I defended the Saw franchise long past the point where most self-respecting cinephiles and even genre geeks abandoned it. It was only after the moronic, baffling Saw IV that I got off the bandwagon. But as someone who thinks the franchise has (had?) something to offer beyond the admittedly questionable thrills of what smug know-nothings call "torture porn," I'm anticipating this month's annual installment with an ever-so-slight glimmer of hope. The first three films took a gimmicky serial killer concept and expanded it to something big and increasingly baroque, piling on twist after twist that, to me, consistently seemed bold rather than (merely) ludicrous. They were gruesome, yes, but they were also moody and visually exciting; Darren Lynn Bousman, in particular, seemed to take painstaking care in the second and third films to construct a cruel, self-contained universe around the crazy-ass story.

So here, briefly, are three things Saw V -- which sees the franchise's production designer David Hackl take over directing duties from Bousman -- could do to avoid the pitfalls of its immediate predecessor and restore my faith in the series.

It's difficult (and a little silly) to try and judge an entire quarter-year's movies in one lump sum -- but that's what we seem to do at the end of every Summer Movie Season. That's when all our excitement, expectations, and final reactions come colliding together and we find ourselves thinking: "Was I actually looking forward to that piece of crap for four months?" But to me, each summer is like a walk through a carnival: Some of the attractions dazzle me, others simply don't interest me, and a few are just a waste of tickets. But once early May rolls around, I'm always ready for another trip to the Hollywood Movie Carnival. (It's where you find all the tentpoles!)

So while I'm elated to greet the upcoming season of "prestige movies," there's little denying that we've had one hell of a good summer, cinematical-ly speaking. I'm not talking about box office grosses, because frankly that stuff is so unimportant. What matters is that we got some good flicks, a few pieces of mindless (yet well-made) popcorn adventures, and even a few great films that will enjoy a very long shelf life. So while I'm not exactly sure that 2008 represents the finest Summer Movie Season of all time, I'd definitely say it was more good than bad. But if you can think of a summer that was better than this one, you know where to throw your comments. (In the comments section.)

Sometimes cinemaniacs get rewarded for stepping outside the theater. Scott Weinberg, his tongue possibly in cheek, thinks a viral 4-minute internet video is the best movie of the year. I am convinced that the year's best fiction-on-film (so far -- though I have trouble imagining anything topping it) is currently airing on HBO. That would be Generation Kill, the seven-part, eight-hour Iraq War miniseries from David Simon and Ed Burns (The Wire). I know, I know: this is Cinematical, not TV Squad. But Generation Kill is something no movie lover should ignore.

Fans of The Wire already know of Simon and Burns's uncanny, unparalleled ability to weave together hyper-realism, trenchant commentary and riveting drama, but even they may be stunned, as I was, by what this smaller-scale project has to offer. It is, quite simply, the deepest and most sympathetic portrayal of the military -- any military -- I have ever seen. It may also be the first "Hollywood" take on the Iraq War that is genuinely thoughtful and de-politicized. Rather than offering a polemic, the series (adapted from a book by Evan Wright, a reporter who rode with the 1st Recon Marine Unit) just observes -- and, by all accounts, gets close to the truth.

While Heath Ledger's role as Joker in The Dark Knight might go down as his last (and greatest) complete role, technically his final performance will come in Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. In a weird way it's almost fitting that Gilliam -- who's been cursed for years now -- would wind up being the filmmaker to last work with Ledger. Not only has Ledger's next-to-last film broken almost every box office record to date, but folks are so afraid of a Gilliam flick that even with the marketing machine that is the death of Heath Ledger, Hollywood still doesn't want to go near Dr. Parnassus.

A story in The Hollywood Reporter last week claims Ledger could be in a "position of having one of the biggest- grossing movies in Hollywood history out at the same time he's in a movie hunting for an domestic distribution deal." And the scary part of this is that when Ledger passed away, Hollywood heavyweights like Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped in to finish the film for their deceased friend. With ALL THAT, it's still a risky movie to get behind. One "distribution guru" added, "For all the elements in this film, it is a Terry Gilliam picture, and as much as you want a movie of his to be good, you have to be careful." Poor Gilliam ... the guy just can't catch a break.

Well, unless you want to see Dr. Parnassus. Wouldn't it be kinda spooky if one death helped revive another's career? If we, as an audience, had the ability to choose between the doom and gloom of mourning an actor's death or the light and joy that comes with helping a beloved filmmaker get back on track?

When Stephen Frears' The Queen came out in 2006, all the buzz emphasized Helen Mirren's icy performance as London's reclusive royal highness. The ubiquitous praise lead to her Oscar win, but it overwhelmed recognition of the movie's secret weapon: Michael Sheen as Tony Blair, quietly pressuring his Majesty to face the public in the wake of Princess Diana's untimely demise. There's a reason why Sheen conveyed the nuances of Blair's role in the event, which transpired a mere three months after the Prime Minister rose to power -- he had practice. The Deal, a fantastic made-for-TV movie Frears directed in 2003, tracked Blair's cunning (and morally questionable) instincts in the years leading up to his position at the top of the Labor Party.

