On a semi lighter note. I have finished drafting my speech. Here it is:

            Two young teenagers dressed in black trench coats walked into their high school cafeteria. It was just like any normal day. Kids were going to and fro with their different high school cliques and friends. Life was good for most of them. But in one shattering second, their entire world came crashing down.

 

            The two teenagers opened their trench coats ala The Matrix and pulled out handguns, rifles and grenades. When the massacre was done, 12 students were killed, 2 teachers were killed and 24 people were wounded. The two gunmen, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, were also dead. The halls of an innocent school were forever stained with the blood of innocent victims.

           

            After an extensive investigation, the source of the problems with Klebold and Harris came from the video game “Doom.” But the real source of problems for the video game industry did not come until 2003 when carjacker Devin Moore killed a police officer and two other people. He later confessed to authorities that he played Grand Theft Auto and said, “Life is like a video game; everybody has to die sometime.”

           

            Enter Jack Thompson, a Florida attorney with an intense hatred of video games. In 1990, he wrote to 2 Live Crew, a rap band, and told them to investigate whether their lyrics promoted obscenity and violence. Jack Thompson is a man who speaks about something he knows nothing about. Of course, the same can be said for most of our politicians.

           

            Thompson’s activism has recently incited a new debate in video games and whether they should be regulated by the government. Thompson said on 20/20 on March 23, 2000 that, “In every school shooting, we find that kids who pull the trigger are video gamers.”

           

            Could it be that video games are popular and people play them because they are fun? In 2004, video game sales topped $10 billion. That is for consoles, games and accessories. The average cost of a console at the time was $149 and games were priced at $49. That is a lot of consoles and games sold. So is it not hard to presume that if you look hard enough, you’ll see that murderers played video games?

 

            Grand Theft Auto III came out on October 28, 2001. It was perceived to be the start of the violent video game “revolution.” Since then, just about every violent teenage crime has been related to video games in some form or another. Then tell me this. In 2001, there were 1,439,480 violent crimes committed in the U.S. In 2002, a year after GTA III came out, violent crimes were down .9 percent. This is according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 

            If you look at the statistics, crime had been slowly dropping since 1998. But if you listen to Jack Thompson, violent crimes are going up simply because of video games. From 1998 to 2002, violent crimes dropped 12 percent in the United States. Some of the most “violent” video games came out in that time period including Half-Life, Halo: Combat Evolved and Grand Theft Auto III. So if Jack Thompson is speaking the truth, why are we not seeing a rise in violence?

 

            The point to this is the government is trying to push legislation through that would ban the sale of certain video games to minors. This law would set up guidelines, made by the politicians, that would define if a video game is too “mature” for a minor to have. And then, a minor could not buy the game.

 

            New York Senator Hillary Clinton with Senator Joe Lieberman introduced the legislation last fall. Now first of all, I don’t see why Hillary Clinton should be giving lectures on morals or ethics considering her husband was one of the most immoral presidents in recent memory.

           

            But Clinton and Lieberman contend that retailers should be held responsible for their actions. So if a car dealership sells a Ford Explorer to a mild manored husband. He goes home and runs over his cheating wife. Do we put class action lawsuits against Ford because their product was used to kill somebody? If K-Mart sells a baseball bat to a little leaguer and he takes it and beats one of his teammates to death, do we put class action lawsuits against K-Mart? If a teenager watches the movie Scream and then kills his girlfriend, do we sue Wes Craven and Dimension films? Where do we draw the line? Where do we stop and say, “we are responsible for our actions.”

           

            Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think young kids should own violent video games. But do they imprint people like Thompson says they do? Speaking from personal testimony, no. Some of my greatest childhood memories were of spending hours upon hours standing in the arcade rooms playing some of the greatest classic games in history.

 

            There was nothing like playing a good game of Mortal Kombat 2 with a group of people gathered around watching. Was I the best at the game? No, I wasn’t really that good at all. But when you played the game, it was all in the name of fun. Sure, there was blood, there was violence. There was the occasional spine ripping out. But it was all in good fun. And isn’t that what video games were originally made for? While some may disagree with me, I am not a violent person. I never went out and bought any gun and gunned down people. But I was playing Mortal Kombat and Doom when they were the most popular games around. And I was a young guy back then.

 

            There is one reason why I was never imprinted with this “violent” behavior that Jack Thompson talks about. That reason was my grandfather. He would talk to me about the games and explain to me that they weren’t real and that they were made by another person.

           

            That is the key to video games being “safe” for all kids. The parents need to get involved with their children. The parents need to give up their $50,000 BMW cars and quit working 10 hours a day so they can be with their kids. The parents need to quit handing children their money like it was candy and telling them to buy whatever game they want to. The parents need to be parents for the first time in their lives. If you don’t want kids or are not prepared for them, then don’t have kids.

