Technical Difficulties

In general, I prefer PC to Mac, if only because I don't have enough money where I can easily prefer Mac. My wife has a MacBook, and it's clearly a nice machine that works well, but I've always been a PC guy. I'm also not enough of a tech nerd to really let it define me too much. As you'll soon see, the issue I'm bitching about regards my iPod and my PC laptop. But today has been one of those days where I wonder why exactly I own a PC. And why exactly I can go from loving to hating technology.

In recent weeks, my iPod classic has sporadically not initially worked when syncing to my computer. I'll get an error window telling me that there is a USB device hooked up to the computer (important information, actually), but Windows does not recognize it. That's a problem. In the past, I'd been able to do some mix of locking or not locking my iPod, and turning it on or off before syncing it. This ended up working. Eventually--as in, within about two or three tries after the initial one--the computer would acknowledge the iPod, and all was well in the world. Until today.

Today, I went to charge my iPod to load up some new podcasts I was listening to (not including the one I co-host with Grant Holzhauer, called Entertained, which you should totally listen to and subscribe and review, and everything else, on iTunes; our site is http://entertained.podbean.com, so check us out!). Again, I got the window telling me the computer didn't recognize the device. I tried the usual fixes, and nothing happened, except that error window. I'd had some issues with only one of the USB ports working, so I took a look at the ports themselves, to find something truly distressing: the USB ports were--and still are, as of this writing--out of alignment. Meaning, the external place for the USB ports are there, but the USB ports themselves are, internally, not lining up. I have no idea why this is; my guess is that there's something inside the computer that should keep them aligned, and it's moved or broken or something.

After trying to do a little DIY, I realized that I ought to let a professional look at it. So I went to Geek Squad. (Feel free to insert a joke about how I still haven't had a professional look at it.) The employee was one of the rare folks working on a presumed commission who was, thankfully, more honest about helping me out. See, it takes 85 bucks for Geek Squad to ship the device to their main center (wherever the hell THAT is), and then we can get to the work of actually, you know, figuring out what's wrong. It would've been a few days before the folks at the main center got hold of it, but the problem was when the Geek Squad employee told me that the issue may be so bad that I need to get a new computer. I highly doubted this, and I still do, but I suppose that was just the woman covering her ass. She said I'd want to back up my information first. I would love to do this, you know, but I have an external hard drive that only works...WITH A USB PORT. Unfortunately, no amount of rejiggering there has worked for me.

So, home I went with a still-in-need-of-repair computer. I figured that, as long as I could hook up my iPod and my headset microphone for recording Entertained (seriously, listen to it), I'd be set for the time being. I'd forgotten about a friend of my dad's who's very good at PC repair, and I've contacted him in hopes that he'll get to fix it, or at least look at it in some detail. Even more, after I got home, I was able to work with the headset microphone to confirm that, yes, it would work with the sole USB port that's still functioning. Which leaves the iPod. Of course, the iPod cord still caused the error message. Before and after the Geek Squad trip, I went to Google and tried to find some guidance. Most of the sites, including the official Microsoft sites, offered the same fixes, all of which I tried to no avail. One of the Microsoft forum pages--in a post written by an official employee--pointed me to a very helpful tutorial on Apple's website, where I could learn about how to sync my iPod to iTunes and get music!

About 30 minutes ago, I found another Microsoft page, where someone--not an employee of the company, mind you--had a solution that had worked for them, and it was different than the others. Here's what I was supposed to do: uninstall the USB driver that the iPod connected to, and shut down my computer. Now, I'd done this much before, but the rest was where it got odd. Next, I was supposed to take out the power cord, and let the computer run on battery. I'd wait a minute, and then hit the power button. And then, voila, the iPod was supposed to work. I was at the point where I was willing to try anything, so I went for it. Guess what? THIS WORKED. My iPod, as I am writing, is connected to my computer. The cord hasn't moved. Nothing else has changed, and I've already put the power cord back in. Now, I'm not complaining that the iPod is working. It is, and I'm glad. But that's a really stupid fix. Right? I'm not nuts to think this is an absolutely idiotic way to solve the problem, am I? Oy.

