Kick-Ass Review

It not only does precisely what it says on the tin, Kick-Ass is a landmark in cinema

Controversy; the marketer's best friend. Yet, it is one of those wild friends who can do you a great favour, but you wouldn't trust them dead with things that are precious to you, such as your PIN number. Get controversy right and as a filmmaker you can triple your wealth, reputation and career prospects within a matter of days. Get it wrong, and you can be branded with the mark of banishment and never set foot on a film set ever again for the rest of your days...or at least get a reputation similar to Lars von Trier's.

Kick-Ass hits that goldilocks zone of not too much, not too little. How? Because its risqué moments are justified - they are funny, they feel genuine and they match the tone of the piece as a whole. In fact, as far as controversy goes in cinema I would say that this is the most warranted bit of furore on screen since The Exorcist, which makes it a landmark piece of filmmaking.

As with The Exorcist and later A Clockwork Orange, Kick-Ass presents the audience with those magical moments where people are so shocked that they cannot speak. Mark Miller who wrote the comic source material said that at "that moment" (if you've seen it you will know the part, if you haven't and don't read trashy newspapers I don't want to spoil it for you like other commentators have) he has begun looking at the audience to witness their reactions. He says there is a delay between "the moment" and the laugh of about two beats and this is because everyone is utterly aghast and thinking to themselves, did she just say what I think she did? These are rare moments in cinema and should be cherished because they are in a league of their own in terms of cinematic experiences. James Cameron spent some $280 million dollars making Avatar and its whole 162 three-dimensional minutes didn't measure up to half of the two seconds it takes Hit-Girl to say her "soliloquy".

OK, so Hit-Girl did not have to say what she did, but it suits her character down to the ground. I get sick to death of films and television that want to do something but don't have the raw cojones to do it properly - y'know, full throttle! Well, Kick-Ass, with its stylised violence, foul mouth and electrifying shocks, floors the accelerator from the opening scene and does not slow down one iota until the credits role.

Some will say that this is all very well but what is so good about a little girl swearing before murdering a plethora of gangsters with a katana and butterfly knife? One could after all, just take a stroll around Dagenham if they wanted to see that. Well, underneath the Andy Warhol colours Kick-Ass harbours intelligence - it describes a message about the realities of becoming a vigilante albeit in its hilariously fun and sugary way.

On this issue it makes a better point than a film like Watchmen which, on celluloid at least, felt so bloated and self-righteous that by half way through it had discouraged anyone from attempting to don a cape and fight crime because it looked so utterly boring. Alternatively, Kick-Ass says "C'mon! You know you've always wanted to!" before slapping you in the face with the stark reality that you'd properly end up dead if you tried.

However, from there it leaves Watchmen territory and says "OK, but let's just pretend. What if, eh?" and that is why it is so great! It propels you into a world that is obviously not our own, where little girls are lethal, jet packs exist and Nicholas Cage can act. It is utterly wonderful for the viewer to indulge in.

Kick-Ass should be celebrated as the brilliant, engrossing and fantastically super powered fun that it is. The controversy is great because it fits like a purple extra-small glove and is only part of why this is the best piece of British filmmaking in a long time.

The Hobbit in 3D

Not far away was his hiding place, of which Bilbo knew nothing, and there he kept a few wretched oddments...which included a pair of overpriced 3D glasses.

As regulars will have guessed, I am not a fan of this whole new 3D malarky that is forcing its way into our cinemas and I apologise in advance for yet another article on the subject. It is, however, proving to be a relentless nuisance. Which mostly, I can put up with; Avatar was alright, as is the new Alice in Wonderland. They are fairground rides more than films and whilst they are about as much the future of cinema as Tommy Wiseau is, I can sympathise with the argument that they are a good bit of throw away fun.

There is a point though, where the buck must stop. A point where we say "enough is enough" and get on with making proper cinema. More importantly, this point must come before filming of The Hobbit begins.

That's right folks, it has recently been rumoured that the first part of The Hobbit, due for release in 2012, may be shot with a million Buddy Holly lookalikes in mind. Pressure is being put on director Guillermo Del Toro, from above due to the huge success of the aforementioned fairground rides.

