So Erik-with-a-k covered the coming comedies of 2009, Scott was all over the horror picks (though his inclusion of Race to Witch Mountain still boggles my mind), Eric-with-a-c nabbed the family-friendly fare, and Elisabeth went over the geek fodder that awaits. But while I respect their calendar years and made-up math alike, I've opted to divide my list of 2009's action and adventure flicks into four categories: Action Flicks I Couldn't Care More About, Action Flicks I Couldn't Care Less About, Action Flicks That I Hope Surprise Me, and Those Which Fell In Between. Enjoy!

Action Flicks I Couldn't Care More About: First and foremost -- Watchmen (March 6th). It's one hell of a graphic novel and looks to be one hell of an adaptation (with or without the Giant Blank), and come Fox or high water, it'll see the light of day soon enough. Then there's Public Enemies (July 1st), which has me sold on not the subject matter, but sheer pedigree: Michael Mann directs Johnny Depp and Christian Bale as '30s gangsters. (It doesn't hurt that the earliest word ranges from damn good to great.) On the skimpier side, I can only hope that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (July 17th) streamlines its source material as the previous one had, and I can only hope that Crank 2: High Voltage (April 17th) lives up/down to the depravity of its predecessor. There's one last action movie that I couldn't care more about because, well, I've already seen a version of it. The international cut of Taken (January 30th, though reportedly opening with some R-dodging trims) is about as brisk and butt-kicking as one might hope out of a man-on-a-mission kidnapping thriller, and if you disagree, I'll send Liam Neeson to change your mind.

2009 has begun on a rather tense note for geekdom as Watchmen became further embroiled in legal soup. As Fox pushes for a delay, we must contemplate a rather thin year of geeky offerings .... which just shows how spoiled we've become. Watchmen and Wolverine alone would have made our year before the wonder that was 2008, when we had Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, and the Punisher. But hey, this is going to be the Year of Announcements -- we're going to find out who Captain America and Thor are, who or what Iron Man must face in his sequel, and hey, we might even find out whether Edward Norton will reprise his role as the Hulk. We're going to have fun, no matter what happens with Watchmen.

January
Nothing. Watch The Dark Knight ten more times, I guess (especially when it returns to conventional and IMAX theaters on January 23). Or read a graphic novel; you must have gotten some for Christmas? Anyway, take a breather. You're still recovering from 2008.

February
Neil Gaiman's Coraline, and a limited release of the long-delayed Fanboys both come out on February 6th. Gaiman for the win, no question.

March
Watchmen Watchmen Watchmen Watchmen Watchmen Watchmen Watchmen. It will come out on the 6th. It will. We must not doubt.

April
Dragonball Evolution hits theaters on the 8th. The excitement is palatable.

May
This is the month of geekdom, kicking off with the film my year centers around, X-Men Origins: Wolverine on May 1. If this isn't good, the Geek Beat will burn with the fury of a thousand suns the following Tuesday. May that be your warning, Fox.

A little independent film you might have heard of also comes out this month: Star Trek hits theaters on May 8th.

When we were kicking around ideas for year-end superlative Cinematical Sevens, I was proudly tasked with chronicling the year's finest in big-screen mayhem, violence, destruction and other such shenanigans. When I was kicking around ideas for said feature between me, myself, and I, there were too many titles to leave off the list, so instead of highlighting only a mere couple of movies, I've opted to sort these puppies out by specific manner of cinematic excess.

So there.

1. Most pervasive destruction - The Joker may have terrorized Gotham to the tune of a destroyed hospital, a wrecked helicopter, a sunken SWAT truck, a toasty fire engine, and a golden district attorney, but even he can't top the Cloverfield monster's swath of destruction across the real-life Gotham. Statue of Liberty? Gone. Brooklyn Bridge? History. Central Park? Adios. And that's not including all the Hollister stores that our protagonists might've fled to. (On a smaller scale, though, Inside's lady in black terrorizes a pregnant woman on Christmas Eve to the point of all but painting every last wall in her house with the blood of her victims. Gotta love the French!)

If Warner Bros. is to be believed, the studio is going to fight to the death to keep from making a payout to Fox. Their lawyers are running around swearing that a settlement is "unlikely," that they will prevail on appeal or at trial, that tonight they dine in hell, etc.

Don't believe it. Warner Bros. will pay up. Events over the next couple of weeks may determine how much they'll have to pay. But I would be astonished if Watchmen misses its date with the multiplex.

No one wants to go to trial in the best of circumstances. Something like 95% of all court cases settle. When it comes to big, multi-million dollar brawls between huge corporations, that number jumps even higher. Trial is expensive. Warner Bros.' legal fees would be astronomical. Trial is uncertain. Juries are unpredictable. You could be clearly right and still lose.

Furthermore these are not the best of circumstances for Warner Bros. I'll skip over most of the legal-speak involved here, but the crucial fact is that the judge has already decided the biggest issue in the case: whether Fox owns a distribution right in Watchmen. It's a done deal. The jury's not getting another crack at it. What's left to decide is stuff like damages and whether Warner Bros. should be enjoined from releasing the film. So even the best case scenario for Warner Bros. at trial isn't that great. To take a risk like that would be... Well, I repeat that I'd be astonished.

Watchmen is not going to end 2008 on a high note. According to The Hollywood Reporter, a lawyer for 20th Century Fox has said that the studio will seek an order delaying the release of the film. Ever since Fox first filed its suit, Watchmen fans have been panicked that the film's legal woes would delay its March 6 release. Seriously, Fox, don't you just want some money? A nice chunk of money? Don't kick the Watchmen when they're down.

