When I first heard the Supreme Court was going to decide on a law that would regulate the sale of video games to minors, I didn't see the big deal about it. This is something that needs to be addressed. There's nothing worse than getting cussed out by a 12 year-old during a game of Halo 3 or Modern Warfare 2. But the more I thought about it, and the more research I did, I began to realize this is one of the biggest mistakes I can think of in relation to the video game industry.

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) was created in the 90s because of the controversy generated by games such as Mortal Kombat and Doom. They were so violent and gory that something needed to be done, otherwise the government was going to step in, much like it's trying to do right now. Similar to the MPAA set up by the film industry, the ESRB is a self-regulating board that rates the games and it's up to retailers to sell the game to minors or not. There's no law binding any of this, and there's not going to be charges filed if someone does sell a M rated game to a 14 year-old kid.

But with any self-regulation, there are always going to be cracks in the system. And there are times when the kids can get these games by themselves -- just like a kid getting into an R rated film by himself. It's not supposed to happen, but it does. So why is it the California government is trying to tackle violent video games, when there are movies out in the theaters that are just as violent, if not more violent, than many video games? Is this something that should even be decided?

The problem with this law is that it's so vague in defining what "violent" truly is. A fat plumber jumping on the heads of innocent goombas could be violent. After all, you are killing things by jumping on top of them with all of your body weight. Could a blue hedgehog running through defenseless creatures and knocking them into spiked pits be considered violent? Just because they're not human does not make it any less violent. How about Street Fighter? You literally beat people so bad they get knocked out and can't move any more? It's been one of the most popular games for the past 20 years, and has become a favorite for children and teenagers at the arcades. Is it to be deemed too violent that it shouldn't be sold to children in stores?

The government is walking such a fine line between trying to do the right thing and blatant censorship. This law would not only make it illegal for children to buy these games, but it would make it illegal for them to even have access to them, or play them. This law is like comparing violent video games to drugs or alcohol. Studies are still undetermined when it comes to whether violent video games are detrimental to children. Just last week a study was released that stated playing Modern Warfare 2, Resident Evil 5 or other violent games can actually make the player smarter. I put as much stock into that study as I do into those that say they make players more violent.

I've played video games for more than 20 years and I show no ill signs aside from some bad eyesight and withdrawals if I go too long without playing one. If there is a study detailing the addiction or negative physical effects, I'll be all for it because those are real. But the whole crux of this law is that violent video games make children more violent and there's not enough evidence to prove that.

But the real travesty with this law is the Pandora's Box that it opens. If the Supreme Court upholds it and says government regulation of the video game industry is legal, what's to stop the government from beginning to regulate the movie industry, or book industry or anything else for that fact? There's a little something called the First Ammendment that is supposed to protect against stuff like that. Games, like movies, are products of expression, and should be protected. But if this is upheld, that will be thrown out the door.

There's nothing wrong with regulating the sale of violent video games to children. I'm all for it. But it has to start with the parents. Every child is different. I saw Terminator 2: Judgment Day in the theaters. I saw Aliens when I was 4 years-old. I played Mortal Kombat in the arcade when I was barely tall enough to reach the sticks and see the screen. I'm not violent, and I'm not emotionally scarred either. My dad knew how far he was willing to go with me, and I understood that. There were some things I wasn't allowed to see or play, and tht was fine. But some other children might not be able to handle that as much.

That is the problem with these broad encompassing laws that are meant to protect "children." The government is trying to play mommy and daddy for children and give the real parents a break. Only the parents know what is best for their child, and no one should take that decision away from them. If a parent thinks that his son can play Grand Theft Auto IV and not be harmed, that's his business. But he should have plenty of information available to him before buying it. That's what the ESRB is for. And that's why the government should keep its hands off.

For the first time since "First Contact," the "Star Trek" franchise has gone where no "Trek" has gone before.

Instead of continuing ahead with "The Next Generation" or spinning a movie out of the prequel "Enterprise," J.J. Abrams boldly decided to reboot the venerable franchise and start over from scratch. The final product is not only a credible entry into the franchise, but a new lease on life, not unlike V'Ger's resurrection at the end of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."

The simply titled "Star Trek" delves into the untold history of Captain James T. Kirk's formable years at Starfleet Academy. Certain events have been altered thanks to the intrusion of a time-traveling Romulan named Nero. Instead of the standup cadet who cheated on the Kobayashi Maru, Kirk is a partying farm boy who loves to get into trouble. His famous solution to the unbeatable test is finally shown, including the reaction from his fellow cadets and the academic elite.