In Praise of Parks and Recreation

It's weird that, over the past few years, I have gotten used to not watching some series over a long period of time. As a fan of such serialized dramas as Lost and 24, it became old hat for me to watch new episodes between the months of January and May, and then wait for the rest of the calendar year to pass before another season began. For some reason, though, I don't accept it as a given when it comes to comedies. Comedies air between September and May. That's just a fact, if they air on broadcast television. I'm fine with cable comedies, like Archer or Bored to Death only showing up for one-fourth of a year, but broadcast comedies don't leave the air for 9 months at a time.

That Parks and Recreation became a weird casualty of the 2010 fall TV season is par for the course at the cosmic joke of a network known as NBC. The esteemed and insightful critic Alan Sepinwall pointed out last week on his blog, What's Alan Watching, at HitFix, that while NBC may be such a laughingstock, some of the shows it's airing wouldn't be able to survive on any other network with the ratings they get. I love Community, but its ratings are awful on any other network (though we could certainly debate the idea that most of the shows NBC airs would do better on any other network, simply by no longer being on NBC). The same goes for shows like Chuck, 30 Rock, and even The Office, which may be NBC's highest-rated scripted show, but even at its ratings peak, it wasn't as highly rated as comedies on CBS or ABC.

But it really stings that Parks and Recreation was held until midseason. It's not even that the cast and crew worked overtime back in the spring to make six of its eventual 16 episodes in the third season, because the show's ostensible lead, Amy Poehler, was pregnant. What annoys me most is that the show had been so consistently brilliant, so giddy in its inventive spirit, and someone at NBC must have known it. Right? I have to assume that somebody working for the network is aware enough of the quality they have on their hands. This is not an issue of the show getting bad ratings (and since the new season, which begins tomorrow night, is airing directly after The Office, the executives are giving it a great chance). It's an issue of looking at the newly developed comedies you have, like Outsourced, and then looking at what you've already got. Why did NBC have to mess with what they had?

Yeah, yeah, I know. Why should I complain? Leslie Knope and the rest of the crew at the Pawnee Parks and Recreation Department are coming back! Let's throw a parade! My fear is that the experiment NBC is concocting also begins tomorrow night, and it could fall flat. A three-hour comedy block hasn't been done in years, and NBC renewed 30 Rock, the show now airing at 10:00, pretty much to make sure its fans knew they weren't sending it to die. I can only hope the other shows on Thursday night aren't facing the same fate. But let's move onto a quick appreciation of this brilliant show, the absolute best comedy of 2010 if it aired more episodes. I ended up thinking higher of Community, but only because they aired classic episodes in the fall as well as in the spring. In watching a handful of episodes this evening, pumping myself up for the show's return, I was curious to see if I'd think as highly of them as I did when they originally aired.

If you've read anything about the show, you know that it was easily the most improved network television program in the 2009-2010 season. Its first six episodes were OK, but they didn't gel as much as they should have, especially with the hype NBC built up that they were making another Office. But almost as soon as the new season began, the writers of the show wasted no time in creating such a believable world of characters who you always wanted to spend time with. But as I watched the episodes, I wondered if my initial appreciation was just at being so happy for the show for no longer sucking, or if it was genuinely great. The answer is clear: it's genuinely great. Poehler and the writers had tightened Leslie Knope into a person, not a caricature. She was even more well-balanced than Michael Scott could ever dream of being. But the other characters made things work: Ron F'ing Swanson, April, Tom, Jerry, Ann, Andy. Especially the last few episodes, where the Pawnee government is effectively shut down for major monetary renovations thanks to visiting auditors played by incoming regulars Rob Lowe and Adam Scott, became as much fun to watch as they must have been to make.

