Sure, the animation styles may be similar, but you can't help but notice the Nickelodeon influences on Avatar. You have the bodily function jokes, the silly asides, and some of the nonsensical plots. After finishing the Avatar series for the first time recently, I couldn't help but think of what it would be like if it were more like anime, in that, it was made for more mature audiences.

Let's start by saying this right out front. The first two seasons of Avatar are more light-hearted, but the last season definitely picks up its game. There are times when I was watching the third season when I said to myself, "Whoa. For a kid's show, this shit got real." We're talking about heavy themes such as the death of parents, redemption, forgiveness, and fate. If you didn't know any better, you'd think I was talking about Lost.

I also want to say this before going on. By far the most interesting character in this entire series is Zuko. Forget Aang and his journey to become the Avatar (although I am a sucker for the traditional hero narrative). Zuko not only has the most character growth, but by far the most interesting story arc. I'm not going to give away any spoilers for those who have yet to watch it, but dang, talk about literary figures.

Now, back to the anime comparison. Love it or not, one of the greatest thing about anime is that it is insanely deep. If you have watched any anime, you'll see that it's not just about watching silly cartoons for kids. It's a medium for art that conveys rich themes. Now take the themes that we mentioned earlier that are running through Avatar and you'll see the potential that could have been reached.

Here's one prime example: No one ever freaking dies. Now I'm not saying that good art needs to have loads of death in it, but if you're showing us a scene where people are trying to siege a city and the worst thing that happens to the invading party is that the tanks stack up, it takes away from the impact. Plus, there are a lot of characters that could have died to create a very powerful effect but never did because it was a show designed for kids. There is a lot of room for more mature themes that would make these themes resonate even more than they did in the cartoon.

All of this to say, I really do think Avatar is a great piece of work as a whole. I just think there was a possibility to make the deeper themes in the show resonate more and to be less... well.. gimmicky at times. But if you haven't watched Avatar yet, you should get right on it. And stick it out until season 3. That's when it starts to get intense.

It’s one of the scariest things to do. What happens when you realize you are being constrained by everything you thought you knew? What do you do when you realize there is something more out there, but because of everything you’ve been taught, you can never experience it? What does it take to break the chains of a restricting worldview? These are weighty questions and not questions that I expected to face while watching “The Truman Show.”

The movie is set in some alternate universe where the entire life of one person is fabricated all for the sake of television programming. Everything about his life is fictional and made up, controlled by the director to create meaningful and powerful television. “The Truman Show” deals with Truman’s realization that everything he has known his entire life is a façade. It depicts his journey to break free and experience life as we know it.

It’s hard not to draw parallels to the commentary on religion being portrayed in this film. While references are dropped throughout the film, nothing makes it clearer than the final scene of the film where Truman is talking directly to the director. Well… directly is a loose term. The director talks through the skies, as if he is the omnipotent God. He evokes the tropes of Christianity, telling Truman that he has known him since his birth, that he has walked through life with him. He knows Truman better than Truman knows himself.

It is this logic that is supposed to keep Truman locked within the garden that is “The Truman Show.” But there is something that drives Truman even more. It is the deterministic spirit of the human condition that pushes him to seek out the truth, to seek out what is reality.

“The Truman Show” teaches us that we cannot let ideology control us, that we cannot allow ourselves to buy into one specific perception of reality. When we do, we lose sight of what it means to truly live. None of this could be made clearer than when the director says, “He believes because it is the reality he is shown.” If your specific worldview is all you have ever known, why would you ever dream of seeing the world as anything else?

While it is clear that the film is trying to encourage people to look beyond the scope of religion to explain truth and reality, I think that perhaps this principle is better applied to worldviews in general. Anyone can become constrained in their particular worldview and lose sight of what it means to live. The positivist can become so convinced that the empirical is all we know they they lose sight of the spiritual side of life. The trappings can occur with any perspective.

So what is the solution? The solution that “The Truman Show” presents is that we need to leave behind our background and upbringings to see what life holds. It’s not that the world that “The Truman Show” takes place in is a bad place. In fact, it’s wonderful. But what is the point of wonderful if you have nothing else to compare it to?

It is only after one explores the world and examines what is out there that they can begin to understand what it is they truly understand. In the end, we may choose a worldview to come to, but it is not because it was forced upon us by the powers that be. Like Truman, it should be because it is the decision we have chosen to abide by. It’s an interesting call for us to examine what are the social constructions of the way we view reality. Are we willing to see beyond our perspective or will we stayed in the walled garden? This is the ultimate question “The Truman Show” asks and the question we must chose to face if we are to step beyond our experiences and find truth.

