Do You Hear What I Hear?

People who hate Christmas remind me of those jackasses who complain that their girlfriends want to have sex too often. What’s wrong with you? I can understand a certain level of contempt if you’re Jewish or Muslim (or what have you) and feel resentment that the Christian holiday overshadows your holiday this time of year, but still… It’s fun! Besides, since when is being a Christian a pre-requisite for celebrating Christmas? I’m an Atheist and I love Christmas! You don’t hafta be Irish to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, you don’t hafta be a veteran to celebrate Veteran’s Day and you don’t hafta be a planet to celebrate Earth Day. Christians stole most of their holiday traditions from other celebrations anyway, so what difference does it make? Why would you make yourself miserable by deliberately loathing the most festive American holiday of the year? It’s like hating the sun in summertime. It’s there whether you like it or not, so you might as well find something positive about it.

The aspect of the Christmas season that seems to get the biggest brunt of complaints is the music. That perplexes me the most. Outside of the tendency for these songs to contain the sound of sleigh bells, how exactly do they sound different from other year-round songs? Or is it just the lyrics they hate? If that’s the case, it should be noted that a lot of classic so-called “Christmas songs” make no mention of the holiday whatsoever. Seriously, read the lyrics of “Frosty the Snowman”. Not a word about Christmas. Same with “Jingle Bells” which was originally meant to be a Thanksgiving song. “Let it Snow” was written in July of 1945 during one of Hollywood’s hottest days on record. “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” was never intended to be a Christmas song, either. It was written by Frank Loesser and performed by him and his wife at their housewarming party in 1944. Even “Joy to the World” was meant to be just a straight up hymn of worship (actually referencing Judgment Day rather than Jesus’ birth). So, what exactly are you Scrooges bitching about?

Last December, I wrote an article recommending Christmas movies for people who don’t like Christmas movies, so I thought it would be fun to try the same thing with music this year. Below are ten bona fide Christmas albums which, if you can’t stand them, then your problem isn’t that you hate Christmas music, it’s that you hate good music.

The Very Best of Bing Crosby Christmas – When it comes to Christmas tunes, nobody delivers the goods better than crooners (as sales of Michael Bublé’s new Christmas album have indicated) and nobody croons better than Bing. Nothing against Harry Connick Jr, Mel Tormé or Dean Martin, but listening to this album is the aural equivalent to drinking a hot mug of eggnog mixed with amaretto, soft butter and melted marshmallows. As an added bonus, a great deal of these carols feature accompaniment by the Andrews Sisters, with whom Bing did some of his best work. The only real drawback of this collection is the absence of “Mele Kalikimaka”, but if you wanna hear that one, you can always watch National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation.

Ray Charles’ The Spirit of Christmas – Speaking of Christmas Vacation, this album contains (and is indeed named for) the song played over Clark Griswold watching his old family Christmas movies in the attic. Mr. Charles has a way of making even the oldest and most common of songs seem like they were written especially for him (“America The Beautiful”, for instance) and here he classes-up tunes often regarded as hokey in such a way that you can almost feel yourself becoming an even cooler person just listening to them.

Elvis Presley’s If Every Day Was Like Christmas – Another individual who had a knack for putting his own spin on Christmas classics was The King. For example, his most famous Christmas song was easily “Blue Christmas” (which is on here, of course), but not many people know that the song was recorded over three times before Elvis ever released his own (and thus the definitive) version. Most of the other songs on here you’ve heard before, but rarely so sexy. In fact, Irving Berlin wanted the album banned because he thought Elvis’ version of “White Christmas” was profane. I wonder what Episcopalian priest Phillips Brooks would have made of Elvis’ rendition of “O Little Town of Bethlehem”.

Blue Yule – Cut from the same cloth as Elvis’ musical stylings, this is the ultimate Christmas blues collection. Containing songs by such heavies as Johnny & Edgar Winter, Canned Heat and John Lee Hooker, there’s no shortage of guitar, horns and piano pounding out melodies while various bluesmen beg Santa Claus to bring their baby back. Blues has a bit of a reputation for being redundant, but this is actually quite an eclectic and refreshing mix of the genre. If you intend on spending Christmas alone - heartbroken and drunk - this album is required listening.