Mr. Spock's origins are also touched on as he tries to find the balance between his Vulcan and human identities. Zach Quinto's Spock is a much more conflicted person than Leonard Nimoy's portrayal in the original series. This uncertainty, combined with the actions of Nero, puts the uneasy relationship between Kirk and Spock to the test.

The marketing hype is correct: this is not your father's "Star Trek." There's more drama, more suspense and a much deeper insight to the characters than any other movie in the franchise. The opening scene alone is reminiscent of a science-fiction "Saving Private Ryan." As much as this writer has always loved "Star Trek," the emotional depth of the characters in the original series has always been as shallow as a wading pool. That's not the case here. You see the characters grow and evolved over the course of the two-hour movie.

The only problem the movie has is a shoehorned love angle between Lt. Uhura and Spock. The relationship makes no sense and plays out like nothing more than a feeble attempt by Abrams and Company to attract a female crowd. There is a distinct lack of chemistry between Quinto and Zoe Saldana and every intimate scene between the two feels forced.

However, any "Star Trek" fan, or "Trekkie" who has been worried about whether this will live up to the franchise's legacy need not worry. The actors are a little young, but the perfect thing about them is if you didn't know their names or their roles, you could easily pick out each individual character based on their mannerisms and the delivery of their dialogue.

The casting job was nothing short of perfect. While there will always be only one James T. Kirk, and he is William Shatner, Pine fills the role well with the trademark Kirk sleazy look. The star of the show has to be Karl Urban, who plays Bones, the ship's senior medical officer. He is perfect for the role. He looks and sounds like a young DeForest Kelley. Quinto also does a credible job as Spock, which is perhaps the hardest character to play in the series.

The music and visuals are both a sight to hear and to witness. The Enterprise NCC-1701 has never looked more beautiful on the big screen. And while Michael Giacchino's score doesn't necessarily sound like something from older "Trek" movies, the final credits music is straight out of the original series down to the campy 60s overtures.

Perhaps the best way to sum up the quality of this movie is to compare it to the watermark of the franchise, "Wrath of Khan." While not necessarily as good as the franchise's second movie, "Star Trek" succeeds in everything possible. The visuals, the music and the acting are all top notch and worth of the legacy. This is a movie that "Star Trek" fans will grow to love with its inside jokes and shout-outs to the series. And it is a movie that will pull new people into the fanbase. Even if you've never liked a "Star Trek" before, check this one out.

For 20 years, "Watchmen" has been seen as the unfilmable graphic novel. With so many twists and turns, flashbacks and side-stories, how could a director ever fit it into a two-hour film without completely ruining it? Well "Watchmen" fans, Zach Snyder failed. He filmed the unfilmable graphic novel, but he didn't cram it into a two-hour film. Instead, the "visionary" director behind "300" crammed the majority of "Watchmen" into a 165-minute film. And what a fine job he did.

"Watchmen" takes place in 1985 when Richard Nixon is still the president of the United States, the Doomsday Clock is at five minutes to midnight and blue man with superhuman powers walks around completely nude. Obviously, Nixon still being president is the most absurd of these differences.

At the start of the film, Edward Blake, a.k.a. the Comedian, is violently murdered in his apartment. When I say violently, the 225-pound man is picked up like a sack of potatoes and slung all over his apartment like he was a pillow. After an intense fight, he's thrown out of his window and falls dozens of stories to his death.

This murder sparks an investigation by the sociopathic vigilante Rorschach which involves many fingers being broken, numerous people getting blown into bloody messes and a blue man with superhuman powers walking around completely nude.

On the surface, "Watchmen" not only sounds absurd, but it sounds like something that would only belong on the pages of a graphic novel. Had anyone else tried to adapt the graphic novel, I would have agreed. Alan Moore crafted a masterpiece of literature that no one will ever be able to touch. Names like Batman, Spider-Man, Superman and X-Men mean nothing in the face of "Watchmen."

But unlike those properties, which had succesful adaptations, "Watchmen" has struggled. Its complex nature always has hindered it from coming to the big screen. After watching "300" and already being a fan of Snyder from his remake of "Dawn of the Dead," I was willing to give the man a chance. After all, nothing could ever ruin my enjoyment of the source material.

