• It co-stars Melina Mercouri, the anti-Junta Greek actress who later became a member of the Pan-Hellenic Parliament and Greece’s minister of culture after spending years as an outspoken critic (and target) of anti-democratic forces.
• Abram S. Ginnes wrote the screenplay. Ginnes was a lifelong radical, a labor organizer and a victim of anti-communist blacklisting during the 1950s.
• The movie is an adaptation of Ben Hecht’s undoubtedly embellished autobiographical works. Hecht, a prolific Oscar-winning screenwriter, spent time on an English blacklist due to his strong support of the Zionist movement in Palestine.
• United Artists released Gaily Gaily in 1969, in the thick of a movement toward more overtly political film making.
• Norman Jewison, who has tackled a variety of social and political issues in his movies, directed Gaily Gaily.

In reality, Gaily Gaily is anything but a politically charged movie. It’s really nothing more than a sepia-toned dramedy with an impressive cast, nice period costuming and a glass smooth Henry Mancini score.

Beau Bridges is Ben Hecht. Actually, he’s Ben Harvey. That’s right, they somehow managed to turn Ben Hecht, the very namesake of the SS Ben Hecht that braved the British blockade of Palestine, into a WASP-y blond kid. Anyway, young Bridges is a sexually frustrated teen from Galena who has a thing for cleavage. With the support of his dear grandmother, he heads off to Chicago in hopes of a slightly more exciting and cleavage-rich lifestyle than Galena can provide.

He’s robbed on the train. Bordello boss Queen Lil takes care of him. He becomes a cub newspaper reporter. There are minor twists and turns as comedic reporters and politicians drink, drink and drink some more. People chase one another as bouncy Mancini music plays in the background.

Old school newspaper reporters are loveable rascals. Irish guys are drunks. Prostitutes have hearts of gold. Politicians are corrupt, but not necessarily evil. Melina Mercouri is beautiful. Margot Kidder makes her film debut. Bridges has that vaguely confused look on his face that dominates most of his early performances. Every scene features an instantly recognizable character actor (Brian Keith, Hume Cronyn, George Kennedy, etc.).

Gaily Gaily is pretty like a gilded old photograph. It snagged three Oscar nominations (costumes, art/set decoration and music).

Unfortunately, it’s boring. And, to be honest, it’s pretty damn stupid. It’s certainly disappointing.

It’s also strange. Gaily Gaily is a throwback movie made and released during a period of innovation and boundary testing. Hollywood’s output was commenting on larger issues in a grittier way than ever before. Yet Gaily Gaily’s collection of politically aware and talented artists made a movie that, at its very best, is nothing more than a quaint source of vanilla half-chuckles.

It was this love of the genre that made a viewing of Australia inevitable. I’m not a Baz Luhrman superfan, Hugh Jackman has never really impressed me and I think Nicole Kidman is the most frustrating actress of her generation. All of my instincts begged me to stay away, but I finally broke down and stuck the 2008 non-blockbuster, Australia, in the DVD player.

Something Interesting

The most interesting part of the entire movie occurs prior to the first credit. Before the first notes of the swollen score, a warning appears on the screen. It states:

Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders should exercise caution when watching this film as it may contain images and voices of deceased persons.

I may have seen other movies that featured this caution, but this is the first time I noticed it. Here’s the scoop:

Apparently, the Aboriginal people of Australia and the indigenous population of the Torres Straits have a series of bereavement and mourning rituals that include certain avoidance practices. When a member of the community passes away, they cease to use the name of the deceased for a prolonged period and avoid or destroy all photographs or recording in which the deceased appears.

It can be quite distressing for these folks to inadvertently encounter an image or recording of the departed during this period of mourning, known as “sorry business.”

Cole Slaw

Unfortunately, that brief warning was more interesting than the rest of the big, bloated flick.

I’ll spare you from a recitation of the plot. Basically, Australia is the story of a little native boy, a fish-out-of-water white woman who shows her toughness in the Outback, and a gruff, grizzled cattle drover set against the backdrop of World War II and the Japanese bombing of Australia.