Alligator Records’ Genuine Houserockin’ Christmas – This record is predominantly blues as well, but a bit more upbeat with some jazz numbers thrown in and even some bluegrass to be sure. Chances are you aren’t too familiar with many of the performers on this album, but they are impressive nonetheless – particularly the female vocalists. The stand out track on this collection is probably “Back Door Santa” by the Holmes Brothers which is a funkified version of the sexually-suggestive Clarence Carter song, but that’s really just a judgment call on my part. I imagine everyone would have their own favorite from this underrated compilation. One thing’s for sure: If it’s just you and your lover spending Christmas together, putting on this record will exponentially increase your odds of getting laid.

The Brian Setzer Orchestra’s Christmas Rocks! – For anyone who wants to hear the souped-up versions of Christmas carols, this is the album for you. In fact, if you’re a swing-dancer, you probably already own it. Just about every cross-section of Christmas music is represented here, from “You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch” to “The Nutcracker Suite” and, for some reason, an instrumental version of “My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music. It’s definitely a toe-tappin’, head-bobbin’ marathon of music, so if the usual stuff puts you to sleep, this’ll most certainly wake you up.

Underground Garage Presents Christmas A-Go-Go – Cranking it up a notch from Mr. Setzer (although, this record does contain his “Santa Drives a Hot Rod” as well), this is another collection that doesn’t hold back. You couldn’t come up with a more random list of off-the-wall Christmas covers if you tried. They’re all good, too. Not much more can be said about a Christmas album that features songs by Keith Richards, The Ramones, Bob Seger, The Kinks, Soupy Sales, and Joe Pesci (Yes, that Joe Pesci)!

Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics – Speaking of off-the-wall… You’re either a fan of “South Park” or you’re not. However, like their feature film effectively demonstrated, these guys really know how to compose a catchy tune (offensive content notwithstanding). In addition to being the perfect album for holiday cynics, you’d hafta be pretty thick-skinned to not laugh at least once. Who can resist Ike Broflovski singing “Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel” and segueing into “Itsy-Bitsy Spider”, or Mr. Garrison illustrating the jingoism of Christians’ delusional War on Christmas with “Merry Fucking Christmas”, or the aptly-named “The Most Offensive Song Ever” where Mr. Hankey and Kenny explain how Mary can still be considered a Virgin (with Kenny’s lyrics mercifully muffled by his parka)? No, it’s not meant for everyone, but it hits the spot for those it is meant for.

Vince Guaraldi Trio’s A Charlie Brown Christmas - From the lighter side of animated holiday specials comes this, the Holy Grail of Christmas albums. Although, the title is a bit of a misnomer since only a fraction of the songs on this record actually appear in the television special. That hardly matters, though, because one cannot go wrong with these jazz instrumentals beautifully performed by Mr. Guaraldi and company. It is, quite simply, the most perfect background music for the holiday season. Fewer things will put you into the spirit of Christmas than this album accompanied with dim-lighting, a lit fireplace, a glass of red wine, and some dark chocolate. Again, maybe I’m just speaking personally, but I sincerely doubt you could do better.

Booker T. & The MG’s in the Christmas Spirit – Last, but not least, this album is kind of a happy medium between “A Charlie Brown Christmas” and “Blue Yule”. The always-reliable Booker T. Jones and his ensemble present a nice compilation of instrumental R&B tunes. Like some of the aforementioned artists, these guys inject these songs with their own unique flavor to the point where it sometimes takes you a while to identify exactly which Christmas song they’re performing. I often find myself humming along and not realizing what I’m humming until I get to the chorus. The melody is intact (they’re not butchering these songs at all), they’re just played in such a unique way, they give the impression of original compositions. Of all my favorite bands, I’m most pleased that Booker T. & the MG’s were the ones who released a Christmas album. Although a Weird Al Christmas would be pretty awesome, too.

So, forget Mannheim Steamroller and Boney M. and all those other excruciatingly cheesy Christmas serenaders. These ten albums should be more than enough to provide your holiday playlist with ample high-end music to endure the holidays. If none of the above are able to satisfy you, then I have only one other song I can offer you:

Why You Should Register as a Republican (Yes, YOU!)

The GOP is rallying hard to find a candidate that can take out Obama in the 2012 election, but despite their passion and dedication, they’re having a difficult time of it. Most of the Republican candidates that have been the front-runner haven’t been in that position for long because it’s only a matter of time before they say or do something that either alienates their constituents or embarrasses themselves. This is, of course, much to the delight of Democrats. One often hears liberals muttering, “I hope [so-and-so] gets the Republican nomination, ‘cuz then Obama will be a shoo-in for re-election.” In other words, their dream is that the Republicans will champion somebody so ignorant and incompetent, the American people’s choice will pretty much boil down to “status-quo” versus “making things even worse”. This attitude is absolutely deplorable and goes against the very idea of Democracy.