 

            I get sick to my stomach every time I turn on the news or go to a gaming website and see the endless parental complaints against the video game industry. You know why I get mad? Because parents buy these games for their kids like virtual babysitters and they sit them in front of a television and they leave them. And then, when there are dire consequences or something bad happens to the kid, the video games are to blame.

           

            And let me come up front and say this. It is not the video games that are causing these children to do bad things. It is the lack of parental guidance. When a kid’s mother is Lara Croft and when a kid’s dad is Mario, there is something wrong. If parents would get involved more with their kids, then there would not be a reason for video game legislation.

 

            Secondly, the Entertainment Safety Ratings Board or ESRB was created in the early 90s because of Mortal Kombat and Doom. Just like the Motion Picture Association of America, they regulate and rate their games based on a scale. There is E for everyone, T for Teen, M for Mature and AO for Adults Only. These ratings don’t mean anything if parents don’t pay attention to them. Parents need to be informed and educated on what these ratings mean. When they understand these ratings, then there will be change.

 

            Third of all, games should not be sold to minors, plain and simple. If you’re a minor, you’re not allowed into an R rated film. Video games last longer and are interactive, so why should you be allowed to buy a game like that? But these regulations should not be sent down by the government. They need to be self imposed.

 

            Video games are wonderful and entertaining things. They are distractions from life and other problems that face people. But that distraction might be coming to an end. When parents decide to give their children more time, games will not be as influential on America’s youth. When video games aren’t influential on America’s youth, the government will move its attention to more important things. And when the government moves its attention to more important things, perhaps the national debt and Iraqi war can be solved.

 

            The government needs its priorities. The government needs to focus on things other than the problems of parents. The government needs to solve the problems that affect all Americans, not just parents. Parents need to learn how to solve their own problems and stop relying on the government to do it for them.

I've always been somebody who says blood is thicker than water and family is the most important thing in a person's life. I've always said that you put family before anything else including your love for somebody else.

I guess I was livng in a naive world or some state of mind that I chose to ignore for all these years. For my entire life, I have taken care of my grandfather. He was the only one who would take me when my mother died and he has been there like a father every time I have needed him.

Except when I was a kid, I never would play catch with him. I never would go bike riding with him. I never would do things that normal kids did. Instead, sometimes we'd go to the movie. Or sometimes we might go to the mall for an afternoon and hang out. We would go to the old arcade rooms and spend some time just having good old fun.

You ever have those times when you're depressed and you look back at your childhood and you remember when times were better? Well, it gets worse as your life goes on. For the past 10 years, I have sacrificed everything that I have for my grandfather. Things including a very serious girlfriend, more friends than I can count, a job, an entire personal life, and even a childhood.

I'm one of those who says that you stick by your family to the end. But now, I'm looking back and reflecting on that and wondering about it.

I first had a job working at a small newspaper in the circulation department and writing stories on the side. At the time, I was a writer on the college paper and also holding down a job at Blockbuster Video. I was bringing in a pretty good amount of money. And then I wasn't there enough to get my grandfather his drinks, get him his food, do the things that he should normally do himself. So I had to drop the job at Blockbuster which was no problem considering I hated it. And then I had to drop my job at the paper.

Things were good...for a while. I got promoted to News Editor at the college paper. That meant logging 10-12 hours a day there on top of my classes. And then I wasn't home enough again. On my spare time, I would sometimes go see a movie. Not that it mattered moneywise, I got in free. But my grandfather got mad about that. And I had to drop my job at the paper. That was some very vital experience lost including a guaranteed position as managing editor. That would catapulted me into a high paying job when I graduated.

I weighed my priorities. And I chose my family over my future. I figured that hell, I have skills, I can still get that dream job. Well, I was right. I land a job as a writer, a movie reviewer. Then I get promoted and offered a job as Arts and Entertainment Editor. Hell, I was living my dream. I didn't want to be managing editor. That's all politics these days. I was where I was at. I'm still there. But now, I have come to another cross roads.

My grandfather is sick, probably dying. He's 71 years old and is just not the same person he used to be. But the thing that makes me second guess myself is his resolve. He told me today, in a fit of rage, that I never have done enough for him. He also said that he expected more out of me and how when he was my age, he was doing great things with his life.

So tonight, I'm thinking to myself, and I have no idea why I'm writing this on here. If a person doesn't care enough for all of the things that somebody has done for them, are they really worth helping? It makes me wonder if family is really as ironclad as it seems. I know he said it when he was mad but those things ghad to come from somewhere. They say that when you're mad, you will never be more honest, because that's when you're not hiding anything and you're not holding anything back. Really makes a person wonder.

            Totalitarism has always been a frightening but very interesting concept. Many science-fiction authors have used the idea for governments of the future and how democracy would give way to a stricter government. Alan Moore took that one step further and created an entire graphic novel around it called “V for Vendetta.”