Lowe and Scott, in particular, are an exciting addition to the show. With their appearances at the end of the second season and the departure of Paul Schneider (who's a fine actor, but just never truly fit in), it seems like Parks and Recreation is not only poised for its best season yet, even if it's a shortened one (thanks again, NBC), but for its breakout year. The show hit a wall in its six-episode first season with many viewers who wanted to embrace another Office and were disappointed to find a show that was still finding itself, not something that was already off and running creatively. If you think that Parks and Recreation is still not worth watching, I almost don't know what to tell you. The first two seasons are available on Netflix Instant, and there is no stronger endorsement for the service than rediscovering this sitcom. The cast (who I've neglected to talk too much about, but suffice to say, introducing the world to Nick Offerman, Aubrey Plaza, Chris Pratt, and Aziz Ansari is nothing short of a miraculously good deed) has awesome comedic and romantic chemistry, the writing is tight, unpredictable, and hilarious, and the stories are surprisingly compelling. Perhaps the best part of Parks and Recreation is that the characters show genuine interest and excitement in dull governmental work. Writing about local government sounds boring; making it interesting is a mountainous challenge. The effort put into making Parks and Recreation seem so effortless is awe-inspiring. This is such a great show, and I'm so happy it's coming back tomorrow.

Who Watches Two And A Half Men?

One of the great joys of something you love exploding into the mainstream of culture is that you can share your love with your friends, family, co-workers, and so on. The three years when I watched Arrested Development were simultaneously triumphant and solitary. The show is, of course, the greatest television comedy ever (and I will cage-fight anyone who disagrees with me! Or not.), but it is also one of the quintessential little-watched broadcast programs in television history. So few people watched it even on my college campus that when I walked around with a T-shirt reading "Annyong, Hermano!", I'd often get 99 quizzical looks for the 1 appreciative chuckle.

On the flip side, once I began working at my full-time job, just over two and a half years ago, I found that plenty of my co-workers loved the show and mourned its demise. I'm glad to be able to drop references to Jessica Walter's creepy wink to these folks, but I wish I'd known them when the show was on. So when a movie like Black Swan inexplicably becomes popular enough to merit a sketch on Saturday Night Live, it's comforting to know that I and my wife aren't alone in loving the movie, or at least knowing it well enough to snicker at the parody of Vincent Cassel's character (the only funny aspect of the sketch, but still funny). It's comforting to know that everyone who considers themselves a human watched and loved Toy Story 3. But then there are the songs, movies, books, and TV shows that hit big that I just don't get.

I am an avid TV watcher, but as I age and my tastes mature, I find that there are a lot of networks that I just don't watch. Obviously, this is the same for anyone with a TV; there are so many channels with so much programming that it's impossible to watch everything and have a life. However, there are networks I don't watch just because my apathy only extends so far. So, as the prime example, I don't watch CBS shows. Most of them are, you know, fine. But that's it. CBS has mostly steered away from making serialized TV, and the formula continues to work. I don't blame them for staying consistent; I'm just not interested in watching a procedural every week where I know exactly what will happen every second of every episode. Still, CBS has huge hits; just this past week, the long-running procedural NCIS garnered 22 million viewers, a series-high number. There is one hit, though, that I'm baffled by as time goes on. Only the truly crafty among you will have figured out which it is.

Oh, wait, it's in the title. Yes, I don't get the allure of Two and a Half Men. I watched the pilot episode of the series, having done a quickie review for it when I was a sophomore in college for the student newspaper's website. I remember thinking that it was kind of funny, and Charlie Sheen was somewhat charming as a slightly fictionalized version of his tabloid self. I had the same feelings about it that I do for most CBS pilots: I will totally watch another episode! I will watch another episode. I may watch another episode. I--oh, I missed the episode. Oh well. Back then, I got why people would watch it, but as 2010, in particular, went forward and Sheen continued to either spiral out of control or do his very best at trying to quit his job via self-immolation, I had to wonder: who is watching this show? The ratings have always been right around the same level of solidity; CBS thought highly enough of the show to renew it through the end of the 2011-12 season, and if the ratings are the same, who knows? Maybe they'll renew it for even longer.

But as I was reading the comments from CBS honcho Nina Tassler at the January edition of the Television Critics Association (TCA) tour where she basically said that on a personal level, Sheen's a problem, but professionally, there are no complaints, I thought about the people I knew and wondered if any of them avidly watched the show. It's one thing to, on a slow Monday night, tune in and have a laugh. The show's numbers are too consistent, though. Someone--rather, someone times 15 million or so--is watching this show every week, glued to their sets as much as I would be to Lost. So I ask this to anyone reading. Do you watch Two and a Half Men? Do you know someone who does? Why? What's more, after what hideous embarrassments he's been through, why enable Charlie Sheen's personal troubles (which is genuinely what I think anyone watching the show, and the CBS execs do)? I want to know why someone would watch this show--actually watch it, not just leave it on because of the show before. I await your responses.