Obama is going to get the Democratic nomination. There are no two ways about it. So, there’s really no point in the Democrats having a primary election, is there? If Democrats (or anybody, really) are so dissatisfied with the Republican party and its candidates, they should re-register as Republicans and then vote in their primaries for a Republican candidate they think could actually do a decent job. It doesn’t really matter if they disagree with their policies or political standpoints. The important thing is to get a candidate in there who won’t destroy the country (or the world, for that matter) if they end up being elected. If voters really want to change the face of the Republican party, they need to do it from within - like an undercover cop working with drug-dealers. Most probably view this idea as some kind of personal betrayal, but it’s not like being a Republican is a lifetime membership or anything. They can always re-re-register as Democrats again. Besides, one doesn’t need to be a Democrat to vote for Obama in 2012 anyway.

Gun enthusiasts (conscientious ones, anyway) hold the philosophy that there’s no such thing as an unloaded gun. This mantra serves to ensure that people will be more careful handling their weapons and reduce the likelihood of accidental shootings. Likewise, graphic designers and art directors (conscientious ones, anyway) know that you should never show an idea to a client that you don’t want them to pick because, chances are, they’re going to pick the one stupid idea they’re shown. These are examples why Americans (ALL Americans) should be mortified at the notion of having anybody on the ballot for President of the United States who isn’t fit for the job. If more people had had this philosophy ten years ago, this country might not have had to sit through eight years of irreversible damage caused by Dubya.

The whole point of Democracy is to have a choice. If a hungry person goes into a restaurant, the menu doesn’t give them an ultimatum of either soup or cyanide. They may not like soup, but they’ll certainly eat it if the other choice is poison. It’s better to go into a restaurant and have a choice of soup or salad. Some people like one, some people like the other. Both are free to decide which they want and neither are wrong. That’s what Democracy is (or should be) and even if one doesn’t like the taste of a particular candidate, they should at least be able to appreciate that someone else does. Nobody wants to eat poison and nobody wants it to run the country, either. Unfortunately, in America, not enough people would recognize poison even if it was killing them. So, it’s up to the rest of us to make sure it stays off the menu.

To believe in Jesus is to believe in zombies.

I watched the season two premiere episode of “The Walking Dead” hoping I would like it.

I didn’t.

I don’t think I’m so much of a zombie fanatic to call myself a snob, but after reading the astoundingly brilliant “World War Z” by Max Brooks, I expected similar insights into the zombie genre from the network that brought us such bold and brave programming as “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad”. Alas, despite giving the show a second and third and fourth chance (because I wanted so badly to like it), it’s just not getting better. C’mon, guys – you had a whole year to work on it and the only significant change you made was getting rid of Frank Darabont (the best thing the show had going for it).

While “World War Z” was not only very realistic (as realistic as a zombie outbreak scenario could be), it also thought of everything and was exceptionally original to boot. “The Walking Dead” simply goes through the motions of every zombie cliché that’s come before it (in fact, the very first episode was such a shameless rip-off of the beginning of “28 Days Later”, I’m amazed there isn’t a plagiarism lawsuit underway). Furthermore, there isn’t a single character in the show I give a damn about. Seriously, the latest episode ended with a boy getting shot in the chest and I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to tune in the following week to find out who did it and why. The protagonists don’t hafta be likeable, but they should at least be interesting. These characters might as well be played by cardboard cutouts. Worst of all, though, is the weird liberties they’ve taken with zombie “rules”.

As I stated in last year’s post about vampires, it’s annoying when filmmakers and story-tellers contrive their own rules of what vampires (or, in this case, zombies) can or can’t (and will or won’t) do in order to accommodate the direction and content of their own story. I remember watching an episode from the first season of “The Walking Dead” with a friend of mine (also a bona fide zombie aficionado) and we started picking apart the holes and loose ends in what we were watching. Among other things, we were ridiculing the notion that one could camouflage oneself from zombies by merely smearing guts on oneself as well as the concept that zombies are attracted to pretty much any random noise like car alarms and gunshots. Come on. These aren’t great white sharks, they’re the living dead. Why would they associate a beeping horn with eating brains?

