A Century of Vampires That Don’t Suck

If you’ve seen a lot of vampire movies, there’s one thing you know for sure: There aren’t very many good ones. It’s true that, in any genre (especially horror), there are going to be more bad films than good ones, but the subject matter of vampires is a particularly thin tightrope. Consequently, you will find filmmakers resorting to cheap laughs, gratuitous nudity or, worst of all, making up their own rules (what vampires can or can’t do) to accommodate their storyline. For instance, Anne Rice claimed that stakes through the heart is a myth and Stephenie Meyer declared that vampires can not only walk around in the daylight, but sparkle as well. When Kevin Smith was asked to write the script for a reboot of the Superman franchise, the producer told him he didn’t want Superman to wear his costume or fly, to which Smith responded, “The suit and flying defines Superman.” Same thing with vampires: If you’re going to make them impervious to stakes and sunlight, doesn’t it then cease to be a vampire movie?

The other fatal flaw with vampire flicks is their tendency towards melodrama. Melodrama isn’t always a bad thing (sometimes it works quite well, actually), but the problem is, melodrama tends to date the material. In other words, vampire movies that were hugely popular in their day end up laughably embarrassing mere years later. It’s sadly ironic that, while vampires themselves never grow old, their movies, generally speaking, do not hold up well over time. However, if you look thoroughly enough, you will find some masterpieces of the undead that withstand the test of time without defying convention.

The following is a recap of 100 years of vampire cinema with a film selected from each decade that exemplifies the right way to do it. Gourmet bloodsucking, if you will. These films play by the rules and are as effective by today’s standards as they were in their own time. Some are obvious milestones, others are overlooked treasures, but all are films that not only respect the genre, but elevate it. If you’re a fan of the undead and looking to treat yourself to a movie marathon of the best in blood, bats and black capes this Halloween (or anytime of year, really), here is your list:

The Devil’s Daughter (1915): You’ve probably never heard the name Theda Bara, but this is the woman who single-handedly defined the movie vampire. In fact, she defined “Goth” as a look before there was even a name for it. All silent film stars had chalky-white faces, but with her black hair, black eyes and black lips, Theda Bara looked like a vampire even when she played Cleopatra. She was so mesmerizing in The Devil’s Daughter that she played a vampire in five different films in 1915 alone. You’ll probably have a great deal of trouble finding this film (online or otherwise), but if you ever find the opportunity to view it, don’t miss it! The impact of Bela Lugosi’s iconic performance(s) as Dracula was largely due to the intensity in his eyes as he put his victims into a trance, but Bara could stare down Lugosi without any effort on her part whatsoever. If you’re skeptical, do a Google image search of Theda Bara and see for yourself. She’s been dead for 55 years, but she can still cast a spell on you. If that’s not a true vampire, what is?

Nosferatu (1922): Unlike The Devil’s Daughter, this film is popular enough that you can often catch it playing at a local theater (especially around Halloween), if you keep your eyes open. And if you’re really lucky, you can see it with live musicians performing the haunting score. Either way, try to see this on a big screen in a darkened theater, if you can. It’s amazing that a movie with no voices or sound effects could be this unsettling. It’s partly due to director F.W. Murnau’s effective use of shadows and partly due to Max Schreck’s performance as the title character. He doesn’t look as though he’s wearing too much make-up in the role, yet Count Orlok seems so inhuman (particularly when he looks into the camera), your skin can’t keep from crawling. Considering how scary this film comes across today, it must have been absolutely traumatizing to audiences in 1922. Indeed, it was banned in Sweden for 50 years for that very reason. This is the best vampire film on this list, which means it’s the best vampire film ever.

The Vampire Bat (1933): You’re probably thinking “What? Not 1931’s Dracula starring Bela Lugosi?” The truth is, Dracula, while widely beloved and undeniably influential, really doesn’t hold up well. It has a good start, with some truly creepy moments and impressive gothic scenery, but once you leave Castle Dracula, it starts to get pretty cheesy. This is largely due to the god-awful bat puppets used in the film. The Vampire Bat, for starters, uses real bats. Right in the opening scene, even. Furthermore, the film remains dark and shadowy throughout (even in daylight scenes) implying that nobody in the film is safe at any time and, as it turns out, they are not. It also employs the Blair Witch Project philosophy that, the less you see, the scarier the effect. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the film, though, is its commentary on mob mentality. When people in the town of Klineschloss start dying from what appear to be vampire attacks, the villagers start aggressively seeking out the culprit. The most likely candidate seems to be Herman, the town simpleton (played by Dwight Frye, who basically repeats his performance as Renfield from Dracula, only more disheveled and imbecilic) who just happens to be obsessed with bats. It’s not long before town gossip escalates toward a lynch mob bent on hunting Herman down. Movie history shows that, in situations like this, the answer is never the obvious one, but the film keeps things ambiguous enough that you realize that Herman may not be the vampire, but then again maybe he could be. The mystery there is what makes the film timeless and relevant: The danger of allowing fear to make snap judgments. For instance, nowadays, you could equate the suspicion of the villagers in the film to the growing paranoia and animosity towards Muslims in America. In another 100 years, it’ll be someone else.

Dead Men Walk (1943): For years after Bela Lugosi’s huge success playing Dracula, virtually every movie vampire thereafter tried to ride that gravy train by mimicking his performance. The cape, the skulking, the slicked-back hair, the accent, etc. Here’s a film brave enough to go in another direction with a more cool, calm, collected vampire. Think the ghost of Delbert Grady in The Shining and you begin to get the idea. The film begins with Dr. Lloyd Clayton at his brother Elwyn’s funeral where you learn Elwyn died by Lloyd’s hand. It seems Elwyn was a magician who dabbled in the darks arts and, when confronted by his brother, things turned violent and there’s some town gossip that debates whether it was murder or self-defense on Clayton’s part. Elwyn returns from the grave as a vampire taunting Lloyd with revenge manifested by drinking the blood of their niece Gayle (whose guardian happens to be Lloyd) and make her his eternal servant. Lloyd begins to question his sanity and confides in Gayle’s fiancé David about what he’s seen. David then also begins to question Lloyd’s sanity and more rumors about the good doctor start to spread about town. To makes matters worse, when witnesses start spotting Elwyn drinking the blood of the townsfolk, logically, they’re more inclined to believe it’s Lloyd doing the killing rather than his believed-to-be-deceased brother, Elwyn. It’s not long before another lynch mob is underway. This all leads to a for-god’s-sake-hurry climax as suspenseful as any you’re likely to see in any vampire movie. George Zucco is fantastic in his performance playing both brothers. Even though they are twins, his characterization of both roles is so flawless that you can tell who is who whenever they come onscreen. The filmmaking is impressively adept at having the two of them interact realistically with trick photography and convincing body doubles. Chances are, had you not been told the same person played both brothers, you would have assumed they’d found two different actors with a striking resemblance to each other. Why this film isn’t more highly revered as a vampire classic makes you wonder.