            Centered on a “terrorist” known only as V, the novel pursues his quest to get revenge against the iron willed government for the wrongs done against him and the populace. He uses extreme and violent tactics to try to liberate the people and overthrow the oppression.

            Unlike most science-fiction works that touch on totalitarism, “Vendetta” makes the reader wonder if V’s actions are even in the best interest of the people or if he is merely acting on his undying thirst for revenge.

            The year is 2020 and a virus has nearly wiped out the human population. America has been devastated and all but eliminated. In Britain, a man rises with the promise of security at the expense of freedom. John Hurt, who also starred in another totalitarism film “1984,” plays Sutler, the dictator. There are striking similarities between Hurt’s Sutler and Adolph Hitler.

            Hugo Weaving, the unmistakable Mr. Smith from “The Matrix” trilogy, plays V. But you never actually see his face. Instead, Weaving uses his brooding voice and body language to deliver the character and express his hatred for the government. The mask that V wears does get a little strange looking throughout the movie. You hear him talk, you see him movie, but you never see his lips move. It plays tricks on the mind at times.

            “V for Vendetta” is written and produced by the Wachowski brothers who went from high-to-low with their “Matrix” movies. Luckily, “Vendetta” plays more like the story driven “The Matrix” and less like the special-effects laden sequels. But don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of big budget explosions and special effects to satisfy the action junkie. But if you are looking for an action vehicle to hold you over until the summer movie season begins, “V for Vendetta” is not for you.

            First and foremost, this is a political film. There are even connotations that remind a person of present day events. “V for Vendetta” is not an anti-American or anti-Bush film, but it does show what happens when governmental power goes unchecked in the name of security.

            I actually wondered how good a movie could be when it combines the Wachowski, the orchestrators of the biggest letdown in movie history with the “Matrix” sequels, and Natalie Portman (“Star Wars” prequels). But Portman brought her “Closer” acting skills for “Vendetta.” While her character still had moments that remind you of “Anakin, you’re breaking my heart,” from “Revenge of the Sith,” she pulls off the role as Evey, the nosey reporter pretty decently.

            The relationship between V and Evey can be best paralleled with “The Phantom of the Opera.” In fact, that parallel adds more of a dramatic touch to the movie and pulls it away from the usual “big explosions equal big dollars” popcorn movies.

            Alan Moore originally removed his name denounced any involvement with production. He must have been avidly anticipating the “Matrix” sequels as the rest of us. But he also had his name removed from two previous adaptations of his works: “From Hell” and “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” But Moore has since publicly supported “V for Vendetta.”

            In a time when Hollywood is filled with sequels, remakes and comic book adaptations, “V for Vendetta” walks a tight line between all of them. It borrows a little inspiration from George Orwell’s “1984” and is another comic book adaptation, but it is different from the rest.

            “V for Vendetta” places itself in the same breath as “Sin City” as one of those unforgiving comic book adaptations that has not been watered down for Hollywood. It still has plenty of big budget escapades, but it grounds them and counters with a very healthy dose of compelling story and entertaining drama.

            Somebody described this movie to me as a “thinking man’s action film.” And that is actually right. If you like political thrillers like “1984” and “The Manchurian Candidate,” definitely check out “V for Vendetta.” If you are looking for a quick fix for your action cravings, wait for DVD.

Last week I was asked to give a speech on censorship for a group of journalists in the area. I've been doing some research on the topic as of late and have found myself disgusted with it.

I'm a proud American, always have been. I've supported George Bush and the war in Iraq as wwell as many of his more controversial acts including the Patriot Act. I stood by the President when the illegal wiretapping news broke. But there is a point when there is too much.

America has always been a country based around our freedoms. From our formation in the 18th Century, America has always held the belief that freedom comes before anything. Sometimes we take our freedoms for granted. Other times, those freedoms are taken for the greater good. But since 2001, those freedoms have been taken away for no reason whatsoever.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a red blooded male who wants to look at porn whenever he damn well pleases. Kid stuff should not be allowed, I'll agree there. But recently, there was talk of legislation that would ban porn on the Internet. They say because it is "obscene."

Obscenity rules have always been determined by local governments. Seeing a stripper at a bar might be downright illegal in a church going small town. But go to New York City and it's a normal fact of life. Ever since President Bush took office, he has seen it as his right...his will...to mandate his religious views and oppress them on the public. We no longer live in a country where there is seperation of church and state. It's a schism we live in now.

We say there is seperation and our practices do just the opposite. America has always been a christian leaning state. Afterall, it was the puritans who helped found some of the first colonies and settlements in America. But there are plenty of other people who aren't religious and live here. Or they follow different religions other than Christianity.