Sheen played Blair in The Deal first, and it's both a superior performance and a superior film. Whereas The Queen had a tabloid hook and only tangentially explored the deeper political ramifications of a reclusive national leader, The Deal delves into precisely how Blair managed to emerge at the top of British politics with a series of calculated maneuvers. Political drama at its finest, The Deal hit DVD in the United States last month, where it has been touted as "the prequel to The Queen." That's not quite fair; The Queen is the sequel to The Deal, and the two movies ought to be seen as a single, wholly fascinating package depicting British politics in the 1990s.

It wasn't that long ago that documentaries carried the stigma of being educational first and entertaining second. As with foreign-language fare, an audience for them lingered on the fringe, and an industry was willing to offer them their very own awards, but they really weren't terribly high-profile box-office prospects... that is, until the '04-'05 summer successes of Fahrenheit 9/11 and March of the Penguins made it seem perfectly okay for audiences to see, and for studios to market, a film without so much as one measly explosion in it.

But then along comes American Teen: a film openly marketed as - and arugably assembled to be - anything but a documentary that finds itself underperforming in its current limited runs (it goes wide this Friday). Last May, I witnessed a group of young women leaving whatever indie they caught at Washington D.C's Landmark E Street Cinema as they approached the film's poster and wondered aloud if someone was remaking The Breakfast Club, with a tone that suggested neither horror nor concern, nor any great interest in the big, fat what-if scenario placed before them.

What I wonder now is, at what point did we begin to craft documentary filmmaking specifically to the masses, and then what happens when the masses simply don't show?

I never expected to get angry in response to something David Bordwell wrote, but his latest blog post infuriated me. As the kind of cinephile who tries his darnedest not to be a pretentious movie jerk, I'm always upset when people expect me to have seen every movie ever made -- or at least every movie presently out in theaters -- and treat me like a fool if I haven't seen this or that supposedly magnificent piece of cinema. Just to clarify, though, I'm not mad at Bordwell. I'm upset with the kind of know-it-all movie geeks who have to show off their cinephilia at every turn.

In the piece, Bordwell attempts to define cinephilia, and I found this part of the post interesting. His qualifications seem to indicate that I am technically a cinephile, despite the fact that I don't see nearly as many films as the people in the documentary Cinemania (those people, he notes, are not cinephiles; they're cinemaniacs). Then he proceeds to lay out conversational scenarios between cinephiles. And it's here that I became annoyed. I'm apparently the guy who has either just seen (random movie title) or has never seen the works of (random filmmaker) or didn't pay enough attention to (random shot) or (random dialogue). I'm slow, I have a bad memory and I do actually take part in other activities besides watching and studying films. So sue me.

My general rule is: I don't walk out of movies. The last time I did so was in 2006 during the fairly wretched bar mitzvah comedy Keeping Up with the Steins -- but only because I was with a friend who wasn't into it; we were bored and I was embarrassed because I had suggested the film. I'm occasionally tempted to leave in the middle of a movie that's giving me no earthly reason to hope it will get any better, but something always keeps me in my chair. Often I'm at a press screening, where it's poor form to walk out. Even if I'm seeing a movie on my own dime, I'm usually driven by a sense of duty and completism. I like talking about movies, as you've probably guessed, and it doesn't seem legitimate to do so not having given the whole thing a chance. "Oh man, I despised Movie X." "Really? What did you think of the ending?" "I left halfway through." "Oh."

I've been doing some traveling, and am spending this weekend in San Francisco. Friday was a gorgeous day, but for various reasons I'm a bit behind in my movie-watching duties, so after exploring the city for a while in the morning, I decided to head to the theater for a double feature. The first thing I went to see was Swing Vote, which I found irritating and politically gutless but certainly watchable. My next choice: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

The dust has barely settled in San Diego (they're probably still trying to clean up that convention center as we speak), and already, the bitching begins. The Hollywood Reporter has written a delightful piece of snark in which the big studios whine that they're spending too much time and money on us geeks. Apparently, it just doesn't pay to court us because the movies cheered in Hall H (Grindhouse, Snakes on a Plane, and Speed Racer to name a few) just don't do all that well. What a waste of free t-shirts and pins!

I'm not going to sit here and insist that ComicCon can make or break a movie. I think we all know there are movies that have benefited from the buzz that begins in San Diego -- people wouldn't be whispering ominously about Star Trek skipping it otherwise. Look at X-Men Origins: Wolverine -- a film that people had been pretty skeptical about is now being raved about from one corner of the Internet to the other. Look at The Spirit. The bad buzz that began at con will stick to the film until its Christmas release. But I also know that those of us who live and work on the Internet can become deluded as to what the offline world is buzzing about. I will fully expect people to comment on my "Who watches the Watchmen?" shirt when I wear it around Colorado, and no one will, because it's so far off the radar for most people.