Last time I was in Cartagena was almost ten years ago at my brother’s wedding. Many Colombians make their love pledges in the Caribbean city. And who could blame them? With it’s beautiful pastel coloured houses, cobbled streets; breath taking sunsets and charming street vendors this colonial walled city is an absolute jewel.

So going back to Cartagena for the 50^th anniversary of the Cartagena International Film Festival was a particularly significant moment in my young career as a filmmaker.

My second short film “Lover” was selected at the festival so it was with a sense of nostalgia that I embarked on the long flight back to the country I’d left almost fifteen years ago. As an added bonus I was co-producing a show for The Screening Room focusing on the new generation of Colombian filmmakers that are slowly becoming a revelation in festivals around the world. I was excited as I was nervous.

Film festivals are a tricky business, you have to manage your expectations because they can let you down or surprise you. Either way they are unpredictable. And knowing how my compatriots are outstanding in that capacity I had reservations about my adventure. 

The first thing that struck me as I arrived at the quaint Rafael Nuñez International Airport and jumped in a tiny taxi was that not much had changed in the last few years as opposed to what most Colombians will have you believe.

The fifteen minute drive from the airport to the walled city had all the familiar qualities that I had experienced as a teenager – the friendly taxi driver, the impoverished neighbourhoods, the pot hole covered streets and the gray waters of the Atlantic. But once inside the walled surrounded town it was impossible not to be seduced one more time.

For all the familiar sights and sounds of Cartagena’s street life one thing was certainly different – Colombian cinema. For the first time since I can remember the country is producing films that are getting critical acclaim in several festivals around the world.

From Sundance to Berlin, San Sebastian to Thessaloniki and Miami to Tribeca, Colombian directors are making films that are raising eyebrows and getting plenty of attention.

This new breed of Colombian filmmakers is very different from their predecessors who were mostly influenced by South American literature of the 1960’s. These new filmmakers come from a more visual background; they are trained in film schools and have worked in ad agencies and productions houses.

Supported in a major way by the new film fund set by the government in 2003, Colombian filmmakers are now producing about ten to twelve films a year – a small number in more cinematically developed countries, but a surprising number considering that only a few years ago Colombia produced two films a year.

When I left Colombia the idea of wanting to start a career in film was laughable. For Colombians who where mostly influenced by Hollywood productions, cinema was something you went to see in a theatre on a Sunday afternoon, not something you dedicated your life to.

But like me there was a whole generation of young men and women who were very interested in the craft. Some left the country during it’s most turbulent periods of violence in the 1990’s and some stayed. The ones that stayed have certainly made the most of it.

The first attempt at projecting the film didn’t go as smoothly as I would have hoped. The digital deck that was going to be used to project the film didn’t work properly or did not arrive in time. Those were the explanations that were going around anyway.

There are still very few theatres capable of digital projection in the country and the festival is trying to cope with the growing number of digital films being submitted every year. Amongst the confusion, the programmers did their best at ensuring me, with their natural Caribbean and somewhat blasé charm that they were going to find a new slot for the film. So there it was, the madness had started. In all fairness all festivals tend to be nutty and disorganized. I’ve heard horror stories from other filmmakers about Sundance or even Cannes. So it was no surprise to me, knowing very well the how things in my country worked, that this had occurred.

But it all got turned around fairly quickly. The programmers arranged a new schedule for the film and they treated me to a number of delicious lunches.  Local cuisine is delicious and Colombians like their food, so they knew very well how to distract me while the hitch got sorted. It all worked out for the best in the end the new slot for the film turned out to be a lot better.

My film premiered at the Teatro Heredia, a beautiful theatre constructed over the ruins of an old church in 1911.

“Lover” was opening for the feature “Contracorriente,” a Colombian-Peruvian co-production that won the Audience Award at Sundance this year. I’ve always thought it is better to open for a feature than to be shown in a segment with other shorts – these usually tend to be early in the day and not a lot of people go to them. So this was the best audience I could have hoped for.

As the lights went down and the film began I could still here people chatting and even talking on their mobile phones. It is a different experience to see a film in Colombia than say at the BFI. If you are a filmmaker it can be a bit thankless. But after the first two or three minutes the cinema went quite and I even managed to hear people trying to quieten other people. At the end the applause was audible and genuine and as far as I was concerned, the film had done its job against a tough audience.