Now, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings happen to be relics of literature and film that are very close to my heart. I happen to believe that they are some of the finest novels ever written, probably the best of the twentieth century, and that Peter Jackson's epic trilogy is the best film trilogy in history - yes, leagues in front of Star Wars, even when it was in its original, unbarstardised, trilogy form. So when Warner Bros. and New Line start nudging Jackson and Del Toro and whispering "3D, please" I start to get very worried.

Why all the fuss, some may ask. Why get so up tight and bothered about it? After all, it'll look really cool. The reason is because 3D ruins films by subtracting from the plot. If you read my review of Avatar you will understand, and hopefully agree, how it could have been so much more if plot was not sacrificed for 3D action set pieces. And that is when the story is designed and written for 3D from the very start! Can you imagine the possibilities of decimation three dimensions could bring to The Hobbit, a work of art and literature?

The magic, the utter brilliance of The Lord of the Rings film adaptations was that you really felt like you were looking through a window into Middle-Earth. The factors that made it believable were the pacing, the scenery and the softness. You can have all the Helms Deep esqué battles you want, but what really sells Tolkien's world is the more passive scenes - the Shire, Lothlorien and Fangorn forest.

Once 3D starts rearing its ugly head into the picture you know what is going to happen. Dialogue, and therefore characterisation will be cut, as will plot development and immersion. Notice that word? Immersion. It is the story that immerses you in a film, not 3D. You can chuck all your flashiness you want at a film but what makes the audience care are the characters and the stories. And it is these kind of vital and wonderful properties, which are so abundant in the novel of The Hobbit, that will be cut just so we can see another shot of Smaug looking out of the cinema screen and breathing fire on us.

What is more, I feel the chances of it being made in 3D are very likely. The success of the gimmick, plus the fact that it is a special effects heavy fantasy movie mean there are lots of excuses to have stuff flying at you and sticking in your face. Furthermore, Weta, Jackson's special effects maestros, were responsible for those in Avatar, the only wholly good thing about the movie. It all seems to add up. I bet the execs went back to their homes after watching Avatar and put on the famous ring-landing-on-the-finger scene from The Fellowship and thought it was the perfect candidate.

I conclude by asking people to listen to what I have to say and take action against this 3D nonsense. It is fine when James Cameron is knocking out some second grade alien adventure that could have been something more, but when something is something more...well, it just will not do. They cannot do as they please, sabotaging one of the finest works of literature ever created. So I ask, if anyone knows of a petition of some sorts and is serious about sending it to the executive producers. Please, let me know and I will gleefully sign it (post the link in the comments section for others to see also).

Finally, to those who are still unconvinced and think a 3D Gollum is a pretty neat idea. I ask you two questions: will you still be "amazed" by 3D come 2012? And, even if the answer to that is yes, it may make you animate your exterior as you duck and gasp, but will it kindle the interior and touch you? Where it really matters.

Oscar Results

The Hurt Shocker: Excuses and analysis.

I know! I was so sure of myself, wasn't I? And I said I would be writing a smug post-Oscar article when instead I find myself on the back foot writing a self-defending explanation of why I was wrong about the most important prediction - the best film category.

As you probably know, The Hurt Locker won best film when I predicted that, due to its box office intake, Avatar would. Firstly, let me be smug for a short while. It'll be quick! I promise: I was right about everything else. All of the other categories came in straight and true to my predictions so if I was the gambling man that I'm not and had placed a bet on all of them, I would be up...by a lot!

Also, all of my "Oscar ground rules" still ring true. In fact the reason why The Hurt Locker won best picture was because of them (rules number 1 and 3). I simply had applied rule #3 wrong and thought that Avatar would win.

So now I have defended my misapprehension we should turn to the matter of whether Kathryn Bigelow's war drama deserved to win best film and indeed all the awards it did on Sunday night.

Well Mark Boal's pickup for best screenplay was entirely deserved. The balance between drama and comedy in The Hurt Locker is nothing short of sublime. The palm wetting tension is built and then short bursts of humour allow you to pause for a second to wipe your brown before being plunged back into the anxiety. Tarantino talks about "playing" the audience like an orchestra with his writing, well Boal has managed this to an equal measure, if not superior.