Speechless Frustration

Nine times out of ten, I don't write about politics. This is not a political blog, for many reasons (some of which will be clear by the time you're done reading this, I'm sure). The podcast I'm co-hosting with Grant Holzhauer is not about politics, which is the best thing possible seeing as we're at different ends of the political spectrum. Of course, like pretty much everyone, I am compelled to say my piece after the tragedy in Tucson this past Saturday that left six people dead (so far), and more wounded, among them the target of the whole, unimaginably frightening ordeal, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. Being a resident of the state doesn't afford me any further insight into the massacre, not just because I don't live in the Tucson area. What frustrates me today isn't what's happening in this state in the aftermath. What frustrates me is how obvious the reaction has been.

The idea that the right-wing personalities in the media, and conservative politicians, are already trying to remind us that plenty of left-wing folk talk some pretty crazy talk about the opposition, and how dare we even think of saying anything bad about Sarah Palin and her not-really-but-kinda-sorta target image that's mysteriously vanished from her website is to be expected. Were any notable conservatives going to applaud the near-murder of a Democratic politician? Not if they had any serious desire to be part of the mainstream, no. Of course, some of these same people had been advocating for violence, either not in so many words or in exactly those words. So why shouldn't they be applauding the aftermath of what they'd been asking for? Well, see, it turns out that people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and their ilk don't actually think that anyone takes them seriously when they talk about reloading. Why would they? It's not like these people have any sense of how their followers will react, right? Right?

False equivalencies don't work here. If there has been any talk about violence against politicians, or against anybody, it has been coming from the right, targeted at the left. Are there people on the left as nuts as those on the right? Sure. The primary difference is that the left-wing crazies don't have television shows. They don't have radio shows. They don't write books that cause people in North Phoenix (not too far from where I live) to line up outside a bookstore for hours just to get an autograph. Whether the clearly mentally disturbed man who went on the shooting rampage this past Saturday followed the heated rhetoric of Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann is of absolutely no consequence. What matters is what Olbermann pointed out in his special Special Comment on Saturday night: the violent rhetoric, on all sides, must stop. When you encourage your supporters to come to target practice in opposition of your opponent, tone it down. When you encourage your supporters to use their Second Amendment remedies should you not be elected legally, it might be time to tone it down. When you showcase a map featuring 20 targets--sorry, surveyor's symbols (and isn't that one of the stupidest fucking lies you've ever heard? These people aren't even trying to be sneaky anymore. It's offensive on so many levels.)--representing your opponents and, in capital letters, exhort your followers to reload, tone it the fuck down.

One hopes that if there is a positive effect in the aftermath of this horrendous event, it will be...well, hopefully there's more than one positive effect. First, we need to tone down the violent rhetoric. I would hope that President Obama would say as much, but I fear he's become as cautious as ever, and doesn't want to offend anyone by saying something that the invisible moderate voter will not agree with. This is what the media needs to do. Here--easy tip. Watch the Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear from October. It doesn't seem so silly anymore. Learn from Jon Stewart's climactic speech. Sanity is the opposite of what happened in Tucson. While we're fixing the rhetoric, let's consider that some people need mental health care and are not getting it. And let's consider that a state that allows a man who is as deranged as the shooter to get a concealed weapon without a permit needs to repeal that damn law. Gun control doesn't mean gun ban. Some people--including me--might need some training before they pick up a pistol. Some people, because of health issues, should not be allowed to carry guns. And, to reiterate a point brought up today by Chris Matthews, you do not need to carry a gun to a political rally. You should not have have to. We're a screwed-up state in a screwed-up country, but Arizona could make a big step forward by repealing that law, or at least changing its wording. In the meantime, spread the word. These kinds of horrendous massacres--whether they involve politicians, celebrities, or just regular people--should not happen. One man held the gun, but he was influenced. Eliminate the influences, so we're not mourning again soon.