Horror of Dracula (1958): Vampire movies in the 50’s are slim pickings since Godzilla and pals demonstrated there was money to be made in giant reptiles and giant bugs destroying the city. Most vampire films during that time were campy flicks where rock-n-rollin’ teenagers in hot rods were accosted by corny vampires who were, like, a total drag, Daddy-O. Thank goodness for the inception of Hammer Films in 1957 which dominated the vampire/frankenstein/mummy genre up through the early 70’s. Also, what vampire movie list would be complete without Christopher Lee as Dracula pursued by Peter Cushing as Van Helsing? Horror of Dracula is a pretty liberal adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel, but the essence of the story remains and the changes they make to the story are refreshing without feeling like a betrayal. Actually, they turn out to be nice surprises if you’ve read Dracula or seen too many adaptations of it already. At least it’s not another recycling of the same story with an actor trying to recreate the magic by aping Lugosi yet again. Cushing played Van Helsing at least five times and Lee played Dracula twice as many, yet they always seemed to take it seriously and never failed to deliver. You could argue which Hammer Film is the definitive one, but if you’re looking for a good place to start, this one certainly hits all the right notes. The way Van Helsing takes Dracula out in this one is particularly badass.

The Last Man on Earth (1964): You probably know this film from the novel it’s based on: Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend. Forget the Will Smith version. That movie totally missed the point of the story, particularly with its bastardization of the ending. Vincent Price’s loneliness and desperation are quite palpable and the flashbacks that show how he came to be in this situation are as heartbreaking as they are disturbing. In one particular flashback, his wife has died from the vampire virus, but, in his grief, he can’t bring himself to burn her body even though he knows he should. He buries her instead and you’re left just waiting for her to come back for him. When she shows up scratching at the door whispering “Let… Me… In…”, it’s truly chilling. Like The Vampire Bat, there are underlying messages in this film about society and its evolution (or de-evolution) that are still relevant today. And, while this is not as widely popular a vampire film as Dracula or Nosferatu, when you watch it, you’ll likely recognize its influence on future films. Not just future vampire films, either. George Romero has said that this movie served as a blueprint for the original Night of the Living Dead.

Love at First Bite (1979): If you’re going to make a comedic spoof of the Dracula legend, you can’t find more inspired casting than George Hamilton as the Count and Arte Johnson as Renfield. To be sure, this is a screwball comedy, but all the proper elements for a decent vampire flick are still in place. Actually, if a 19^th-Century Carpathian vampire were to integrate himself into contemporary American society, this is probably pretty close to how it would go down. In fact, it’s quite creative. Richard Benjamin is particularly hilarious as a neurotic descendant of Van Helsing who so desperately wants to destroy Dracula he doesn’t bother to research the proper ways of doing it first. With every failed attempt, the authorities drag him away as he calmly reassures them “I’m a doctor, I know what I’m doing.” The reason this film works is because, while most vampire movies take themselves too seriously, this one certainly does not. Yes, it’s a comedy, but it’s still the most effective vampire movie of the 70’s. Unless you prefer soft-core porn, maybe.

Fright Night (1985): If you were born in the late 60’s or early 70’s, you might think it’s blasphemous to name anything other than The Lost Boys as the quint-essential vampire movie of the 80’s. While your nostalgic fondness may be justifiable, objectively speaking, Fright Night is a better film. Remember, this list is made up of vampire films that remain timeless. The Lost Boys is so dated, it showcases everything that was embarrassing about the 80’s like a badge of honor. It’s got big hair, the two Coreys, and a new-wave soundtrack where the song “Cry Little Sister” is played so often in the film, you could make a drinking game out of it. Nobody born after 1980 can watch The Lost Boys without rolling their eyes or shaking their head. True, Fright Night does display its timeliness during the night club scene, but, in the context of the film, it works because it’s the turning point where the vampire seduces the hero’s girlfriend. And it’s not nearly as cringe-inducing as almost every scene from The Lost Boys. More importantly, Fright Night brings back all the classic elements of past vampire films that you rarely see anymore: Turning into bats, casting no reflections, sleeping in coffins, having human caretakers, and so on. And it uses all of those ingredients in a way that doesn’t feel forced or contrived. It doesn’t bend the rules, it embraces them. It’s just a damn good movie by any horror film standards. Plus, hands down, it has the greatest display ever of a vampire being incinerated by sunlight.

The Night Flier (1997): There was a trend in the 90’s to try to figure out a way for vampires to be killed by bullets in order to accommodate conformist action sequences. In Innocent Blood, you could shoot vampires in the head (sorry, but that’s zombies). In Blade, you could shoot vampires with silver bullets (sorry, but that’s werewolves). In From Dusk Till Dawn, you could shoot vampires with bullets that had crosses etched into the tips (sorry, but that’s lame). Coppola made a valiant attempt at returning to the old-school by remaking Dracula, but that film suffered from over-stylized filmmaking and an awkward performance by Keanu Reeves (who should never play a character that doesn’t get to say “whoa”). Leave it to Stephen King to deliver the best of both worlds: Some old-school, some new-school resulting in something unique, but good. The Night Flier is a truly modest film with an estimated budget of only $1 million that played on only 95 screens when it opened. With those numbers, it really didn’t stand a chance and it’s no wonder so few have seen it, but despite those numbers, it’s really quite impressive. Miguel Ferrer, playing the abrasive anti-hero he does so well, is Richard Dees, a disenchanted tabloid reporter/photographer who pursues a story about a vampire flying from state to state claiming victims in various small towns throughout New England. Only the vampire isn’t traveling as a bat, but as a pilot in a Cessna Skymaster 337 using the plane as his coffin during the day. This film functions mostly as a cat-and-mouse thriller with Dees, also a pilot, following the bloody trail of the vampire and talking to witnesses and friends of the victims along the way. Most vampire films have the formula where the protagonist is the only one who believes his adversary is a vampire while those around him think he’s crazy. In this case, Dees believes the man he’s following is merely a psycho while the people he comes across in his search warn him that it is indeed a vampire and he should stay away. What’s most impressive about this film is how it sneaks up on you. When the final confrontation between Dees and the vampire comes, it is surprisingly unsettling and quite haunting. Plus, there is an unexpected twist that makes for a great payoff. Despite its lackluster performance at the box office, this film isn’t hard to find on DVD. Although, should you seek it out, try to find a way to rent it without looking at the box cover. Apparently, the marketers of the film felt they’d get a better response if they put a picture of the vampire’s face on the cover, which is one of the best reveals of the movie after much build up.