However, none of this suspense would have made if off the page if it wasn't for Bigelow, the new most famous female director in the world. For that reason alone she deserved the best director award. Yes, there was plenty of politics involved with her being the first female director to win it, but it was deserved simply for the quality of her directing. Furthermore, there are little nuances she chose to employ that would have escaped other directors completely. An example would be during the highlight sniper battle where the background remains out of focus and is shot from the protagonists' view for the large majority of the scene. The main character takes a shot and the viewer anticipates the outcome with hung breath just as the characters do, staring through the blurry desert heatwaves.

Oscars that were maybe misplaced on this film? The achievements for sound and sound editing slightly jarred with me. Paul Ottoson and his team did the job to an unfailing degree but was it above and beyond? Was it extraordinary? The usual war sounds such as bullet whizzes and meaty explosions have all been done before. Compare The Hurt Locker's sound to the sci-fi epic Avatar in which the forest has more sounds designed for it than most movies do in the entirety and you start to wonder whether the Academy was hailing Locker simply for reason number three; more awards make more of an advertisement, they are market drivers.

Finally, should the movie have surprised us all and overcome Avatar for the best picture award? Well it was certainly the better film, so definitely in that respect. If it were up to me Avatar would not have even been in the running for the category. But was it the best film of 2009? Just out of the nominees I would have said An Education and Inglourious Basterds were of equal merit. Let alone foreign films like Let the Right One In whose only hope of an award is criminally in the "Foreign Language" category - as if a film in a language other than English is not capable of reaching the same standard, you would have thought the Academy would have learned after Pan's Labyrinth.

However, The Hurt Locker is probably the best war drama since Saving Private Ryan and definitely the best treatment of the Iraqi war on film. It also presents the more controversial story of a man who actually enjoys war and it never opts for the predictable narrative. And it might - just might - show Hollywood that you can glitz us with all the 3D gimmickry you want, but what really matters in film is a decent story and that is the past, present and future of cinema, and always will be.

Oscar Predictions

Who will win the Oscars and why...

In just over a week the Academy Awards will kick off. All of the people who put hard work into making 2009's filmy entertainment will be there but only some of them will be rewarded for their efforts. Who will be rewarded is as much about the relationships and politics of Hollywood as the films themselves. As I said in my article on defending Tarantino, I will predict the Oscar winners for the six main categories; best picture, best director, best actor, best actress, best supporting actor, best supporting actress. However, I will also tell you why they will win.

First off, some Oscar ground rules...

1. Awards in these main categories will almost invariably go to "serious" films. By serious I mean ones that have a heart-wrenching, sometimes even depressing message and are more often than not "based on a true story" or a historic event. The episode of Extras where Kate Winslet says she is only doing a holocaust film to bag an Oscar is now infamous because a few years later she won one for her holocaust film The Reader. So don't expect Inglourious Basterds to win much beyond the supporting actor category.
2. The Academy always belate their awards. Once again, Kate Winslet can be out example. She should have won the Oscar for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in 2004 which was a much better film than The Reader, both generally and in her performance. However, rule #1 has a lot to do with that. Usually the winner will have been nominated more than once before they win the award. Winslet was nominated twice before snatching the Oscar last year.
3. The Academy Awards are market drivers as well as rewards. The Oscars are a great way of generating publicity towards a film so that it rakes in more at the box office. Often you will see a film that was released in the summer get a re-release just to get a little more cash solely off of the awards season. Therefore, you will see each winner fall into either the go-and-get-more-money box or the thanks-for-getting-so-much-money box.

So with our ground rules in place let us look at the 82nd Academy Awards; category, winner, reason.

Best Picture - Avatar: It didn't snatch the BAFTA but that is because it will take the Oscar home. Why? Because the industry needs to thank it for generating more money than the entire GDP of a small country (see rule #3). It shouldn't win this award, but it will.