Sitting alone in the Carmike theatrer, I felt nervous when the Warner Bros. logo flashed on screen in yellow and black. Everything had been against this film from Moore's refusal to support it, to multiple production misfires to 20th Century Fox trying to block its release. It almost seemed like fate itself had destined the film to the depths of Hollywood Hell to never be released. And here I was, sitting in the theater more than 12 hours before the official release, getting ready to see it for the first time.

When the final credits rolled and 70s rock filled the theater, I really didn't know what to expect. Perhaps it was the bloody violence, perhaps it was seeing Silk Spectre II naked, perhaps it was the blue guy walking around completely nude. I wasn't sure what I was supposed to think about it. But I eventually found myself trying not to clap out of embarrassment. I've never clapped at a film, but I had to restrain myself from doing so.

This is not only the best movie I have seen in months, if not years, but it is handedly the best graphic novel or comic book adaptation I have ever seen. Not only has the unfilmable graphic novel been filmed, but it has been done in such a way that it puts every other effort to shame.

Snyder's movie captures the despair, the depression, the utter lack of humanity that is present in the graphic novel. This story beats you with its dark themes, it mames you with its ultra violence and it kicks you when you're down with a complete absence of anything decent. Not one single person in the novel or in the movie are good. Everyone has their flaws and they're so exagerrated that it makes you pity them.

The "hero" of the story, Rorschach is a violent sociopath who's a complete right-wind nutjob. And you can't help but cheer for him when he kills child murderers and says "people get arrested, dogs get put down."
Nite Owl is the only decent human being in the whole story and even then, he's no saint. The man lusts after another man's girlfriend and then can't seem to consumate the relationship without wearing an owl suit. He stands in front of the suit naked and talks to himself.

Let's not even get started on Silk Spectre, Sally Jupiter, and her daughter Laurie. Sally gets raped by the Comedian, but still loves him and Laurie carries around so much emotional baggage that she loves a blue superhuman who walks around in the nude. This is like watching an episode of "Seinfeld" with superheroes.

The graphic novel and the movie revel in their grotesque nature. Snyder's interpretation not only welcomes the brutality, it embraces it. Arms are cut off, people are blown up faces are melted and every single scene is necessary. Snyder never threw in any sex, violence or gore that wasn't necessary or excessive.

The film's casting is definitely spot-on. Even with a cast of relative unknowns, the performances shine through. Jackie Earle Haley not only looks like Walter Kovacs from the graphic novel, but he sounds exactly like the voice I made in my head when reading the graphic novel for the first time. Christian Bale should take note, Haley's voice is how superhero voices should be done. His performance is haunting and disturbing. You can't tell where the actor stops and where the character begins. Haley is Rorschach.

There are two weak links in the production and for a 165-minute movie, that's not bad. The origin story of Dr. Manhattan, the blue superhuman who walks around in the nude, draws on and on until it gets to the point where I was about to fall asleep. For all intents and purposes, Manhattan is a god. He can split molecules, he can make multiple versions of himself, he can see the future and he can blow people into bloody messes. Snyder meant for his voice to sound distant and unhuman and it works. Manhattan sound so out of touch with everything in the film. But when he talks, it's so monotone and boring that nothing happening on screen seems exciting.

The other weak link is the acting of Malin Ackerman, who plays Laurie Jupiter. At times, she seems like she's reading her script off screen. Her acting is hollow and without feeling, which is made worse by the fact she's one of the cruxes of the entire story. She's carried by the rest of the cast, including Jeffrey Dean Morgan who plays the Comedian. But for such an important character, he looks carry more weight than her acting.

The film is loyal to its source material almost to a fault. Some aspects including the "Black Freighter" were removed to trim the film down to a suitable length and there is a distinct lack of calamari. The constant flashbacks are fairly easy to keep up with, but can be confusing if you're not familiar with the source material. One minute, Comedian is dead, the next minute he's alive and about to shoot a Vietnamese girl.

Even though there are slight changes, everything was done for the greater good of the film. It still keeps its dark message. This isn't your ordinary comic book film. It's a majestic exercise in brutality that not only manages to entertain, but makes you think. The good guys aren't always good and the bad guys aren't always bad. I have never seen so many shades of gray in such a colorful film. The darkness is alarming and even with today's problems, the world of "Watchmen" is without so much hope, that if you don't get anything else out of the film, you can feel better about the world you live in today.

It never fails. Every year, there's a lot of buildup around the announcement of the Oscar nominations and fanboys across the Internet get into a tizzy. Will this be the year that X genre finally makes it to the big time? And every year, the Academy shoots down the hopes of fanboys with a very conservative list of nominations. This year is no different.

