The first decade of the 21st century is drawing to a close now, so it seems like a good time to reflect on what those years have meant for our shared obsession. In particular, I'm curious as to what everyone here would regard as the most significant genre movies of the last ten years-- the ones that launched or defined trends, or stood out from the crowd as noteworthy attempts to do something unusual. And I'd like to stress that it is in no way necessary that the movies in question be good, or that their influence be in any way positive. A few off-the-top-of-my-head nominations to get things started:

The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which propelled the Big Damn Fantasy Movie to a level of importance that it has never enjoyed at any previous point during my lifetime.

28 Days Later..., which made zombies marketable again and helped redefine the assumptions behind them, regardless of the endless and not terribly edifying debate over whether it counts as a zombie movie in the strict sense.

The Ring, which turned the question, "Why import a successful foreign film when you can make your own version instead?" into a perennially viable business model.

Spider-Man, which finally convinced Hollywood that it wasn't absolutely necessary for superhero movies to be cheap and crappy.

House of the Dead, which brought Uwe Boll to the attention of a stunned and appalled world.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which inspired the remaking of virtually every significant horror movie released between 1972 and 1981.

Saw, which has a much stronger claim to the title "The Friday the 13th of the 2000's" than the recent remake of that film.

The Descent, which was quirky and wonderful and unexpected, and touched off a mini-craze for movies about monsters in caves.

I wish I could say The Host had some effect of reinventing the monster movie genre, but its influence never really took off like it originally seemed that it would. There's been no new news of the inevitable Hollywood remake and it only now seems like The Host 2 is actually moving forward. (Or backward since it's *sigh* a prequel) But it seemed so promising, I can't help but wonder if it deserves mention.

I also have to throw in Twilight, whose success has shown that you can make a mint on any teen-oriented vampire/supernatural story, not matter how utterly bleepy it may be.

My thought is that while in some ways I've felt we were going over a whole new cliff -- I'm thinking specifically of horror films starring gangsta rappas and CGI cartoon menaces -- overall we came out pretty well. And I'd like to especially thank Sam Raimi, who apparently never fcrews up what he sets out to do.

The Host and Cloverfield alike could probably be counted under the "Noteworthy Oddities" heading. Grindhouse should be in that categroy, too, now that I think about it.

But does it have to be a franchise to count?

No, not at all. Think of it this way: when you think about movies of the 2000's ten, fifteen, twenty years from now, which ones do you expect to color your perceptions of the decade?

Come to think of it, The Host and Cloverfield were practically connected for a while since people at first assumed the latter might be a remake of the former.

They also feature two of the oddest, most unique movie creatures in recent memory. Though I'd argue that The Host is the more memorable of the two.

For that matter, both have had rumors and murmurs of sequels that have yet to materialize, though The Host 2 seems to actually be moving forward, what the release of the first promo image of the creature as rendered by the Korean effects company. (The first film's FX were outsourced, the sequel's will not be, apparently) Cloverfield 2 has not progressed quite so clearly.

I would say Twilight is the stepchild of the Harry Potter craze, which (in both book and movie form) is easily the most influential franchise of the decade, defining what it means to be mass media in the 2000s.

Considering we can actually see the monster from The Host, I would agree.

Casino Royale, which gave the Bond franchise a much needed shot in the arm. And at the same time was a callback to earlier action movies by featuring actual stuntmen and not being edited into ribbons. I actually like Quantum of Solace but Royale earned enough goodwill on its own to make me look forward to what they will do next with the series.

Catch Me If You Can, A delightful one-off from Spielberg. It's a shame this didn't spark a revival in sixties flavored caper films but for what it is it stands out among his later films and indulges Tom Hanks' all too often ignored gift for comedy.

The Bourne Identity Which I thought to add because you can clearly feel its influence in Casino Royale. Stripped down spy adventures and, for good and ill, popularizing the use of handheld camera for action scenes.

And I think this decade saw the blooming of Pixar into a recognizable studio, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Rataouille, WALL-E, and even the misfire of Cars.

And then with the Fantastic Four movies we learned that even with a big budget they can still be really, really crappy.

Ong Bak reminded us that you didn't need wires and CG to make awesome fight scenes, you just needed knees, elbows and disposable stuntmen. Chocolate then showed the same thing with a tiny tiny girl.

Another interesting development during the last decade was the re-emergence of France as a major center of production for quirky horror and action movies. I'm not really sure which films would most deserve the credit associated with that occurrence, though. High Tension, maybe? Brotherhood of the Wolf?

I think Brotherhood of the Wolf got the ball rolling.

More important than that, I think, is Bryan Singer's first X-Men movie. It launched a pretty important trend: summer blockbusters that are less dumb. He's had an elevating influence on big loud movies that has extended beyond superheroes.