Season premier. The start of the season looked really good for Mr. Kutcher and company, garnishing almost twenty-nine million viewers – a record high for the television series. Only the previous year, with Charlie Sheen sitting at the helm , the show attracted only about sixteen million viewers for the season premier. From the get-go, it looked like Kutcher would be a shoe-in.

The slump. In spite of the record breaking season premier episode, the ratings for Two and a Half Men have slowly declined after each episode. Just a month after the season’s first episode, viewer numbers have slipped to almost half of the original showing, at about seventeen million. However, producers remain confident that the slump will balance out (even if Kutcher seems a little worried), citing some serious competition with NBC’s showing of the NFL match in the same time slot.

Today. Two and a Half Men remains to be the highest rated television series in America today, and Kutcher’s cast mates seem supportive and optimistic. Conchata Ferrell, who plays the tell-it-like-it-is housekeeper, has even been quoted as saying that Ashton Kutcher “came along and saved” the television series, which was in dire straits after its beloved warlock, Charlie Sheen, was fired.

Will Ashton flop with Two and a Half Men? Only time will tell. But until then, it is sure to be an enjoyable topic of discussion. It seems that Charlie Sheen has left quite a legacy, and quite a huge gaping hole to fill . . . and everyone is lining up to see how this ship is going to either go down or stay afloat. Stay tuned.

Don’t be like Charlie’s brother Alan when times get rough. Check out installment loans for affordable alternatives for financial emergencies.

The six years of seemingly wedded bliss that followed changed the climate of the ever so critical public, which came to embrace the romantic idea of the older woman and the younger man. Kutcher fueled the media fanfare by proudly announcing, “Call me Mr. Moore” So what went wrong? Apparently, things weren’t as perfect in reality as they were in fantasy land. After the couple went public with their split, the ugly truth began to surface: Kutcher’s infidelity, Moore’s insecurity, and years of a slow disintegration of the relationship. Now Moore – forty-nine years old – is once again single and free – responsible for her own home, family, and installment loans. So what’s next for Demi Moore? Here’s the latest.

Love life. While it’s true that Moore did her best to stay out of the limelight following the break up and divorce announcement, lately she has been seen out and about with a new mystery man. What’s more is that friends report she seems a lot happier and more at peace than she was before. Perhaps Moore has already moved on?

Family life. As a mother of three girls, there’s no doubt that Moore has plenty on her plate to distract her from this tough time. Her youngest daughter (from former marriage to Bruce Willis), Tallulah Belle Willis, just celebrated her 17th birthday at the debutante coming out party in Paris. Moore was nowhere to be seen, but reports place her at her home . . . with Mr. Mystery Man.

Career. On Novermber 30, Moore was spotted at a fashion shoot – the first she has emerged from her self-imposed isolation to return to work since the break up. As far as her career goes, there are no rumored movie plans in the near future, but Moore will be the feature model for designer Ann Taylor’s holiday 2011 collection.

It’s hard to say exactly what is next for Demi Moore. Most likely, the best thing she can do is grieve the end of the relationship however she needs to, and for however long it takes. Moore made it clear, though, that she is not defeated: “As a woman, a mother and a wife there are certain values and vows that I hold sacred, and it is in this spirit that I have chosen to move forward with my life.”

The superhero movies are usually by most of the kids as they don’t have such questions in their minds while watching one. They just enjoy the power and strength of the superheroes. They are least bothered, that the superhero in the movie is a good guy or a bad one.

Superhero movie is all about fulfilling the fantasy of a child; however not all the superhero movies are the best. Some of such movies are actually pathetic and worst to watch.

If taken technically, there are many things to be considered when superhero movies are to be made. The production house has to give a green light, the copyrights have to be checked, a good script has to be developed and the final product should be able to cater to a wider market. However, not all superhero movies are able to do as well as others.

Here is a list of the top 5 superhero movies that should never have been made:

5. Thor

Thor was poised to be the most royal characters as per Marvel, but there was no response to this movie that could be called awesome. As per some analysts, Thor received the smallest opening for any Marvel movie post release of Daredevil and Spider Man.

There were many wrong things in Thor, with the screenplay being scattered here and there. The direction was just something normal. And, what is to be the characteristic of a superhero movie, Thor lacked enough amount of action.

4. Green Hornet

From the moment Green Hornet received the green light, it was clear that something was wrong with this superhero movie. There is no doubt that Seth Rogen is respected for his scripts, but the Green Hornet was a different thing. Green Hornet was a superhero from the 60s and 70s and creating him again in the form of Seth Rogen was something of a horrible idea.