Even before the first trailer hit the Interwebs, Nolanverse fanboys were proclaiming The Dark Knight would not only be the best comic book movie ever made, but it would be one of the best movies Hollywood ever put out. Unlike most people, I actually kept my expectations tempered and walked out of the theater undisappointed, but not as excited as a lot of people were.

Before the first weekened's box office numbers were released, Nolanverse fanboys were shouting "Oscars!" from the highest places they could find. I almost spit out my coffee one morning as an Internet poster said Christopher Nolan deserved the Best Director Oscar and Christian Bale and Heath Ledger deserved Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor Oscars respectively. Excuse me while I pause to stop laughing so hard.

There's one thing that needs to be said first: The Dark Knight wasn't a bad movie. It was a great movie and I wholeheartedly enjoyed it. I'll get called an idiot, among other things, but I honestly preferred Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If your blind hatred of that movie gives you pause, go ahead and stop reading right here. I'll go as far to say that Iron Man was a better comic book film. Robert Downey Jr.'s performance in Iron Man was better than any perforance in The Dark Knight, save for Ledger's performance as The Joker.

With that being said, if Ledger had not killed himself, there's no way he would be nominated for an Oscar. I'm sorry, but you can go ahead and put your Joker underwear back in the drawer. His performance was great, I will admit. I will say it was one of the best villain performances ever on film. But (prepare yourself) Jack Nicholson's Joker was better. Yes, I said it. There's all this talk about how Ledger disappears into the character and I just don't see it. Sure, he disappears due to a lot of makeup work, but that's just about it.

It's like saying Ron Pearlman disappears as Hellboy. The makeup covers the actor, but you can still see him. To be fair, I really don't think there was a great standout performance by an actor or actress this entire year. I would go ahead and say that this year is probably one of the worst years in recent memory for acting performances. The only performance I saw where an actor "disappeared" into his character was Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. He literally disappeared into the character through makeup and then the character itself. And guess what, he's also nominated for an Oscar. If I had to decide right now, Downey Jr. would win over Ledger.

I'll admit I have a bias against the Nolanverse movies. Aside from Liam Neeson in Batman Begins, I didn't think there was anything really astounding about the movie. I think after Batman and Robin, we would take almost anything as a replacement. Batman Begins was a solid movie, but nothing more. The Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins in just about every way, but it still wasn't the best movie of the year.

There's something about the Nolanverse movies that just never clicked with me. Perhaps it's the way they try to take themselves so seriously, but I don't particularly care for Nolan's vision. I think 300 was a better graphic novel movie. I enjoyed Superman Returns more than Batman Begins and it pains me to think Warner Bros. wants to turn the Superman franchise into a Nolanverse-redux.

But even with bias, I laugh at the Nolanverse fanboys yelling that The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for an Oscar. I remember before the movie came out how some said it was as good as The Godfather or Goodfellas. Well, I'll give them the latter considering Goodfellas was a horrible movie as well. But there's no way I can say with a straight face that The Dark Knight is as good as The Godfather.

Look at the nominated movies for Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which features a great, almost career-defining, performance by Brad Pitt with a wonderful story and direction to boot; Frost/Nixon, good and solid directing by Ron Howard that doesn't rewrite the book, but also featuring a career-defining performance by Michael Sheen who was best known for Underworld; Milk, you have me with this one, Sean Penn has been playing Sean Penn in numerous roles for years now and don't make me bring up the quote from Tropic Thunder, though Josh Brolin was great; The Reader, I haven't seen yet and Slumdog Millionaire, which is this year's Crash, a decent film that's nominated as a race card.

Two out of the five nominated films are worthy of the Oscar. The Academy forgets Changeling, Gran Torino and The Wrestler. All had strong performances by their leads, all featured excellent directing chops and were mesmerrising. They also have one thing in common: they were all better than The Dark Knight.

I'm sure people will shout for the next month about how the Academy has a bias against popular films. But that argument really doesn't hold any water considering Return of the King was not only nominated for the second highest amount of Oscars in history, but was the first movie to win every award it was nominated for. The Departed won in 2007 and was Scorsese's most succesful picture to-date. Gladiator, Titanic, Braveheart, etc. The list goes on of popuar, box office-leading films that were nominated and won.

The only argument I could say fanboys would have is the Academy has something against comic book films. I would agree to one extent, and that's that no comic book film has ever really been a Best Picture contender outside of Richard Donner's Superman, which is still what all comic book films should aspire to.