Though the judge ruled in favor of Fox on Christmas, agreeing that Fox retained copyright on the film, he now plans to hold the trial as planned on January 20th. Warner Bros finally spoke out about the messy situation, via their lawyer, and said that he didn't know if the studio would appeal, but that trial was necessary, and a settlement was "unlikely."

So, despite that the scales of justice are tipped in Fox's favor, Warner Bros refuses to blink and agree to a payoff. Considering that Paramount already has the international distribution rights, they don't want to lose any more of the box office pie than they have to. Cue the theme to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and we'll keep you updated as this case drags into 2009.

Question: At what point do nerdy fanboys begin bombarding 20th Century Fox with nasty hate mail?

I can't vouch for John Grogan's 2005 best-selling memoir, Marley & Me, in which owning a yellow lab helped the journalist (Owen Wilson) and his wife (Jennifer Aniston) tolerate any number of trials and tribulations that came their way -- many of which could be chalked up to the carnage-prone canine himself. I suspect that, unlike their on-screen counterparts, the Grogans actually showed some indications of aging after thirteen years and three kids. I doubt that John had a perpetual bachelor of a best bud (Eric Dane) who lingered around to both knock and envy his marriage with convenient doses of sarcasm and handsomeness. I question that the couple could own a picturesque Pennsylvania estate on just one reporter's salary. But I'm fairly sure that both the book and the film shared a common goal -- to make its audience sit, stay, laugh, cry, and then get on with their lives -- and at those modest aspirations, the movie version pretty much succeeds.

Yikes -- Warner Bros. obviously landed on Santa's naughty list this year. The New York Times reports that the judge has ruled in favor of Fox Studios. Sayeth the Honorable Judge Feess "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture."

This comes as quite a surprise since last we heard, the judge didn't have enough information to make a ruling, and was moving the trial to January 20th. Judge Feess indicated he would make a more detailed ruling soon.

Warner Bros. has declined to comment, and as of now, has not backed off the film's planned release date of March 6. I can hear you all crying (and I hope it's in your very best Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer voice) "There goes Watchmen, and there goes Christmas!" But it's highly doubtful Watchmen will lose its release date. There's no need to panic. Feess advised Fox and Warner Bros to look towards a settlement or appeal. "The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review." So, expect a major payoff from Warner Bros. (and maybe those rumored Batman television show rights) to Fox in order that we'll still be at that March 6th show. And you thought a lump of coal was bad.

The last time news about Fox's live-action version of the classic Anime Cowboy Bebop popped up, it seemed like most fans weren't exactly thrilled with the whole idea. So, I'm awfully curious to hear what they think of Keanu Reeves' latest comments over at the MTV Movie Blog. Reeves recently spoke with MTV about the project and he told them, "We've got the rights, we've got a writer" -- which could lend a bit of truth to the rumors that Fox was fast-tracking the project for a 2010 release.

Bebop premiered in Japan in 1998, and followed the adventures of a group of bounty hunters in the year 2071. The series was renowned for its complex stories and characters, and it's inventive use of classic rock and pop songs in the narrative. Reeves tells MTV that the outline for the film is "currently focusing on the origins of the fictional "Bebop" drug developed by the military, which provides its users with a brief surge of superhuman reflexes and awareness. "We're taking the Red Eye [story], the beginning part of the series, and then we'll deal with the end of the series. We're trying to figure out [the time frame]. We're looking at the story right now" (which, if you know anything about the fractured and complex stories of Bebop, is going to be no easy task).

Don't panic! You can start to sweat a little if you want to, I'm sure everyone associated with Watchmen might be. According to Variety, the Watchmen trial has been moved back two weeks to January 20th.

The judge in charge of the case set the new date on Monday in order to settle a criminal matter on January 6th. He has also refused to make a pre-trial summary judgment, as requested by both sides, insisting that the original contracts between Fox and producer Larry Gordon are so open to interpretation that a trial is required.

They just keep upping the drama level of this whole mess. Why is the judge insisting on taking it to trial, ignoring the wishes of both sides to do a summary judgment? Is that a good thing? Are summary judgments too hasty or something? Is he stretching this out because he can? Can they still settle out of court? If there's a legal eagle in the Cinematical house, I'd love it if you weighed in, just for the sake of discussion and clarity. (Without a first hand look at the contracts, maybe that's impossible to do.)

While I still don't believe the film will be delayed, it is worrying to see its legal troubles inching closer and closer to its March 6th date. Neither side seems willing to blink, although Warner Bros might if it threatens all the money they've put into marketing. But think about it this way, readers -- if they do delay it, anything Watchmen that you own that's marked 03/06/09 immediately becomes more valuable!

As the season marches on, 'for your consideration' ads litter the trades and various awards analysis websites. However, there aren't nearly enough campaigns for the year's worst performances.

You have your obnoxious kids (Jaden Smith in The Day The Earth Stood Still, Logan Lerman in Meet Bill). You have your touched individuals who straddle the line between functional and, ahem, 'full retard' (Sophie Okonedo in The Secret Life of Bees, Omar Benson Miller in Miracle at St. Anna, David Morse in Hounddog). You've got your guys that give 'insane' a bad name (Jason Butler Harner in Changeling, Donny Osmond in College Road Trip), and you've got your girls that give English a bad name (Ahney Her in Gran Torino, Natalya Rudakova in Transporter 3).

Oh, and then there's just about the entire cast of The Happening. (If I had to pick just one person, though, I'd go with the gardener who babbles on about hot dogs. The man's priceless.)

So, unless we're about to let Witless Protection sweep the Razzies, what were some of your least favorite performances of the year?