But this isn't a religious debate I'm speaking of. When a network is fined $550,000 because...GASP!...a nipple is shown...there's something wrong. I mean, good god...are you going to honestly tell me George Bush has never seen a tit? The guy has two daughters...unless he went envitro, he must have seen them. But isn't he solely against envitrofertilization as well?

Now I know the President doesn't run the FCC, but his will is exercised in their practices. Word broke recently that CBS was also being fined because there was an Orgy scene in an old episode of one of their shows back in 2004. Orgies have been normal practices since the days of the Romans. And it can be argued that for their time period, they were a hell of a lot more advanced than we are today. They embraced the sexuality of the human body. After all, sex is our only means of survival.

You know there is something wrong when a network will not run Saving Private Ryan because they are afraid the FCC might fine them. Saving Private Ryan is a patrioc movie that shows the true horror of WWII. Are our children supposed to grow up and believe that we marched from Normandy to Berlin and didn't lose anybody? We tell our kids that war is bad, but they never understand why. Okay, so somebody dies. That's a fact of life. People die all the time. But it's how they died that is wrong. And that kind of aspect can not be taught out of a textbook.

Are adults not "mature" enough anymore to see violence and sex? It's a naked body on television...OH MY GOD! CALL THE COPS, THERE'S A NAKED PERSON ON TV! OH WAIT...SHE'S JUST SHOWING HER BELLY BUTTON! CALL THE COPS ANYWAY! You look down at your stomach, you got one too. You have two arms, two legs, two eyes, a mouth, a nose, hopefully something between your legs in some form or another. Are you ashamed of it? Why should you be? It's apart of you. That's like covering your entire body because you don't like the color of your skin.

During the Super Bowl XXXIX half time show, Paul McCartney sang about "California Grass" and there were phone calls into the networks complaining about it. Okay, now most of us know that is a codename for weed. OH MY GOD! I MENTIONED A DRUG, THE MEN IN BLACK WILL COME TO KILL ME! Get real people. Drugs are a fact of life. The Chinese smoked Poppy for hundreds of years.There are lots of ancient Native American hallucinagens and drugs that they used.

And then you look at video games. The government...the government stepped in and caused an uproar because there was a hacker made mod that could unlock naked pixilated girls on Grand Theft Auto. Whoopy Doo! The game is rated Mature...17+. Parents complained their young children could see naked people. Seriously, what is wrong with this picture? You are fine with your 12 year old kid taking a golf club and beating a police officer until he's dead and then taking an UZI and gunning down a handful of people. But...BUT!...you'll go to arms because you see a naked woman. GTA has some of the worst graphics in video gaming today...you can't hardly tell crap whether she's naked or not. Now if it was Final Fantasy: Spirits Within quality, I can see noticing it.

If parents would actually do their duty and not buy their kids these games, the government wouldn't have a reason to step in and impose its will. Hillary Clinton and Joe Liebermen introduced legislation to help crackdown on the sale of M rated games. Like Hillary should even be talking about sexual condut with her husband. The man got blow jobs while in the Presidency and she never says a word. There's a pixilated chick on a video game and she wants to go to war over it.

Why doesn't the government actually worry about the more important aspects of our lives. We got people on the streets starving with no food, money, clothing or anything of the sorts. We have men and women dying in Iraq. Our budget is completely out of control. BUT!...THERE WAS A SLIGHT SIGHT OF A THONG ON CBS...LET'S FINE THEM AND START A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO WHO MADE THE THONG AND LET'S SUE THEM!

Here's an idea: quit voting yourselves pay raises each year. You guys don't do enough to deserve the money you get now. I work my ass off five days a week doing a hell of a lot more than you do, and I'm lucky if I get $30,000 a year. Quit worrying about the decency issues with television.  The government is here to impose the people's will. OUR will. Not the fat cat's will. Isn't that why we rebelled against the British? Because they wanted to impose their will on us? We trade one tyranny for another and cloak it in a flag of red, white and blue. And start worrying about the more important things. Like what are we going to do about Iran and North Korea possibly making nuclear weapons? How are we going to stop a civil war from errupting in Iraq? How are we going to find Osama Bin Laden?

Until then, at least try to act like you're working. Because you're not fooling anybody.

2005 was arguably one of the worst years Hollywood has seen in years. It took a horrible superhero movie to pull it out of a slump that had lasted for months. So it was no surprise when the Oscars were predicted to be less than popular this year. But certainly, the Academy did not help things.

Best Picture: Crash was a great movie, don't get me wrong there. I really enjoyed the 148 different cuss words throughout the film. I never knew somebody could say F*** so many times in one sentence, let alone a conversation. And then there's the competition: Capote, Brokeback Mountain, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Munich. That's a pretty good list. Crash, in my opinion, was definitely the weakest of the five movies. And Cinderella Man deserved the spot more. I wouldn't go as far to  say Cinderella Man deserved best picture, that nod should have gone to Brokeback Mountain or Munich. But by giving the win to Crash, the Academy is extending an olive branch to the multiracial community.