3. Daredevil/Elecktra

Daredevil was released way back in 2003, and Elecktra dies in the movie within the first fifteen minutes. Daredevil then takes it to himself to find her killers. The move had some great reviews, but it was the spin-off of the movie, Elecktra that made it all wrong. After she is killed, Elecktra gets revived at the hands of a blind martial arts expert.

The movie proved to be a total failure. While the critics ignored it, it was hated by the audience and emerged on the list of the worst movies of the year 2005.

2. Your Pet Hate

When it is about superhero movies, everyone have their pet hates. While some people hate Superman Returns, others hate Spider Man 3. While Superman Returns is hated for the type of ice-cream that it was turned into by Bryan Singer, Spider Man 3 is said to have lots of characters. Some people also hate the Fantastic Four or Captain America for other reasons.

1. Batman and Robin

Batman and Robin is the one movie that made a producer close the door to every director, scriptwriter or fanboy who sought to make some superhero movie. This movie had some big names – George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chris O’Donnell. The movie was a failure at different levels. It was a toyistic movie, where the attention was more on the placement of the product rather than on the script. After this movie, it became impossible for anyone to get a green light for a superhero movie, until it was Marvel that came up with its Spider Man series that gave a reboot to the character.

DiCaprio tweeted a link this week to new still pictures from his upcoming movie “J. Edgar” that show him portraying Hoover later in life. The pictures – that also include shots of director Clint Eastwood working with DiCaprio behind-the-scenes – show a remarkable resemblance.

But fear not, those who couldn’t suffer an entire movie with DiCaprio’s leading-man looks obscured; he is clearly himself in earlier scenes portraying Hoover as a younger man.

The biography is scheduled for theater release Nov. 9, according to IMDB.com. It tells the story of Hoover who was FBI director from 1924 until his death in 1972.

Unrecognizable

DiCaprio isn’t the only A-list Hollywood actor to star in a movie that obscures the attractiveness that helped make them stars in the first place. And that’s always fun. To see an actor transformed into something completely unexpected is one of the classic joys of cinema.

Too often, actors reside in safe zones that don’t challenge conventional perceptions. It’s always refreshing to see an actor step out of that box and do something different – something that allows viewers to fully appreciate their performing ability.

Here’s a list (in no particular order) of some of the best movies that starred unrecognizable actors:

• The Dark Knight: Heath Ledger (The Joker), 2008.
• The Hunger: David Bowie (John), 1983.
• How The Grinch Stole Christmas: Jim Carrey (The Grinch), 2000.
• Hook: Glenn Close (Gutless), 1991.
• Tropic Thunder: Tom Cruise (Les Grossman), 2008.
• Shadow of the Vampire: Willem Defoe (Schrek), 2000.
• Raging Bull: Robert DeNiro (Jake La Motta), 1980.
• Edward Scissorhands: Johnny Depp (Edward), 1990.
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), 2005.
• After the Sunset: Salma Hayek (Lola Cirillo), 2004.

Any, or all, of these great flicks would do nicely to pass the coming weeks until DiCaprio’s “J. Edgar” hits theaters.

About Author:

Edward Chipotle writes about technology and movies – two of his favorite subjects. When he isn’t enjoying a dark movie theater, Edward can be found Metrofax online faxing to celebrities and other known entities, he hates to call and only uses fax to reach out to big celebrities.

1.) The Godfather. As a woman, I thought this was merely a dude movie, and I admit the only reason I watched it was to finally understand the references to it in one of my favorite romantic comedies, You’ve Got Mail. But when watching this Academy Award-winning film, I got wrapped up in the complex plot, the family dynamics, the considerations on good and evil, and the inevitability of Michael’s rise to power in the mob world. In this vein, I also recommend cult classic Boondock Saints, another supposedly stereotypical dude movie that actually transcends gender. I remember posters for both of these movies plastered all over dorm room walls.

2.) A Beautiful Mind. Wow. What a movie. This one got me thinking about the different forms mental illness takes, and how even the brilliant are not immune. Russell Crowe plays the role of a gifted mathematician who discovers a groundbreaking mathematical principle as a graduate student at Princeton, and later becomes a professor at MIT, where his mental illness shapes a bizarre reality from his viewpoint. Another movie in this vein that explores a dangerous world created through mental illness is Shutter Island.

3.) Good Will Hunting. Like A Beautiful Mind, this film also involves a college setting and a gifted mathematician. Matt Damon’s character Will Hunting is a janitor who solves a particularly difficult math problem left on a chalkboard in a college classroom. This brings him to the attention of a professor who believes Hunting has potential. Hunting confronts the abuse of his childhood with the help of a therapist and is able to finally move forward with his life. Any college student who isn’t deeply moved by the “It’s not your fault” scene with Robin Williams has a heart of stone!