Let the Right One In (2008): Ignore the American remake currently in theaters entitled Let Me In. This film borders on perfection and the very thought of a remake is insulting. It’s a shame it’s been generally passed over in favor of the Twilight and True Blood bandwagons because, after Nosferatu, it may just be the finest vampire movie ever made. A big part of its power comes from its observance of the horror of pre-adolescence more than the horror of being a vampire. It’s a coming of age film, first and foremost. An outcast of a boy, who is picked on by bullies and ignored by his family, befriends a girl his age (even though she could very well be hundreds of years old) who is an outcast herself because she’s a vampire. As far as tales of first-loves go, this one’s a doozy. Since it is set in Sweden, it is conveniently dark all the time, which is not only good for vampires, but good for atmosphere. Not a lot of vampire films take place in snowy climates, either, which is too bad, if you think about it. Blood is so much more striking when it is splashed about on a white landscape. To tell you any more would be to lessen the impact of this masterpiece. If you consider yourself a fan of vampire cinema and you haven’t seen this, you must. And since it is the most recent film on this list, it’ll probably be easier to get your friends to watch it with you. If they don’t object to subtitles, that is.

These are, of course, not the only good vampire movies of the past century, but they are the ones most likely to endure and remain ideal entries into the ongoing immortality of the vampire genre another hundred years from now. It will be interesting to see what the iconic vampire film of this decade will be. And the decade after that. And the decade after that. It’s almost enough to make you want to become a vampire yourself just to find out.

Footnote: This article appears in the October issue of Haberdashers Magazine. You can view this issue in its entirety online here, but check your local newsstand for a printed copy. If they don't carry Haberdashers, do me a favor and request that they do. The more interest and distribution Haberdashers gets, the better it will improve and you will be able to see more articles like this from me.

Violence Isn't Pretty

The following article first appeared in the September 2010 issue of Haberdashers Magazine. If you can find a copy, please buy it. If the magazine becomes successful enough to turn a profit, I can actually get paid to write. I have future articles coming out in future issues and hope you'll check 'em out. FYI: I did the illustration for this article as well. Enjoy.

The year 1967 was a good year for manly movies. Released that year were such classics as Hombre, The War Wagon, You Only Live Twice, The Dirty Dozen, Point Blank, Cool Hand Luke, and The Good The Bad & The Ugly. Interestingly enough, six of those seven films were based on novels. In virtually any book adaptation, lots of great stuff is typically omitted for the film version. This is usually due to time constraints, but is often also due to censorship. For instance, as gritty and as tough as those films were, in most cases, they were whitewashes of novels that inspired them. It was, after all, 1967, and the MPAA ratings system had yet to be implemented and the top-grossing film of that year was The Jungle Book.

The good news is that society has loosened up enough to allow a remake of any of these films to go unfettered from their source material. The bad news is that society has also softened up so much that it almost wouldn’t be worth it. Take The Dirty Dozen, for example. Today’s Hollywood simply could not re-create that level of testosterone.

The cast of the original had Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson, John Cassavetes, Telly Savalas, Donald Sutherland and many others who were not only real men, but ugly men. How could one match that cast for a movie about soldiers, criminals, rapists, and general nasties today when modern leads look more like underwear models than military prisoners? Even when Quentin Tarantino made Inglourious Basterds he cast B.J. Novak from The Office as one of the Basterds. Ryan the Temp. And as the leader of the Basterds, Tarantino cast Brad Pitt. Now, Brad Pitt’s good, but he’s also good looking. Having Lieutenant Aldo Raine (a southern redneck who survived a lynching) look as conventionally handsome as Brad Pitt lessens the character’s credibility. One can empathize with Tarantino’s choice, though. Where does one find an actor of Brad Pitt’s caliber who looks more like one of the original members of The Dirty Dozen nowadays?

Today, the meanest-looking action stars that aren’t over the hill, are Jason Statham and Vin Diesel. Statham seems incapable of making an action movie worth watching and Diesel has only made two action movies in the past seven years. But even Statham and Diesel can’t match the level of machismo set by John Wayne and Clint Eastwood and matched by Steve McQueen and Lee Marvin.

Of course, the problem with the modern action movie isn’t limited to the overabundance of metrosexuals on the casting call, but extends to the action itself. The turning point seemed to be around 1999/2000 when movies like The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (as well as a newfound interest in Jackie Chan) brought martial arts to mainstream action films on an almost permanent basis. Sure, there were plenty of marital arts themed action movies before 2000, but they were usually manifested as Jean-Claude Van Damme or Chuck Norris kicking asses rather than artsy-fartsy floating mid-air slo-mo kicks with leaves and doves swirling around the actors. In Roger Ebert’s review of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon he said, “It’s more as if the fighters are joining in a celebration of their powers.” That’s probably why Chuck Norris is just punch line these days.

Now, martial arts are cool and fun to watch but c’mon, that’s not how real people fight. It seems like only Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez realize that real violence is sloppy and that it’s more exciting when it’s less predictable. They’re partial to shootouts, though, so it’s hard to find a good old-fashioned bare knuckle fist fight these days that doesn’t look like a fast-paced ballet. Compare the hand to hand combat seen in the Jason Bourne movies to the fist fight between police officer John McClane and terrorist gunman Karl in Die Hard. The audience is more invested in the fight in Die Hard because it’s one man’s desperation to stay alive in order to save his wife versus another man’s vengeful wrath for the his brother’s murder. When Jason Bourne fights somebody, it just feels like a competition to see who has the best moves. There’s a great deal of joy to be found in the scene in 2007’s Live Free or Die Hard when McClane, after getting his ass kicked by a martial arts expert, declares, “That’s enough of this Kung-Fu shit,” and comes back driving an SUV into the room and into his opponent. The viewer is uncertain whether that’s John McClane’s line or Bruce Willis’.

Another major handicap of the modern day action film is its lazy tendency to rely on special effects. Like martial arts, special effects are cool, but a lame stunt trumps an awesome CGI display of McClane versus an F-35. That’s why people go to action movies in the first place, they want to experience someone else’s danger without endangering themselves. If the filmmakers are creating stunts in the comfort of their computer studio, what’s the point?