The Cartagena Film Festival is the oldest festival in Latin America. Up to now it has worked as a platform for television productions. It is a mixed bag of wonderful people with great intentions, some logistical and technical gaffes and an undiscovered pool of filmmakers that sooner rather than later are going to make breakthrough films that will be commercial successes.

It has an adorable venue in the Teatro Heredia for its premieres, and with past guests including the likes of Werner Herzog and Benicio Del Toro, it has the prestigious quality of longevity. Now that there is a new generation of serious filmmakers producing quality films the festival needs to raise its game and find a way to become as important as other key festivals in the world.

It was pitched as David versus Goliath. The battle of the exes. Bigelow versus Cameron.

But whichever way you cut it, “The Hurt Locker” came out the winner of the Oscars gong fest with six statuettes to “Avatar’s” three.

Back in January this wasn't how things were expected to go. James Cameron’s blue-furred 800lb gorilla was the favorite to beat Kathryn Bigelow’s tense Iraq war drama – a deserved Oscar winner – thanks to "Avatar's" triumphs at the Golden Globes and all-round box-office supremacy.

Of course, previous awards seasons suggest that sci-fi and fantasy dramas never play well with Academy voters. It’s a fair point - but "Avatar" is a rule-breaker, both technically and commercially, that has lifted it above any genre. Those 11 Oscars given to Peter Jackson’s fantasy epic "Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King" back in 2003 counted for something.

So, if the Academy was okay with Middle Earth then why not Pandora?

“Avatar” began to lose ground in late February as bookmakers started cutting the odds on "The Hurt Locker" and seasoned movie observers began to question Cameron's chances. It helped Bigelow’s drama that it had been given the  top award by the Producer’s Guild of America. During the past 20 years the PGA has given its top prize to 14 films that then won the best picture Oscar. That’s not a 100 percent strike rate –but it would have influenced Academy voters.

And then there was the impact on the race of the, um, Winter Olympics. Sounds bizarre? Well ...

The Oscars were held two weeks later this year to avoid a domestic TV schedule clash with events in Vancouver. "Why have two gigantic, spectacular events happen on the same day, particularly these days?” asked then Academy President Sid Ganis, announcing the date shuffle last year. Why indeed.

"Avatar" has enjoyed a high-profile awards campaign since its December release - but we’ve been living on Pandora for near three months straight now. After a while, even blue-skinned aliens lose their novelty value.

“The Hurt Locker” by contrast had its festival bow in fall 2008, then enjoyed a quiet domestic rollout last June, allowing it to be rediscovered by voters come awards season (see also how Paul Haggis’s “Crash” took best picture against Ang Lee’s “Brokeback Mountain” in 2006).

Did “Avatar’s” lead in the best picture race irrevocably slip away during those final two weeks? Would it have won had the voting papers been due 14 days earlier?

We can never know: the breakdown of the best picture ballot is kept secret, as is the rest of the Oscar voting. This year’s new 10-picture category also meant the race was likely tighter than usual (the new voting system, whereby voters ranked all 10 nominees, would have helped the better-reviewed "Hurt Locker.")

But it's all no more bizarre than a former husband and former wife dueling for the top awards in showbiz.

The Berlinale turns 60

Berlin Film Festival highlights

Europe's stars of the future

A 60th birthday is a special occasion: an opportunity to celebrate past achievements and bask in the appreciation of one’s peers. But when you do hit the big "six-oh" - so my father tells me - there is no greater gift than being surrounded by loved ones.

Perhaps a fitting explanation as to why the 60th anniversary of the Berlinale felt more like an intimate family get together than a glitzy birthday bash.

In attendance were some of the festival’s favorite sons and daughters - previous Golden Bear winners Zhang Yimou (for "Red Sorghum" in 1988) and Bosnian Jasmila Zbanic (for "Grbavica: The Land of My Dreams"  in 2006). The gifted grandchildren were also there: 29-year-old film student, Burhan Qurbani whose film "Shahada" was nominated for the Golden Bear and Romanian Florin Serban, 35, whose debut feature won the jury prize this year.

Martin Scorsese fulfilled the role of the visiting relative from overseas, in attendance with Leonardo DiCaprio to promote Hitchcockian thriller "Shutter Island." And as is often the case at these gatherings, there were notable absences: Roman Polanski, under house arrest in Switzerland was unable to pick up his Silver Bear for "The Ghost Writer."

