In The Big Inning...

It worked pretty well last year. Let's go for it again...

6:17 pm: I'm watching the Red Carpet, this time with that paragon of humanity Star Jones instead of the amazingly grating Rivers family. I really don't enjoy the Red Carpet, but there are certainly some amusing moments. For some ungodly reason, Kathy Griffin is one of the "anchors". Her whole shtick seems to derive from the fact that she's basically no funnier than anyone else, and she knows it. Hey, I'm not funnier than most other people! Give me a job!

6:19pm: We're back from commercial! I honestly think they had to squeeze Star into her dress with ten thousand shoehorns operated simultaneously by a team of Lilliputians. She's still popping out. It's creepy. As Sam said, "She is a fat woman! She's a lot of woman!"

6:20pm: Every year they claim that the Oscars is watched around the globe by billions of people. I don't doubt it. But, to paraphrase David Cross, overblown, lavish events like this are one of the reasons that certain areas of the world detest us so much. Actually, David Cross's routine begins where he's talking about the Bush saying that we have to fight the terrorists because "they hate our freedom". Then he mentions the amazingly stupid "Simple Life" show, and says, "I hate our freedom! This is all we've done with it?!" For a lot of the time, the amazingly quality of the work that's honored at the Oscars makes me proud to be an American. Movies like "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Incredibles" represent American ingenuity and artistry. But the pageantry surround this event also shows some of our misplaced priorities. I PROMISE I won't be this serious for the rest of the night. I swear.

6:35pm: Star Jones has rhinestones (maybe they're real gems?) on her MICROPHONE. This is what I was talking about in the last paragraph. And, "Van Helsing". "Van Helsing" makes me hate our freedom too.

6:50pm: Why do so many people find Natalie Portman attractive? I just don't get it. I guess she's decently pretty, but maybe it's her performances in the Star Wars "movies" (and I use the term "movies" pretty loosely) that have permanently turned me off from her. I guess I haven't actually seen any of her other movies, so who am I to judge? Well, me, that's who! If I wasn't going to do any judging tonight, what would the point of this post be? And while I'm judging, let me point out that to wear such a low-cut dress, Natalie, you have to have SOMETHING to hold it up. Otherwise, it just emphasizes your flatness.

7:01pm: Who dressed Laura Linney like the frost queen? Do these people actually look at themselves before they leave the house?

7:05pm: To be fair, it must be so much easier to be a guy at one of these things than a woman. I mean really, you slap on a tux, and for the most part, you look great. Unless you're Peter Jackson - then you might as well just show up in sweats.

7:06pm: Why do people hate Leonardo DiCaprio so much? Because he was in Titanic? Because he looks boyish? I can't quite figure it out. I think he's a very good actor, and he's pretty articulate on the Red Carpet. Maybe people are just jealous.

7:14pm: Lou Gossett Jr.? Was he even invited? But, man, does he look sharp! It must be nice to be a black man, and therefore look OK in a white tux.

7:39pm: Samuel L. Jackson has claimed that Morgan Freeman is the coolest man in Hollywood. He may be right.

7:54pm: Before things start, let me say a couple things. One is that I think Chris Rock could be the best host they've ever had. But he's going to be completely irreverent, and while Hollywood likes entertaining, talent people, I think they also have a limit on how much crap they're going to take. My belief is that he really doesn't like the whole Hollywood game, but maybe I'm completely off about that. I assume there will be at least a few instances where the crowd falls silent because of some completely scathing remake Rock makes - at least, I hope so.

7:57pm: Now, for my picks! Well, I've only seen one of the Best Picture nominees: Million Dollar Baby. So, I'm rooting for that to win everything, even the awards it's not nominated for, like Best Visual Effects. (Maybe it should be - did you see Hillary Swank wallop those other women boxers? I hope that wasn't real!)

8:01pm: What, this thing doesn't actually start until 8:30? How do they get away with publishing incorrect starting times, just so they can get in another half hour of advertising?

8:02pm: Ah, Billy Bush. It's a Republican conspiracy - that's how they get away with it. I should have known.

8:03pm: Hillary Swank is very talented. And she's dressed very elegantly. But she has a gigantic mouth, and a very square jaw, and that, at times, make her look like a horse. It's a bit unfortunate.

8:06pm: What is wrong with Renee Zellweger? With her brown hair, and her over-inflated lips, she looks like quite old. Maybe it was gaining and losing and gaining and losing the weight for the Bridget Jones nonsense.

8:10pm: Well, this is sure crazy! Would you believe that the dress Virginia Madsen is wearing is the last one that she tried on? Imagine that!

8:14pm: How many times do you think they had to hit the chisel with the mallet in order to make Kirsten Dunst's dimples? I say eighteen.

8:21pm: Kevin on Antonio Banderas: "Does he ever wash his hair? I'm thoroughly convinced he does not." Of course, when you're Antonio Banderas, you don't have to.

8:29pm: Billy Bush just said that 50 statuettes are waiting backstage to be awarded in 24 categories. Doesn't that mean we could figure out who is going to win and who isn't? Like, if there's a group of 12 people, we know they're more likely to win, because those statues have to go to some people, right? I mean, they don't have more statues than they need, do they? Or maybe they have extras in case some break? I should use this information to gamble on the results.

8:31pm: Who is announcing the opening montage? My guess is Tom Hanks. Or maybe Dustin Hoffman. Can't quite be sure. Whoa - there was some Nicole Kidman nipple in that "Eyes Wide Shut" clip. Don't tell the FCC!

8:33pm: There are screens on the ceiling of the Kodak theater? Is that really necessary?

8:34pm: Shrek and Charlie Chaplin? Sure, why the hell not. It was kinda cute.

8:35pm: I have nothing to say during Chris Rock's monologue. The guy's still got it. Can we watch 4 hours of him?

8:43pm: If you were Halle Berry, would you just slap Chris Rock for that crack about "the eagerly-awaited Catwoman 2" ? I would. And doesn't Best Supporting Actor/Actress normally go first? Apparently I'm uninformed. Maybe the email the Academy was supposed to send me notifying me of changes got accidentally spam-filtered.

8:45pm: Two statuettes down, forty-eight to go. I don't know how I feel about bringing out every nominee on stage. I guess it makes things faster, but it still seems a bit weird.

8:49pm: Best Supporting Actor. Ok, Morgan, time to bring it home....here we go...an actual award...Morgan Freeman! It's about time! I wonder if he has a tattoo on the back of his head like Jamie Foxx does, but we can't see it because of his hair. I bet so.