It features everything you’d expect from a big, romantic epic. Sweeping scenery shots, an over-the-top score, a beautiful woman whose porcelain features belie her steely determination, the rough-and-tumble against-all-odds local love interest, big explosions, big weather and dramatic deaths. It also provides our white protagonists an opportunity to defy convention by landing on the right side of what was a horribly wrong policy regarding the native population during the period.

I can understand those who hate movies made from components like these. I really can. From a more objective perspective, I might even agree with them. However, I really do love this sort of thing. As such, I should adore Australia.

But I don’t.

Australia is cole slaw.

I like cabbage. I like salad dressing. I like little slivers of carrots. I like all of the stuff that goes into cole slaw. It should be my favorite food in the world. Yet, I hate it.

Every year, I try it again. I just can’t believe I don’t like it. It doesn’t make any sense. Every year, I discover that I hate it more than I did the year before.

That’s Australia. I should like it, but I don’t. Not even close.

With Australia, though, I think I know why I’m turned off. When people make cole slaw, they’re making it because they believe it will be a tasty side dish. They’re not making it as part of some culinary homage to the cole slaw of the past. Luhrman’s Australia is an intentionally exaggerated version of old Hollywood epics and its resulting insincerity steals any movie magic it may have otherwise possessed.

Australia is a 20th century Gone with the Wind for the southern hemisphere. It’s also a long reference to another 1939 Hollywood production, The Wizard of Oz. Whether Luhrman is trying to honor those films or to make some other point about their composition is meaningless to me. The movie tries too hard to channel its forefathers and plays like a collection of pieces that aren’t quite properly joined.

Remember, this is coming from a guy who actually enjoyed a movie featuring Anthony Hopkins in a bearskin coat wearing a chalkboard around his neck and slurring profanity. When you lose to Legends of the Fall, you really LOSE.

I’ve been meaning to watch I’m Not There since its 2007 release.  I finally got around to it.  While it’s no longer on the New Release list, I thought it was interesting enough to warrant an examination and a review.

The Accident/Picking a Story

Bob Dylan was white hot and everywhere.  Then he had a serious motorcycle accident that broke his neck in several places, cut up his face and forced him into a long period of recovery that slowly gave way to a phase of relative seclusion.

Maybe.

We really don’t know what happened on that Triumph.  The big accident story is one version of the truth.  Others say that an uncoordinated Dylan barely made it out of his manager’s driveway before accidentally falling off the bike and that he sustained only minor injuries.  There’s a version of the story with an oil slick.  One claims that a sun-blinded Dylan panicked at high speed.

He wasn’t hurt.  He was hurt.  He was severely injured.  He was on life support.  There’s probably some conspiracy nut who thinks the real Bob Dylan died and that a doppelganger replaced him (just like Paul McCartney).

Who knows?  It happened or it didn’t.  It was minor or nearly fatal.  Maybe we should just ask Bob.

Well, people have asked Bob.  And he’s given at least three different explanations of the accident himself.  When it comes to accuracy in reporting on the events of his life, Bob Dylan isn’t particularly reliable.

If you’re going to make a movie about Bob Dylan, you’re going to need to make a choice about the motorcycle accident.  You’ll tell a story, even if it isn’t the story.

But the accident is just one part of a bigger life and many of the other parts are just as ambiguous.  You’ll be picking and choosing potential realities every step of the way, trying to stitch something together into a cohesive biography of Dylan that wraps him up for the audience as an interesting, understandable figure.

Maybe.

A Different Approach to Biography

Todd Haynes found his preferred way of dealing with the motorcycle wreck in I’m Not There.  He made a series of other choices, too.  But he didn’t try to create the retelling of Dylan’s life.  He didn’t even really try to create a retelling of the story.