That’s probably a big part of why the latest Indiana Jones movie was met with such a lukewarm reception. In the first three movies, whenever Indy would jump onto a moving truck or swing over a bottomless pit, it may not have been Harrison Ford performing the actual stunt, but it was somebody and that somebody was actually doing what the audience was actually seeing. In The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull there’s sword-fighting on the hoods of trucks plowing through the jungle. It’s an exciting scene, for sure, but no matter how good the special effects are, there’s no getting around the fact that the actors are standing in front of a green screen with wind machines blowing at them. That was the disappointing downfall of that movie. Well, that and it kind of felt like a desperate attempt between Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford to recreate the glory days of their youth. It’s a shame when even the old greats can’t rise above the latest trends.

What’s most disturbing about these devolving changes to the action genre is that they are occurring alongside another popular trend in Hollywood these days, the remake/reboot. If Hollywood wants to make all kinds of new big-budget action catastrophes, that’s one thing. But, it would be nice if they would leave longstanding treasured time capsules of macho case studies alone. True, they did a decent job with the recent rebirths of Batman, James Bond and, surprisingly, even Star Trek, but unfortunately, that sets a precedent that anything is fair game to be re-imagined and possibly butchered as a result.

A good example of the dangers of this scenario can be found by comparing 1974’s The Taking of Pelham One Two Three to its insipid 2009 remake. The no-nonsense toughness of the original (even amongst the hostages) is completely gone. The calm intensity of Robert Shaw is replaced by John Travolta regurgitating variations of the F-word over and over at various high pitches. Even Denzel Washington can’t measure up to the perfectly cynical performance of Walter Matthau. Yes, Walter Matthau. Furthermore, what’s most embarrassing is that, while the remake was directed by the usually reliable Tony Scott, the original was directed by Joseph Sargent. It’s a shame when the director of True Romance can’t improve upon a movie directed by the guy who made Jaws 4.

It’s probably only a matter of time before movies like Deliverance or The Wild Bunch are remade with people like Leonardo DiCaprio or Jake Gyllenhaal in the cast. A new version of Total Recall was just announced with no Arnold Schwarzenegger, no Ronny Cox, no Michael Ironside, and probably no midget hooker wielding a shotgun either. So what’s the point? Who can be placed in any of those roles that will even come close to plausibly ripping off somebody’s arms and then selling lines like “See you at the party, Richter.”

In the early 90’s, Denis Leary lamented about the declination of manliness in American society by pointing out how The Terminator ended with Schwarzenegger blowing up, twice, and then being crushed in a hydraulic press; while Terminator 2 ended with Schwarzenegger hugging a kid goodbye and saying “Don’t cry.” At the time Leary said that, he had no idea that Schwarzenegger had yet to do Junior, and Jingle All the Way. With all the beloved action heroes and directors getting too old or too lame to deliver, the genre desperately needs some kind of renaissance. Stallone’s latest movie The Expendables and its ample cast of action stars seems like a farewell speech to the old-school action movie. It seems Stallone agrees since, in a recent interview with the L.A. Times to promote the film, he says, “The action movies changed radically when it became possible to Velcro your muscles on. It was the beginning of a new era. The visual took over. The special effects became more important than the single person. That was the beginning of the end.” He’s right. These days, while guys like Topher Grace are being cast as the muscle-bound Spider-Man villain Venom, guys like The Rock are playing the Tooth Fairy. Hopefully, they got paid up front, because true connoisseurs of the action genre would rather spend their money on movies like Machete. And probably intend to.

If you're interested in advertising in Haberdashers Magazine, please email ads@haberdashersonline.com .

Always leave'm wanting more (unless, of course, you're NBC in which case you bleed a good idea dry until even your most loyal fans have turned on you)

NBC just recently officially responded to Steve Carell's announcement to leave "The Office". I'm sure that the time in between their announcement and Carell's was spent by NBC trying to figure out how they could coax him to stay (even if it meant screwing over a buncha other employees of theirs). I, for one applaud, Carell's steadfastness in his decision to leave saying it's not a matter of money. Cynics may argue his leaving actually is about money since he can make more off the movies than television (especially at this point in his career where he's proven he can bring in the dollars as a movie's leading man), but whether or not that's true, I believe it's true that "The Office" has had a good run and now is as good a time as any for them to take a bow. Michael Scott's gone about as far as he can go without becoming tiresome. Quit while you're ahead.

Of course, NBC (in their infinite ignorance) will never realize that. In response to Carell's departure, they have assured us the show will go on without him. Fatal mistake. Don't get me started on NBC's neolithic incompetence during the whole Jay vs. Conan/Tonight Show fiasco, but it's the perfect indicator of their wishy-washy complete lack of judgment. They seem to be incapable of putting a good thing to rest and would rather drive something into the ground until it's humiliatingly dried up and thus ending what could have been a great legacy as an embarrassment.

True, "The Office" has a great ensemble cast, but Michael Scott is the irremovable core that the whole show revolves around. He has such a unique relationship with every single person in the office that it would be tragic to do away with each of those relationships and ridiculous to try to re-create them with a new character. I don't believe the show could go on without him without seeming severely diluted. First of all, how do you write him out? One of the best things about the character is the idea that he will work there forever - not just out of sheer incompetence and an inability to do better, but through an ironically admirable sense of loyalty. To have him quit would be unrealistic, to fire him would be heartbreaking, to promote him would be a cop-out, and you certainly can't kill him. So, what're we left with?

Another problem is, if Michael left, the logical alternative would be to promote from within. Now, if Jim took his position as office manager... Well, the office would run smoothly and efficiently and who would want to watch that? And you can't promote Dwight because he has had such a lustful yearning to be in charge of the office that to give it to him would be like Lucy letting Charlie Brown kick the football. Also, since having either of them in charge would be too much for the other to take, they kinda cancel each other out. Furthermore, nobody else in the cast is as prominent a character as the two of them, so that's about it as far as currently existing employees taking the reins.

So, that leads us to bringing in someone new to take over the office. The only existing guest character on the show I can think of who could potentially compensate for the hole Michael Scott would leave is Todd Packer. I think that would grow tiresome, though, because while he's just as uncouth and insensitive as Michael, he's not as clueless or well-meaning (which are Michael's saving graces). Packer's treatment of the employees, while very funny at first, would become increasingly uncomfortable to watch over time because his comments and behavior are closer to abusive and degrading than inappropriate and incompetent. Plus, he's just not likable.