8:55pm: You know, the juxtaposition of Robin Williams with Chris Rock just shows how old Robin Williams's schtick has gotten. I think that applause for him is just politeness. He looks like he's this close to being homeless.

8:57pm: Best Animated Feature. Is there any way this isn't The Incredibles? It was almost nominated for Best Picture. Waiting...waiting...Incredibles. Thought so. Hey, I'm two-for-two!

9:01pm: Best Makeup, done in the aisle by Cate Blanchett. (One of my favorite actresses.) This is the Oscars on speed, with the microphone in the middle of the aisle. Crazy. But I guess that's how you speed it up, eh? I wonder if the stars feel like it takes away from the specialness of their night, with everything being rushed so much. Ha, silly stars. Get rid of the songs! That will make it a lot faster, for sure. Are the songs that important, that they should take a cumulative 20 minutes? Why not show 20 minutes worth of scenes from the Best Picture nominees instead? I know, I know - it's marketing, and a good chance for cross-promotion with the music industry. I don't have to like it, though.

9:10pm: I'm leaving for my soccer game. Thank you, Lord TiVo, for allowing me to enjoy this magnificent spectacle at my leisure!

11:02pm: SCREW YOU, LORD TIVO! You didn't record what I told you to! How dare you defy me?!? So, I now have lost those two hours. Dammit. Well, I'll try and wrap up. Crap. At least we didn't miss the biggies.

11:12pm: Goodness, Hillary Swank, didn't you learn in the past not to thank yours lawyers? It's pretty obscene how lopsided it is in terms of the time they give the Best Actor/Actress people versus, say, the Art Direction people.

11:14pm: Best Foreign Language Film. When it doubt, the Oscar's going to go to the only person you've heard of - that's Alejandro Amenabar for "The Sea Inside".

11:15pm: Sam: "The best part about the non-native speakers is that they always keep their speeches really short." Well said, baby.

11:16pm: Best Original Screenplay. This is one of the few I really care about. It's gotta go to "Eternal Sunshine". I know it's not MOST Original, but I don't care. Woohoo! Go Charlie Kaufman. We'll promise to foget about "Adaptation" if you keep writing better and better stuff.

11:18pm: Those models that walk people to and from the podium are gigantic! Where do they get them, "Rent-an-Amazon" ?

11:23pm: Charlie Theron is presenting Best Actor. Kevin: "She looks less orange than she did last year." Sam: "Indeed."

11:24pm: Who's it going to be? My guess is Jamie Foxx. I know, don't go out on a limb, right? The winner is...Foxx, of course. Well, good for him. Maybe I should see the movie someday.

11:31pm: How would the Ramones feel if they knew "Blitzkreig Bop" was being used to sell Diet Pepsi? I think they'd be decidedly upset.

11:32pm: Julia Roberts (clearly still nursing) is presenting Best Director. I think it's gotta go to Marty. Nope! It goes to Clint Eastwood. Well, he deserved it. I guess Marty's going to have to wait. Man, I hope he gets it some day. Clint seems kinda nonplussed. Is there any way Million Dollar Baby doesn't win it all? Clint Eastwood's mother is here? At 96!? I thought HE was 96.

11:35pm: Who the hell was that in the balcony? Pam Grier?

11:36pm: The "Fockers" are announcing Best Picture. Dustin Hoffman seems like he might fall asleep at any moment. If it's not Million Dollar Baby, I'll be shocked. I would like to say it deserves it, but that's kinda unfair to all the others that I didn't see. Still, it's a great, well-made movie, so it won't be as horrible as, say, Gladiator winning. Yup, it won.

11:38pm: Well, that wraps it up. It doesn't seem like I missed a whole lot! And they got it in in almost 3 hours. Pretty impressive. Hope you enjoyed my account. Until next year!

P.S. I just realized what music they're using for the credits. It's the theme from "Terminator 2". Cool!

I've often contended that television (and media in general, but let's stick to TV for the time being) is a mirror of society. Sometimes it can distort things, but mostly it reflects back our values. That becomes problematic when it reflects back our warts, and we'd really prefer it just skipped those parts. But, I've already written at length (in high school!) about the idiocy of getting bent out of shape and blaming TV for our problems. However, we can use it as a good means of analyzing some of our more hidden societal beliefs.

Bigotry is still alive in this country and will be for a long time. For sure, there are plenty of people who hate blacks, but these people are slowly becoming more and more marginalized: That's a good thing. The more insidious type of prejudice is the sneaky kind; the institutionalized kind; the kind that many Americans prefer to pretend isn't there. If you don't believe that this racism exists, well, you're wrong, and naive, and probably part of the problem.

In the real world, groups of people go through certain stages of acceptance. I'll elaborate: At one time, not only were blacks treated unfairly, but it was commonly accepted that it was ok to do so. (We'll ignore slavery for now, because while it's important in black history, it's not common enough in minority group history.) Slowly, it became not ok to do so, but not really ok to get upset at people who did. Then, it wasn't ok to be publicly racist, but we still had plenty of policies that were discriminatory. Now, overt racism is quite frowned upon, and we're generally pretty cautious of blatantly discriminatory policies. I don't think that we've eliminated racism against blacks, especially among our educational and commercial institutions, but I do think we're making progress. At any rate, my point is that it's not (pardon the pun) black and white - there's a continuum from outright inequality to complete absence of prejudice. If I could think of one group that was completely and utter integrated into American society with virtually no prejudice, I would - I would argue the closest such minority groups are Jews, but even they're not completely treated as equals all the time.

So, that said, where do many of these groups lie on the bias continuum? Well, like I mentioned, honest self-reflection can be very hard. But one of the most obvious ways that we can track our subtle levels of prejudice in society is through the prominence of certain minority groups in our entertainment, and on television in particular. But if there's a continuum in reality, then shouldn't there be a continuum in television as well? Absolutely! Here goes:

First stage: Not appearing at all. On many shows, there are no blacks. Even in places where they clearly exist, like in New York! Friends is a perfect example of this. But for the most part, you do see blacks on TV. Nevertheless, at one time, you didn't. And until recently, there certainly were no gays. I think significant numbers of minorities are still just exiting from this stage: How many Asians do you see on TV? (And, by the way, for purposes of this argument we're talking about popular, fictional shows. Reality shows explicitly make an effort to seem diverse.) Latinos are gaining ground, I believe. What about Indians? (Not Native Americans, but people from India.) Clearly, there's a lot of people still in the first stage, or just barely into the second. You know who's still in the first stage? Handicapped people.