Haynes decided that Dylan isn’t in the pieces and that one over-arching tale couldn’t really explain the man in any accurate sense.  He didn’t bother trying to make a straight biopic.  In addition to the mystique and mystery surrounding Dylan, you can also attribute the decision the fact that Todd Haynes makes movies that remind you that he’s a Brown-degreed semiotician.

I’m Not There doesn’t feature an actor playing the part of Bob Dylan.  Instead, it has six actors playing fictionally-named versions of Dylan.  Bob is a little black kid who thinks he’s Woody Guthrie.  Bob is a 20th century version of poet Arthur Rimbaud.  He’s an actor named Robbie making a movie about a folk singer named Jack Rollins who later becomes Pastor John.  Dylan is also Rollins and Pastor John, by the way.  The Jude Quinn version of Dylan goes electric–and shows us that Cate Blanchett can portray a man.  Oh, and there’s also the Bob who’s an aging Billy the Kid.

None of them is Bob Dylan.  All of them are Haynes’ understanding of elements of Dylan or vehicles he uses to explore parts of Dylan’s story.

In the end, we don’t get a Walk the Line-style biography of the Bob Dylan.  We get an intentional blur of fantasy, reality, history, the director’s choices and little cogs that may or may not be pieces of Bob Dylan.

If you think that seems more like an academic exercise than a summer blockbuster, you’re right.  But don’t let those who’d take a wrecking ball to every ivory tower and who’ve used terms like “artistic” and “intellectual” as pejoratives in their criticism of I’m Not There fool you.  It’s well-made and very watchable.  It also hints at something other biographies tend to ignore.

Life is Complicated

By eschewing the Dewey Cox-parodied model of music biopics, Haynes gets close to some truth about Dylan.  He’s not the byproduct of a single epiphany.  He’s not a clean story.  If you’re looking for a movie that will give you a whole, understandable Bob Dylan…  Well, he’s not there.

Consider Walk the Line.  It’s a great movie.  Joaquin Phoenix (who’s now in theaters reminding us, interestingly enough, that he’s still here) creates an utterly believable Johnny Cash.  But do you think for a moment that his portrayal gave us the Johnny Cash?

Cash was undoubtedly shaped by a sharecropping youth and a brother’s tragic death, but we have no way of knowing if those movie-pivotal facts were really the driving force behind the rest of his oft-tortured life and his many actions.  Walk the Line was one construction of known facts about the man in black.  It made for a great story, but the influences portrayed, the motivations and the man at the center of the movie were the culmination of series of choices about how to create one story.  You could tell the Cash story a million different ways.

Haynes settled for six, seven or eight (depending on how you count ‘em up) versions of Dylan in I’m Not There.  That’s still far from definitive, but it’s closer to accuracy.  That’s not just a matter of mathematics.  It’s the recognition of something we know about ourselves and those closest to us that we often forget when looking for the life stories of the famous–people are complicated.

If someone wanted to tell your story in a movie, would you feel comfortable with the cherry-picking and oversimplification that dominates most biographies?  There’s more to a life than what shows up on screen for a few hours–even for those of us who don’t have Dylanesque mystery, name recognition, popularity and cultural significance.

If Hollywood ever comes knocking on my door, I’ll let them put my story on the silver screen.  But I’ll ask them to get Todd Haynes to direct.  I’d rather be a multi-dimensional mish-mash of fictionalized exemplars than a streamlined encapsulation of myself.

I’m Not There isn’t a perfect movie.  It’s not as challenging or as pretentious as some critics would like you to believe, but it’s unnecessarily murky at times (the Richard Gere as Billy the Kid sequence, in particular) and can occasionally be a little heavy-handed.  However, if you go into it with a willingness to pay attention and the realization that you’re not going to get a standard biopic, you should enjoy it–even if you’re not sure that Haynes got the motorcycle accident right.

Although the film can’t be categorized as your classic “road movie” it definitely has that feel as the characters spend a good amount of time traveling, whether it’s to a lecture on campus, a party at the chancellor’s house, Grady’s in-laws, or to rescue James Leer (from his parents/grandparents and himself). Wonder Boys takes us on a journey, exploring with richness and depth the relationships between men, women, generations, and even pets.