Best Director: Ang Lee did a terrific job with this movie. But how can you at least not nominate Cinderella Man? The Academy has fallen into the pit of thinking directing and best picture are the same thing.

Best Actor: Cannot agree more with the winner. Philip Seymour Hoffman was great and definitely deserved the Oscar. But Terrence Howard in Hustle and Flow? If that's not playing to the minority, I don't know what is. They completely shunned Russell Crowe. If they were going to nominate Howard for something, it should have been a supporting actor for Crash. He did a much better job.

Best Sound Editing/Best Sound Mixing: ...How can you NOT give this to War of the Worlds? Just the tripod noises were nothing short of spectacular. That sound was truly chilling.

Best Makeup: Why was Star Wars nominated for this? I'll admit, the scene with Anakin toward the end was a marvel, but there were much better categories like Best Visual Effects.

Best Visual Effects: King Kong...good movie, but you could tell the monkey was CGI. War of the Worlds had the best special effects of a movie, ever, period. The tripods looked so real and the heat rays were great. The people bursting into ash was a very good touch. And why not nominate Star Wars for this? Surely it HAD to be considered. It was certainly better than Narnia.

All in all, the Academy dropped the ball this year. Now they're all sitting around on their hands and wondering to themselves, what did they do wrong. Well there is still a lot of backlash from the mistake of making Chris Rock host.

Jon Stewart did his best, and I liked him. But the Academy had his choker so tight he couldn't take a leak without somebody holding it for him and making sure everything was correct. The sooner they let these hosts be themselves to an extent, the sooner the people will come back.

There's a reason why most of Rock's movies are horrible at the box office. Nobody wants to sit and listen to how bad blacks have it and how great whites do. Hey Chris...memo for you: THAT ACT DIED TEN YEARS AGO! You have more money, more fame and more popularity than most white people do. What are you talking about? Is that not enough for you? Do you have to be President of the United States before you'll finally shut up?

Which brings me to my next point. What was with "It's Hard Out Here to be a Pimp?" Is that not the dumbest song anybody has ever heard of? The guys didn't even dress right. They come to a black tie gala dressed in baggy pants and messy clothes. But what is to be expected from a bunch of rappers. There's probably more gold in their mouth and around their neck than the total amount of gold that covers all the Oscars.

When it all comes down to it, Stewart will be blamed for the bad ratings. He'll be blamed for the Oscars being boring. He'll be blamed for everything that went wrong. And it will be wrongfully so. I never cared much for him, but I thought his jokes were great. Especially the Dick Cheney joke about Bjork. Ben Stiller, on the other hand, make a mockery out of the proceedings. Pretty much like the entire night ended up being.

            In today’s world, homosexuality is still a topic that is on the front lines of many political and religious debates. Last Monday, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association set aside politics and religion and handed the gay cowboy romance movie, “Brokeback Mountain,” four Golden Globes including Best Drama and Best Director in a Drama.

            The Johnny Cash biopic, “Walk the Line,” followed the path blazed by Jamie Foxx and “Ray” from last year with three awards for Best Musical or Comedy and Best Performance by an Actor in a Musical or Comedy. “Gladiator” star Joaquin Phoenix played the legendary country singer in his early years as he battled drug addictions. Reese Witherspoon played Cash’s wife June Carter and earned herself a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actress in a Musical or Comedy.

            Phillip Seymour Hoffman, regarded as one of the favorites against Russel Crowe’s “Cindrella Man” won Best Performance by an Actor in a Drama for his role as Truman Capote, the troubled author who wrote the famous book, “In Cold Blood.”

            George Clooney cashed in on his opportunity as a grizzled CIA agent left for dead in the Middle East in the very confusing, but entertaining “Syriana.” Clooney won the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama.

            “The Mummy” star Rachel Weisz won Best Performance by an Actress in a Drama for her short lived performance in the political thriller “The Constant Gardener.”

            Screen legend Anthony Hopkins was honored with the Cecil B. DeMille Award. It is given to legends for their outstanding contributions to the entertainment industry. The first ever award was handed to performer Cecil B. DeMille in 1953 and has been a yearly tradition ever since. Famous recepients include Alfred Hitchcock, Sean Connery and Judy Garland.

            At the end of the day, it was the homosexual cowboys that stole the show. Ang Lee’s reputation took a serious hit after he made “Hulk.” Less than a week before “Brokeback Mountain” was set to debut in theaters, many managers pulled the controversial movie from their schedules, igniting an already unstable political atmosphere.