Second stage: Token appearances. At some point, even television executives start to acknowledge that the world is not monochromatic. (Although, usually they only do this when their audiences force them to by not watching shows they consider to be "unrealistic".) So, instead of actually writing well rounded minority characters, they initially just throw them in minor supporting roles to fend off potential criticism as often as possible. You'll see the "Chinese neighbor" or "black co-worker", but they won't have names, or if they do have names, they'll be the most bland character on the show. Why? Because giving them a realistic personality would actually involve knowing and understanding such people. I'd argue that Latinos are pretty much still in this stage, and Asians are just getting there.

Third stage: Appearing as poorly-drawn stereotypes. Americans really don't like having their world view challenged. So once there becomes a demand (or even an outcry - but mostly it manifests as a market demand), show creators finally cave and put in someone that's more than just a token, but a legitimate character. However, often this character will be a foil - someone to play off the main character, or someone that subtle exhibits stereotypical traits. I'm thinking of the "Latino gardener", or the "black athlete", or the "flaming gay friend". I think I'd place Latinos still in this stage, while gays are actually moving out of into the fourth stage...

Fourth stage: Appearing as villains. When you're depicted as a legitimate villain (not a caricature), then you know you're making progress! Why? Because that means people are comfortable enough about your status as a minority that they no longer fear backlash resulting from depicting you negatively. It's a good thing that being labeled "racist" is still crippling to one's public image, although it does mean that it's thrown around a little too casually. But it's still easier to depict a minority as the villain instead of the hero, as creating an empathetic, well-rounded character is quite a challenge. Plus, when a minority is a villain, it's pretty easy to exploit (and validate) your audience's latent hostilities towards such people, instead of challenging their views.

Side note: This whole post was inspired by Dan, my, and Stephen King's observations about all of the black women on "24" being villains. I think it's pretty obvious that they fall explicitly into this stage. There's Sherri Palmer from Seasons 1-3, who was clearly a huge villain. There's Wayne Palmer's former love interest from Season 3. There's Aisha Tyler's character on Season 4. There are no other black women on the show, except for the black cop who died in about 15 minutes way back in Season 1. (That would have qualified her for the second stage.) What's interesting about "24", though, is that they're both amazingly progressive and hopefully regressive at the same time. They have a host of Latino characters in stage five (which I will explain shortly), as well as having featured Asians, many blacks, and Arabs in important, well-rounded roles. At the same time, their main conflict this year is surrounding a (well-written and somewhat conflicted) family of Arab terrorists. Is it a reasonable, real-life concern that one can plausibly use to create a show out of? Absolutely. Do you ever see Arabs on TV when terrorism isn't involved? Rarely. I think Arabs are, for the most part, still in stage three, which happens to nicely masquerade as stage four, because the stereotype is that they are villains.

Fifth stage: Appearing as normal. Stage five is pretty simple - when you have a character that exists as a real person, whose identity is not centered around their race, but around being an actual human being. It's still pretty rare to see many of these - I'd say that the only group firmly in this stage is black men - black women are still lagging behind. By the way, "Will" from "Will and Grace" is an exception - for the most part, gays are in stages three and four.

Sixth stage: Appearing as a main character. You'd think that stages five and six are pretty close together, but there's actually a vast chasm there. If you're going to build a show around a minority as the main character, a lot has to happen. You have to have confidence that enough people in the world aren't going to get turned off by watching the exploits of someone that doesn't look quite like them. You have to understand how that person's minority status might realistically affect their actions and personality without making it dominate your show. And then, people have to actually watch the thing for it to stay on the air - shows reaching this status probably say as much about society as they do about the particular show itself. I still don't think any minority group has made it this far.

So, those are the stages. A few caveats here: One is that I don't consider these rules hard and fast. Furthermore, I don't necessarily think you can say that a group's rank on the TV continuum explicitly corresponds with its rank on the reality continuum. In particular, in real life, I still think gays are probably the most discriminated against, but they seem to work pretty well for dramatic purposes. (One of the reasons they might be discriminated against is because some people feel they're being pushed upon them by television.)

Another important point - one or two shows do not qualify a group for a particular stage. There are outliers all over the place. And some networks or creators are a lot more color-blind than others, choosing to push shows without significant public support. And no, in general, the WB doesn't count. But my assessments are just my overall thoughts - feel free to take a shot at your own estimates, and feel free to disagree. Also, my rankings are a bit skewed by what I watch, although I do read Entertainment Weekly pretty regularly, so I know what's out there. I can't quite think of a popular, black main character (not just one in an ensemble) since the Fresh Prince - that's not a good thing. I guess Bernie Mac counts.

Finally, a comment about racism. The ultimate achievement for America will be when this post no longer applies, for at least a couple reasons. One would be that every person has attained equal opportunities, regardless of race or sexuality, or what have you. And another would be that race or other superficial differences do not even become an important part of the debate. People just don't notice it any more. Does that mean that I'm a bit hung up on race because I notice these things? You betcha, although I'd like to believe that I'm more of an observer than an active creator of these types of divisions. Yet I'd be delusional to tell myself that I don't notice these differences, and have some prejudgments in my head. I'd also like to think that acknowledging this means I can do something about it, and maybe that's the point of this post.

Let me present an extended metaphor to you and solicit your thoughts:

There's a friend, we'll call him Oswald, that you've grown up with for virtually your entire life. He's a reliable guy, although you've had your ups and downs with him. He's always been there. Sometimes he's a ton of fun, and other times he's kind of frustrating. For your part, you've been pretty unyielding in your support. When he's been successful, you've been right there with him, cheering him on. When he's failed, you've also been there to support him, cheering him on to try again and again.

Recently, though, Oswald's just not as fun anymore. It's almost as if he's not trying. He's a pretty stubborn fellow, and he's basically made up his mind about the way the world works. He thinks he's just average at about everything, and he's not willing to put himself out there to take risks and better his situation. His won't invest time in his job, he won't spend the money to move out of his parents' house, he won't dump his "nice enough" girlfriend for someone who really excites him.

You've remained supportive, though. You encourage him to look for a good job, and tell him that he has more to offer. You spend your valuable time with him, because you're a loyal person, and you figure you owe it to him. He actually lives quite far away, but even when traffic's crappy, you go out to see him, at least four or five times a year. But you're not getting a whole lot out of it anymore. You can't see yourself giving up on him, though. After all, he is your friend.

But things are starting to change. There's another potential friend you've made at work, named Nate. You don't know Nate real well, but he seems like your type of guy. He's young and energetic, but a bit of a "wild card". However, all of the things you once saw in Oswald, you see in Nate. He's loyal, and fun, and has yet to really frustrate you. Maybe that's because you don't know him really well yet, but he also seems like he has the potential to do great things.