The first toast failed to inspire: Quanan Wang’s charming but lethargic "Tuan Yuan" ("Apart, Together") did little to snap audiences out of their sluggish state resulting from the icy outdoor conditions. And, while the film’s lengthy dinner scenes didn’t exactly stir up an appetite for Asian art house cinema, it did leave us craving Chinese food.

Fortunately, the meat of the festival had more to offer: Like Polanski’s well-received "The Ghost Writer." Telling of a "fictional" prime minister under investigation for war crimes (sound familiar?), Polanski’s directorial effort was rewarded with a silver bear. Martin Scorsese and Leonardo Dicaprio’s presence at the world premiere of psycho-thriller "Shutter Island" added some much-needed glitz.

Unexpected cinematic delicacies were sent in from Romania and Russia. Florin Serban’s debut "Eu cand vreau sa fluier, fluier" ("If I Want To Whistle, I Whistle"), a gritty drama about a Romanian juvenile delinquent, was very much to the jury’s taste. "Kak ya provyol etim letom" ("How I Ended the Summer") directed by Alexei Popogrebsky, a drama set in the Arctic circle, took top prizes for cinematography and acting.

The festivities ended with a Turkish delight. "Bal" ("Honey") by Semih Kaplanoglu tells the story of a young boy who heads into the woods in search of his missing father, a beekeeper. The film has no score and only sparse dialogue, making it a Golden Bear winner few critics had reckoned with.

It may not have been the memorable shindig many expected, but the Berlinale’s 60th anniversary was a highly enjoyable affair. Festival memories were shared, glasses were raised, and after ten long days (and even longer nights) we went home happy, our hunger for film fully satisfied.

There's a chance history will be made at this year's Oscars.

If Kathryn Bigelow wins best director for "The Hurt Locker," it will be the first time in the Academy Awards’ history a woman has been awarded this prize.

A victory by Lee Daniels, nominated for festival hit “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire,” would be the first win in this category for a black director.

In fact, only four female directors have previously been nominated for best director and only one other black director - John Singleton in 1992 for "Boyz n the Hood."

Among Bigelow and Daniels’ fellow best director nominees, announced Tuesday, are James Cameron - the goliath with his mega-blockbuster “Avatar” - Quentin Tarantino (“Inglorious Basterds”) and Jason Reitman (“Up in the Air”). Click here for the full list of nominees for the 82nd annual Academy Awards.

Even so, Bigelow is in an enviable position: This past weekend she became the first woman to receive the Directors Guild of America’s top honor for her Iraq war drama.

The DGA is a good bellwether for the best director Oscar: On only six occasions since the awards launched in 1948 has a DGA winner not also taken home the Academy Award for directing.

Who do you think should win the Oscar for best director? Tell us in the comments below.

Cameron, who won a best director Oscar in 1998 for "Titanic," was considered the favorite in this year’s race after he took home the best director Golden Globe for “Avatar” last month.

But, Bigelow’s film about a bomb disposal team, a favorite of the critics, is snapping at “Avatar’s” heels after the drama bagged the Producers Guild of America’s best picture award.

As if its history-making potential wasn’t enough to make things interesting, this year’s competition also has some added drama as ex-spouses Bigelow and James Cameron face off against each other.

The Oscars are handed out on March 7.

Are you planning to watch the Oscars and live outside the U.S.? Send your name and contact details to cnnscreen@cnn.com and you could be profiled for a story on CNN.com.

Economic downturn? Not for Hollywood’s super rich, judging by Vanity Fair’s list of Hollywood’s Top 40 Moneymakers.

The list, which appears in the March edition of the magazine, puts “Transformers” director Michael Bay on top of the pay pile with his 2009 earnings estimated at a cool $125 million.

Bay edges out Steven Spielberg, who raked in about $85 million, for the No. 1 spot.

Unsurprisingly, the Top 10 is dominated by male, American filmmakers although Germany's Roland Emmerich, who pulled in about $70 million last year for producing and directing disaster movie “2012," takes third place.

Do you think Hollywood directors, producers and stars are overpaid? Or are they worth it? Tell us in the comments below.

James Cameron occupies a seemingly low position at No. 4. But the estimated $50 million he earned in 2009 is only based on “Avatar’s” worldwide gross through December 31.

Todd Phillips comes in at No. 5 on the success of bromance comedy "The Hangover." “Harry Potter” star Daniel Radcliffe - who, along with Emmerich, makes up the international contingent on the Top 10 list– occupies sixth place.