As I was reading the novel, I was thinking more and more about the movie and how visually it really captured the spirit of the story, with particular emphasis on the use of bridges. Watching the DVD commentary, I was impressed with director Curtis Hanson and how much thought he put into using bridges as a backdrop during major scenes. I’ve since read in subsequent interviews that when he first saw Pittsburgh he was really affected by the city and especially by how many bridges there are. He felt that the bridge symbolized so much in the film for the characters in terms of getting from here to there. Growing and maturing and expanding as a person with help from the people around you who you least expect. It’s also about transitioning from who you were to who you are (or who you’d like to be). Grady is middle aged and yet faces the prospect of fatherhood for the first time. James is a young college student just starting out, feeling his way around, trying to find out what kind of man he is. These two men share with each other that feeling of being adrift in your own life and after sharing a pretty crazy weekend, they also find their way (or at least they’re a little closer to finding their way).

The bridges in the movie were a brilliant addition and they serve the viewer well in taking us ‘along for the ride’. Hanson’s creativity so compliments Chabon’s writing that you wonder what it would be like if they came together for say, the movie version of Kavalier and Clay?

Yet there are some cruisy type movies that have, to borrow a term, an assault and battery twist. These are the movies where, despite the happily ever after beginning, the cruise inevitably ends tragically. Given box office and fan ratings, these type of movies provide a guilty pleasure for many of us. So, and to help you feel better about being stuck in staycationville, here’s a few comments about vacationers in three such movies who really owed it to themselves to just stay home! So don’t even think of envying them.

>Titanic: Several versions, the most recent with DeCaprio and Winslett as star-crossed lovers, blah blah. Youthful dreams dashed on the rocky shoals of bad seamanship. Of course, the narrative had to include a bunch of bad raps against the ship’s owner, the White Star Line, and that the collision with the iceberg, and subsequent sinking, wouldn’t have happened, except for corporate greed. Yet the most unrealistic thing in both this and the older version was the ‘women and children first’ theme. The British upper crust male passengers, knowing that they faced a nasty and imminent drowning death in icy waters, nonetheless genteelly help women (irrespective of class, if you can believe that)  into the few available lifeboats.  Damn, they didn’t portray an iota of fear, nor did they even think to loosen their neckties. There’s stoic, and then there’s stupid. Your choice.

>Posieden Adventure: Starring Gene Hackman, not as Popeye Doyle but, if you can believe this, as a Catholic priest. Replete with Roman collar and biblical quotes. Only here, he’s the muscular guy that fills a leadership void when the swanky cruise ship doesn’t simply sink, but turns upside down! It seems that by going literally belly up, the ship has developed a very large air pocket. The unfortunate passengers need to climb up (or is it down?) a gigantic chandelier, in order to survive. Their trials and tribulations, of which there are many, are shared by some great character actors, including Ernie Borgnine and Shelley Winters. Sure, there’s a lot of sentiment, but the action scenes are great.

>Ship of Fools: Based on the novel by Katherine Ann Porter, the drama takes place on a cruise ship wending it’s way from Mexico, bound for Germany, circa the mid-1930s. Narrated throughout with pure irony by the very talented Michael Dunn, a dwarf, the story tells the tale of a variety of passengers and crew; their flaws and failings. Yet, and in a bittersweet way, their hopes and aspirations for the future, as well. Film aficionados will readily applaud this all-star cast. Lee Marvin, Oskar Werner, Simone Signoret, Jose Ferrar, Vivian Leigh, and the very young George Segal and Elizabeth Ashley. The flamenco dancing of Jose Greco and his troupe add to the passions of some of the passengers. The dialogue is excellent, with both naivete and cynicism so evenly mixed as to create an interesting, albeit tragic atmosphere. In a way, I suppose that we all ride this ship…

So, if you think that life’s unfair and that the summer sucks because you’re stuck at home, just consider how lucky you really are.  After all, you might well be a passenger on any of the above cruises. So sit back, pop open a cold one, and enjoy the msifortunes of others!