            “Brokeback Mountain” tells the tale of two cowboys (Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger) who fall in love with each other. Their story continues through the years as they marry to beautiful women and try to hide their feelings for each other. It is still too early to tell whether Ledger and Gyllenhaal will take hits in Hollywood for their roles.

             Noticeably absent from the nominations was Steven Spielberg’s intense “Munich.” The film picks up directly after the tragedy at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany where Palestenian terrorists slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes. After the murders, a secret Israeli squad was formed to hunt down the men responsible and kill them. Eric Bana (“Troy”) plays Avner, the leader of the squad. He soon begins to question what they are doing as the events take a heavy toll on his conscious.

            “Munich” was arguably more powerful than Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List” and has been predicted to lead the Oscar nominations by many different film critic groups.

            With the Golden Globes now out of the way, Hollywood’s attention turns to the granddaddy of them all, the Academy Awards. Every person involved in the film industry dreams of standing in front of the podeum and accepting that gold plated lead statue. Unlike 2005 where “The Aviator,” “Ray” and “Million Dollar Baby” were reguarded as front runners, the nominations are still up in the air. The Golden Globes have always been used as a road map for the Oscars, but that could easily change this year.

           

In what can probably be described as one of the most dismal years of movies in a very long time, 2005's bright spots shined brightly toward the end of the year. In a year where there were no clear favorites like Ray or The Aviator or even the surprise Million Dollar Baby, there were a select group of movies that are good enough to share the honor of "Best Movies of 2005"

• Cinderella Man: Russel Crowe may have anger problems but who hasn't wanted to punch a bellhop in the face at some point or another? Crowe's performance in Cinderella Man is possibly the best of his career. When he's paired with director Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind) only good things can happen. And good things did happen with this biopic about legendary boxer James "Cinderella Man" Murdoch, who went back into boxing to put food on the table for his family during the Depression.
• Syriana: Is that really George Clooney with the heavy gut and shaggy beard? Yes it is. Clooney's performance of a grizzled CIA agent hung out in Arab America drives this thrilling story of corruption and politics in the oil industry. Matt Damon also gives an outstanding performance which could easily top his role in Rounders. This is one movie you don't want to get up in. There are more plot twists than on a mountain road. A definite must see if you can keep up with it.
• Munich: Many people say Schindler's List could not be topped for sheer emotional power, they were wrong. Munich follows the events that took place after the massacre at the Munich Olympic Games in 1972 as Israeli agents hunt down the terrorists responsible for the massacre. Spielberg gave a one-two punch this year with the science-fiction blockbuster War of the Worlds.
• War of the Worlds: The ending was weak and that will be the one thing that keeps this movie from being greater than Close Encounters of the Third Kind or E.T. Still, one cannot ignore the emotion and power of witnessing Americans being hearded like cattle across their own country looking for a safe place. War of the Worlds shows strong comparisons with terrorists attacks and the effect left on America after the 9/11 attacks. A top notch science-fiction film for anybody with Tom Cruise delivering his best performance yet and the best special effects ever shown in a movie.
• A History of Violence: One of the many movies to fly under the radar this year with the most underrated actor in Hollywood. David Croneberg adapts the John Wagner graphic novel about a smalltown family man who's caught in a media storm after he thwarts two robbers. But his media coverage attracts gangsters (Ed Harris) who have a shocking revelation about Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen). Is he who he says he is? Featuring brutal violence and shocking images, A History of Violence will, no doubt, fly under the radar but definitely deserves nods come Oscar time.
• Brokeback Mountain: Who would have ever thought gay and cowboy would go in the same sentence? Hollywood hunks Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhal star as two Wyoming cowboys who discover feelings for each other and continue their relationship, even after they're married to attractive women. Ang Lee redeems himself from the horrific Hulk with this touching and emotional movie that forces a person to look at themself after it's done. Don't let the content fool you, this is arguably the best movie of the year.
• Kingdom of Heaven: Don't lie, most people expected Gladiator 2 when Ridley Scott announced he was making this. Instead, Orlando Bloom shocks audiences with a solid performance that doesn't portray him as a blonde elf fighting alongside of a dwarf. Bloom plays the illegitimate son of a Baron (Liam Neeson). After his wife commits suicide, Baillon goes to Jerseusalem to seek redemption for her sins. There, he finds an age long conflict between the Christians and the Muslims.
• The Constant Gardener: Another of the underrated movies of the year, The Constant Gardener is a thriller story centering around one man's quest for the truth surrounding the death of his wife (Rachel Weisz) and the politics he becomes entangled with in Africa.
• Walk the Line: 2005's Ray? No, but a much better biopic than Ray. Just like Jamie Foxx's performance of the great Ray Charles, Gladiator star Joaquin Phoenix dones the black clothes and slicked back hair to star as country music legend Johnny Cash. Reese Witherspoon plays the love of his life, June Carter Cash. Walk the Line follows Cash's early years and his battles with drugs and alcohol. Definitely Phoenix's best performance that should win him an Oscar.
• Capote: Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Truman Capote, the famous New Yorker writer who wrote about a horrific murder of a family in Kansas. While he investigates the murder and gets the story, he becomes close friends with one of the murderers and eventually adapts the story into his greatest book: In Cold Blood.