My Top Ten Films of 2010

As I read more and more top ten lists from critics across the globe, I wonder if 2010 was really a bad year in film. My list of the ten best is not going to be as diverse as some--as much as I'd like to claim the film buff status, living in the Phoenix metropolitan area does not lend itself to lots of foreign film watching, and I'm bad about my Netflix queue--but there are plenty of solid mainstream films along with independent pictures that were released in some fashion this past year. And, as it usually goes, looking at the 2011 slate is pretty scary, if you're looking for quality. If you want quantity, or blockbusters, your cup overfloweth. For the rest of us, the only comfort is that Netflix may add more low-budget pictures to its site in the days, weeks, and months to come.

A few notes, before we get into the list. First, and it should really go without saying, this list is compiled of films I thought were the best of the year. I've been reading some people whose agendas for creating these lists aren't to represent their opinions as to nudge people to watch films they may not have heard of or be familiar with. While that is a somewhat noble idea, let's get one thing straight: if you make a top-ten list, it should be representative of what you think, not what you want me to think. With that said, a few honorable mentions are in order. Some films I saw this year were good, but not great, and some of them are here just because the year was so weak--to me, of course--that I've only got a few films below the top ten to begin with. The King's Speech is a very nice, very pleasant, mostly well-made, and very well-acted movie. It did not wow me, it did not blow me away, but it was good, if you like that sort of thing. Luck to Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush at the Oscars; they may both win. 127 Hours is another flashy Danny Boyle movie that's boosted into any sort of greatness by the performance of the film's lead, James Franco, Oscar host (and soon-to-be director, I guess). I wish Franco's total commitment was shared by Boyle, who gets too impatient and feels free to flit around the world as opposed to make a more intimate film, stuck with one poor guy trapped by a boulder. Exit Through The Gift Shop is a fascinating documentary--and yeah, I bought into it--about how street art is made, and how street artists can manipulate their way into being famous. Banksy, the mysterious man who's at the top of the street art world, presents a compelling and intriguing portrait of delusion in the form of Thierry Guetta, now known as Mr. Brainwash. There's no question that this is worth watching, but I wasn't as blown away as some were. Nothing really wrong here; just not my favorite. So, let's get to the list.

10. How To Train Your Dragon

It is a sign of how weak the movies I saw this year were that this film is on my list. Don't get me wrong; Dragon is a good movie, filled with some of the most thrilling non-Pixar animation and 3D effects I've ever seen. What frustrated me about the movie is that while DreamWorks, at least some of the time, has the ability to create animated worlds that rival those of the folks up in Emeryville, their story department continues to be woeful. In 2008, some people raved about Kung Fu Panda, a movie whose animation is groundbreaking, if you're DreamWorks and it's 2000, and whose story is groundbreaking, if you're DreamWorks, and it's 1990. The animation in Dragon is as good as DreamWorks has ever been, and as good as most animation has ever been. The story is the opposite. I'd seen variations on the "My dad doesn't get me" trope in better animated movies like Ratatouille and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. That said, any movie that makes a calculated attempt to give Craig Ferguson plenty of time to crack jokes is fine by me.

9. Winter's Bone

Some movies live or die on their performances. For the most part, 127 Hours lives or dies on James Franco's performance. If you don't like Franco, or the character he's playing, you're stuck with him in a very small place for 90 minutes. With regards to Winter's Bone, the latest film from Debra Granik, it's a little different. While Jennifer Lawrence, as the film's lead, Ree, is on screen for pretty much every scene, the world she inhabits is a vast expanse of desolation. Ree lives in the Ozarks and embarks on a frightening journey into a hell close to home when she has to figure out the whereabouts of her criminal father before the house where she raises her siblings is taken over by the bank. Ree's still a teenager, but she's whip-smart and willing to put her life on the line to save her family. Lawrence, who I'd never seen before, is a wonder, a true star in the making. The other notable performance comes from character actor John Hawkes, as Teardrop, Ree's uncle. Teardrop knows more than he's letting on, but he's also the kind of guy who believes that he can terrorize his family because he's family; if you're not family, then watch out. Hawkes has never inspired terror in his other roles, but here, he's as intimidating as the gruffest of action heroes. Lawrence, Hawkes, Granik's spare direction, and the realism of the world make this one a standout.