The cast and crew for the new movie, Baryo, has already arrived in the Philippines and word has it that filming will officially begin this week. Baryo will be a fictionalized account of the Philippine – American War. There is speculation though if this is going to be told from the point of view of the Americans or the Filipinos.

There are some who think that Baryo may be an offshoot of Sayles’ 1000 page historical fiction novel entitled Some Time in The Sun. Sayles had problems finding a publisher for the book.

If you’re interested in finding out the progress of the new Sayles film, a production blog is now online at http://johnsaylesbaryo.blogspot.com/.

Almost five years after The King… Lee Jun-Ik is returning to period movies, this time in a more action oriented fashion. Lee’s new movie, entitled Gureumeul Beoseonan Dalcheoreom or roughly “Like The Moon That Escaped the Cloud,” features Cha Seung Won as a revolutionary and Hwang Jun-Min, who will play a “legendary blind swordsman.”

Say what?

Doesn’t “legendary blind swordsman” describe a very famous character in Japanese legend and film? Based on a promo shot of the blind swordsman, it does look like Lee has taken inspiration from the legendary Zatoichi. I won’t be surprised if Lee’s movie will also borrow some elements and plot points from the Zatoichi story.

I still look forward to the movie though.

The story draws inspiration from a short story written by Christopher Isherwood. Set in the 1960s, it centers around George (played by Colin Firth), an English professor still grieving the death of his partner. Though several years have passed, he’s still trapped in the past — or miserably trying to escape it. In his depression, he, uhm, “seeks comfort” from his best friend (played by Julianne Moore). We all know how that goes.

So George decides to kill himself. And that would be a pretty horrible way for a Christmas movie to end (although, interestingly, suicides tend to rise during the winter season — must be the combination of the dreary weather and dysfunctional family reunions). But in the spirit of another holiday classic, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” George has a “moment” that convinces him that yes, life is meaningful.
.
Colin Firth was pretty darned good in this movie, and all things considered, Tom Ford did a fantastic job, too. It is his first film, and he took creative risks, including the subtle use of color to express mood or even shift time frames (must be the designer in him). Even the placement of objects is symbolic.

It won’t win any Cannes awards but “Single Man” is a brave directorial debut that tackles a powerful topic of enduring love, triumph over tragedy, and hope. All in all, it’s a thought provoking film, and one that will have you in a suitably reflective mood when you think about the holidays “and what really matters.”

I felt like writing about “Bicentennial Man” though not because of the sci-fi element but because, having seen it again lately, I remembered just how much of a tearjerker the movie was, and still is. If you haven’t seen “Bicentennial Man” yet don’t expect to be surprised by an unexpected twist in the plot or a sci-fi film full of imagination that is truly out there but do expect to be do expect to be immersed in a story of a robot reaching for his destiny, which is to be recognized for his humanity.“Bicentennial Man” is a remarkable film not for its novelty but because it is a great example of good old storytelling. It is one truly compelling film.

Other similar films that I enjoyed are “AI” and “I Robot”. For me AI was as good as tearjerker as “Bicentennial Man”. I think I almost died from a clogged nose right at the end when he “slept” with his mom. “I Robot” was also enjoyable with more action scenes and hence a bigger hit but for me it’s storytelling just wasn’t at par with the other two “humanized robot” stories.

I know there would be people out there who’ll be less than enthusiastic about the news. But who cares? For girly girls like me who swooned and cried repeatedly during the countless time we saw the film back when we were in high school there’s no doubt that we’ll be awaiting the 3D remake of “Titanic”. For those involved in the film who’ll be making a titanic of a paycheck again once the blockbuster comes out, we can also be sure that they’ll probably be even more excited about the return of “Titanic”. The only one I can really think of who will benefit from the film that might not be too thrilled about its return would be Leo di Caprio simply because he is sooo over the crazy attention, especially from the paparazzi, from being a huge star. Of course he’s grown up a lot and should be able to handle the paparazzi thing now so maybe he isn’t to averse to the idea of “Titanic” coming back to make him the center of attention once more.