In the end, it won't matter. Fanboys will still clutch to The Dark Knight like they did Spider-Man before it. In another five years, a new comic book movie will come out and set the temp for fanboys. I would love to say it will be this year's Watchmen release. But I'm sure fanboys will attack it for messing up the most minute detail in the graphic novel. It's jut depressing how some people get so overhyped and upset by the opinions of the Academy. I know I've had my disputes with what they say and I'm sure this year will be no different, but the reactions of some rabid fanboys on the Internet is downright insulting.

When you watch a movie titled "The Day the Earth Stood Still," you would naturally expect the Earth to stand still at some point during the film. After all, the Earth came to a complete stop in the original 1953 classic when Klaatu halted the rotation of the planet. In fact, the title and the names of Klaatu and GORT are the only things the 2008 remake has in common with the cult classic.

In the original film, Klaatu was sent to Earth with GORT, his robot protector, to warn humanity about the dangers of the nuclear arms race. At the time the movie was released, the planet was gripped in panic during the height of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. The original was an interesting political commentary with a sound message.

Flash forward 50 years and the nuclear arms race is over and the planet is at peace, for the most part. But instead of being on the brink of destroying each other, humanity is on the brink of destroying the environment. A much more cynical Klaatu comes to Earth in a dazzling entrance to warn political leaders. Instead, he's met with hostility and is taken into custody by the federal government.

The rest of the movie turns into a chase film where Dr. Helen Benson, played by the beautiful Jennifer Connelly, escorts the enigmatic alien as he prepares for an event called "the process." A sub-plot is established between Benson and her step-son, Jacob, who lost his father in Iraq and has a hatred of the alien.

The movie is a predictable by-the-books experience that attempts to make up for its shortcomings with fancy special effects. GORT doesn't resemble a deadly menacing robot at all. Instead, he looks like some kind of silver blob that a kid made with playdough. Instead of asserting himself with any force, he disolves into a swarm of metal bugs and destroys the New York Giants football stadium.

Whereas the original movie had a purpose and conveyed a message that could affect all of humanity, its remake serves as nothing more than a vehicle for Al Gore propaganda and could be mistaken for a sequel to M. Night Shyamalan's "The Happening," where it not for the giant robot. Why does the environment need protecting when it can force people to kill themselves and have alien protectors?

Surprisingly, Keanu Reeves was the hilight of the film. He still plays the same Neo character that he's used on-screen for nearly 10 years. The man is a one-trick pony with the dark, brooding and mysterious personality. But it serves him well as Klaatu. Jacob, played by Jaden Smith, should have never been written into the movie to begin with. Sure, he's the cliche catalyst that helps Klaatu see the good side of humanity, but he's brash, annoying and a detrement to the film. If I want to see little kids be brats, I can go to Wal-Mart. At least then, I don't have to pay to listen to them scream and yell.

The film might be a decent spectacle to show off a new home theater set-up when it's released on home video next year, but it's a waste of money at the theaters. Even the special effects, which can make a bad movie at least look good, are disappointing and amteurish. I guess we have reached the point where having computer-generated helicopters taking off is easier to using an actual helicopter. Just like last year's "I Am Legend," "The Day the Earth Stood Still" relies too much on its sub-part special effects to dazzle and distract viewers from the film's problems.

When I was growing up, I used to hear my grandfather talk about how things were much better when he was a kid. I would always laugh because it seems that everyone says that. Call it nostalgia, rose-colored glasses or what you will, but there's always been that feeling that life when you were a kid was better than what kids have now.

I guess you could say I've fallen into that pitfall. I was reading online earlier this week that Fox has canceled the last of its Saturday morning cartoon block. It seems that ther ewas never anything that really encompassed what it meant to be a kid more than Saturday morning cartoons. I have fond memories of waking up around 5 a.m. to watch those cartoons. My morning would start out with an hour of G.I. Joe followed by an hour of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles leading up to Jungle Kids, All Dogs Go to Heaven the Series, Dragon Flyz, The Mighty Ducks, another hour of TMNT and other great shows like The Amazing Spider-Man and X-Men the Series. Where did all of this go?

I don't know if I was too old or just didn't care about the live-action shows like Power Rangers in its infinite forms or Super Samurai Cyber Squad or VR Troopers. It seemed they started getting big as I started growing out of watching kids shows. I got to the point where I valued sleep over the occassional entertainment on Saturday morning. But afterall, I could always watch two hours of cartoons after I got off the bus from school. Beast Wars was the greatest thing to happen after a day of school. That's not even counting Gargoyles, Aladdin, etc. that I would watch every chance I could.