Similar to Oswald, Nate's not particularly happy with his job, nor his girlfriend, nor his housing situation, but he seems to be doing something about it. For one, he's looking for a new house. He's also looking for a new job, and has gone on a few interviews. He's motivated and enthusiastic. He could flame out brilliantly, or he could do some great things with his life. And since he's new to the area, he's certainly looking for new friends. Did I mention that he also lives a lot closer than Oswald does?

So, what do you do? You're on the verge of becoming good friends with Nate, and since you're quite busy a lot of the time, there's no way you can devote as much time to Oswald if you want to spend a lot of time with Nate. And it's not like Oswald has listened to your concerns, either, so talking to him probably won't fix things. In fact, one of Oswald's concerns has been that he's going to lose you as a friend precisely because he's so boring and pessimistic - and that certainly doesn't make him any more fun to be around, as he's been so fatalistic.

What would you do? Clearly, as a good person, you're not going to just abandon Oswald. Loyalty is important to you, as well as to him. And, as I said, he's been a part of your life for as long as you can remember. But there's a part of you that is tempted to at least temporarily cut ties with Oswald, and hang with Nate, at least until Oswald gets it together. Maybe having you not spend as much time with him would be the kick in the butt he needed to change his tune. Or maybe he'd just resent it forever, and you would irreparably harm your friendship. And maybe Nate would end up being just as lame as Oswald, and then where would you be?

Ok, fine, I'll cut out the allegory. You may find it absurd, but this is actually all about baseball. Oswald represents the Orioles, and Nate represents the Nationals. I think the parallels are pretty obviously, but let me elaborate: The Orioles have been my favorite team forever. Cal Ripken's my idol, and the team, until the late 1990s, was competitive and exciting. They did things the proper way - the "Oriole Way". But somehow, after the asshat Peter Angelos bought the team, things went downhill. They started spending wildly, and instead of investing in their farm system, they went after free agents. It worked for a couple years, but then the made a few too many mistakes with their investments, and hit rock bottom. If not for the expansion Tampa Bay Devil Rays, the Orioles would have been at the bottom of their division for five years straight.

It wouldn't nearly as bad if they just sucked, but they're pretty much not even trying. Because they have to compete with the free-spending Yankees and Red Sox, Angelos has convinced himself that making a big investment in the team just isn't worthwhile any more. Their payroll used to be among the highest in the majors, and they drew a commensurate number of fans. They had a great ballpark, and a dedicated fan base, and were capable of competing each year. But then it all went to crap, and instead of dusting the team off and making another run, Angelos has now packed it in, and refuses to open the pocketbook, or even make intelligent, relatively inexpensive moves to improve the team. He simply seems consigned to his fate of finishing third every year.

To make things worse, the Nationals have just moved to DC. Angelos fought it tooth and nail, claiming it would steal his business away. And while he was partially right, for the most part, the reason his business will be stolen is because of his own inability to build on the great assets he amassed - a dedicated fan base, a competitive team, a wonderful ballpark. He frittered it all away, and now has made a nice little self-fulfilling prophecy that the Orioles won't be competitive because of the Nationals, and therefore aren't worth significant investment. In fact, it's the other way around: Because he refuses to show the fans that the team is worthy of his investment (Sammy Sosa DOES NOT COUNT - acquiring him was a publicity move that's really a slap in the face to those who follow the team), they are going to withdraw further, especially with such an attractive alternative down the road. He's deluded himself into thinking that their young pitching will eventually come around (it won't), and that eventually he'll be seen as a hero in Baltimore.

For the Orioles, the 2004-2005 offseason was horrendous. They made half-hearted efforts to sign free agents, and failed at all of them. They claimed they were refusing to overspend because they had no idea what kind of revenue they'd have due to the Nationals arrival. But when you're trying to rebuild a team, and you're competing against the Yanks and Sox, overspending it precisely what you have to do. It's called "investment". Many teams don't even have the resources the O's do, yet manage to find a way to make things work, at least for a few years at a time. The Orioles haven't been competitive for quite a while now. But I can't just abandon them...I won't allow myself to.

But the new kid on the block sure is enticing! Baseball's returning to DC. Everyone's excited. Now, they'll be playing in RFK, a pretty crappy stadium, for a few years. And, as yet, they do not have a new owner, so therefore their budget has pretty much flatlined. But, the possibilities are endless. They will be sold eventually, hopefully to someone with a bigger budget, who will invest in the team. They're having a new stadium built for them. And Washingtonians are so excited about having a team that it's pretty much guaranteed that they'll be a good draw, resulting in good revenue, and therefore hopefully an owner who is willing to draw from that revenue stream to benefit the team. People don't even care the that the team is likely to be miserable for a few years: We're not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. It's possible they could implode, but it's also very possible they could be a great franchise in the long run.

So, what do I do? I used to split season tickets to the Orioles, but now that's not even an option, as (just as Angelos predicted/caused), that group of ticket-buyers has split up. I have formed my own group of Nationals' season ticket purchasers, and we've secured fantastic seats right behind home plate. I'll go to at least 10 games this year, and I'll be able to hop on the Metro and be there in less than an hour, instead of having to leave work at 4:30 to fight the traffic to Baltimore for two hours to make a 7:05 game.

Still, I'm going to remain an Orioles fan. But maybe I'll do so from afar. Because I feel like if I buy tickets, I'm supporting Angelos's destructive activities. I wonder if enough people stay away, if he'll eventually sell the team and give them a fighting chance. I fear that as long as he's in charge, they have very little hope, and I don't want to be lining his pockets. But maybe when a friend's in trouble, they need all the support you can give them? Or maybe they need to be shown tough love? Argh. It's tough having principles.

Remember encyclopedias? Not the ones on CD-ROM, no, I'm talking about the big sets of 20 gigantic volumes? And remember book reports or research papers in middle and high school? Where you'd have to go to the library and find those encyclopedias, and take notes? Maybe, if you were really lucky, the topic you were researching would actually be the subject of some esoteric book. Of course, mostly like the whole class had reports on similar subjects, so even if there was a book that seemed useful, and it happened to be owned by your school's library, it was probably checked out by the busybody who had memorized the Dewey Decimal system and found it first.

So, you go back to the encyclopedia, and find the couple of paragraphs on your chosen subject matter, and try to think of a way to turn 15 sentences into 15 pages. For me, these were some of my least favorite parts of school. I'm sure I was learning something, but it certainly wasn't about my report topic, because I don't believe I can tell you any specific detail about any report I wrote. In fact, I can't even tell you the subject of any report I wrote. That stuff really sunk in, eh?