That brought up the question of what exactly is it that draws zombies to the living? This question quickly evolved into an intense and impassioned debate. My friend and I quibbled over the idea that perhaps they’re attracted to body heat or the sounds of heartbeats or maybe even some otherworldly intuitive sixth sense that tells them the nearest living thing is in this direction. Another point of contention was why do zombies feed on the living in the first place? Do they require nourishment? Will they starve without it? I was taking the stance that zombies are indeed dead bodies that are gradually rotting, but the only real difference is that they’re not inanimate. Therefore, they eat the living out of some kind of inherent compulsion, probably due to some imperceptible evil force – perhaps a natural instinct to “breed”, so to speak, since the only way to create more zombies is through biting others. My friend rebutted saying that their decomposition is in a state of suspension and, in order to remain “living” dead, they needed to maintain their musculature and nutrition by eating living people’s brains and innards. We debated this for quite some time, both firmly adamant about our position(s) on the matter.

Needless to say, we didn’t arrive at any real agreeable mutual conclusion, but upon reflection, I came to realize that what we were doing was essentially having the same kind of discussion that anybody who subscribes to a particular religious dogma has had with somebody who believes in an alternative (and , consequently, conflicting) religious belief. I mean, there we were, saying “No, that’s not how zombies work. They hafta do this this way because they require this in order to acquire that.” “No, you’re wrong. Because in order for zombies to acquire that, this has to happen this way or else that wouldn’t matter.” As seriously as we were taking this discussion, it didn’t make any difference. Since zombies don’t exist, neither one of us was right and neither one of us was wrong. Yet, we were both steadfast enough in our beliefs of something entirely imaginary, that we were willing to argue over it for a considerable length of time.

That’s basically what I’ve come to conclude about religion in general. Really, it’s just “I believe your pretend story is wrong because my pretend story works better for me.” Not unlike how different countries have their own version of what Santa Claus is and does – the only real difference being that nobody questions whether or not Santa Claus (or Saint Nick or Kris Kringle or Father Christmas or whatever you call him) is a myth and nobody's contradictory belief threatens anybody else's.

This is one of my more bizarre blog posts, I know, because I’ve basically gone from trashing a popular television series straight to indicting people of faith as being either delusional or fraudulent (or both). Not to say that my beliefs are any more correct than anyone else’s. To quote Bertrand Russell: “I think we ought to always entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn’t wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine”. That said, far be it from me to steer clear of controversy. So, let the inflammatory comments fly… you still won’t get anywhere.

I can feel it in my bones...

I've been infatuated with movies ever since I was a child. So naturally, when I was little, the main thing I wanted to be when I grew up was a movie star (since superhero seemed even less plausible). I wanted to be Luke Skywalker. I wanted to be Indiana Jones. I wanted to be James Bond. I even wanted to be Bruce the Shark. I wanted to be all of them and a few characters of my own I came up with (Rex Armitage, for one, was a total bad-ass, but I'll tell you about him some other time).

I turned 37 last week. Since I'm officially over halfway through the average life expectancy of a white male born in 1974, my chances of becoming a movie star are waning exponentially. Then again, Charles Dutton started acting in his mid-30's after having served over ten years in prison, so there's always opportunity for anyone willing to seek it out and work hard. Frankly, I'm not sure I have the energy or the interest. I love watching movies, yeah, but just because I like to fly doesn't mean I need to build planes. Know what I mean?

Still, a part of me will always wish I had vehemently pursued an acting career in film. And I think I may have found a way to have my cake and eat it, too: I intend to be the first posthumous movie star. How does one accomplish that, you may ask? Simple: After I die, my skeleton will be preserved and available for hire for a variety of roles in a variety of movies. I'll have an agent and everything. People will know me. I may even date a supermodel.

If this seems unrealistic, think about it: A lot of movies have skeletons in them. Horror films, pirate movies, murder mysteries, medical dramas, anything featuring the Grim Reaper... IMDb lists over 700 films with the keyword "skeleton". Some skeletons even play an integral role in certain movies (See "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly", "The Goonies", "Lone Star" and "Psycho", for example). Just last year, a British film came out that was actually called "Skeletons". So, it would seem there's no shortage of roles for me. Over time, I could become the "it" skeleton of Hollywood. I could give the definitive performance of Yorick (depending on the caliber of my co-star's performance as Hamlet, of course). I may even get name above title credit one day. Could be quite a lucrative career for... well, my beneficiaries, I guess.