What are we left with, then? Fresh talent? A whole new actor in a whole new role? Pretty risky. And frankly, I don't think it can be done. Remember how weird the office felt when Charles Miner was put in charge? I'm sure that awkwardness was deliberate, but still it was indicative of how necessary Michael is to "The Office" to make it work. And by "work", I mean live, breathe and laugh, not sell paper. So, "The Office" should do the classy and respectable thing and that is: end. I have the perfect scenario to end it with, too, if you're willing to indulge me:

At least 2 or 3 offices I've worked at in the past have, for fun, occasionally had everybody chip in to buy an "office lottery ticket" when the PowerBall would get up to an obscene jackpot. The idea being everybody chips in a buck and picks a few numbers and, if by some miracle the ticket wins the pot, the employees (who chipped in) split it. This always seemed to be good for morale because everybody - even those very happy with their job - would discuss fantasies about what they would do if (no, when!) they won.

What if Dunder-Mifflin's Scranton branch did exactly that, but actually won? An idyllic way to end the series, I think. Here's the best part, though: Everybody would chip in for the lottery ticket ahead of time except for Michael (who beforehand would superciliously chide them all for wasting their time and money and taunt them about how they'd never win by belittling their fantasies). This would lead to an endless slew of hilarious consequences to choose from. Not only would we get to see the employees' reactions to having their hypothetical fantasies realized, but how would Michael try to con his way into retroactively getting a piece of the action? First, he'd probably act as if he was just kidding and meant to put in his dollar and they should honor his intentions. Or he'd lie that he actually did put in a dollar and they deliberately excluded him. Or maybe somebody in the office owed him a dollar from way back when and he'd claim the dollar they put in was rightfully his. Maybe all of the above. And more.

Of course, when none of these methods would work, he'd resort to other desperate measures. Maybe he'd talk about re-opening the Michael Scott Paper Company and try to get any winner he could to "invest"? Maybe he'd ask Jim and Pam if they could buy a mansion big enough for him to have a room in? Maybe he'd actually try being nice to Toby for once (to no avail)? Unfortunately, that's for writers more talented than me to figure out, but I have as much fun contemplating the options as people-who-have-not-yet-won-the-lottery have contemplating their fortune.

One by one, the employees would quit, say goodbye and walk out the door for the last time leaving Michael to sulk. How does it end, though? On a melancholy note with Michael picking up the phone or going online to seek new employees? A hopeful note with Michael resigning as well so he could go on an adventure of his own? How 'bout this: Holly Flax shows up again and confesses she still loves Michael and wants to be with him forever. Michael confesses the same thing. Then Holly, much to Michael's surprise, reveals that she has recently inherited a huge estate from deceased relatives and they can run off together and retire. Michael at first thinks maybe this is a joke his until-very-recent employees put Holly up to. When he realizes it's not, they embrace teary-eyed. Michael then says something cheesy and Holly laughs instead of rolling her eyes (like anyone else would) to illustrate just how perfect for each other they are. They go to leave the office and Michael stops as Holly exits. He turns around to take one last long panoramic look at the office and blows a kiss. He turns off the lights, shuts the door behind him and we are left in the dark of the empty office. Reception's phone rings, but nobody's there to answer. Fade to black.

Yeah, I like that ending. I think I'll just picture that in my head instead of watch what's sure to be an inferior eighth season. However, if NBC is reading this, you have my unbridled permission to use any and all of the aforementioned ideas to end "The Office" next year. I won't ask for anything in return because allowing the show to end on a high note is compensation enough.

Seen it.

Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of movie remakes. There are a number of reasons why, but the main one is obvious: They're almost never as good. True, there are some remakes that surpass the originals (but we'll discuss that in another blog post) and, sometimes (but not nearly often enough) the remake is a significantly different enough perspective that it's justified - even if it remains inferior to its predecessor.

I think the remakes I have the most respect for are the ones that go back to the source material and create their own path from there rather than just ape the last movie. The Coen brothers recently announced that they're making a new version of "True Grit" but, thankfully, they said they're working from Charles Portis' novel and not John Wayne's performance. That's good to know, because I remember when "The Amityville Horror" was being remade in 2005, I had high hopes thinking the new version would be closer to the terrifying novel than the campy 1979 film. Unfortunately, the two-bit hack that wrote that remake's screenplay probably didn't even know there was novel because it went in the completely opposite direction - taking all the stupid horse shit from the first movie and piling on even more. That was probably the biggest anticipatory movie let-down I've experienced since "The Phantom Menace".

I understand the logic behind remakes because, like sequels, they have a built-in audience. We all know that familiarity breeds fondness. But, as most sequels are pretty pointless, so are most remakes. The dilemma that pretty much all remakes have to face is that either the original was so well done that a remake becomes insulting (like "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three") or the original movie was so stupid that a remake shouldn't even be bothered with (like "Friday the 13th"). Then, of course, there are the movies that have been remade so many times, it doesn't even matter if the new incarnation is good or bad. They've simply been milked for all their worth.

Yesterday, the newest version of "Robin Hood" was released. Now, I love Ridley Scott and I love Russell Crowe and almost every movie they've done together has been outstanding. "Robin Hood" is probably outstanding as well, but I'm not gonna go see it. You know why? 'Cuz I already freakin' HAVE! About a thousand times already! Really, guys? I know you're talented. Have you completely run out of project ideas that you had to return to Sherwood Forest? I'd rather see "Gladiator 2" than another "Robin Hood".

And that's not all: Earlier this Spring, we had yet another version of "Alice in Wonderland". Now, again - I love Tim Burton and I love Johnny Depp and almost every movie they've done together has been outstanding. But... No, I'm not gonna say it again. But, I will point out that last year there was also a SyFy Channel mini-series called "Alice". Guess what it was based on? Hint: Not Mel's Diner.

Mere months before the latest "Alice in Wonderland", there was another big-budget Disney version of "A Christmas Carol". Seriously, who doesn't know that story? It's been told so many times that I hafta wonder if anybody even finds it touching anymore when Scrooge wakes up Christmas morning with a change of heart? The most interesting thing any Scrooge remake has to offer is to see how they're gonna do the ghosts - and even that is almost always anti-climactic. "Oh, gee. The Ghost of Christmas-Yet-to-Come looks like the Grim Reaper. How original."

Those are just the most recent ones, too. Any reader of this blog will know that I like to present things in the form of top ten lists so, including those previous three, here's seven more movies that should NEVER BE REMADE EVER AGAIN (or at least for a looooooooooooong time). Oh, and by the way, every one of the following movies has been remade a minimum of 15 times:

"Beauty & the Beast" - The first version of this film came out in 1899. Not even the 20th Century. You might think the wildly successful Disney version from 1991 was the latest, but no. They made another one last year. It starred the hot chick from Tim Burton's "Planet of Apes" remake as Belle. Nice that she can find work as the female lead in the bastardization of perfectly good classics.