There's an argument to be made that what we were really learning was the methodology of report writing. And I can kind of buy into that. Of course, I do specifically recall that a good fifty percent of the time was spent teaching us how to write citations, as if this was the most important thing we could possible know about writing research papers. They always made such a big deal out of it, but it always seemed so overblown and arbitrary. Depending on what type of resource you used, different citations had different formats. So you'd write the author and then a PERIOD. Don't forget the PERIOD! Then the title (underlined, of course, unless it was information you obtained from the back of a cereal box, in which case the name of the cereal was in italics). PERIOD. The pages you obtained the information from. PERIOD. The publisher, and the city of publication. PERIOD. (Who gives a living crap about the city of publication?) And on, and on, and on. So much time wasted - it's not like anyone memorizes that stuff, anyways. Just use your "Rules of Style" and copy it out of there.

At any rate, the other half of the time was actually spent writing the reports. And, to be honest, judging from the number of people I encounter on a daily basis who have no idea how to write grammatically correct sentences, nevermind coherent paragraphs, it was clearly a necessary part of our education. Oh, I'm sure some people learned about the history of sub-Saharan Africa, or the life and times of Ernest Hemingway's cats, but for the most part, I believe they were trying to teach us how to write. Of course, the skill many of us learned was how to write in a bloated fashion, taking meager amounts of facts and turning them into long-winded blathering. Pity the poor teacher that had to read those things.

The other skill we may have learned was how to research, but that was made fairly obsolete by the time we got to college, and had libraries that actually possessed more than a couple hundred books. (And, multiple different encyclopedias.) But even that skill has become useless, because now there's the internet. When I was a kid, the internet was just becoming popular, but it certainly wasn't pervasive enough to be useful for a report. Now, I'm positive that by just searching for "Ernest Hemingway's cats", you could likely find a pre-written report just there for the taking.

Really, think about it. How easy would your homework have been with the internet available? I'm certain that report writing would have become a breeze. Certainly, the researching part would have been pretty trivial - just Google your topic and start clickin' on the links. Maybe you wouldn't quite find the depth you needed for a doctoral dissertation, but given the crap they accepted in high school, it would have been more than enough. And, if you're lucky, you probably could find something pre-written. Now, if you have half a brain, you'd rewrite it so it sounded like you - I have to believe that any teacher worth his or her salt had a fairly honed "stolen from the Internet" detector.

In many cases, it wasn't worthwhile to copy your homework, as you either needed to show your work, or you needed to actually study the problems so that you knew the answers for the test. I'm thinking of things like vocabulary and math/science problems. But I'm also willing to bet that there's a pretty big market out there for answer-sheets to exercises in most textbooks. If there are cracks for video games, you can bet there are PDFs somewhere that contain all of the solutions to the most popular textbooks, with the answers written out. If not, well, maybe I should get to work.

And how easy would it be to cheat? Just IM your friends back and forth, split up the problems, and you're done. Then, it's off to play online poker for the rest of the evening, while telling your folks that you're doing your homework on your laptop. Man, I can only imagine the possibilities had the internet been around when I was a kid. Although, I'm certain it'll have some horrible ramifications - for one, writing ability is going to decline even further, despite it being more necessary than ever with the advent of email. I can see it now: Book reports ending with "TTYL". Term papers titled "Sub-Saharan Africa 4 Ever". Paragraphs ending with ";-)" to indicate sarcasm. Hmm...maybe I am better off having gone to school in the disconnected age.

I went to Los Angeles this past weekend, and it was a doozy of a trip. We flew out of Dulles Airport, which managed to vault itself right to the top of the "Worst Designed Airports" list. Admittedly, it's not that long of a list, but Dulles is firmly entrenched.

The most absurd thing about Dulles is that in order to get from the main terminal to the gates, you have to take this insanely stupid bus. Apparently, originally Dulles was going to be much larger, and so the figured that a bus method was scalable. But Dulles really never got that large, and so now there's just a gigantic gap between the main terminal and all of the gates. So, they were stuck with the bus system, which is woefully inadequate. Did I mention that the busses actually travel across the runways? And now, they've added a silly little automated voice telling you that this is a great opportunity for you to see some of the day-to-day operations of the airport as you drive by a burly dude throwing luggage on a conveyor belt. Wow!

The busses are also prone to making abrupt turns and sharp stops, as they avoid aircraft and luggage transportation vehicles and the like. And since they're usually crammed full (especially when you're arriving at Dulles, since all of the passengers from the plane go right to the busses), and there aren't that many seats, people are falling all over each other with their luggage, and it's just, well, delightful. But my favorite part about the busses, the one that makes me chuckle (because the other option would be to go on a homicidal rampage in search of the designed of this infernal system) every single time, is that they have steering wheels at both the front and the back. That's right, they're essentially symmetric. I'm not sure if they can go in "reverse", because they never do. What happens is that everyone loads on the bus from the back (as defined by the side opposite of the direction the bus will be traveling), and THEN the driver gets on. What does this mean? That on a crowded bus, before it can do, the driver has to squeeze through everyone and all of their luggage to get to the driver's seat. It's freakin' hilarious, especially when you're exhausted and irritable from traveling.

You know what else is hilarious? Security at airports. I understand the need for it, but it could not be more arbitrary. At some airports, I'm allowed to wear my sneakers through security. You know, the ones with absolutely no metal in them? (And before you mention the infamous shoe bomber, let me remind you that they just scan the shoes, they don't swab them for chemicals or anything.) At some airports, I must remove my shoes and put them on the conveyor belt, or else I'll be strip searched. I can't quite determine what causes certain rules to be applied where. It's hard for me not to get frustrated with the workers, but I try to remember that they're doing us all a service (or, at least they mean to - it's not their fault if the policies are stupid), and they're probably sick of dealing with irate, impatient passengers.

