I know the website is one dedicated mainly to television, but after taking a glance at some of the upcoming movies of 2009, I'm confident that there will be a wide variety of films, just like last year, that will end up being excellent. There's probably at least fifteen to twenty movies that I'm really looking forward to, but I cut it down to five. This list is in no way whatsoever in order of how badly I want to see it. They're just out of the first ones I think of.

1. The Limits of Control (Directed by Jim Jarmusch, out May 1st): Well, technically, this movie is already out, but in limited release.. I mean very limited release. I doubt it'll go beyond 100 theaters. I suppose it's this year's Synecdoche, New York, where an indie movie is released in an extremely small amount of venues. I have to say, as bad as the hype has been thus far, I'm intrigued by Jarmusch's new movie. Apparently, it's about a professional thief who wanders through town, meeting with random people who have discussions with him, but ones that he doesn't engage in. People talk to him, he listens, remains silent, and continues on his way. The fact Jarmusch has written and directed this may be making me biased, and the fact that Broken Flowers, his previous movie, was excellent makes me believe that this one should be good. Plus, any movie where Bill Murray decides to act his usual deadpan self is one that I'll be attending.

2. The Lovely Bones (Directed by Peter Jackson, out December 11th): The fact that the guy who directed some of the biggest action-adventure movies of all time is directing this incredible novel about a girl who looks down from Heaven on her family after her death is mindboggling, but I just have to remind myself that Peter Jackson really is a good director. He has good command of the camera, and therefore, has me intrigued. If Jackson as director is not surprising enough, the fact he was able to wrangle together Mark Wahlburg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon and Stanley Tucci to play some of the lead roles is also surprising. If Peter Jackson plays his cards right and does the movie the right way, I could see a clear-cut easy Best Picture nomination for this (possibly even a win).

3. Inglorious Basterds (Directed by Quentin Tarantino, out August 21st): I won't lie, Quentin Tarantino is my favorite director. He's original, distinct and hilarious.. yet dark at the same time. Each one of his movies has his fingerprints all over it and you can always tell when Tarantino has written a script or directed a movie. When I first heard he was making a World War 2 movie about hunting Nazis, I was very interested, but a little hesitant. Tarantino has been known to genre jump frequently, but a Tarantino-esque World War 2 movie? It was hard to picture at first. But I had to remember how I initially felt about Kill Bill. I thought it was a dumb idea upon seeing the trailer for the first time, but ended up being pulled into the world he created through Volumes 1 and 2. So I'm going to go into the movie the same way I went into Kill Bill: a little skeptical, but fully prepared to have my mind blown.

4. The Road (starring Viggo Mortensen, out October 16th): What an incredible book this was! And the fact the author of the book, Cormac McCarthy, also wrote No Country For Old Men, which ended up being a superb movie adaptation. I'm hoping that Viggo Mortensen, along with the few other great actors lined up for the movie (Charlese Theron, Guy Pierce and Rober Duvall) can make this movie just like No Country For Old Men: a great adaptation of an even greater novel.

5. Ashecliffe (directed by Martin Scorsese, out October 2nd): After The Departed in 2006, The Aviator in 2004 and Gangs of New York in 2002, I think it's safe to say Martin Scorsese is on a streak of sorts. Ashecliffe is based on a Dennis Lehene novel, and Lehene is responsible for the movies Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, both excellent films and novels. This gives me much hope already for

As I write this, I'm not entirely sure who I'm defending Supernatural against.. Part of the reason for writing this is because I know people who pigeonhole this show in between Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, and partly because the show's ratings are far from stellar. Its quality cannot be blamed though (it's on the dead zone of television: The CW). Maybe I'm just writing this because I find the show to be above and beyond a lot of the other television on today and, since it doesn't get enough recognition, I decided to vent a little on it. Either way, I'm doing my best to defend the show against whatever supernatural forces are causing the ratings to hover below 4 million.

I just found Supernatural about a month ago. My friend had been telling me about it for years and I never gave it the time of day. "Too many shows as it is," was the excuse I gave him, but I soon realized that was a poor excuse, since every other week, I found myself watching a new show. I think it was just because when you hear somebody praise a show to the point where they act as if it's the only one that exists, part of you knows that their won't be the same level of magic when you actually do get around to seeing it. So I held off for as long as I could, and eventually, I got bored of watching re-reruns of Scrubs and House on TV and decided to give it a shot.

I went into the show with somewhat low expectations and was actually surprised. The show proved to be exceptional, and instead of focusing on a dozen different characters, like Buffy did, Supernatural keeps the dynamic simple: two brothers hunting supernatural beings, and also looking for their father. The show doesn't stretch the plot out for shock value, or screw over the audience. Every episode is nearly the same, with the only difference being the actual supernatural being their hunting, yet it doesn't grow stale. Instead of having numerous mini plots within the season (like 24), they're comfortable with just dragging the same one out for a season and a half. The show, to me, is an anomaly.

First of all, to the people who compare the show to Buffy or Angel or Charmed or any other show similar to those shows, the comparisons shouldn't go any further than "sci-fi show." They both dabble in science fiction/fantasy plots, but go about structuring the shows in very different ways. Buffy had the tendency to focus on relationships and personal issues. In fact, it focused a lot on Buffy being in school, whether it was high school or college. Supernatural had one episode where Sam was in college, and that was the first episode. After that, the focus was on the brothers and their travels across the United States for supernatural beings. Angel, in my opinion, was better than Buffy, and is probably closer to Supernatural than anything, but it still doesn't compare.