"Dracula" - Thanks to the "Twilight" books and shows like "True Blood", vampires are the new pirates. So naturally, they have a new "Dracula" remake slated for 2011. Why? It's bad enough they're remaking "Let the Right One In" and "Fright Night". Can't we just hammer a stake into "Dracula" and move on to the next coffin?

"Hamlet" - Arguably Shakespeare's greatest play, but that's exactly what it is - a play. You wanna make a movie about it, fine. How much better do you think you can possibly make it? Out of all the movies listed here, "Hamlet" takes the cake with approximately 75 remakes. How 'bout "not to be" from now on, huh? Spoiler: Everybody dies.

"Huckleberry Finn" - Great story, but too simple for anybody to really breathe new life into it. At least Dracula is a character who, if you didn't wanna tell the original story, you can at least put him in a different setting or a different time period (or even make him a different race) just to mix things up a bit. The only differences I can discern between Huckleberry Finn movies is whether or not the kid who played him ended up in jail or rehab when he grew up.

"Phantom of the Opera" - As if this wasn't done to death as a Broadway musical already. I guess it could be worse, though. Could be "Cats".

"Romeo & Juliet" - Shakespeare again. I liked the DiCaprio/Danes version from 1996, but I think what bothers me about all the attention this story gets is that it's one of Shakespeare's weakest plays. I mean, there's no shortage of the Bard's work being made into movies multiple times, but I'd rather see ten more MacBeths or Othellos before one more Romeo & Juliet. Although, maybe I just feel that way 'cuz it's a chick flick.

"Snow White" - Actually, they've done some pretty interesting things with this story over the years but, besides the 1937 Disney version, has anybody cared? There have been about 20 remakes, but can you name one besides the one the Gremlins sang along with? Me neither. So why are they releasing another one this year? I bet you dollars to doughnuts you won't remember that one, either.

So, filmmakers and studios, please waste your money on new stuff. Or, if you're going to waste it on a remake, at least make it a worthwhile one. If you're confused as to where the line is, consider this: Is there a Disney version already? If the answer is yes, leave it alone.

10 out of '09

Well, the Oscars had their ten, now it's time for mine. Every year around this time, I like to announce what my favorite films of the previous year were (just in case anybody out there was actually interested in what I thought). But, before we begin, a few disclaimers:

First, this list is comprised of my "favorites", not the "best". So, these movies are ranked almost entirely by how much I enjoyed them and not the necessarily by the quality of the films themselves.
Second, this top ten list (like every one before and after it) is in a constant state of flux. Since I don't do film reviews for a living (yet), that means several of worthy movies remain unseen. I can tell you already that I can think of several potential contenders on my "watch" list that came out this year, but since I haven't gotten to them yet, the list now stands as it is.
Third, I usually arrange these lists by order of preference, but I thought for fun I'd do an official countdown this time. So, despite my failed attempt at not having a long-winded introduction, let's get on with it.

#10: Moon - Hard Sci-Fi needs to make a comeback. Unfortunately, I don't think audiences are intellectual enough anymore to make it economically feasible. There was some talk of David Fincher directing an adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's novel "Rendezvous with Rama" starring Morgan Freeman, which I was stoked about. Unfortunately, it would seem that project got shelved 'cuz there's not a trace of it on IMDb anymore. For some reason, it seems Fincher is more interested in making a movie about freakin' facebook.
Anyway, "Moon" probably didn't do so hot because, at first glance, it looks like it borrows from too many other Sci-Fi films. It does, but it does so without coming across as stealing their ideas. And all of the cliches are pretty much superficial anyway. Unfortunately, I can't tell you too much about this movie without ruining its surprises, but I will say this: It's one of those rare films that starts out confusing and slowly, as layers are peeled away and revelations are revealed, everything starts to fall into place and you're taken aback by its unexpected, but sensible, brilliance. It's fantastical without being implausible and complex without being exhausting.
Most importantly, though, I don't have much respect for films that reveal their surprises by pulling the rug out from underneath you. I can appreciate the amusing "gotcha" sense of that gimmick, but I much more prefer a mystery that's been laid out ahead of time that you have clues to dismantle if you pay close enough attention rather than being tricked by something I had no possibility of suspecting. Any writer can tack on the "it was all a dream" or "the hero and the villain are the same person" at the end of their script, but it takes a real clever mind to put together a puzzle like "Moon". You'll recognize the difference when you see the movie for yourself.

#9: Zombieland - Funny to go from a movie like "Moon" to a movie like this and, furthermore, it's slightly embarrassing to rate it higher, but the truth is, "Zombieland" is just so much damn fun. Most zombie movies are fun - even the dead serious ones (no pun intended), but this one has so much fun with itself that it almost ceases to be a horror film. In a nutshell, this is a zombie movie for people who don't like (or, more commonly, can't stomach) zombie movies. A good introduction to the genre, in other words.
There's really nothing new about the whole zombie formula because they've been making zombie movies for over forty years and there's only so much you can do. This film does a good job of poking fun at the cliches and managing to still breathe some fresh air into it, though. In addition to its eclectic cast, it also contains one of the best celebrity cameos that I've seen in years. It's a shame so many people have revealed who it is and how it works into the movie, but I won't reveal it here. That scene alone makes the movie and is a big part of why this film made it into my top ten.

#8: The Road - And even funnier to follow "Zombieland" with "The Road" - except funnier in the opposite direction. Both are post-apocalyptic films about survivors making their way through the American wastelands, but they couldn't be further apart on the spectrum.
Despite being suspenseful and gripping - particularly because, early on in the movie, they establish the rules by demonstrating that anything can happen (and it just might) - what makes this movie truly horrifying is how plausible it is. I really believe that if the world found itself in these circumstances, this is exactly what would happen and that thought alone is more disturbing than anything the movie can offer up. In that sense, it's very similar to "Deliverance" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (and even "Schindler's List", actually) in exploring the lowest depths of human depravity and still remaining terrifyingly believable. When watching even the most unbearable horror film, one can usually at least cling to the notion of "Well, at least it could never happen." But if a movie can deprive you of that comfort, you're on your own - much like the protagonists of "The Road".
I suppose it's kinda ironic to have this film on the list since I went out of my way to announce ahead of time how these movies are based on my enjoyment (and I did not "enjoy" this movie), but it got under my skin too effectively for me to not give it its due.