Best Director - Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker: This is due to a combination of it being a film about a serious subject (#1) and also so it will generate the money that it didn't manage to on it's original release back in 2009 (#3). Have a look at your local cinema. Go on! I bet you it will be on there within the next three weeks for a couple of days. Additionally, a woman has never won this category so this will be a great excuse to not seem sexist to female directors. Those three reasons plus the fact that it is actually a very well directed movie, which usually helps, (but not always!)

Best Actor - Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart: Poor old Jeff has been considered "off the radar" in Hollywood in recent years, but that is by rich bureaucratic film producers, not the public, we love him! And that has been demonstrated in recent years. So Mr. Bridges is getting a warm handshake back into the mainstream after loosing out when Hollywood thought he was still cool, all the way back in 1984 for Starman (#2).

Best Actress - N/A: Yes I know! I know I said I'd predict them all, but this is a fudging hard one! Most people will shout out "Sandra Bullock!" but I am not so sure. I think this could be her nomination introduction only to win it in later years (#2), which would be brilliant because then she may start making better films like The Blind Side instead of tripe like The Proposal. For that reason, I hope she doesn't win. I'm going to place my money semi on Bullock and the other half of my indecisive mind will go to Carey Mulligan. Well, give her a third and Bullock the rest. Gabrielle Sidibe definitely won't get it for Precious because unfortunately she won't be in much else post-Precious for obvious reasons - it's sad, but true. Although...maybe a goodbye present from the industry?

Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds: Obviously and deservedly. Tarantino has admitted without him the film wouldn't have been possible and it is true. He was the most detestable SS officer on screen since Ralph Fiennes' Amon Goeth in Schindler's List (which incidentally, he criminally did not win an Oscar for). Yet, Waltz managed to find that goldilocks zone of disgusting whilst lovable...which made him even more frightening. Rules being applied here? Nothing except that he bloody well deserves it! That, and they had to give Tarantino something, didn't they?

Best Supporting Actress - Mo'Nique, Precious: Sidibe will not win best actress yet a film like this deserves something (#1). For this reason Mo'Nique will walk away with best supporting female and next time she goes to see her own film the cinema will be a little more busy (#3).

There you have it. Now all you have to do is watch the 82nd Academy Awards on 7th March and feel your jaw drop as all I said comes true. Smug post-Oscar article coming soon!

Defending Tarantino

Oscar nominated, yet critics were multifarious. Has Tarantino got it or lost it?

2009 saw Quentin Tarantino's latest film Inglourious Basterds meet not so much lukewarm reviews as bipolar ones. Flicking through the papers and websites at the time, you would find five stars and one stars but not many threes or fours.

Many of the poor reviews suggested that Tarantino has "lost it" since the very weak Death Proof. Others go further and say that anything post-Jackie Brown (i.e. Kill Bill) is not worth the DVD it's burnt on.

Yet with all the criticism Inglourious Basterds has been nominated for eight Academy Awards. One may also note that the general public seem to have a more favourable opinion of it; on IMDb at this moment it has 8.4/10, and it is the director's biggest grossing film ever. Has the zeitgeist shifted? Will Basterds be remembered as a brilliant movie in years to come, or a mediocre one as its average critic ratings would suggest?

A "masterpiece"?

Personally, I hope that it will be remembered as the former. It will only win one of the eight nominations which Christoph Waltz will duly receive for Best Supporting Actor.* The film does deserve more, yet the Oscars are as much about movie politics as they are about the movies themselves and for this reason it won't. I think it is Tarantino's finest work since Pulp Fiction which is what blew him into the stratosphere and made him arguably, the most famous director in the world. In order for me to defend this position we need to rewind back to Kill Bill, which is possibly more esoteric.

Kill Bill is a great starting point to defend Tarantino because it is the most emphatic of his films. Whereas before we saw films that are set in the "real world", this theme peaking with Jackie Brown, Kill Bill pitted the "real world" against the "movie world" and thus revealed the contrasting qualities, usually with hilarious effect.