Now that the Oscars are done with, we hit a nice lull in the award season drama. It's time to check in with the prediction results. Hopefully you did well. This year My predictions were pretty spot on with some notable exceptions. For example, "The Hurt Locker" won best original screenplay? It may have been put together well, but to say that it was better written than "Inglourious Basterds" is kind of insulting to the art of screenwriting. I mean, have you seen the dialogue in that movie? Also, I am bummed that "Up in the Air" didn't win anything. It's still one of my favorite movies from last year. That and "The Brothers Bloom." Oh well, 10 points overall isn't awful.

My predictions are in italics and actual winners are in bold.

Best Supporting Actor:

• Matt Damon in "Invictus" 
• Woody Harrelson in "The Messenger" 
• Christopher Plummer in "The Last Station"
• Stanley Tucci in "The Lovely Bones" 
• Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds" 

Best Supporting Actress:

• Penélope Cruz in "Nine"
• Vera Farmiga in "Up in the Air"
• Maggie Gyllenhaal in "Crazy Heart"
• Anna Kendrick in "Up in the Air" 
• Mo'Nique in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Best Adapted Screenplay: 

• "District 9"
• "An Education"
• "In the Loop"
• "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• "Up in the Air"

Best Original Screenplay: 

• "The Hurt Locker"
• "Inglourious Basterds"
• "The Messenger"
• "A Serious Man"
• "Up"

Best Animated Film:

• "Coraline"
• "Fantastic Mr. Fox"
• "The Princess and the Frog"
• "The Secret of Kells"
• "Up"

Best Actor:

• Jeff Bridges in "Crazy Heart"
• George Clooney in "Up in the Air"
• Coin Firth in "A Single Man"
• Morgan Freeman in "Invictus"
• Jeremy Renner in "The Hurt Locker"

Best Actress:

• Sandra Bullock in "The Blind Side"
• Helen Mirren in "The Last Station"
• Carey Mulligan in "An Education"
• Gabourey Sidibe in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• Meryl Streep in "Julie & Julia"

Best Director:

• James Cameron- "Avatar"
• Kathryn Bigelow- "The Hurt Locker"
• Quentin Tarantino- "Inglourious Basterds"
• Lee Daniels- "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• Jason Reitman- "Up in the Air"

Best Picture:

• "Avatar"
• "The Blind Side"
• "District 9"
• "An Education"
• "The Hurt Locker"
• "Inglourious Basterds"
• "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• "A Serious Man"
• "Up"
• "Up in the Air"  

Hollywood formula: Drinking + Stereotypical Characters + Boobs + Bodily Functions = Box Office Smash. It's true, look it up. The math doesn't fail. Also, it apparently = Golden Globe. But let's be honest, no one takes the Globes seriously. After all, Avatar won best picture (BURN!).

I've heard a lot of great things about The Hangover. I've heard that it was the funniest movie of the Summer, that it was a genuinely good movie, and that I'd have a blast watching it. Perhaps it was the anticipation, but it did not live up to any of the hype. The Hangover is not a bad movie, but it certainly isn't everything that it was made out to be.

First up, the movie takes way too long to get to the funny parts. There is too much time spent in the set-up of the actual premise of the movie that I started to get bored. I get it, three of you are best friends and one of you is an outsider. One is the suave debonair gent, one is the timid whipped boyfriend, one is the mentally challenged guy, and the other is the well intentioned groom. Awesome, just don't spend what feels like forever establishing these roles. I get it. Honestly.

There are some legitimate laugh out loud moments here. I think the funniest parts of the movie were the parts that weren't trying that hard to be funny. The parts that were trying to be funny? Those were a bit obnoxious. The best part though is watching Ed Helms sing a song about a tiger and Mike Tyson on a piano. It was awesome.

It has all the crudeness one would expect out of a comedy like this. I'm not opposed to crudeness in film, but I am opposed a little bit when it's there just for the sake of being crude. If you're going to do it, at least make it have a point or make it funny.

The one thing I will say about this movie is that the directing is fantastic. The shots are actually very stunning and well done. I didn't expect to admire the cinematography in a movie like this, but there is some serious good work being done here. So kudos to the team for that.

The Hangover is not the ridiculously funny comedy that everyone is making it out to be. Sure, it's got some funny parts, but it's not drop dead funny. Hopefully they can improve and get things right for The Hangover 2. Chances aren't likely though since people loved the first one. 3 out of 5.