#7: World's Greatest Dad - Much like "Moon", I think this was a movie that audiences were quick to dismiss because, on the surface, it looks all too familiar. Robin Williams playing a school teacher/father. Oh, and it's directed by Bobcat Goldthwait - that guy who played Zed in the Police Academy movies and set fire to the set of "The Tonight Show". Unfortunately (again, like "Moon"), you can't tell people how unique it is without spoiling the fun.
Of course, on the other hand, maybe the reason filmgoers didn't embrace this movie is because it's really offensive. One thing I can tell you about it is that, usually when you see an uruly teenage character in the movies, they're covering up some kind of vulnerability or they're weak and wounded in some way that you might feel sorry for them or, at least, find some humor in how disrespectful and audacious they are. However, the title character's son in this movie is so nasty and horrible that it is not only incomprehensible, but almost unwatchable. That's all I can really say about it.
Bottom line: If you're feeling brave and want to challenge your threshold for bad taste, this is a movie for you. Like "The Road", I hafta salute how much I liked it despite how much I hated it.

#6: Dead Snow - Don't know if I've ever had two zombie movies make my top ten list before, but they sure did this year. Interestingly enough, this one is different enough from "Zombieland" to not feel redundant. Chances are you've heard of "Zombieland" but not this one. Probably just because it's Norwegian and didn't have as big a budget or as wide a distribution. A shame. It's way better. But - fair warning - unlike "Zombieland" this one is for seasoned viewers and true zombie fans like myself.
Earlier I had pointed out how difficult it is to do anything truly original with zombie movies, but this one really impressed me. Not only with its innovation and originality, but how it still managed to remain loyal to its roots and inspiration. Also, like a true gourmet zombie flick, it is effectively funny and genuinely scary without either detracting from the other. The characters are likable enough to where you root for them, but not likable enough that you hate to see them devoured or disemboweled. The last movie I can think of that achieved these accomplishments as well as "Dead Snow" was "Tremors". And "Tremors" is on my top ten list of all-time favorites, so there you have it.
I'm reluctant to recommend this movie to just anyone, but if you're looking for a good zombie movie that achieves everything a zombie movie aspires for and succeeds (exceeds, actually), then you're not going to do much better than "Dead Snow". I mean, c'mon... Zombie Nazis, dude!

#5: (500) Days of Summer - Okay, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and just come out and say it: This is probably the best romantic comedy since "When Harry Met Sally". Seriously, give it time to settle in. If there's any justice in the movie world, this film will be listed among the best of the rom-coms.
I remember once having a debate with a girl about chick flicks versus guy movies. I won the argument by saying something like "A bad chick flick is way worse than a bad guy movie." I said that probably 15 years ago, but it's especially true today. I believe that if a chick flick is truly great, it ceases to be a chick flick and is meant for everyone. Same can be said for a kids' film.
Anyway, this is one of the best films about relationships I've ever seen. It's so honest and so real without being dull or overly sentimental. It's also quirky and cute without being sappy or trendy. Most importantly, I think it's a great case study to observe for anybody in a young relationship. This may not be how relationships are, but it's certainly how they feel. Like many of the aforementioned movies, it's so refreshing to see a movie that has originality and familiarity working hand-in-hand so effectively.

#4: The Hangover - Hands down the funniest movie of the year. Most impressively, though, is the fact that they could've been lazy in putting this movie together by just making it a series of silly, gross-out, slapstick vignettes and gotten away with it. Like "Dude, Where's My Car", for example.
Instead, they actually put together a linear sequence of events that had a logical progression and even a plausible chain reaction for the characters (and the audience) to retroactively work their way through. In that sense, the movie's not terribly different from "Memento". I mean, things that at first seemed way over the top are reasonably and thoroughly explained. Well, everything except the chicken. I'm hoping for a director's cut or deleted scene that sheds some light on that.
Some of the smartest comedies appear very stupid on the surface. People are all too often willing to write them off as fluff, but the truth is this must have been a hard movie to make and it's amazing how easy they made it look.
On a side note, another trend they need to bring back is honoring actors for out-and-out comedic performances (like Kevin Kline in "A Fish Called Wanda") because Zach Galifianakis' performance in this film is nothing short of perfectly executed brilliance.

#3: Star Trek - I'm not sure I'm liking this new trend in the movies to do reboots of everything. I can understand its justification, though. They've successfully rebooted James Bond and Batman and now Star Trek and all of them have been done exceptionally well and made millions of dollars. But, it's only a matter of time before all the go-alongs and wanna-bees wanting to milk that gravy train for all its monetary worth bring the whole gimmick crashing down onto itself. I'm just glad they haven't tainted anything really sacred yet. Not that "Star Trek" is sacred, but it has quite a legacy and I was very skeptical going into this movie. I thought it would be a bastardization of the original series by just taking the characters and doing their own thing however they see fit.
In a way, that's what it was, but given the alternate-reality explanation they carved out for themselves, they allowed themselves the luxury of keeping what worked and changing what didn't. That made everything they did, not only perfectly acceptable, but really damn fun. Plus, there were enough references and inside jokes for the sake of Trekkies that they still managed to make entertaining enough at face-value for everyone else.
Lastly (and probably best of all), it's been a long time since I sat through a movie that was good old-fashioned great adventure. I was blown away. After it was over, all I could think about was how I wish that J.J. Abrams had made the Star Wars prequels as well.

#2: Up - I think the main reason this one ranks so high on my list is because about 15-20 minutes into the movie, when the first section of the story concluded, I thought "I could walk out of this theater right now and have totally gotten my money's worth already." When you think about it, the bulk of the movie is the story's epilogue. You'll hafta see the movie to know what I'm referring to, but in any case, what a beautiful movie.
And so full of imagination! I mean, when I saw the trailers, I thought this film would be a fantasy: Floating houses, giant birds, talking dogs, etc. But the truth is, fantastical as it may be, it's still grounded in the real world. That makes the content all the more impressive. When you allow yourself the luxury of a fantasy, you can pretty much do anything. Here's a movie that pretty much did anything regardless of the fact it took place in the world we know in what seemed to be present day. Wow. Leave it to PIXAR to one-up themselves yet again.
It occurred to me the other day that "Up" (like pretty much every other PIXAR movie) is a movie for adults disguised as a movie for kids. Whereas "Avatar" is a movie for kids disguised as a movie for adults.