Unfortunately, with security, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So if there's one place along the way that slacks, then the whole system is for naught. That's why the inconsistencies make little sense. But the worst I've ever seen occurred when we were boarding in LA. About half of the passengers had already boarded when Sam and I got to the ticket taker lady. Just then, an ear-piercingly loud alarm bell at the entrance to the jetway went off, for no apparent reason. It didn't stop. There was only one person handling boarding, doing everything herself: Taking tickets, making announcements, handling adjustments, etc. So, when the alarm went off and wouldn't cease destroying our eardrums, she had to go turn it off. (It never really crossed any of our minds that the alarm might actually indicate that anything was wrong other than with the alarm itself.) She abandoned her ticket-taking post, and scurried off down the jetway, leaving approximately 100 passengers waiting to board, with nothing stopping us, or any random evil-doer, from boarding the plane. I suppose we had all been through security, but still - it was weird. At the very least, we didn't really need to buy a ticket to get on. She was gone for about two or three minutes, during which time Sam and I dutifully stood at the front of the line, even though our tickets had already been taken, figuring that we should set a good example. The lady returned, and we boarded. I wonder what Tom Ridge would have thought. (I guess he probably wouldn't have cared, since he's no longer head of the Dept. of Homeland Security.)

Flying the red-eye sucks. I don't think I'm getting bigger, so planes must be getting smaller. Maybe I'm getting more creaky, too, as I cannot find a position to get comfortable in. I slept for short clips of time, but it certainly wasn't fitful. And our plane was full of morons, too, who refused to sit down so we could take off - but I've already previously expounded on the frustrations of having slow airplane boarder and, er...unboarders.

Also, when did they develop this whole "boarding group" system? Was it always this way? And did people used to follow it? Because it seems that the ticket-takers don't enforce it, and people know this, so they just brazenly flout their specified order. And I wouldn't really care who got on the plane first, if it didn't mean that all of the overhead space wasn't taken up if you wait too long. So what are the options? Cheat and try to get on early? Or, get on the plane late, find my seat, and if the overhead space is taken, just throw it all on the ground? I like that approach. And with any luck, there will be a "chink in the security chain", and I won't get tossed off the plane and locked up in Gitmo.

Wow, did I see some crappy movies this year. At least 50% of the movies I saw I'd say weren't very good. And there are many more out there that I actually do want to see. I think I need to be more discerning. Director's cuts that were released on DVD don't count as new movies, to me, so there's no LOTR:ROTK or The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, both of which would place very near the top....if I was a big cheater.

I know it's long. Read whatever you want. Even better, write your own!

I've divided things up into sections:

Terrible F'n Movies

34. Garfield (20 minutes)

Sam and I were going to see some other movie and got there quite early, so we figured we'd watch some other movie for a bit until our show started. I'm not sure why we chose Garfield, but I'm going to regret that decision for the rest of my life. The stink of that movie will not wash off of my eyeballs, so the next time you see me, try not to smell my eyeballs. I used to read the comic (which I now think is pretty terrible), and the movie exists in some strange half-world where Garfield's a CG character, but Odie's a real dog that looks nothing like the cartoon Odie. And Garfield dances to "I Feed Good". How original. The first 20 minutes were worse than any full movie I've seen in the past few years.

33. Club Dread

I thought Super Troopers was quite amusing. I figured I'd Netflix this for some inspired stupidity. Well, I got the stupidity part right. Has Bill Paxton really been reduced to this? I can't even begin to explain how lame this movie was - a spoof of a horror movie that never existed, for good reason. Avoid like you'd avoid a plague-infested Garfield..

32. Van Helsing

Maybe I need to start reading the comic books that are the basis for all of the movies I see, so I'll know what I'm getting into. I thought that CG technology was supposed to improve over time. This was just one big mess, in every sense. I don't even know if I can remember what happened - something like Dracula using the power of Frankenstein to create little vampire babies and Van Helsing having to use the power of Wolfman to stop him. Sounds compelling, right? You may ask what I was expecting to see in such a movie, and the answer is something a bit better than this disaster.

31. The Day After Tomorrow

I don't know why some conservatives got upset at this movie. People felt that it was blowing the global warming issue out of proportion and creating a fervor, and I did see some articles like "The Day After Tomorrow: Could It Actually Happen?" Personally, if I was a conservative politician and my supporters were concerned about this movie affecting people's environmental views, I would have just advised them to encourage people to go see it, because it would have convinced all of the viewers that people worried about global warming can't put a coherent thought together. Certainly, the creators of this movie weren't able to. And let me ask you - the temperature outside is dropping a 10 degrees a minute or something, what would you be most concerned about? If you answered "wolves", congratulations - you're qualified to make this movie. They could have rendered a realistic image of all of Long Island being lifted up into the air and being deposited onto Boston, and it wouldn't have redeemed this film. So, so dumb.

Just Bad Movies

30. Bridget Jones: The Edge Of Reason

I suppose this would be the one movie that I got dragged to, but it wasn't by Sam. No, in fact, it was Alice, who called me and asked if the four of us could go to a movie, and if I'd be willing to see this movie. I told her that if she could convince Sam to see it, I would go. I don't know what sort of magical power Alice has over Sam, but I think after 20 minutes of pleading, Sam caved, and so we were consigned to our fates. To Alice's credit, this movie wasn't that horrible, it was just silly. At the very least, it had good acting, but it lost me right around the time where Bridget got locked in a Thai prison for a couple weeks. Or maybe it lost me at the opening credits, I forget.

29. Spartan

Blech. So much potential wasted. Val Kilmer as a special ops dude trying to rescue the President's seemingly kidnapped daughter. Spartan really refers to the production values of this movie, as well as the time spent on the plot. This is a movie Dave Wall would think he would like, but he'd be wrong.

28. The Girl Next Door

I really don't know why I watched this movie. I mean, Elisha Cuthbert is hot, but there are tons of other random movies with hot chicks. I guess I thought it could be entertaining, and a few people had said it was good. But really, it's very stupid, and utterly ridiculous. None of the characters behave like any normal person would. Think of it like The Graduate, except with a (not very convincing) porn star instead of Mrs. Robinson, and aimed at morons.

27. The Grudge

Someone just took a bunch of things they thought were creepy and gruesome (and vague) ways to die, and put them into a movie. Individual scenes might be a bit compelling, but when you put them into a whole movie, it becomes tiresome and absurd. Worst of all, there are no rules - it you go into the house, you will eventually die by some method. Kind of like The Ring, but much worse, and with a house instead of a videotape.

26. The Ladykillers

Oh, Coens, why have you foresaken me? And with Tom Hanks in there, how could this turn out this badly? But somehow, they screw this up, with Hanks' accent and laugh becoming more and more grating. It's hard to believe, but maybe the Coens have lost their magic. Want proof? A central plot point of this movie is Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Funny, eh?

Take 'Em or Leave 'Em

25. Bourne Supremacy

There is clearly a dearth of solid, simply-told action movies these days, and the popularity of this movie is evidence of that fact. I found nothing that original, exciting or compelling about this movie, but since everything's relative, people seemed to really like it. A lot of people were gushing over how awesome the car chase was, but how could they tell? The herky-jerky camera made me want to vomit. I'll admit that the glowing reviews for this movie probably made me like it a little less.