8. Mother

2010 was a great year for female performances. Just like another film on this list, Mother is about the lengths a person will work towards to achieve a sense of balance in the world. The lead of the film, played by South Korean actress Kim Hye-Ja, is an older woman who works as an acupuncturist and herbalist. She lives with her son, who's in his late twenties and is developmentally disabled. Their relationship is beyond close; in more than one scene, we see them sleeping in the same, very small bed (and, yes, just sleeping). When he's accused of killing a schoolgirl one night and arrested by the incompetent local police, she sets out to prove his innocence. Just as Ree descends into hell in Winter's Bone, so it goes for the title character in Mother, who can be strong enough to get the information she wants, but is never strong enough to accept the truth. Directed by Bong Joon-Ho, Mother is both an unnerving character study and a crackling crime drama. What holds the film together is Ja, whose fully realized performance is as wondrous and scary to behold as you could dare dream.

7. Shutter Island

There are some critics who'll tell you that liking this movie is wrong, because you're really just too weak to pan a Martin Scorsese film. Those people are woefully mistaken; while some people may not want to pan Scorsese, great filmmaking is great filmmaking. While no one--yes, not even me--would put Shutter Island next to such all-time classics as Taxi Driver or Raging Bull, what this movie has to offer is Scorsese's sheer love of the craft of filmmaking. Ostensibly a mystery story about two federal marshals investigating the mysterious disappearance of an inmate at the titular insane asylum, Shutter Island is a vibrant character study and a haunted-house throwback. Invoking Val Lewton and other horrormeisters of the 1940s and 1950s, Scorsese presents us with a chilling world where half of the doctors advocate lobotomies just like they'd advocate a cup of coffee, where up is down, and so on. It sounds cliche, but what makes the film work so well is that the ruse is evident. Watching this film on repeat viewings makes it more tragic, more poetic, and more fiendish. The film hinges on Leonardo DiCaprio, as the intense, somewhat screwed-up lead investigator. DiCaprio delivers his best performance in years as a man dying to get back to his wife and kids, someone who's incredibly dedicated to getting revenge and justice in one fell swoop. Delirious, wild, and exhilarating...welcome to Shutter Island.

6. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

I said this when Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World came out in August, and I'll say it again. Watching this film was watching a director fully discover his talents. When I watched There Will Be Blood or Inception for the first time, it was like watching the great artist figure out exactly what he's best at. Paul Thomas Anderson had been making films for a decade, just so he could work himself up to the story of Daniel Plainview. Christopher Nolan had been making films for a decade, just so he could create a world where a man can be in multiple dream worlds (and it all makes sense). Edgar Wright had been making films for years just so he could work up to the world of Scott Pilgrim, a twentysomething slacker whose world is turned upside down when he falls in love. Explaining this movie is pointless; you're either in or you're out. You either buy the world of a guy who can fight people and, in killing them, turn them into gold coins, or you don't. I did, and loved this film. For the right person, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, held together by Wright's fluid and kinetic style along with great performances from Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Kieran Culkin, is the most entertaining film of the year. Even though I'm no video game nut (and being one does help), this was a truly rewarding experience.

5. True Grit

Joel and Ethan Coen go their own way. With any luck, now that True Grit has become their highest-grossing film by a long way, they'll be able to do so with extra funding. What True Grit may lack in quirk, it makes up for in sheer thrills. I said so before, but though I may not consider this to be one of their all-time best films (for that, we look to Fargo and No Country For Old Men), True Grit is just plain fun. Though there are twists along the way, it's also a simple story told with plenty of flair. The film is, like some of the other films on my list, anchored by great performances. Josh Brolin, Matt Damon, Jeff Bridges; all of these actors are their typical excellent selves. What makes the film truly unique is the performance of newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, who embodies the young Mattie Ross so completely without ever being precocious, a quality that's rarer and rarer these days among young actors. There are numerous great sequences in this film (the opening and closing 20 minutes are each amazing in their own ways), and I'm glad it's reaching a wide audience. You may come expecting an old-fashioned Western, but you will leave surprisingly touched and moved.