I realize a blog is not the place for making post-mortem last wishes legally-binding, but I do know my attorney reads my blog, so we'll talk it over once he's read this and see what can be done about making it official. So, make a note. Those of you who outlive me can see me on the big screen and whisper to whomever you're with "I knew him when he was alive."

They say dead men tell no tales. I think they do.

About three years ago, I was in a Hollywood Video browsing through their previously viewed DVDs for sale and they were having one of those clearance specials where you could get certain titles for $3 a pop if you bought four of them. I’d picked out a couple I wanted, but in order to get the special cheap price, I had to pick out a couple more. So, I thought “What would be worth having (or at least watching) for three dollars?” I think one of them was Zombie Strippers (and yes, it was worth paying three dollars to watch – although, not much more than that) and, on the flipside, the other was United 93.

I had seen United 93 in the theater when it was first released and I thought it was an under-appreciated masterpiece. It still perplexes me that it was nominated for a mere two Academy Awards (although, the richly-deserved categories were for Directing and Editing). However, while I was happy to own it for such a low price, I couldn’t ever really psyche myself up to watch it. Last night, upon hearing of Osama bin Laden’s death, I was struck with a bizarre sense of mixed emotions and concluded that there was probably no finer time to re-visit United 93 than right then.

Watching the film for the first time in six years, I had not forgotten how it had affected me, but I had forgotten the details of its intensity. Any film that attempts to recreate actual events is a huge enough challenge, but for a film to do as good a job as this one does is a miracle. As Roger Ebert points out in his thoughtful review of the film, the filmmakers avoid propaganda, grandstanding, and over-dramatization in a fierce dedication to present the events as truthfully and authentically as possible. It feels like a real-time documentary. For instance, when the first plane hits the World Trade Center, we’re not shown some impressive special-effects piece of a plane turning into a fireball upon impact. Instead, we’re literally looking over the shoulder of an air traffic controller who is tracking the flight as it instantaneously disappears from his radar. The whole film is haunting in this sense because the viewer is treated as a virtual participant, but a participant who knows what’s going to happen and can do nothing about it.

Most impressive, however, is the human element. Even though the actions of the passengers on that flight were most definitely heroic, nobody in the film is intentionally portrayed as a hero. Furthermore, the terrorists aren’t even technically portrayed as villains. They are every bit as human as anyone else in the film, just on the opposite end of the same tragedy. You have the zealot who seems all too eager to slit the throats of every hostage before their target is even reached, you have the nervous perfectionist who compensates for his fears by being overtly aggressive, you have the young thug willing to follow orders but unable to think for himself, and the stoic leader who seems to worry that his underlings are ill-prepared to carry out a mission of such importance. To show these men going about their day as everyone else went about their day on September 11^th before tragedy struck makes one think.

Hearing of Osama bin Laden being killed after all this time brought to mind a line from the movie Se7en where Morgan Freeman’s character says of the serial killer he’s hunting: “If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil – I mean, if he’s Satan himself – that might live up to our expectations. But, he’s not the devil, he’s just a man.” Osama bin Laden has been labeled a devil by many Americans and now may be labeled a martyr by many extremists, but he was still just a person. Yes, his death is good thing - even if only for the sake of closure - but everybody that died before him is still dead.

Remember the films of 2010? Me neither.

The fact that it's taken me this long to get around to posting a list of my top ten favorite films of 2010 is the perfect indicator of what a lackluster year it was for movies. That's not to say it sucked entirely (indeed, there were a number of films that were quite good), but nothing last year really stood out and shouted and got me excited while I was watching it. Even now, looking at my list in preparation to write about it, my reaction is "Yeah, those were pretty good" as opposed to my usual "Man, I love these movies!"

To psyche myself up, I watched this 2010 movie recap montage, which actually makes last year seem better than it actually was (which, I suppose, says more about the editor of this piece than the movies themselves):



So, with that, I give you my TOP TEN FAVORITE FILMS OF 2010 (for what it's worth):

#10: Buried - 127 Hours got a lot of attention (and Oscar nominations) last year, but I think this film's better. I suppose the edge 127 Hours had over Buried (besides a bigger budget) was that it was based on a true story and I suppose most audience members were morbidly curious about what one would go through before hacking off their own arm to survive. Buried was more compelling and suspenseful, to me, though, for a number of reasons. For starters, it taps into a wide range of inherent fears (being buried alive, confined to a small space, alone in the dark, not knowing where you are, running out of oxygen, dying cell phone battery, etc). Second of all, it establishes "the rules" from the outset and doesn't deviate, yet manages to keep things tense and interesting throughout the whole experience. It's a classic "what-would-I-do-if-I-were-in-that-situation" kinda movie. 127 Hours was so inundated with dream sequences and hallucinations, I never really knew what was supposed to be real and what wasn't. In fact, the whole time, I was too aware that I was watching a movie (which, frankly, felt more like a music video). In Buried, on the other hand, having every bit of it take place within the coffin, I felt like I was in there as well. And, man, did I want out.