The story surrounds an ex-assassin who wishes to live a normal life. In each scene surrounding the Bride's wished "normal life" such as the wedding rehearsal scene or when she is taking the pregnancy test everything is very naturalistic and set in the "real world". However, as soon as a confrontation breaks out or she is on her mission to get revenge the tone flips completely into the ridiculousness of movie fiction. Characters start jumping on swords, geysering blood and speaking overly dramatic, sometimes cheesy, lines; occasionally directly to the camera. Most definitive of this "movie world" is the opening scene of Volume 2 when the Bride explicitly mentions that she is on "what the movie advertisements would call 'A roaring rampage of revenge.'"

"I roared," she continues, "and I rampaged!" With that particular scene in mind it strikes me as quite odd how so many people, critics included, watched Kill Bill and did not understand that it was hugely mocking, overblown and tongue in cheek. How anyone can listen to a speech about a "five-point-palm-heart-exploding-technique" and then come out of the cinema informing us all that it would be impossible to punch your way out of a buried coffin astounds me! In fact when people tell me this not only do I hear giant "whoosh" noises as the whole theme and message of the film flew over their heads but I also ponder whether they ever feel the need to escape the real world we live in. Do they realise that films play a lot with reality, and usually to a far less noticeable degree? Which is the whole point of Kill Bill, or at least one of the points. It is exaggerating this poetic licence used time and time again by the film industry for comic effect and for the viewer to appreciate that there is no such thing remotely like the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad out there. So why not embrace the romanticism of it that only fiction allows you to do.

Anyone who has seen Inglourious Basterds will have no doubt predicted the correlation. Now, I will not spoil it for those of you who haven't but let us just say that it came as no surprise that the critics who had a problem with Basterds did so quite significantly because of its treatment of history. Once again, must everything be stone heartedly accurate? There have a been thousands upon thousands of World War II movies over the past half century and most of them are, or at least try to be, historically accurate and realistic. Do we need another one of them? It was obvious that Basterds was not going to be similar in tone and perspective to Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List from the outset. But it was just as good, in fact maybe better. Ultimately, movies are ways of telling stories and if you can, why not tell the most satisfying, uplifting World War II story? What is the problem in that?

I realise that the fantasy elements of Tarantino's movies are not the sole issue many have with them. For example, one criticism that I can sympathise with is that his characters all sound very much the same. They have long, preachy monologues and pop culture stuffed dialogues. However, I think it is unfair to then extrapolate this criticism to say that they have no individuality. For each of them have their own characteristics despite all having a "Tarantino moment". The SS "detective", Hans Lander is an incredibly well rounded and unique character as is The Bride and Bill. In fact these characters are all more fulfilled than any of those in Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.

Furthermore, people forget the quiet characters in Tarantino's films. Shosanna, Butch (Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction) and Louis (Robert De Niro in Jackie Brown) are all main characters that never start expelling their familiar sermons. What is more is that they still remain believable, individual personas.

Even with all that aside, so what if all of his films have lengthy monologues? So do the plays of Shakespeare, does that detract from the characters' individuality? No, of couse not, yet many of the monologues ride upon similar themes. Besides, those sections of speech have become Tarantino's trademark, one that is as recognisable as Sergio Leone's close up shot, and a trademark I welcome in an era where Michael Bay style CGI snoozefests are all too common.

I think it is not being too outlandish to say that this all boils down to one thing: people love to be ahead of the curve, they love to look smart by recommending things people have never heard of. From restaurants, to movies this is true. Which is good, new ideas spread because of this, however it also fuels snobbery. Everyone had the guy at school who around the age of fourteen began to dislike whatever music it was cool to love at that time. He would try placing himself on an all new level of coolness by snorting at what the other immature, unintelligent sheep liked.

Well some people do that now. Before anyone knew who Quentin Tarantino was people would love to recommend his films glazing him in ravishing reviews, saying that he is the new Stanley Kubrick and so on. Now, that man is famous and considered by many as a very fine filmmaker. So, many of those same people would now like to (mis)inform us that he has lost it and has become self-indulgent and simply creates pastiches. Well don't listen to them, Tarantino is cool, has always been cool and probably always will be...with the minor exception of Death Proof. That was awful!


*My Oscar predictions coming soon!