Vanity Fair points out that its rankings are based on estimates and are “presented for entertainment purposes only.” To see how the magazine came up with its figures and for the full Top 40, click here.

Here's the Top 10:

1. Michael Bay, $125 million

2. Steven Spielberg, $85 million

3. Roland Emmerich, $70 million

4. James Cameron, $50 million

5. Todd Phillips, $44 million

6. Daniel Radcliffe, $41 million

7. Ben Stiller, $40 million

8. Tom Hanks, $36 million

9. J.J. Abrams, $36 million

10. Jerry Bruckheimer, $35.5 million

It took longer than usual this year to announce the Oscar nominees for best picture. But those extra few seconds signaled a major change –- the first time since the mid-1940s that more than five films made the final list for best picture.

Don’t rush to your local multiplex though: the shift to 10 nominees in no way reflects a bumper crop of Oscar-worthy films. If anything, the quality of awards contenders has been somewhat flimsy for the 2009/2010 season.

Foreign-language films and documentaries are nowhere to be seen in the list: rather, the extra slots have been filled out with more of the same, pretty much.

Of course, we don’t know which of the 10 drew most nomination votes - or which got least. One pastime for Oscar-watchers is guessing which films would have made the final five had the old rules held sway –- and which are merely ballast on the ballot.

This Oscar-watcher suspects that “An Education” and “The Blind Side” –- dominated by performances from Oscar nominees Carey Mulligan and Sandra Bullock –- would not make the usual five-film cut. These films are, in this context, also-rans.

Likewise, Joel and Ethan Coen’s nomination for “A Serious Man” signals their popularity with Oscar - but again, they are unlikely to take the top prize with a work that has its admirers but has simply failed to catch fire this season.

Neill Blomkamp’s startling debut “District 9” channeled South Africa’s apartheid experience into a gritty sci-fi flick - and, perversely may have pushed Clint Eastwood's Mandela feature “Invictus" from the final 10. It's well-deserved success has more than exceeded pre-release expectations, but it is too much the genre pic to progress further.

Two features are too close to call for that final-five cut-off point. Lee Daniels’ raw, uncompromising portrayal of black urban life, “Precious: Based On The Novel Push by Sapphire,” will - for shame - likely prove too uncomfortable for voters. Mo'Nique, though, is a virtual certainty for best supporting actress.

“Inglourious Basterds,” Quentin Tarantino’s hyper-stylized World War II spaghetti western hybrid, has arguably divided critics more than any other major feature of the past 12 months. It’s Oscar success is of less note than Tarantino’s welcome return. Look to best supporting actor nominee Christoph Waltz –- who has already taken a slew of supporting actor awards - for its best chances

“Up,” the animation feature directed by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson, displays a spirit and scope lacking from much live-action (had it only been present in Indy 4...), but, Oscar has yet to award the best picture plaudit to a 'toon. Sure it's a contender, but it lags slightly after a heady emotional start. Pixar’s time will come in this category.

(BTW: Don’t be surprised if “Up” fails to take best animated feature: stop-motion animation has enjoyed a high profile this year and filmmaker Henry Selick may get overdue recognition for “Coraline.”)

Oscar-watchers looking for a dark horse should consider “Up In The Air,” whose bittersweet recession-theme chimes with the times. Director Jason Reitman generated much goodwill for “Juno” two years back. His current Oscar-chances campaign can only be enhanced by the presence of lead George Clooney and some witty dialogue that harks back to the likes of “Wall Street.”

But, at this stage of the race there are only two real contenders: Iraq war drama “The Hurt Locker,” helmed by Kathryn Bigelow (who may become the first female to take the best director prize) and “Avatar,” the creation of her ex-husband James Cameron.

“The Hurt Locker” may see success now that America and the rest of the world have begun to gain perspective on the war in Iraq. It’s low-key, gritty approach, echoing TV procedurals like “The Wire,” deserves credit, as do its series of well-observed performances. It tells audiences far more about conflict and its impact than rival bigger-budget, top-heavy features.

“Avatar” has its flaws, especially with dialogue and story - but these cannot distract from its compelling and complete vision. No three-hour film has ever felt so well-contained: Oscar also admires ambition and innovation when it’s coupled to commercial clout.

Either would be more than worthy winners - however many rivals they face.