As I mentioned before, Supernatural has two main characters and a plethora of supporting characters that rarely last more than an episode or two. The focus is on Sam and Dean Winchester, while everybody else sort of exists to add to the dynamic of their relationship. In a way, the hunts they go on themselves add to the brother's relationship. I see it as more of a character study and less of a plot driven show. Which is a great thing, because you don't see a lot of that in TV/movies nowadays.

At this point, I suppose I should stop writing, mainly because I haven't even gotten through a full two seasons. This is all just based on the first season and a half of the show. However, I've heard through the grapevine that the best episodes are yet to come, so I may or may not be posting a blog in the near future about how I'm horribly wrong or about how my initial predictions were right.

I can see why people might not like Supernatural. To some people, it may be boring. To others, it might seem like an anti-climatic show, where the scares and characters don't seem genuine. However, having seen enough TV shows and movies, I can say that Sam and Dean's characters have been stuctured very realistically and have nowhere to go but up from here.

I can still remember the first time that I bought the first two seasons of The Office. I noticed that they were cheap, I had plenty of money in my pocket, and I was craving something new. I had heard some hype about the show and decided now was as good a time as any to give it a try. I flew through the 28 episodes on the DVD's and caught up on the episodes of Season 3 I had missed and became addicted. I knew the show was based on a British version, but upon comparing the two later, I realized that the American version really had become its own show. It didn't have to live in the shadow of the original and had used its superb writing and acting in order to become more than just another "remake."

Season 4 was the first season I started watching on TV (I hate to admit it, but I was so focused on The Shield, Lost, Monk and other various shows, some that I watch still and others that I don't, that I felt like I didn't have time for The Office). I felt as if there was somewhat of a difference between the material in both of these seasons. I think the change came when we found out that Jim and Pam were dating. The second that they were together, and the writers made it clear that they weren't going to split them up like most sitcoms would, the show lost some of the tension that had been prevalent throughout the first three. In the first two seasons, Jim was pursuing Pam, while in the third, the roles were reversed and it was Pam who wanted Jim. Season 4 brought the two in a relationship, and while it was a breath of fresh air for everybody who wanted them together, it also brought along with it a burden of sorts: How do you keep a show that hinged on a "Will they, won't they?" plot relevent after the two decide that they clearly "will?" People can deny it all they want, but the show's first three seasons are clearly different than the last two.

And Season 5 is on the air now, and the show has moved even further away from what it used to be. Jim and Pam, who became engaged (in an episode that was one of the best so far), have spent so much time apart that it's hard to see any emotion or passion between them (save for the occasional obligatory kiss and hug that shows they are with one another). Angela has gone from the "uptight blond chick" from Seasons 1 and 2 to a player of sorts; someone who doesn't mind screwing around with two guys lives (regardless of how stupid they are). Michael continues to prove his stupidity has no limit and, on the upside, the supporting characters have taken a much more prominant role, something that I think is important.

Regardless of everything I say, I do want to set the record straight: I love The Office, always have, always will, and I think Season 5 is still funny and brings the laughs. That's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried that the show, as funny as it is, will descend far enough away from what it used to be that it will fall into the same trap that most shows do: becoming a stale show. Friends was a great show in its prime, but lost its shine during its final season (some could even say during its ninth, even though I personally loved it). As great as Seinfeld was for its entire run, there was clearly a disconnect between its first eight seasons and its final one. Maybe it was because Larry David left the show near the end, or maybe they were just running out of ideas, but its last season definitely didn't have the same impact as its first eight (except for the finale, that was a HUGE episode in terms of hype). It just seems like after a certain point, shows start to lose their relevance and the quality of the show is affected by its longeivity. A show that's been on the air for awhile may be impressive for its ability to attract viewers and attention, but it's rare you hear a show staying on for 9,10, even 11 seasons without people commenting on its quality. The early days are almost always better then the later ones (with random episodes that are above and beyond) and people complain that the show is disappointing now.

My point is this: I hope The Office considers bringing their show to a close after 7 seasons. Maybe even 6. I wouldn't be sad seeing The Office go, as long as it were at the top of its game. The Shield, which is my favorite show of all time, left at the perfect place. It tied up nearly every loose end and the episode count (70-80 in all in seven seasons) was not enough to be overwhelming, but not too little that you don't care about the characters or the plot. I don't want to see The Office fighting for plot and character development when it would've been easier to just leave things when they were at their peak. As I said before, The Office is still funny (Michael, Dwight and even Jim still never fail to bring a smile to my face, and the supporting characters have become even funnier, whether it's Kevin, Oscar or Stanley) and its ability to retain nearly all of its audience week to week (and even have some increases) shows that the show is still relevent. But lately, I've been paying closer attention to the storylines, to the way the characters act, and I keep thinking, "When's the other shoe going to drop? What will happen when Greg Daniels runs out of ideas and he resorts to some ridiculous plot, like having an Office/Parks and Recreations cross-over?" God Forbid they take a leaf out of 30 Rock's book and have a plethora of guest stars that are simply an audience magnet.

I still have faith in The Office. I hope people continue to have faith in it too, because the show in its prime was incredible and one of the better comedies on television, and it would suck to see one bad season cast a damper on its status as one of the best comedies to grace television.