#9: Four Lions - Dark comedy is very hard to do well. And it's all the more difficult when your subject matter is especially touchy. Four Lions' subject matter is so touchy, that if I were to describe the plot to you, you probably wouldn't be interested in seeing it. Furthermore, you probably wouldn't even think it was a comedy. Not a funny one, anyway. Case in point, I didn't really wanna see it myself, but a friend invited me to go watch it at a time when I was bored and wanted to get out of the house. I'm glad I did, though, because it's easily one of the funniest films of 2010. How do you make a movie about Muslim extremists conspiring to become suicide bombers funny? Well, for starters, I guess you make it a British film. This movie has the flavor of Guy Ritchie's earlier work (particularly in the scenarios where guys trying to act tough merely come across as stupid) with some moments that are genuinely touching. I dunno, it's hard to describe, but you hafta trust me. I don't believe I've ever seen a film so brave and insightful that is also downright silly.

#8: Date Night - The reason this movie's so good is because Steve Carell and Tina Fey are so adept at comedy, the film could have just simply been about their night out together without anything going wrong and been equally entertaining. You know you're off to a good start when the groundwork for a comedy is laid so soundly. When all hell finally does break loose, this film makes all the right moves to keep it from drowning in its own ridiculousness. As Roger Ebert has remarked over and over (and again in his review of this film), comedy works best when the performers don't act like they're in a comedy. As things spiral out of control and become increasingly implausible, our heroes stay the course, taking it very seriously the whole time. Which, of course, makes it even funnier. A perfect example of how, when it's done the other way, it fails miserably is showcased in (another Steve Carell film from last year) Dinner For Schmucks. That was far and away the worst film I saw last year (and I saw Piranha 3-D).

#7: RED - While Four Lions and Date Night were both funnier than this film, RED was more fun. Action that was over-the-top but not annoyingly unbelievable, scenarios that were implausible but not insulting, dialogue that was silly but not stupid. Pure Hollywood escapism done right. And great fun to see such an eclectic group of reputable film veterans brought together and having a good time. True, most of them probably just did it for the paycheck, but I bet not a single one of them felt ashamed of themselves for doing it. And they shouldn't. I believe a film's merit should be based on how well it achieves the goal it sets for itself. And RED hit the bullseye.

#6: True Grit - It's not unusual for the Coen brothers to make my top ten list, but it is pretty rare for a remake. Nice to know that, in the case of a tie, the Coens win. Truth be told, I think I prefer the John Wayne version overall, but this is still a good, solid western and a worthy entry into the Coens' repertoire. That's probably due to the fact that they used Charles Portis' original novel as their source material rather than Henry Hathaway's 1969 film. I haven't read the book, but the story and dialogue between the two films is similar enough that probably neither film deviated much. Actually, pulling the strengths out of both versions would probably make the perfect movie. You could start by replacing Glen Campbell with Matt Damon.

#5: TRON: Legacy - You may wonder how this Jeff Bridges movie could outrank the previously mentioned Jeff Bridges movie on my list. The answer is simple: Nostalgia. Had I been born a decade earlier, I might have felt the same attachment to True Grit, but given I was 8 years old when the original TRON came out, that's where my heart lies. Most sequels released beyond 20 years of their predecessor are sadly pathetic. TRON: Legacy is a reverent tribute. In fact, it's similar to the original TRON in more ways than the filmmakers probably intended. For instance, it had a mediocre performance at the box office and the movie itself starts strong and then levels off a bit and slows down in the second half. Some people hated it and, frankly, I'd be reluctant to recommend it to just anyone (especially if they didn't see or didn't like the original), but I thought it was an exhilarating feast for the eyes. And it's my list, so piss off, nerd-haters.