#1: Inglourious Basterds - For the record, "Reservoir Dogs" is my favorite movie of all time. And "Pulp Fiction" is one of the most influential and widely-beloved films of all time. I enjoyed "Jackie Brown" a great deal and respected Tarantino for backing off the accelerator a bit and doing a more subtle film from the genre he loves so much. Since then, though, he's kinda left me cold. I mean, "Kill Bill" and "Death Proof" were undeniably well-made films by an undeniably talented director, but I was growing tired of Tarantino doing movies that seemed to mostly be homages to other movies. It was almost to the point where, if you hadn't seen the films he was paying tribute to, you weren't in on it. For such an original director, I was hoping for more originality.
At last, Tarantino comes back swinging with "Inglourious Basterds". This reminded me of everything that made me fall in love with Tarantino to begin with. True, there were a lot of tributes and references to other movies in this one as well, but they didn't weigh the film down and draw attention to themselves as if the actors were winking at the camera. Just a brilliantly written and impeccably executed film that, not only didn't disappoint, but outright refused to.
To bring the subject back to the Academy Awards, though, I was really hoping this would be the film to steal the glory from "Avatar" at the Oscars. While Christoph Waltz was a shoo-in for winning Best Supporting Actor, I had hoped this film woulda at least won Best Original Screenplay and Best Editing if not Best Picture and Best Director. Oh well, it's not like Tarantino won't have another chance to blow everybody away.

So, there's my ten. I feel a bit ashamed that my top five are all big blockbusters because I always prefer to turn people onto little-known and lesser-seen masterpieces, but I guess Hollywood really delivered this year. Of course, that's not to say you shouldn't see the movies in my bottom five, because you most definitely should. And who knows? Last time, I was kicking myself for having seen "Let the Right One In" almost immediately after posting my top ten list, so there could be all kindsa obscure beauties out there just waiting to tap me on the shoulder. Until I find them, though, I hope you enjoy these ten aforementioned beauties as much as I did.

...and you thought the show was long before...

Well, they announced this year's Academy Award nominations and, for the first time in many years (perhaps ever), I'm not impressed. It's not the quality of the films nominated (a few are always disappointing because they're nominated more for politics than merit), it's because the Academy has doubled the number of nominees for Best Picture. How anti-climactic. I mean, c'mon... Top ten lists are for critics!

I understand the thinking behind it. Once in a while, there's definitely a year where at least ten films are deserving of Best Picture nominations. However, 2009 was not one of them. This is clearly evidenced by the nominations themselves. Sure enough, I'd say only five of the ten truly deserve to be nominated. Not that the other five films aren't good, it's just that there's definitely a line that has to be crossed in order for a best picture nod to be justified -at least by my standards - and half of these films didn't cross that line.

For my money, the current nominations that deserve their place (or, shall we say, the ones that would not be removed had the Academy stuck to their five-picture line-up) are as follows:

"Avatar" - A movie I personally didn't really care for, but undeniably a ground-breaking and influential film of epic proportions (and it doesn't hurt to be a massive crowd-pleaser, too) just like Cameron's previous swan-song, "Titanic".





"An Education" - I haven't seen this one (and don't particularly want to), but the Oscars always have at least one retro period drama with European-accented actors in some kind of star-crossed love story nominated. If you don't believe me, go check the nominations of any previous year - I bet you'll find one every time. Given the widespread critical acclaim this film received, it seems the most worthy of being the obligatory chick flick nomination.

"The Hurt Locker" - Frankly, I thought this film was a bit over-rated. It's good, no doubt about it, but I don't understand why it has stood out so much this year above certain others as "A NEAR-PERFECT MOVIE". Still, I'm willing to include it here as a one of the five because it has already won too many other highly respected filmmaking awards to be ignored.


"Inglourious Basterds" - A simultaneously beautifully and brutally crafted love-letter to old movies with a masterfully written script and brilliant performances throughout. Tarantino finally returns to the high-calibre kind of filmmaking that "Pulp Fiction" inspired 15 years ago.




"Precious" - Beginning with Sundance (when the movie was called "Push"), the critical buzz surrounding this movie has only grown exponentially. I can't really comment further because I haven't seen it yet, but I can tell just from the trailers that this is one emotionally powerful tour de force (and the Academy loves those).

Now, in any given year, there's almost always a dark horse nominee for best picture. An underdog or, as I like to call 'em, a Cinderella Nomination. These are the films you're surprised (but pleased) to have gotten a Best Picture nomination. Consequently, you know they don't stand a chance in hell of winning. This year, instead of just one, we have five. Let's go through them, shall we?

"The Blind Side" - We all find sports movies inspiring. I'm sure this one's good, too. Best film of the year, though? Maybe to the individual. I feel like this movie got its Oscar accolade by having Sandra Bullock nominated for Best Actress.





"District 9" - Really? I had to double-check the list something like three times to make sure I wasn't misreading it. This is undoubtedly a very original movie and a great allegory for apartheid (among other things) and I think I probably admired it more than I liked it, but when you break it down, it's really just a well-made geek-boy cult film. This is a perfect example as to why ten nominees is too many: The inclusion of this film makes me think they ran out of ideas.

"A Serious Man" - Big Coen Brothers fan here. Huge. Was a big cheerleader for "Fargo" when it was nominated and was stoked when "No Country For Old Men" won. But even I don't think this one deserves to be a Best Picture contender. I didn't even think that when I saw it - and I liked it a lot. On principle, though, I hafta applaud the Academy for giving such a dry and unconventional film (which was obviously a labor of love) a shot at Best Picture - even if it doesn't really deserve it.

"Up" - I have mixed feelings about this nomination because (second only to "Inglourious Basterds"), it's by far my favorite film out of these ten. Ultimately though, I don't think it deserves to be a Best Picture nominee because it's already nominated (and a shoo-in) for Best Animated Feature. When a film is nominated for Best Picture in more than one category, you know two things for sure: #1 - It definitely will not win Best Picture. #2 - It definitely will win the alternative Best Picture category. Remember "Life Is Beautiful"? Nobody was surprised when it won Best Foreign Language Film and they were even less surprised when it didn't win Best Picture of the year.

"Up in the Air" - This one actually is your quint-essential Cinderella Nomination. They're usually light-hearted, charming, modest dramedies with small casts and smaller budgets. To give you an example (and to illustrate how "Up in the Air" fits right in) here are some Cinderella Nominations from the past decade: "Juno", "Little Miss Sunshine", "Sideways", "Lost In Translation", "Gosford Park" and "Chocolat". So, I guess in conclusion, this one does deserve to be nominated based on the dark horse principle, but one other provision of the dark horse principle is that it must bump a more-deserving nominee. So, pick which one of my first five that "Up in the Air" should replace and there you have it.

If this article seems cynical, let me just say that I'm all for the appreciation of good movies and giving credit where credit is due, but let's face it, it's so much more interesting when the competition's tighter. Next thing you know, the 2010 Olympics will issue not only Gold, Silver and Bronze Medals, but Steel, Aluminum, Copper, Wood, Leather, Cotton and Paper Medals as well.