To say it bluntly, 2010 has been a phenomenal year for music. If you are still operating under a false, hidebound mindset that music created since the inception of this new millennium is not worth your time, then you are missing out (and simply behind the curve). Below are my reviews for a number of exceptional albums that have been released over the past 12 months and, with the exception of the first, all of them are from this year, 2010. All of these are worth listening to, but it is safe to say that some rise above the rest, so typical ratings will be assigned. 

Phrazes for the Young

Your day is going well. Shockingly great, even. That band you wanted to see, you know the one whose closest show was located

Downey Jr. carries the film on his shoulders with ease and grace.  His conservative, playboy character stands in sharp contrast to a more noble hero like Bruce Wayne, but Stark is engaging because he loves himself as much as everyone else does. The opening scene, in which Stark is questioned by a United States Senate committee, shows how Tony believes he is above all others. Senator Stern - a hilarious, sordid and scarily plastic Garry Shandling - demands that the Iron Man suit be transferred to government hands, but Stark associates himself with the observing audience and turns the tables on the interrogators. Downey is a unique, gifted actor who can play with his food before eating it, and all the while with a sly smile. The script, written by Mulholland Drive star and Tropic Thunder co-writer Justin Theroux, gives him some winning lines, but the spot-on delivery is all attributed to Downey. When Tony Stark goes through his internal conflict in the middle of the movie, Downey bares a melancholic spirit, like one who is flying too close to the sun. This performance may not be as shocking or classic as his controversial turn as Kirk Lazarus in Tropic Thunder, but it may as well contain some of his finest acting yet. There's an energy pulsing through the screen when Robert Downey Jr. is on it; the film plays it wise and refrains from taking him off it.

The rest of the cast is stellar, by no means a necessity for a movie of this type. Thankfully, this is a different type of beast. Gwyneth Paltrow is a commanding, occasionally cold, yet commanding figure who, if absent, would leave Tony Stark helpless. Pepper Potts is no longer the naive, bewildered assistant that she was in the first:  she actually bosses Tony around this time. By her side is Happy Hogan, the lovable yet bumbling bodyguard, played by Jon Favreau, also the director.  Watching him struggle to subdue a goon while Black Widow easily clears a room of thugs is an interesting juxtaposition, to say the least. Black Widow, aka Natalie Rushman, aka Natasha Romanoff, is underutilized in her role but nonetheless provides to be a...pleasant sight on the screen. As Stark observes, she is unreadable in her motives, making her an intriguing character. "Rhodey," previously Terrence Howard but now played by a superior Don Cheadle, is given an imposing physical presence and is less of a pushover than the first. In fact, his strict, militaristic demeanor proves to be a main conflict in the movie. However, he still knows how to fun, and Cheadle, who proved his acting prowess in Hotel Rwanda, is a winning actor. There is no dispute to the mastery of Samuel L. Jackson, who is painfully absent from most of the movie but a scene-stealer when on the screen. John Slattery, the boss from Mad Men, is an insightful father for Tony, revealed in old footage, and Clark Gregg plays a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent who tries to control Stark but learns that trapping a lightning bolt is not a facile matter. The last lead actor is Sam Rockwell, who was so robbed of an Oscar nomination in last year's Moon, and will play a character well even when he is an annoying prick. Justin Hammer, his arms manufacturer persona, is a pathetic individual in all respects but given a humorous, pitiful edge by Rockwell. Summer blockbusters often have a large list of high-profile names on their poster, but rarely do all the actors fulfill their potential and deliver winning performances such as this film.

1. 3D. What used to be a juvenile accessory to add incentive to see such masterworks like Fly Me To The Moon and Open Season in theaters is quickly turning into the norm. After the most successful film of all time, last year's Avatar, showed the world how to properly make 3D work, every movie now believes throwing 3D glasses on their patrons will equally throw butts into seats. Avatar was beautiful; the 3D helped enhance the experience by adding depth and never relied on cheap cliches like tossing hats at the screen to remind the audience that this was not something that could work (at least not yet) at home. In contrast, Alice In Wonderland is a 3D film with no use for this extra dimension. The added dimension desaturates the color, lessening the impact of the excellent work gone into the art design, shown by the not-so-bright foliage of "Underland" (that is what the world is actually called). Unless studios are going to go all out, scrap 3D.
2. CGI. Computer animation is a wonderful thing. Look at the beauty Pixar has been able to capture time and time again with this colorful, advanced medium. The Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings films have also successfully merged live action with digital effects, crafting a believable, though fake, world. Similar to recent George Lucas and Steven Spielberg works, Alice suffers from an over-reliance on CGI. Beautiful environments are rendered unfortunately prosthetic as seams in the animation show. As the film progresses, it becomes apparent that the only real objects on the soundstage are the actors themselves. 
3. A lack of focus. In a movie like Alice in Wonderland, the first true acid trip in cinema form, this complaint may come as elitist and unnecessary. Nevertheless, this film straddles between an adult psychedelic tale and a children's action film, as the final action scene will attest. Watching Alice wander around Underland, encountering all of the strange citizens and dangers, is entertaining to a point. There is a lull in the middle that should not be in a story of such hypnotic energy, or else one that is under 2 hours long. Then a final battle scene comes out of nowhere to inject some energy, but does it fit in context? I am not so sure.