#4: I Saw the Devil - I'd be more inclined to recommend TRON: Legacy to a multitude of people before I'd recommend this one. Not because it's a mediocre movie that I personally found endearing, in fact, quite the opposite: It's an amazing movie that I personally found unsettling. I think most well-adjusted people would agree. I haven't seen a lot of Korean films, but of the ones I have seen, I've come to realize that the Koreans are willing to explore dark areas that the rest of the world of cinema are reluctant to tread. In fact, I'm not even sure I have the stomach to describe the plot here given my mother reads my blog. Just to give you an idea, though, the movie begins with a pregnant woman being murdered - in a very, very horrible way - and the remainder of the film is her husband's wrathful vengeance upon the serial killer responsible. You've no doubt heard the expression "not for weak stomachs". Well, for this film, you're gonna need every strong organ you've got. If you can make it through, though, it is a powerful and haunting film that'll make you think much deeper than most films this violent can.

#3: Inception - Christopher Nolan is well on his way to becoming the next Steven Spielberg in that he's an expert in giving audiences exactly what they want without them even knowing they wanted it in the first place. I think what I liked most about Inception was what I liked about Buried. It simply said, "Here's the rules, now let's play the game." From the beginning, Inception was poised for trickery and plenty of opportunities to manipulate the audience and pull the rug out from under them. Yet, while remaining complicated, the filmmakers still played fair. Kind of like a chess match, you have to pay attention to a bunch of things at once, but there's no cheating going on. Refreshing to see something so original that wasn't a shock to the system. The downside is (and I think this is the reason Inception wasn't in my top two) I have the feeling the more I see Inception, the more holes I'll find in it. That certainly was the case with The Matrix. In any case, it's a smart, exciting and beautifully shot film. And that's more than I can say for most others.

#2: The Social Network - Once in a while, a movie comes out that contains nothing more than just a bunch of people sitting around and talking, yet it is absolutely riveting. The last movie like that that I can remember was The Insider. I remember that, upon hearing a movie was being made about the creation of facebook, I rolled my eyes. When I heard David Fincher was directing it, it struck me as a waste of talent (in fact, I even remarked on it in my top ten list for 2009). But, I had the same reaction to The Insider when it first came out, too. Aaron Sorkin's dialogue just goes to show that a good script means everything. This is the only movie from last year that I actually own.

#1: Toy Story 3 - It was only a matter of time before a PIXAR flick took the top spot on one of my "year's best" lists. While I was more impressed with Inception, and The Social Network is probably a better movie, Toy Story 3 takes the prize because it moved me on such a personal level. PIXAR's films are never lacking in brilliance and it was sheer brilliance on their part to set the sequel in real-time with Andy going to college and consequently outgrowing his toys. It opened up a whole area of exploration into growing up and self-actualization and the nature of sentimental objects. I was already in college when the original Toy Story came out, but I wasn't any less choked-up at the powerfully heartfelt ending of part 3. It must have been all the more emotionally overwhelming for somebody Andy's age to watch (having seen the previous Toy Stories at his age as well). I think what I liked most about the film, though, was that it was essentially a prison-break flick. Each new PIXAR film seems to be better than the last, but this one will probably remain the most bad-ass for that reason alone.

So, 2010... Ultimately, you were forgettable, but not without your strong points. Here's hoping 2011 is even better. Although, I have my doubts because it's already taken four months to get to a movie as good as Source Code.

Winning, Indeed.

Normally, this time of year (after the Academy Awards, that is) I'm inclined to share my top ten list of favorite movies from the previous year. However, it turns out Charlie Sheen has put on a better show than the Oscars lately, so I've decided to write about him instead.

In another change of pace, I'm also currently writing for a website called This Or That which posts articles on a variety of topics that interest me (and probably you as well). So, for an indefinite amount of time, my article-writing will be divided between this blog and that website. Probably my more personal and long-winded articles will be saved for here whereas my more brief and mainstream articles will appear there. Case in point, the aforementioned article on Charlie Sheen can be viewed at http://thisorthat.com/blog/5-charlie-sheen-performances-that-are-even-better-now-that-hes-totally-insane.

This is the important part: This Or That offers up "royalties" to authors when certain articles of theirs go viral. So, you're doing me a big favor by reading my articles on This Or That and an even bigger favor by forwarding these articles to friends of yours (and friends of theirs and so on). In fact, you don't even hafta read it, you can just click on it. However, let me assure you that I'm not a total sell-out. It's not just about the money. I do appreciate every single individual who reads what I write - even if they hate it, I'm still glad they read it. So, thank you for doing exactly that right now, whether it be for free or for pay. This Or That just gives me the opportunity to make some money offa my writing in a way that still won't cost you a cent.