24. Coffee and Cigarettes (half)

Entertainment Weekly was offering a free downloaded movie from Movielink (I think), so chose this movie. I started watching it, and then stopped to go to sleep, and then when I started again in the morning, the movie had "expired". But the half of it that I saw was kind of interesting. It was basically a series of shorts all revolving around people meeting to have coffee and smoking cigarettes. The best one involved Cate Blanchett playing herself and her own cousin simultaneously. Cate Blanchett may be my favorite actress, in terms of talent.

23. Starsky and Hutch

Ben Stiller certainly is prolific, but didn't do so well this year. I can only remember bits and pieces of this film, and none of them are very funny. Owen Wilson is grating, and Ben Stiller is ubiquitous, and the same character every time. When the second best thing about your movie is Snoop Dogg (the best was Vince Vaughn), then you're in trouble.

22. In Good Company

I really should spend January and February seeing Oscar-nominated movies, instead of just-released movies. Nothing really happens in this film. And I have no idea why Scarlett Johannsen is attracted to Topher Grace. Dennis Quaid actually isn't bad, as a noble ad sales exec, but ultimately, this was just a bland feel-good movie. I do find it hard to believe that Scarlett's only 19, though. She talks like a 40-year-old. Maybe that's part of her appeal.

21. Saw

Look at me! I'm grimy and disturbing and disgusting! Can't you see that I'm just like Se7en?

No, I'm sorry, you're not. Nice try. Cary Elwes's acting made me want to cut my own foot off. I didn't see the "twist" coming, but I also didn't really care.

20. Saved!

This movie had a ton of potential. I thought it was going to be a nice, dark satire about a Christian high school, and what happens when one girl gets pregnant (trying to cure her gay boyfriend, of course). It even had Macaulay Culkin! And it started our pretty well - very irreverent, and often clever, and then sold itself out completely with a nicely wrapped ending. A for effort, D for execution.

19. Ocean's Twelve

What the hell happened here? Were they even trying? Instead of making up some ridiculous plot about being hunted by Andy Garcia and having to steal an egg in order to repay him, and competing with some other legendary thief, why not just put all 11 (forget CZJ - she added very little) guys in a room for two hours and just have them talk? It would have been more entertaining, and then we wouldn't have had to endure the "Julia Roberts" gimmick. In some interview, they were talking about how "risky" a move that was (I'm trying not to give the movie away), which should be Hollywood code for "stupid". A risky move that succeeds is usually described as "original" or "brilliant".

Worth A Rental

18. Dawn of the Dead

I really ought to stop reading reviews. A ton of people gave this movie glowing reviews, and while it was ok, I can't figure out why it was so loved. It works as a standard horror/action movie, and is quite violent and over-the-top, which is exactly what the audience was looking for. But it wasn't particularly original or scary or intelligent, and it pains me to see Ving Rhames in mediocre roles such as this one. Maybe I was missing some sort of nuance because I didn't see the original, which I'm sure was very subtle.

17. Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

Another movie ranked lower than it probably should be because of lost potential. At least there were some memorable moments here, although the only one that really sticks out in my mind is the scene from the trailer: "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball." I'm also particularly fond of Jason Bateman as the announcer on ESPN 8, "The Ocho". But they could have gone way over the top in this movie and made it hilarious, and instead they just half-assed it, I thought.

16. Hellboy

Maybe I didn't read enough comic books as a kid. I just don't seem to appreciate movies based off of them. I loved the style of this movie. Bright colors, dark themes, a lot of contrast. That was fantastic. And the characters were ok too, but it just wasn't a compelling enough story for me.

15. Collateral

Michael Mann continues to puzzle me. He seems much more concerned with style and mood that with plot. I love the way he works somewhat seedy yet obviously affectionate images of LA at night into the film. The leading actors in this movie are quite impressive - I never really thought I'd buy Tom Cruise as a badass hitman, but for the most part he pulls it off. Jamie Foxx is solid, but the supporting cast is kind of weak. This falls into the category of movie that starts off with a very good setup and could go in any number of exciting ways, but ultimately winds up to be somewhat predictable.

14. Spider-Man 2

My lack of comic book movie appreciation continues. Kirsten Dunst cannot act, nor is she that attractive. I like Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker; he certainly conveys a sense of humanity that few superheroes have. And the effects in this move were vastly improved - the scenes where he's swinging around buildings don't look nearly as ridiculous. I think this movie was pretty much exactly what I expected - no better, no worse. It's tough to build tension when superhero story arcs are so well-known.

Were Worth Seeing In Theaters; Now It's Too Late

13. Hero

As Alice Tu put it, this picture has some very Chinese themes. Visually, it is a masterpiece. Crouching Tiger achieved a sort of ballet with fighting, and Hero takes it one step further by adding brilliant color and fantastic dynamic elements (arrows, raindrops). But the characters are pretty weak, and the plot, while attempting to imitate Rashomon (multiple different viewpoints), really isn't complex or interesting enough to warrant the attention. And, admittedly, the overarching theme of sacrifice for the greater good is a little too ham-fisted to be compelling. I hear that "House of Flying Daggers" is even better than "Hero", so I probably should get off my butt and see it soon. Still, if you're looking for a Kung Fu movie that a chick would probably enjoy, this is a good start.

12. Meet the Fockers

This movie was a pleasant surprise. Ben Stiller has run his course for me, but Hoffman and Streisand were actually a nice addition. They seemed like they were actually having fun making this movie, unlike Teri Polo, who seems to have a perpetual scowl. There was still a lot recycled from the first movie. At least this one will have a lasting impression on the culture: "Asssssss...hooooooole."

11. Super Size Me

A lot of people assume that this movie just blames McDonald's for rampant health problems in American, but that's drastically oversimplifying the case this movie makes. Morgan Spurlock is amiable and engaging, and uses his little gimmick of eating McDonald's food exclusively for a month to bring attention to our need for health eating AND responsible business practices. While you probably won't learn a lot that you didn't know (fast food is bad for you?), it does provide some good insight to how prolific the fast food business is, and how ignorant (or apathetic) about nutrition most Americans really are. It's fun and informative, which is pretty much all you can ask of a documentary.