I was watching the news just about five to ten minutes ago and there was a story about a guy who was arrested in Baltimore or Boston, can't remember which one, because he was fighting in line to get an Xbox 360 at Best Buy. And I've been reading these different messageboards and there are hundreds of people complaining and blaming Microsoft because they didn't get their Xbox 360.

I went to Wal-Mart and I got one at midnight on Nov. 22. I didn't preorder one, I didn't fight for it. I casually bought one. How might somebody ask? I stood in line after I got off work. And to clarify, I got the premium system, not the Core.

I didn't call in any special favors with the managers or try anything like that. I just did what was necessary for me to get one. There were so many posts on these boards alone saying that they would walk in sometime during the day on Nov. 22 and pick one off the shelf and they would be fine.

Well you know what I say to you people? Too bad. You want to blame somebody because you didn't get one. Get up from in front of the computer and go to the nearest mirror. That person that's staring back at you is the reason you didn't get one. Whether you had school, whether you had work, whether you were just too lazy to go stand in line for a while to get one, it was your fault.

Yeah, Microsoft could have probably released more than what they did. But you need to learn economics and production before you start bashing a company.

And look at the PS2 launch. There were shortages worse than this. I don't care what any PS2 fanboy says, that launch was much, much worse.

And to the people who are complaining about Microsoft not sending enough to Gamestop and EB Games...don't blame Microsoft, blame the highschool dropout managers of those stores. I know a store manager personally who told me that they were telling people they would get one on launch day clear into October. Why? He knew they weren't going to get that much. He was doing it so the store would get more revenue. And why not? You tell some soccer mom or drugstore idiot that they will have a console on launch day if they preorder it and pay it off at that point, they will. And then that's just extra money that store will get.

Gamestops and EB Game stores were selling preorders up through November. There are stores here in Oklahoma that have sold well over 300 preorders at one store. And they knew damn well that they would not get that many.

So there is only one person to blame for yourself not getting one, and that is you.

Tom Cruise goes to war in his latest summer blockbuster. But this is not any war on foreign soil. This war takes place right underneath the feet of every American man, woman and child. The enemy is not some foreign dictator or terrorist. No, it is something much more deadly and much colder than any person on Earth. Welcome to the universe of “War of the Worlds.” It is a universe where Americans are refugees in their own country, migrating from town to town trying to find shelter from an unstoppable army of killing machines. “War of the Worlds” was originally a book published by the great H.G. Wells who was known for other science-fiction classics, including “The Island of Dr. Moraeu” and “The Time Machine.” The book took place in turn-of-the-century Victorian England where cylinders rained from the sky. Massive tripod walkers emerge from the cylinders holding boxes that shoot heat so powerful it is invisible, but burns everything in its path. Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise decided to remake the 1953 classic, which took place in California. This new version was based on a David Koepp script. Koepp has been known for great films like “Jurassic Park,” “Carlito’s Way,” and “Mission: Impossible.” This time, “War of the Worlds” takes place in modern day New Jersey and focuses on Ray Ferrier (Cruise). Ferrier is a cookie-cutter deadbeat dad with two kids (Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin) that he cares nothing about. His ex-wife drops them off for the weekend. Soon after, a strange electrical storm develops over the neighborhood and triggers a series of events that leads to the war of the worlds. Massive tripod machines emerge from the ground and begin toasting everything in their path with their heat rays. Ray struggles to keep his children safe as he fights his way down to Boston in hopes of finding his ex-wife. Along the way, he meets Ogilvy (Tim Robbins), a half-crazy ambulance driver whose family was lost in the initial attacks in New York City. He takes the Ferriers in with an idea of leading a resistance against the intruders. “War of the Worlds” is rated PG-13, but definitely pushes the limits. There are some curse words throughout the movie. But there are three scenes in particular, including a river full of dead bodies that really adds that kick-in-the-jaw to the movie. The movie feels so realistic that I actually felt totally immersed in the movie. I would go so far as to say this movie had just as much emotion as “Saving Private Ryan.” “The Day After Tomorrow” touched on Americans fleeing the United States in hopes of a better life elsewhere, but this movie hits home with it. There is a scene where the Ferriers pass a bulletin board with missing persons pictures and descriptions. While above, an American flag flaps proudly in the wind, even in trying times. While Dakota Fanning may be the next Elizabeth Taylor in the movie industry, her reputation takes a hit with this movie. Her character was supposed to bring more emotion and sorrow into the story, but she seemed to be more of a hindrance than anything else. Right after the attack, she begins screaming at the top of her lungs so loud that it made my ears ache. Through the whole movie, she is out of place and annoying. Rumors were spread during the filming that this movie would break two-and-a-half hours, well above the average movie time. Instead, without the credits, this movie clocked in at less than two hours. It appears as if Paramount Studios demanded this movie be that short. The ending is very rushed and weak, and was the one thing that will keep this from being mentioned with such science-fiction greats as “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Star Wars.” Spielberg spared no expense on the special effects and computer generated imaging. The tripods are so lifelike, they deserve an Oscar. “Revenge of the Sith” has been the flagship for the Best Special Effects Oscar, but it would be a travesty for this not to win. The whole scene when the tripod first emerges is nothing short of amazing. The destruction is the best that has ever been filmed on camera. It blows away the likes of “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow.” Even with its weak ending and annoying moments, “War of the Worlds” is a must-see for any science-fiction fan or Spielberg fan. It may not be as good as “Jurassic Park” or “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” but it is very close. “War of the Worlds” hit DVD shelves on Nov. 22 in two different sets. One is the single disc set that has just the movie and one small featurette about designing the enemy, while the second set is $10 more but contains a load of extra features including behind the scenes, trailers and deleted scenes. It is well worth the extra money if you are a movie lover or looking for a gift for a movie lover.