4. The Social Network

Yes, friends, someone doesn't think The Social Network is the best film of the year. All kidding aside, I get the love for this film. It features arguably Aaron Sorkin's best work (every time I listen to the "Do I have your full attention" scene, I find it hard not to love the film even more), the score is one of the year's best, David Fincher's direction is as superb as ever, and the performances, even from Justin freaking Timberlake, are amazing. What you must note here is that I'm not going to pick apart any flaws. My top four films are all, in some strange way, interchangeable. We've now entered the upper echelon of American cinema in the year 2010. I remain blown away that any movie about the creation of a website--any website--could be as fantastically entertaining as this. The marketing belied a smart sensibility, but it also tipped a movie that was going to be tense. Shocker of shockers: The Social Network IS a tense film. While I wouldn't go so far as some have to compare it to the political thrillers of the 1970s, there's a strange, unwavering suspense that seeps throughout every scene, every shot, and every line. Issues of truth or sexism aside, The Social Network is one of the best and most compelling "Rise to fame" films ever.

3. Toy Story 3

I do not cry at the movies. When I was younger, to maintain what I thought were appropriate appearances, I would try to make myself cry at movies where it seemed to be a correct response. But I just don't do it. So I don't know what to tell you about the final 20 minutes of Toy Story 3, where I was almost uncontrollably sobbing. Whatever sensible part of my brain I have was turned off as I watched Woody, Buzz, and friends face down certain doom in an incinerator straight out of hell, genuinely thinking that director Lee Unkrich and writer Michael Arndt were going to do it. They were going to kill off one of the beloved characters from this trilogy of films. Of course, the toys who we've followed from Andy's room to Pizza Planet to a day care all survive, but there was a moment or two where I thought they'd go the way of Bambi's mom. The final scene, where Andy hands off his toys for good, was equally as touching for other reasons. I don't want to sell the rest of the film short, from the adventurous opening to the Dali-esque touches in the toys breaking out of the day care center, but what truly solidifies Toy Story 3 as one of the best films of the year is that it sticks the landing. There are other trilogies, though very few, that have ended well, but the Toy Story trilogy is the best of them all. Lee Unkrich, a Pixar employee for years, can rest well knowing he gave Woody and Buzz the right send-off.

2. Inception

One of the best single moments in any film this past year comes right at the end of Inception. We see shots of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, and Ellen Page, all as they're waking up in their various dreamworlds. Page is stuck in a limbo world, but then she gives herself the appropriate kick to get out of that world, and into the next dream level, and into the next, and into the next. Gordon-Levitt and Hardy are able to join her in the same level, also giving themselves kicks. The almost blissful looks on their faces are echoed in the audience, as they wake up just when they're supposed to, and the impossible becomes real. Writer-director Christopher Nolan gave himself an amazing challenge with Inception: make an elaborate and detailed action film about dreams, and keep it grounded with a solid emotional core. Some people don't think he met every aspect of the challenge, but I was hooked from top to bottom. Leonardo DiCaprio, as the leader of a group of criminals of the mind, once again inhabits a damaged man mourning the loss of a wife whose hold on him is so profound, it weighs on everything he does. What Nolan does visually is matched by what he creates in the characters: a very real sense of loss and regret. Add that to some of the most jaw-dropping action (I'm still jealous of Gordon-Levitt for being in the zero-gravity sequence), and you have Inception, an impossible achievement.

1. Black Swan

There's something to be said for total and utter commitment to an idea. Each of the top four films on this list are committed to the very end to their stories, their characters, their ideas. For this and many other reasons, I offer up Black Swan, the best film from wunderkind director Darren Aronofsky, featuring the best female performance of the year (and also the best from its performer). What Black Swan is nothing short of redefining a movie star. Natalie Portman has been a star up until now; now, she is an actress. As Nina Sayers, a fragile ballerina given the role of a lifetime when she's cast as the lead in a new version of Swan Lake, Portman grabs us from the first second she's onscreen, dancing in a dream. Aronofsky is so adept at creating a world where we're not so much voyeurs into Nina's life as we are Nina herself that the final act doesn't feel unnatural or strange, it feels frighteningly appropriate. The other performances, from such actresses as Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, and Winona Ryder, are perfectly modulated. At no point do the performances feel false; each performance manages to be realistic even though we're viewing it through the prism of Nina's fractured state of mind. Some are going to tell you that Black Swan is a tough sit, but I haven't felt as enthralled by a film this year. Nothing about the movie feels false or implausible, because no fever dream is ever false. Black Swan is a glorious treasure to behold.