10. Eurotrip

It's pretty rare that I'll see a movie and it will be entirely different from my expectations. Whoever named this movie did it a giant disservice by attempting to latch on to the success of "Road Trip", because it is far superior. It is much funnier, and while it does trade on the standard "gross out" humor, it's got a lot more respect for its characters. Sure, it's ridiculous and juvenile, but it's much closer to "There's Something About Mary" than, say, "Freddy Got Fingered". Movies don't get much funnier than when Scotty learns that his girlfriend has been cheating on him by going to a party and hearing the band, led by a punk-y Matt Damon, play a song called "Scotty Doesn't Know". The next time you're in the mood for a silly, fun comedy, go rent it.

9. Miracle

Hey, I like a nice feel-good story as much as anyone. And, since I was only 3 when this happened, and never really cared about hockey, I didn't know the details of the story. It's well told, and pretty well-acted. Apparently they attempted to capture the plays as they actually happened, which I suppose I would appreciate if I had seen the real thing. They also had to go with unknown actors that could actually play hockey, except for Eddie Cahill as the goalie. Usually they're pretty subtle about it, but it's kind of amusing when they show some hockey scene and then do a quick cut to him removing his mask. Still, this was a well-crafted movie, and was a bit reminiscent of Apollo 13, in that you know exactly what's going to happen, but the tension is still there.

8. Anchorman

A comedy without Ben Stiller? Yes, they do exist, much to my surprise. I found this movie to just be inspired lunacy, and I laughed a whole lot more than I did in Dodgeball, where I merely chortled. Many comedies do something silly and end it - Anchorman takes things to their logical extremes and then goes completely beyond normalcy. I wish more comedies were less constrained by standard logic or plot points. And Steve Carell as an idiot named "Brick" is just perfect.

7. Shrek 2

I think I enjoyed this movie even more than the first one. They put in a lot of nice, amusing touches, and keep the story off-kilter but vrey entertaining. Frankly, I could do without Donkey (how many entertaining sidekick animals do we need in this world?), but Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots more than makes up for him. The Shrek series is clearly influenced by the Simpsons, with its multitude of throwaway sight gags (especially storefront names) and amusing tangents, but if every single movie ever made took something from the Simpsons, I think we'd all be better off.

Very Good Movies

6. Fahrenheit 9/11

Oh, don't get all bent out of shape. This movie is not a documentary; it's an op-ed piece. So people should stop getting all pissed off about it being one-sided and manipulative, and realize that they're probably mostly pissed because it's a very effective film. It takes a position and effectively argues it. Yes, it's disingenuous at times. (Although I don't believe that anyone's claimed the $10K Moore was offering to anyone who found a factual error in it.) Additionally, it's very entertaining to watch, and sparked the press and the public to start asking questions about the Iraq War that they weren't asking before. That's a powerful movie.

5. Kill Bill: Volume 2

I know that liking Volume 1 more than Volume 2 makes me a movie heathen, but I'm ok with that. Still, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate Volume 2, even if it wasn't as viscerally exciting. It's pretty amazing how Tarantino can create two movies that are so disparate in style, yet still seem to fit together amazingly well. Volume 2 is more subtle (which isn't that hard to do, honestly), and more slowly-paced, but still builds tension and conflict masterfully. Watching the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly for the first time this year gave me new perspective on this movie. And in case you don't think that Tarantino is capable of nuance, go to Metaphilm.com and read their analysis - you'll definitely learn something new. (Just search for Kill Bill - I'm sure you can find it.)

4. The Terminal

Spielberg's just a pro, and he shows it time and time again. He invests his movies with more natural humanity (I didn't see A.I., so that allows me to remain blissfully ignorant of it) than anyone I can think of. This movie is quite flawed, but it's always entertaining, and often endearing (sometimes too much so). Aside from the magnificence of the gigantic set piece that is the terminal itself, it's always impressive to see how Spielberg makes you care about his characters, and all of their little actions and interactions that compose their lives. Tom Hanks takes what could be a grating or sappy role and makes it compelling. The ending is a little weak (especially the actions of Stanley Tucci's character), but not bad enough to undermine the quality picture that comes before.

3. Metallica: Some Kind of Monster

I don't know if it's possible for me to write anything about this movie that will make you want to see it. Personally, Metallica's my favorite band, so it's pretty difficult for me to be unbiased - I'm naturally going to find a documentary about them interesting. But, I do know I'm not alone in finding this compelling - many critics (most of them stodgy old bastards who would never listen to Metallica) have found this compelling. Maybe people my age that aren't Metallica fans might find this movie irritating, as I have heard the complain that it's like watching 2 hours of rock stars complaining. For people my age, rock stars have been a bit de-mythologized, and so seeing James deal with addiction, or Lars wrestle with his self-imposed Napster problems aren't compelling issues. Whereas older people might just think of Metallica as crazy, larger-than-life, inhuman idols, and so are amazed to see them actually be introspective and thoughtful. What is truly amazing about this movie is the level of access the filmmakers were able to get, and it allows the movie to seem refreshingly honest. Even if you aren't fond of Metallica's music, and even if you have no particular sympathy for millionaire rock stars, I still think you'll be surprised by this movie, and might even find something redeeming about how willing these guys are to lay it all out on the table. If you find yourself rooting for them by the end, well, I won't tell anyone.

2. The Incredibles

A beautiful, funny, charming movie. It's nice to see Pixar moving into a little more mature territory. Sam Jackson needs to do more roles like this and less like Coach Carter (which I have not seen and have no interest in). He's on the verge of becoming a caricature of himself (which makes it ironic that cartoon role like this one help alleviate that). Unlike Shrek, which seems very Simpsonian, you can see the Disney origins of this movie, but it's been modernized.

1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Some years I anguish over what should be number one, but there was no contest here. Now, admittedly, there are a lot of good movies that I haven't gotten to see, but since I can only rate the ones I did, it was pretty clear-cut. This is one of the few movies on the list that actually stick with you. I want movies to challenge me, both logically and emotionally. I want them to make me think, but entertain me at the same time. Eternal Sunshine excels in pretty much all areas - it's challenging, original, funny, sad, clever, and exciting. Visually, it's colorful and compelling, and Gondry does about as good a job as I can imagine conveying what the inside of someone's mind looks like. Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet carry this movie, and they have to, because Kirsten Dunst and Elijah Wood do not. This movie isn't perfect - some of the plot points are a little too convenient, and it's kind of amusing that it nails the ethereal concepts like memory and love better than the grounded ones like cause-and-effect. Another bonus is that the ending is perfect and vague, yet still satisfying. Too many movies feel like they have to tie everything up just so, but even good movies often can't find satisfying conclusions, so they become trite or forced (see the Terminal, Collateral, Spider-Man 2, etc...). Eternal Sunshine avoids this, and leaves you wanting more.