Avatar Review

“3D is as much the future of cinema as roller skates were the future of shoes - and Avatar demonstrates why”

Right, everyone grab your hearts and swallow them again, it is here now. James Cameron's multimillion dollar, three dimensional, record breaking, billion dollar grossing behemoth Avatar is now in the public domain. People seem to be divided quite strongly on this, I would say the majority are in the "outrageously brilliant" camp and a minority in the "waste of money" clan. Both, I feel are exaggerations.

Avatar is a good film, it is certainly recommendable. Yes, the dialogue is, for the most part, hideous and the story may be slightly clichéd but I think anyone who had an ounce of interest in it before its release always knew it was going to be Fern Gully meets The Matrix in space. This does mean that the plot is predictable almost to the very scene but surely that can be accepted and put aside so that everyone can enjoy the good ol' fashioned story of the underdog's battle against the stronger, mass corporate evils. After all, we love that stuff, don't we!

However this particular story never really reaches its peak. Fern Gully actually has a much more moving story using the same concept, despite being primarily aimed at children. There was a hell of a lot of potential here which has not all been exercised and the reason for this is one word - 3D.

That's right, what I am saying is that 3D ruined Avatar. "But the visuals!" I hear you scream, "That's what it was all about, the 3D, the popping out!" Well yes, but primarily any film is about a story and Avatar sacrifices storytelling for 3D action set pieces - and it does this a lot. For example, the two main characters, Jake and Neytiri have a love interest and whilst it is believable the viewer is never engrossed in it enough to care that much when they have a little falling out midway through. The relationship was not built up enough because that precious time was used instead for set pieces of some alien dog/rhino like things chasing Jake through the Pandorian forest.

What is more is that the 3D visuals are better suited to the slower segments where you could sit back and marvel at the different layers of pretty objects around the frame. Most notable are the scenes where Jake and Neytiri are walking through the glowing salad at night which are immensely beautiful. I would like to stress the word "walking" in that last sentence because when they are running through the trees, the film could be shot in any of the theoretical ten dimensions and I wouldn't have noticed the difference.

Another example of story meat that had to be cut in order for 3D fat is how quickly Jake gets accepted into the Na'vi tribe. I was all geared up to see the troubles this new guy would have to overcome in order to woo his way in and bugger me, he seduces the whole bloody tribe in about nine seconds flat. Surely the Californian accent would have rung alarm bells to at least be wary of him. At that point I was thinking they must be called "the Na'vi" because they are as naïve as a new born baby. Compare Dances with Wolves to this, and think how much more believable and therefore emotionally engaging his relationship with the native Americans is to Jake's with the blue folk. These are little subtleties that could have made Avatar not just good but brilliant and it is because of its obsession with 3D that it never achieves this.

However, even though I admittedly enjoyed those neon branches sticking out of the screen, I would still sacrifice the 3D for story any day. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the extra dimension was all that wonderful. OK, so it was interesting to look at with all the pretty colours but that would still be as dazzling in 2D, their facial expression would still be beautifully animated (I hear Oscars clinking), and the vistas would still be awe inspiring. Your brain does all the distance judging work for you, you don't need some Buddy Holly glasses for that! In the end I almost forgot this was in 3D. Was it not simply interesting because of the novelty value?

If every film will be like this in the future as Cameron suggests I doubt we will all still be oohing and aahing at every daisy seed that floats across the cinema. It's not even 3D anyway! It's simply layers, that is why flat objects such as computer screens and graphics looked the most believable in the film and not three dimensional objects like helicopters because we are still in cardboard-cut-out land. True 3D is about perspective and changing that perspective (see the video below for an amazing example of what I mean, and you don't need glasses!) and as you well know in Avatar it doesn't matter if you sit on the right, left or centre of the screen, it will always look the same. Like little bits of cardboard at different distances from you.

Is this really the future of cinema? I can hardly imagine the next Pulp Fiction benefiting much from it. In fact who in their right mind would prefer to see a three dimensional version of Pulp Fiction (rape in 3D, anyone)? This demonstrates the point very succinctly; 3D is as much the future of cinema as roller skates were the future of shoes. Yeah, its fun the first time you try it, but after a while you realise the original style was better at its job. Because you can have all the fancy visuals and high tech gadgetry you want - you could have fireworks coming out the screen, rumble chairs and the protagonist telepathically talking to you inside your head, but in the end there is one thing that matters most and that is the story. For that reason, Avatar demonstrates precisely why 3D is not the future of cinema.