So I was sad when I heard that Saturday morning cartoons had finally died. There's just something that's not human about this. What happened to the greatness of cartoons? Instead, it's been replaced by live-action kids show tripe like Hannah Montanna, That's So Raven and god knows what else Disney puts out. What happened to Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Goof Troop? I must be really out of touch when I saw these three nerds singing at the football game on Thanksgiving. When I was in school, they would be picked on every day, not singing to millions of people.

The one thing that really baffled me was this petition by 1,500 people to toymakers to stop advertising toys this holiday season. Why? I honestly cannot comprehend this. They say it's because they can't afford the toys and they don't want to tell their kids they can't buy them. Well guess what, I wasn't rich when I was a kid. There were a lot of things I wanted that I saw on television and couldn't get because we didn't have the money. Disappointment is a part of growing up. And so is seeing everything advertised on television.

I'm sure if I said this to some kid on the street, he'd call me an old fogey or something like that. But honestly, it's not like I grew up in another century. Well, that's actually true, but it was only the 90s. Those were the best days to be kids. We had video games, we had Saturday morning cartoons and good toys. That was before the influx of Japanime crap. Now, kids only know Disney rejects and Japanese crap.

You know what they say about not actually appreciating something until you've lost it? I think the same can be said for people. As much as we take our friends and family for granted and expect to wake up the next morning and know they're fine, it's not always a safe assumption.

I got a call last Monday night from my editorand he said that one of our photographers, Randy, had died committed suicide. It didn't hit me hard that night. I was shocked and upset, but nothing serious. Actually, that's not the right way to say it. It was serious, but I don't think that it had truly hit me the way it did a lot of people.

I'm not an emotional guy when it comes to things like that. One of my buddy's best friends killed himself about five years ago. Before that, two friends I had in school were killed seperately. My entire family is dead from some cause or another. So I'm not shocked by death as much as some people.

Going to work the next day, things were extremely awkward to say the least. No one really knew what to say or how to approach the subject. So we all kind of talked around the issue. For a bunch of people who's job involved communication, we were doing the opposite. Our newspaper staff is so tight that we're almost like a family. When something as tragic and shocking as this happens, it's hard to adjust and cope with it.

I almost felt like the callice one of the whole bunch. I had known Randy for close to five years. He helped me get the job I have and really went to bat for me numerous times. And I was walking around fairly stoic about the whole situation. I didn't talk much about what I felt because I really didn't feel anything.

I walked back to the photo lab the day after everyone found out and everything was sitting at his desk like it was normal. I could almost picture him sitting there looking on the Internet for something to do in between assignments. Nothing had been touched. It was kind of serene actually.

But what do you do in a situation like that? It's just so damn awkward for everyone involved that you don't know what to say. "It'll be okay." "We'll move past this." "He was a good man." All of these things can be said, but what do they mean? It's like we're going through the motions. We all knew what kind of a guy he was. At times, he was a pain to work with and you felt like punching him in the face. And other times, you would do anything he asked. There was no one like him up there.

About a day after I found out was when it really began to hit me. I finally began to realize that I would go upstairs every morning, expecting his laughter and his jokes, and he wouldn't be there. And the business can't stop. News doesn't stop for no person, so we had to move on. So we were all talking about how to divide up his assignments. And that's when it finally sunk in that he was gone.

Since then, I haven't slept at night very well. And it's not one thing in particular. But there's just that feeling hanging over my head. And to tell you the truth, I've never had this problem before. I've dealt with death before. But it's never been like this.

But I know Randy would not want any of us sitting around feeling sorry for ourselves or for him. He'd want us out therer doing what we do best. And in a way, writing this is kind of my measure of peace. It's been more than a week since everything happened. It is time to move on. But there was something I had to do before I could. I'm not one to talk about my feelings in a situation like that. But talking about it on here will hopefully let me move on.

Thanks Randy for the great times and the wonderful advice.

If the truth really is out there, it's a cold feeling for "X-Files" fans.

The truth is the franchise died six years ago when the final episode aired in 2002. Don't be fooled by the latest offering, "The X-Files: I Want to Believe," it's only a shell of its former self.