As for the actual 3D experience I am yet uncertain as to how that will pan out. Pretty sure that the once the boat starts sinking 3D aspect will make it more exciting but for the first part I don’t see how it’ll make much of a difference. Maybe cinemas should turn on fans (as in electric fans) during the famous “I’m flying” scene with Jack and Rose. Now THAT would be immersive.

So far judging from the handful of film reviews I’ve read it seems that the director Nick Cassavetes succeeded in what he set out to do – flood the cinema with tears. Cameron Diaz is also garnering praise for her performance of the mother who desperately keeps on putting her dying daughter’s needs above Anna’s. This is a great role for her and one that might just give her the break she needs to get more challenging roles than those that merely require her to be the cute girl with a great smile that she is.

The family’s state has been horrible for years but things came to a boiling point when the mom was jailed sending the kids to institutions that meant tearing the whole family apart. Gracie steps up to the plate with their grandma helping her as she struggled to provide for the family, do well in school, and somehow raise the kids well. Things go well enough for them with Gracie even meeting a wonderful guy who loves her and helps expand her horizons, until her mother gets out of jail. The grandma, who is very easily manipulated by her daughter agrees to let her stay with them despite her continuous drug use and the financial strain she brought by cashing in the kids welfare checks and using it all on herself and her boyfriends. Gracie finally fights back, knowing full well that she’ll lose her family if they stay with their mom, and decides to adopt her own brothers.

Kristen Bell and Anne Heche played their roles very convincingly so much that it tears my guts up just watching the movie. Anne Heche is so effective in her role that you can’t help but pity her despite the utter disgust you’ll also feel at seeing how bad her kids has it because of her.

What’s even more remarkable about the TV movie is that it is based on a true story. Reader’s Digest first published the story of Amy and her family. I’ve been looking for updates on them but so far haven’t found any. You can’t help but really admire the real Amy and hope for the best for the whole family.

This is one must watch TV movie. I should know I’ve seen it several times and it never fails to tug at my heartstrings and inspire to be better at the same time.

The movie is supposed to be more than just a Jessica Biel stripper movie and the plot promises a whole lot more but it makes us wonder why it still wasn’t good enough to make it to the big screen. Other disappointed cast members of Powder Blue include Patrick Swaye, who plays the part of a sleazy club owner; Redmayne, a mortician head over heels for Biel’s character Rose Johnny; and Forrest Whitaker, a suicidal ex-priest. Luckily Whitaker, who’s also a producer of the film doesn’t feel suicidal over the movie being snubbed.

Hopefully Jessica Biel’s career will start faring as well as her love life is although right now even her next movie doesn’t seem to be making waves this early. In case her career doesn’t pan out well at least she has a fall back plan because according to Cher Tippetts of Entertainmentwise, “Jessica Biel has all the necessary requirements to become a real-life stripper, according to the woman who trained her in the art of exotic dance…should the Hollywood roles ever dry up, which could be a real possibility following Powder Blue.” Oh well, I bet she’ll have the last laugh.

Nathaniel Ayers once studied at Julliard but due to a mental breakdown cannot cope with the strict code that society enforces and so ends up living in the streets, which is where Lopez finds him and befriends him. Being a journalist, Lopez of course started writing human-interest stories about Ayers but also starts on a quest to save Ayers. As time goes by Lopez realizes that his friendship with Ayers is the one that’s opening his eyes and making him see the richness of life. A movie about life and friendship that tackles the hard issues of homelessness and mental illness, the Soloist may lack the fast-pace of action flicks and will not awe you with effects but it is thoughtful and moving.

As for the acting, Robert Downey Jr was able to perfectly capture the character showing us the depth of emotions of the deeply troubled journalist. Jamie Foxx was equally perfect giving such a great performance that watching it you’ll forget that it is just acting. His portrayal of Ayers could just break your heart. Extra props to Jamie Foxx as well for his patience in learning to play the violin because it sure did pay off, even classical music enthusiasts agree that he was very convincing when he played the violin and the cello.