Regardless, I'll get to my top ten list of 2010 eventually, but for now, please enjoy my perspective on the state of Charlie Sheen's career by indulging in "5 Charlie Sheen Performances That Are Even Better Now That He's Totally Insane". And stay tuned for more. Thanks again for reading!

If you're good at something, never do it for free.

It’s no surprise to anyone these days that times are tough and jobs are scarce. Consequently, it’s much more competitive in the realms of job-seeking and one must do what they can to gain an edge over the competition. People often try new things to get noticed and someone else says “Hey, that’s a good idea” and they try it themselves and it spreads and snowballs until it becomes the norm. I have no proof or way of finding out, but I’m pretty sure the concept of the “cover letter” started with some overachiever saying “Hey, what if I include a letter with my resume? That’ll make me stand out!” Then, eventually it became a requirement in a job application to include a cover letter (or, if not a requirement, it at least made you seem inadequate if you failed to provide one). Personally, if I ever do find out who pioneered the cover letter, I will happily kidnap them, torture them, and kill them (if somebody already hasn't).

Regardless, that’s water under the bridge. What I’m most concerned with these days are the burgeoning future job-seeking trends that will no doubt become mandatory. I have been working in the area of art direction and graphic design for nearly 15 years now and every time I have sought a new job, the guidelines have changed. Well, not necessarily “changed” so much as “increased”. Artists and designers are unique in that a big part of the hiring process (the most crucial part, I would hope) is based on the quality of one’s portfolio.

When I first started looking for work as a designer fresh out of college, the way it worked was I sent out my resume and cover letter like anyone else and, if the prospective employer liked what they saw in my skills and experience, they called me in for an interview at which time I presented my portfolio. A few years later, it seemed they wanted me to enclose samples from my portfolio along with my resume and cover letter so they could get a general sense of my talent before deciding if they wanted to see more. Great idea! I've always felt my portfolio was stronger than my resume anyway and sending employers a tiny taste to whet their appetites seemed like a sure-fire way to get my foot in the door.

Shortly thereafter, when the internet became so thoroughly integrated in every aspect of American life and business, companies that were hiring wanted me to send a link to my portfolio online. Okay, that’s great because it saves me the trouble of having to print out samples, it saves me the cost of shipping and handling, and it saves me the time of having to wait for them to receive my goods and get back to me. However, once they’ve seen my whole portfolio (and without me there to talk about it, no less), what else do I have to show you when I come in for an interview? Makes things a bit anti-climatic, doesn’t it? It’s like having the entrée served when they’re supposed to be eating the appetizers. Still, I can appreciate the efficiency of this method even if it does strike me as slightly less-effective.

However, now that I’m looking for full-time work as a designer once again, I’m noticing a new fad starting to pick up steam that I find both disturbing and annoying. Now, it seems, in addition to my online portfolio, employers want a detailed explanation of the creative process behind each piece. Whoa, whoa, whoa… Hold it right there. If you wanna know how I work, you gotta call me in for an interview, bub. That’s how it goes. I’m not giving you all the goods up front. The method you’re suggesting is akin to requesting nude pictures from a girl before you even ask her out on a date.

The work in my portfolio either measures up to your standards of design or it doesn’t. You either like the work or you don’t. You’ll either want to learn more about me or you won’t. At this early stage in the hiring process, what does it matter what my process is? Are you so pretentiously sensitive that you’re afraid my thinking process doesn’t jibe with yours (even if the end result is completely successful)? Or are you simply looking for quick, new, underhanded ways to poach other people’s creative methods rather than just actually hiring them? It reminds me of a line from the high-stakes poker film “The Cincinnati Kid”. Rip Torn’s character Slade has just been cleaned out by Edward G. Robinson’s character Howard and Slade asks him “How in the hell did you know I didn’t have the King or the Ace?” and Howard succinctly replies “All you paid was the looking price. Lessons are extra.” Well, employers… When you hire me, you get the full package with all the bells and whistles. Until then, you gotta give action to get action.

I realize that this disdainful attitude of mine (whether it’s justified or not) probably won’t increase my odds of finding a job anytime soon and I’m even more aware that the job market is so tight right now that prospective employers can get away with requesting applicants do all sorts of unreasonable (and even humiliating) things just for a shot at an interview. But, seriously: How much free work must all of us be expected to put out for a job that only one person will be hired for? I may be a whore, but I’m not a slut.