It appears as if Hollywood has lost most of the originality that it had in the late 80s and 90s. But who can blame them. Two of the most hyped movies this year were original stories but flopped horribly. “The Island” was a science-fiction action film from director Michael Bay (“Pearl Harbor) about two clones on the run in a futuristic world. “Stealth” was Rob Cohen’s (“Fast and the Furious”) return to directing about an artificial intelligence (A.I.) controlled fighter plane that gets a mind of its own. Together, they did not even break $100 million at the box office. Taking a look at the top 10 box office movies of the year, six were remakes or sequels. “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” is the top movie of the year so far with $380 million. “War of the Worlds” is in second with $234 million, followed by “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Batman Begins,” “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” and “The Longest Yard.” So it comes to no surprise that remakes and sequels are the order of the day. You have to go back to 1998 to find a top box office movie that was not a remake or a sequel. That movie was the WWII epic, “Saving Private Ryan.” So are the writers in Hollywood just being lazy after their recent murmurs of another strike? Actually it’s the people that are determining the success. Arguably, the best movie of 2004 was Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby.” But it barely grossed $100 million, compared to “Shrek 2,” a sequel which has grossed over $400 million. Now there is a big difference between a boxing drama such as “Million Dollar Baby” and a family movie. This year alone saw “Cinderella Man,” a very entertaining and well-directed movie about boxing legend James Braddock during the depression, fail miserably at the box office. But “Revenge of the Sith,” a movie nowhere near the quality of “Cinderella Man,” made $380 million. People fear change as a whole. If something is good, they want to stick with it. The same goes with movies and Hollywood. While Hollywood has been in a slump lately, it is still putting out good movies. However, the only successful ones are sequels or remakes. Next week, Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” will be released in theaters, just in time for the holiday rush. Jackson’s version is based on the 1933 movie about a giant ape that is captured in the jungle and let loose on Manhattan. Everybody knows the story about how he climbs the Empire State Building and proclaims his dominance. There was a mildly successful remake in 1976 starring Jeff Bridges. But this version takes the movie back to its roots in Depression-era 1930s. Jackson plus the Kong franchise equals big bucks at the box office. Even if Jackson had not directed it, the movie would still rake in the money. Why? Because it is “King Kong,” and that alone makes it a cash cow. “War of the Worlds” was released on June 29 and just recently made it to DVD on Nov. 22. It was the second most successful movie this year, and it was a remake. While the names of Spielberg and Cruise added to the success, an installed fan base was already rabid to see the movie. I know. I was one of the rabid fans who watched for every little detail. And the movie was successful – mainly in part because of the legend that is “War of the Worlds.” The original is a classic among science-fiction fans and remains a cult favorite, even today. Hollywood is lazy; that is a proven observation. With loads of video games and books being turned into movies and remakes being flooded into the market, it is no wonder why the box office is struggling. But ironically, the sequels, remakes and adaptations are what are spurring the movie industry right now. Next year looks to be more of the same. The most hyped movies are “Mission: Impossible 3,” “X3,” “Superman Returns” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.” As time goes on, there will be more movies added to the list, but none of them are original. Where has the originality gone? Long gone are the days of “Casablanca,” “The Godfather,” and “Citizen Kane.” Today, movie fans are stuck with “Shrek,” “Spider-Man” and “Harry Potter.” While they may be entertaining movies, they are nowhere near the quality of the glory days of Hollywood.