The movie is a must-see if you wish to see a quality film that is more than just about effects. This one you must see for the story and superb acting.

Finding Forrester is about a brilliant young boy named Jamal Wallace (Rob Brown) who lives in the Bronx and is accepted to a very prestigious private school. It centers on his friendship with a Pulitzer prize winner/recluse William Forrester (Sean Connery) and shows how the friendship helped Jamal grow as a writer and William to once again reach for his dreams and come out of his shell.

The movie got multiple nominations and is considered to be one of the best films of 2000. It also won some awards though the Oscars didn’t give it nod. Still director Gus Van Sant really hit the home run with this. If you want a quiet movie night at home this is the movie to watch.

Star Trek has always been cool but you just have to see the trailer to see why it’s gotten even cooler. I do hope the movie doesn’t disappoint. For now though the verdict is that Star Trek is making a huge comeback. Props to JJ Abrams for managing to revitalize the movie…or at least the trailer. Hopefully the trailer editors didn’t do too good a job making the trailer tons better than the actual movie.

The cast also helps with Chris Pine as James T Kirk, Zachary Quinto as the young Spock (That alone makes the movie worth watching! Sorry but I’m obviously a fan.), Leonard Nimoy as the old Spock, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Eric Bana (another one for the ladies) as Nero, and Winona Ryder as Amanda Grayson.

The movie premieres May 8. Come May I will surely be dragging people with me to see the movie. My guess though is that the dragging part won’t be necessary once my friends see the trailer.

Watch the Star Trek trailer in HD at Apple.com

Looking for a good “feel bad then feel good” movie? I know that sounds kinda wrong but you know what I mean…movies that are about the hard times in life…at the end of the day, despite the grimness of these movies, you tend to feel a glimmer of hope. This could be due to the fact that you know that somehow, some way, there will be a rainbow at the end of the road. Whatever the reason, I think that this would be a good time to watch one of these movies – and then celebrate your life afterwards.

The Grapes of Wrath
Definitely a good portrayal of how harsh life can be. This movie is actually a documentary cum poem based on John Steinbeck’s novel of the same name. If you have not read the novel (I can’t imagine why not!), the gist of the story is that a farming family from Oklahoma migrates to California to find work. The actors (Henry Fonda and Jane Darwell) are excellent and brings the novel to life. An old movie but very much relevant to today.

Cinderella Man
This movie is more recent and it certainly was a hit when it was released. The story is based on the life story of Jim Braddock, played by Russell Crowe, and how he struggled with the fact that he could not provide for his wife (Renee Zellweger) and children. He gets a chance to do so by fighting in the boxing ring. The movie is a good mix of emotions, sports, and relationships.

The Pursuit of Happyness
If you cannot appreciate this movie, then I don’t know what to do with you! Will Smith did a superb job playing the role of the lead character. Who can forget scenes wherein he and his son were living on the streets?

While we’re at it, why don’t we take a look at “the other” movie that caught the attention of movie goers on its Christmas release? While Jennifer Aniston came up with a comedy that managed to elicit some tears at the same time, her ex-husband Brad Pitt had a movie that belongs to a class of its own.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button is actually based – albeit very very loosely – on a short story by Scott Fitzgerald. The whole story revolves around the “curious case” of the main character, Benjamin Button who, instead of growing old, became younger as the years went by. That in itself is a curiosity, don’t you think?

Critics applaud director David Fincher’s hand in the movie; how he was able to create a movie that is “extravagantly ambitious movie that’s easy to admire but a challenge to love.” I have to be honest and say that even the basic idea didn’t – and doesn’t – appeal to me. I simply am not attracted to the idea that someone is aging the other way around (if aging can even be used to describe what happens to Button).

