A swollen-headed Tyrannosaurus Rex attacks New York, with a herd of defective facehuggers that didn't make the cut at the Alien auditions in tow, solely because the nerdy guy in the back who ruined his ABC cash cow to make -Lost- of all things wanted to CG-destroy the Statue of Liberty is somehow "satisfying"? Never mind that half the audience at any given show was too busy to pay attention due to throwing up because the Steadycam was invented for a -reason-, the plot was lame, contrived, the monsters were dumb, and the whole thing was This Is What Would Happen If Ted Hughes' Iron Giant Lost His Mind Except Very Badly Directed.

I mean, I did give it a chance when it was playing at my friend's house, but I was with the half of the audience throwing up due to motion sickness before twenty minutes had elapsed because handheld camcorder footage should not be used outside of home videos. When I -could- look up, I was completely unimpressed for all the reasons named above.

I liked Iron Man, but I didn't go in expecting amazing things, just some shiny gadgetry, saving the world, and a sexy redhead, and I got all of that. (Despite the fact that I don't care how anyone claims to clean that guy up, he is always, ALWAYS going to literally ooze grease.) Same with Speed Racer--I expected shiny ridiculousness with no intelligence factor whatsoever and I got it.

I didn't see ANYTHING I'd rate as a great scifi movie this year, come to think of it. But then again, I still have yet to see WALL-E.

I'm over 40, was an enthusiastic Speed Racer watcher as a kid, have enjoyed various parodies and riffs on it over the years (anyone ever seen the Dexter's Lab episode?), and thought the movie was distilled liquid Speed Racer: awful but awesome, pure schlock but totally enjoyable. It was probably way over budget for what it was, but that certainly made it beautiful to watch; the story was simple, and no more incoherent than most episodes of the cartoon. Frankly, where they did mess up was the speech: I missed stuff like, "Secretly, a secret meeting was taking place in a secret hideout, secretly," and people talking a mile a minute.

To John H: what, new tech has to be introduced every time to keep something SF? The fact that reality-defying tech exists constantly isn't sufficient? So Firefly/Serenity stopped being SF after the first episode?

I didn't like "Cloverfield." Too predictable for my tastes, and the "filmed via cell phone" technique gave me a headache. A clever idea executed fairly well, but again: predictable. As for the rest, haven't seen any of them yet.

Iorn Man... possibly the best movie that I have seen in a long time. Dark Knight was veary good, But Iron Man was allso funny in the right ways. You can find humor in how the joker takes out a huge thug with little more then a strong arm and a pencil (that little more happens to be the table apon witch the pensil sat) but I found iorn man to fit my most important aspect for a movie to have. Live up to the hype without being crap.

Wall-E is fantastic! My wife and I left our 3-year-old with my parents to go see that movie. I'm glad we did. It's magical, funny, romantic, and (in contrast to a previous post) very human and hopeful. Even the credits are part of the movie.

Iron Man was great! It was fun and goofy. Who could ask for more?

I've avoided The Dark Knight. All the reviews made it out to be very dark and disturbing. Not really my cup of tea. I'll probably watch it at some point. It doesn't help that Batman Begins was so weak. I really like Batman, and I really, really like the Frank Miller comics that inspired this latest round of movies (The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One), but Batman Begins was oddly static and unengaging.

I'll have to check out Cloverfield. It had one of the best trailers ever.

The City of Ember (mentioned in a previous post) was a good film. It wasn't great, but it was good. The cast did a wonderful job and the story was thought-provoking. My wife and I immediately bought the novel and sequel. I think there are two more novels following those.

I should add to my previous post, that our three-year-old son has seen WALL-E several times now that we have it on DVD. He loves it! My wife and I were just glad to see the movie the first time without interruption and be able to enjoy it as adults.

Tripped over your blog on a search and am having lots of fun reading all the entries.

Anyway, Wall-ee? Yes, definitely the best, but Cloverfield 'most satisfying'? It was awful. The premise, not so bad, the execution - nauseating - as in the camera work. Plus, it's always sad when you watch a film and are so disengaged from the characters that you sit there and wager with your friend who will die first, and don't care if anybody survives.

Must go through rest of entries and see if you saw the remake of Day the Earth STood Still. My only comment on that is that I was rooting for the aliens in that remake...