Led by Martin Scorsese, these celluloid crusaders are racing to save some of cinema's masterpieces from the ravages of time.

Find out more about what Scorsese, Guillermo del Toro, Wim Wenders, Fatih Akin, Wong Kar-Wai and others are doing to preserve lost movie masterpieces from around the world here.

Watch some of the movies that have already been saved at online movie theater The Auteurs.

Watch "Charlie Chaplin restored" here

Watch "Walter Salles on saving films" here

Watch "Scorsese's new mission" here

You can also catch the show on CNN at the following times: Wednesday 27 January: 1730, Saturday 30 January: 0930, 1800, 2130, Sunday 31 January: 0630, 1830, Monday 1 February: 0400 (all times GMT)

James Cameron is king of the world. Again. On Monday, "Avatar" saw its worldwide box-office hit $1.85 billion, eclipsing the record set by Cameron's “Titanic” (1997), and become the biggest grossing movie. Ever. Expect that to grow still further during the coming weeks as it continues to ride publicity from the awards season, where it has become a major player.

The billion-dollar club didn’t exist till 12 years ago, when Cameron’s period epic berthed at screens worldwide and became the first movie to score 10 digits. Since then three other releases have gained entry to the clubhouse.

How did "Avatar" make so much, so quickly?

Like "Titanic," "Avatar" opened late in the year, catching holiday crowds before sitting unchallenged in cinemas through the slack weeks of January.

Had it rolled out anytime from mid-May till late August, its freedom to fend off competing blockbusters would have been curtailed. Sure, like fellow club members, it may well have hit a billion - but no way as fast. Likewise, "Avatar" has shown the value of 3D screens, with much of its cash heap coming from those premium-price seats.

For "Avatar" is event film-making spectacle, the kind that only comes along every few years, that harks back to cinema’s origins in 19th-century fairgrounds. Cameron is a modern-day PT Barnum. The moviemaker who put the world’s biggest maritime disaster on screen is now back with 12-foot tall blue-skinned aliens. In 3D. A movie of that scale is either going to be queue-forming spectacle or car-crash folly - but either way it’s must-see.

In recent years this directorial showmanship has only been equaled by the likes of Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of The Christ," another holder of his own distinctive and particular vision, which many predicted for failure before its filmmaker parlayed it into big bucks.

For whatever its shortcomings - and there are several - "Avatar" possesses a streak of originality that can only be admired.

Sure, it’s a mashed-up rag bag of everything from James Lovelock’s one-world Gaia theory to "Aliens" but, unlike fellow billion scorers, it’s not based on an existing franchise or historical event.

Glance at the other movies lounging in the billion-dollar clubhouse. Aside from "Titanic" (based on a historical event) they are "The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King" ($1.1 billion, released in 2003), the third film in a book adaptation series; "The Dark Knight" ($1 billion, released in 2008); a comic-book sequel; and "Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" ($1.07 billion, released in 2006) -– takes breath -– the sequel to a Disney theme-park ride adaptation.

As such "Avatar" is the climax of the geek decade, when fanboy franchises from "Harry Potter" to "Lord Of The Rings," "Spider-Man" to "X-Men" ruled screens like posters on a 10-year old’s bedroom wall.

But is it really “the biggest movie ever?”

Admissions - or cinemagoers on seats - is arguably a better measure of movie appeal than the kerching of the cash till.

Numbers Web site boxofficemojo.com has produced an inflation-adjusted list for the top movies of all time. Top of the tree? That period romance evergreen "Gone With The Wind," with $1.49 billion at 2010 ticket prices.

"Avatar" trails way behind at 26th, at time of writing, wedged between "Grease" (1978) and "Thunderball" (1965).

But wait. This chart is only for the United States. One feature of the past two decades is how Hollywood has to rely increasingly on international for the bulk of its box office. Around 70 percent of "Avatar’s" box office has been pulled from outside the United States. Expect it to be way further up any all-time worldwide list.

"Gone," released in 1939, played in an era with fewer entertainment distractions: "Avatar" has to compete with TV, computer gaming and music downloads. Movies also tended to enjoy much longer release windows during the 1930s and 1940s, often hanging around cinemas for months at a time.

So which is biggest?

"Avatar?"

"Gone With The Wind?"

Face it. Does such academic argument really matter for anyone beyond industry bean counters and movie journalists?

Or, as Rhett Butler once put it: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."