I wanted to believe in Chris Carter, the film's director and series creator. I wanted to believe the movie would return the franchise to its former glory and pave the way for a final resolution to the alien invasion mythos. Instead, it's nothing more than a mystery-of-the-week story that feels like an extended episode. Only, instead of having the suspense, the terror and the appeal of the original series, "I Want to Believe" drags on to an anti-climatic ending with little resolution and ham-fisted story telling.

The movie's story picks up six years after the final episode of the series. Former special agent Dana Scully is working as a doctor in a Catholic hospital while her ex-partner, Fox Mulder, has gone into hiding. The FBI is investigating the disappearance of an agent with the help of a former Catholic priest, Father Joe, a convicted pedophile who claims a psychic connection to the missing victim.

Skepticism of Father Joe leads the FBI to seek out Mulder for his beliefs in the paranormal. Mulder's continued guilt over the loss of his sister compels him to join the hunt for the missing agent, even with Scully's protests.

The duo's relationship is strained even more by a young patient Scully is treating. The patient has a rare brain disease that's untreatable by conventional methods. The only option is a series of painful operations with stem cells, which the hospital balks at. Scully refuses to stop believing she can save the child while Mulder refuses to stop believing he can find the missing agent and vindicate Father Joe.

In a sense, the entire movie is a reflection of the title: "I Want to Believe." Both Mulder and Scully want to believe the course of action they are taking is the correct one, despite all opposition. And while it would make a compelling theme for a single hour-long episode, the viewer is hit over the head again and again.

"I Want to Believe" has a few problems, but there's nothing too detrimental to the experience. However, it's greatest strength is its greatest weakness. Many people, including myself, have great expectations of quality for the "X-Files" franchise when it pairs David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson with Carter. Six years after a cliffhanger ending to one of the greatest shows to ever grace television, I expected more from an "X-Files" movie than a 105-minute soul search with commentary on faith in general, which is what "I Want to Believe" supplies.

The acting and direction are both solid and the dialogue is the same quality one could expect from "The X-Files." But the mystery, the suspense and especially the supernatural are all missing. If you replaced Mulder and Scully with different characters, no one could ever tell the movie was intended to be an "X-Files" film. It lacks any of the feeling of the series. Instead, it feels like a fan-fiction piece thrown together at the last minute to satisfy those of us who have clamoring for a sequel. It's a by-the-book noir mystery without the noir or misdirection. Even the famous music theme from the television show has been replaced with an upbeat remix.

Carter wanted to make a movie that was seperate from the mythos so newcomers wouldn't get confused. In fact, the movie has no connection with the series at all with the exception of Mulder and Scully and the cameo appearance of an old character from the show. There is one thing Carter succeeded at doing: he made a movie so bland that only "X-Files" fans would like because of the title and the characters, while somehow alienating many fans of the show who were wanting something with more substance.

Was able to snag tickets to the press screening last night. After an hour-and-a-half of sitting and waiting, the curtains were pulled back. And when the LucasArts emblem came up on the screen, I knew I was in for something special.

It's been nearly 20 years in the making, but the man in the fedora is back.

An aged Harrison Ford returns to the role that made him a Hollywood icon in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." This time, instead of hunting for ancient religious artifacts and fighting Nazis, Indy faces a new enemy, a red enemy.

The world has progressed 19 years since Indiana drank from the Holy Grail. World War II has come and gone and the country is in the grips of the Red Scare. Much like the Nazis of old, the Russians are looking for a supernatural source of power to help them rule the world. The plot of the "Indiana Jones" movies have never veered too far from the 1930s pulp storylines they were originally based on.

The artifact, an in-human-shaped crystal skull, isn't as interesting as the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail, but it still provides enough mystery to keep the movie progressing at a steady pace.

Shia LaBeouf enters this picture as Mutt Williams, a greaser who's searching for Indy to rescue his mother from the Russians. This is LaBeouf's strongest performance yet in his career and proves that he can act in a character beyond the stereotypical teenager that he's played in movies like "Transformers" and "Disturbia." The chemistry between LaBeouf and Ford on screen is similar to the interaction between Ford and Sean Connery in "The Last Crusade."

The globe-trotting action is still some of the best in Hollywood. And even in his twilight years, Indy can throw a mean punch. Perhaps the best thing about the movie is how he still handles himself, like on his previous adventures, but still shows his age. He feels more human than in the previous films, even when flying through the desert in a led-plated refrigerator.

Most of the humor comes from Indy's age and his previous experiences during the war. At some parts of the movie, it feels a little too heavy-handed and too tongue-in-cheek. Mutt constantly pokes fun at Indy's age, often calling him "grandpa" and "old man." And Indy answers back, still trying to prove to himself that he hasn't gone over the hill yet.