The Evolution of Media

Will everyone be a journalist, filmmaker and author by the end of this new decade?

Before I begin writing this piece I would like to apologise for the lack of activity on the blog. December has been a busy month for reasons which I shall not delve into for fear of this slowly evolving, or rather devolving, into a "My day was good, this is my cat, I like cookie dough ice cream" length of tripe. I understand little why people feel the need to write what are essentially extended Twitter feeds every week. I understand even less the people who read these former people's blogs.

Another thing which this article will not be is a round up of 2009 that will be drowned in the sea of similar pieces with only those on mainstream channels and websites clambering upon a rock before expelling their opinions with megaphones to the rest of the indifferent victims who are washed away forever.

To avoid this is a pointless exercise, some of you may highlight, because that is the nature of the blogosphere in general, not solely for reviews of the year. The Daily Warp is among a million other diaries, thoughts, opinions and news pieces. Again, the published papers and popular websites are on pedestals with their amplifiers whilst the rest of us amass in a gigantic, noisy crowd in the general arena. However, the highest of us, the one whose attention is depended on for self-satisfaction and indeed existence, is you, the consumer.

In our metaphor you are the gods in the sky who we are shouting to and whilst the pedastalees are confident that you can hear them the best, the rest of us are doing our damnedest to say "pick me!" in a matter of more complex and articulated words. We are the white noise in the background and you are trying to get a clear signal.

So what is the point of all this analogous talk? Well I would like to look forward whilst the rest look backwards. The new decade (which arguably does not start until 2011), will it bring the so called "democratic media", that is the YouTubes, blogosphere and FunnyOrDies to the forefront? Will they overtake mainstream media? Will there even be a mainstream media by 2020? Will the sea of wannabes envelop the individuals and rip their plinths apart?

It is a familiar argument that many are suggesting will be realised in the near future. For it is undeniable that the naughties was the coming of age for this "democratic media" - the consumer is now boss. Something which has been demonstrated ever so vividly at the very end of the decade with Rage Against the Machine's nineteen year old track Killing in the Name hijacking the charts and becoming Christmas number one. A digital protest; we are the top dog now, we make the decisions, not Simon Cowell.

However, there are holes in the the theory that we will all abandon our newspapers for blogspots and our television networks for viral videos - gaping holes.

Firstly, the masses are the deciders of what's hot and what's not but the people they choose are still receiving exposure due to tremendous amounts of luck. Just like in the corporation fuelled market you have to be good (though actually not always) and have a break. There are millions of great bloggers and amatuer filmmakers out there who are not getting a hundred thousand hits a day just as there are millions of undiscovered bands who do not have a record deal. The end result is therefore much the same. The key difference is that the big break in this "democratic" world is simply to have people like your "product" and tell others about it where as in the commercial world it is to be chosen by a huge company with many contacts and be spoon fed to the general public.

The second problem is that the mainstream media is reliable. Out of "Dave's News Blog" and the BBC website which are you going to trust? Yes, we can don our probably-correct-to-an-extent-media-conspiracy-hats and claim that the mainstream media have ulterior motives and does not always tell the truth. But it will always be more accurate than some guy slapping away on his laptop and uploading the finished article to Digg. Some of you may say I have just shot myself in the foot because I am one of those people. Well, yes I am but I write my opinions...which just so happen to be true...and informative - so I am different in that respect.

Finally, we all still want our mega blockbusters that cost the average GDP of a small country to make, the recent Avatar smashing box office records proves this. This is something which a YouTuber cannot deliver unless he is the son of a Mafia boss who loves him very much. And even then the film will have to be under 9 minutes 59 seconds.

2020 will not see us completely replacing our televisions with laptops and our newspapers with blogs just as it will not see us in flying cars - they will come later, the dominance of the blogosphere will never.