However, I have to admit that Brad Pitt is still as glorious as he was when I first saw him on screen. He is Brad Pitt after all. And that fact has given a lot of plus points to this movie. With Cate Blanchett playing the other major role, the movie is indeed eye candy even for those who might not fall in love with the story. I am not surprised that the movie didn’t earn more than others thought it would on its first day.

Yeah, I know, it’s called Down Under but I just could not resist the pun. It may not be the most brilliant of lines but I have to say that neither is this movie. I was really eager to watch it simple because I like Nicole Kidman and I think Hugh Jackman is hot. These things aside, I really didn’t find myself that happy after watching the movie. It has been out for several weeks now but I am not surprised that it has been getting a lot of flak from critics and – if they are to be believed – it is also not a surprise that cinemas showing Australia are not crowded.

So what’s wrong with the movie? It was 165 minutes long. For a movie that long, I expected so much more. I expected to walk away understanding exactly what it is that the movie wanted me to know and feel. Good luck with that. I was left wondering what Lurhmann was trying to get across.

The beginning of the movie was not so bad – Nicole Kidman doing comedy, but that is probably only because I like her. But somehow – and I am surprised at this – she didn’t lift the movie up to the level I was expecting it to be. If anything, it was Jackman’s acting (and wonderful shower scene!) that gave the movie its saving grace.

I know I am sounding like one of those “expert” film critics – I am not one of them – but I just have to say, almost 3 hours worth of my time could have been spent on something better.

Ever since Will Smith came out in the Men In Black movies, I have always thought of him as a funny guy. I never thought of him as a rapper, truth be told – it just didn’t work out for me. Funny guy, yes.

How about a serious actor? Yeah, he can get away with it. Independence Day. The Pursuit of Happyness. These movies have revealed the serious actor in Will Smith. And with his new movie, Seven Pounds, it seems that his deeper side has come out even more.

Critics have a lot to say about the movie. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle describes the movie:

In fact, the movie is so roundabout and cryptic that it takes half the running time just to figure out the general nature of what’s going on. “Seven Pounds” makes a mystery of its lead character and of what he’s pursuing, and for a very simple reason: If the movie were to announce its subject and story in the usual straightforward way, it would seem so ridiculous, far-fetched and borderline distasteful that no one would want to watch it. It might even seem funny.

Still, he gives the movie, the story, and the actors their due:

Enjoyment of “Seven Pounds” rests entirely in how one reacts to the romance that develops between the austere IRS agent and Emily (Rosario Dawson), a graphic artist suffering from congenital heart failure. Some will cry foul, say it’s too much, that the movie turns maudlin. But for those who find themselves on the film’s wavelength, this is love at the edge of the universe. This is the kind of thing that inspires people to write operas.

The review is enough to spark an interest in me – enough to get me out tonight to see the movie.

The movie tells the story of a call girl. and is part of Soderbergh’s six-picture deal with Mark Cuban.

The HBO drama pilot is for Boardwalk Empire. Scorsese is already an executive producer of the show, which is based on Nelson Johnson’s book that revolves around the gambling operations in Atlantic City during the 1920s.

If ever Scorsese agrees to the project, this is going to be his first TV drama gig. His only other TV credit is directing one episode in the Amazing Stories series.

Fortunately, The X-Files movie sequel may have reignited her passion for acting. She is reportedly going to star in and produce a biopic on the life of Martha Gellhorn a pioneering female war correspondent who managed to gain coverage of the various conflicts from the Spanish Civil War to Vietnam while also trying to juggle her personal relationships, including a marriage to Ernest Hemingway. Anderson will play the title role in the movie.

No word yet on possible release dates.

Now the four are back for another go at the sisterhood as they are set to appear in the Sisterhood sequel due in August 2008. The movie is actually based on a series of books from Ann Brashares. The sequel will attempt to squeeze in three books’ worth of material into one movie. The four are now in college and thus, will have a more mature theme. Do we expect a bit of nudity here since they’re “adults” now? no one knows yet but do expect to see the four actresses jump off a cliff and into the ocean as part of their “improv” suggestions for the movie.