But in fact, "Indiana Jones" has gone over the hill. "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" just lacked that little charm that the previous three movies had, perhaps, because it's been nearly 20 years since we've seen an "Indiana Jones" film on the big screen. It was great to see Ford don the fedora and the whip one last time. But he should hang them up and look back on the legacy that changed the adventure genre forever. There's nothing more to prove and no more adventures to go on without feeling forced and appearing to milk the franchise.

Even so, the movie is excellent due to the breath-taking action scenes and the great performances from the entire cast, including a returning Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood. The cinematography is beautiful and it looks just like an "Indiana Jones" film, even with the technical advances in modern film. Spielberg was able to capture the feel of the previous films and make one last great send-off for the famous archaeologist.

I decided against better judgment and went to see Iron Man with some friends of mine on opening night. It was probably the first time I had ever seen a theater so packed. There was literally no seat available in the entire room, and that's saying a lot considering its size. People were elbow-to-elbow, crammed in like school kids on a bus. Everyone was chattering back and forth, talking about their days and what their plans were for the weekend.

Like normal, there was a slideshow of trivia and other random blurbs on the screen with horrible "Movie Tunes" playing in the background that absolutely no one cared about or even bothered to listen to. Everything seemed like it was normal for an opening-night movie of such high anticipation.

The movie was scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Of course, by today's standards, that's when the commercials, before the movie trailers before the actual movie, begin. Around 6:45 p.m., the slideshow stopped and Chips Ahoy commercials started playing. There were three of those back-to-back, a couple insurance commercials and a couple coke commercials. I thought my watch was wrong and the movie had started early, but I was wrong.

The commercials lasted until 7:05 p.m. and that's when the normal commercials started playing. You know, the National Guard and Marines and the Coke fan movie. So around 7:20 p.m., the movie trailers started playing. There were only four trailers showed before the movie began at 7:35 p.m. So we have about 10 minutes of movie trailers and more than 30 minutes of commercials.

I leaned over and looked at my friend, Chris, who was sitting two seats down and at the same time, we both said it was like watching a movie at home. It was rather ammusing, but somewhat pitiful. We didn't mind it too much at first because we were still hyped about seeing Iron Man, so as long as we got to see the movie, the commercials didn't bother us.

But, after leaving the theater, I noticed ticket prices had jumped a dollar since I last went to the movie. The last movie I saw at the theater was Doomsday, and that was back in March. So in two months, ticket prices have jumped a dollar, popcorn prices had jumped 50 cents and it cost me four dollars to get a Dr. Pepper from the concession stand.

I get my tickets free to the theater, so the prices don't bother me as far as my wallet goes. But the principal of the whole situation is appalling. Tickets were $10 for adults and $8 for children and seniors. I know, compared to some places, that's not a whole loto of money compared to other theaters. But it's still pretty expensive. If a family of four with two parents and two children, goes to a movie, they're looking at $36 to get into the door. Drinks for everyone would run $16 Get popcorn and you're looking at another $7. So, you might as well say you're paying $60 for a family of four to go to the movies.

I remember seeing Jurassic Park at midnight and Dad only paid $2 for him and I to get in and $5 for a large popcorn and two large drinks. My how things have changed over the past 15 years. And the worst thing is, we didn't have commercials in front of our movies. We had the coming attractions, but that was it.

Someone explain to me why people are paying MORE money than ever before and are still having to sit through commercials like they were watching a movie on TNT at home. I understand the movie studios get the majority of the cut and the theaters themselves have to charge outrageous prices for their refreshments to break-even and profit, but there's still no excuse for the insane amount of commercials in front of movies.

When I can buy Cloverfield for $15 and watch it as many times as I want on a 52in HDTV with digital surround sound that rivals anything in the theater, why should I bother going to see it at the theater? I've watched Cloverfield three times since I picked it up on DVD and I enjoy it every time.

With home theater systems becoming so affordable and home video prices staying fairly low, it's no wonder people aren't going to the movies as much as they used to. The ultimate reason people used to go to the movies was because it was cheap. Now, it's more expensive than eating a fine meal at a restaurant. A family of four can take that money and buy an Xbox 360/Playstation 3 game with it if they wanted or buy at least three DVDs.

And now, we have television commercials pushed on us. There's no point in going to the theater anymore it seems unless you want the "theatrical experience."