4.) Animal House. You can blame this movie for helping propagate all the stereotypes we know and love about college and fraternity life, like toga parties, road trips, pranks and copious amounts of alcohol. It also offers nothing of the value that the previous three films I’ve named have, and critics have called it a brainless disservice to what college life is really like. That being said, this movie is hilarious and I seem to recall a lot of the behavior and antics I saw in Animal House happen in real life back when I was in college. But no matter. For more funny crap involving a road trip to take your mind off of finals, watch Dumb & Dumber.

5.) An Inconvenient Truth. Climate change is a huge challenge that must be confronted by this next generation, and many of today’s college students will become key leaders to effect social and political change. This documentary film will get you talking and thinking about the reality of the environmental damage humanity has caused, despite any pre-conceived opinions on Al Gore. Other great documentaries I recommend for college students are Invisible Children and Supersize Me.

6.) Son In Law. Another goofy comedy that exaggerates college life, Son in Law is a ’90s movie featuring Pauly Shore as Crawl, a crazy UCLA college student apparently majoring in college who takes a trip to a female friend’s conservative South Dakota farm, where hilarity ensues. The film does remind you how very much college can change you from your hometown roots.

7.) Garden State. This low-budget, coming-of-age movie featuring actors Zach Braff and Natalie Portman took the college scene by storm and became a cult classic in 2004. The two portray characters that meet and hash out their personal issues in a small town in New Jersey accompanied by a soundtrack filled with awesome songs from The Shins, Coldplay, Colin Hay, Remy Zero and Iron and Wine.

Add your picks below!

Guest Bio: This guest post is contributed by Kate Willson, who writes on the topics of best online colleges.  She welcomes your comments via email at  katewillson2@gmail.com.

It’s also something of a family affair.  Bobbie Sue Luther produced the movie.  She also serves as the female lead.  Luther is married to the special effects expert who directed the movie, Robert Hall.
You can bet your severed head that its makers weren’t worried about whether the general public would fall in love with it.  They just wanted to appeal to its micro-niche.

It looks like they did a good job.   A perusal of the surprisingly large world of slashercentric blogs reveals generally positive reviews of the movie and a great deal of appreciation for its spree-killing star character.

The killer villain of Laid to Rest is the highly stylized Chrome Skull, who as his name suggests, has a face covered by a chromed skull mask.  He also has two big chromed blades that look like what the twin gynecologists from Dead Ringers may have owned had they taken gear to the guys at West Coast Choppers for some pimpin’.  Oh, he also has a little video camera mounted to his shoulder with a glowing red light.

The plot involves an amnesiac girl who escapes from a coffin just in time to flee Chrome Skull.  She seeks help from good-hearted but incompetent people.  Chrome Skull kills several of them.  A few of them survive until the final credits, including the protagonist scream queen.  Chrome Skull appears to die, but we all know better.  Two sequels are already in the works.

If you have delicate sensibilities, you’ll never consider picking up Laid to Rest in the first place.

If, on the other hand, you love incredibly gory kill scenes, Laid to Rest may become one of your all-time favorites.

The movie basically exists to take us from one act of butchery to another.  I don’t know if you can actually call the murders realistic, because I don’t know as if anyone has any idea what some of these creative bloodlettings would look life in real life.  I can tell you that you will see eyes filling with blood, entrails and even some face skinning.  If that’s your thing, this is a five-star effort.

I’m not easily offended and I’m not a slasher aficionado.  I’ve subjected myself to so much stupid crap over the years that I’m desensitized to the slaughter action. Though I’m not squeamish, I don’t really enjoy bloody mayhem for the sake of bloody mayhem.  With that in mind, here’s a quick explanation of why Laid to Rest is, by reasonable standards unrelated to the buckets of faux innards used in the production, a crappy movie.

• Chrome Skull may have a look that’s appealing to the gorehounds of the world, but no one ever bothers explaining much, if any, of his back story or motivations.  Classic movie killers like Freddie, Michael and Jason captured the public’s interest and scared folks, to at least some extent, because they had at least some messed up rationale for their non-stop killing ways.  Lacking that, Chrome Skull is just a boring, unexplained robo-man with a creepy mask.
• The stupidity of the non-killing characters reaches a level that far exceeds the average slasher flick victim.  These movies only work when characters make bad decisions, but the characters of Laid to Rest make unfathomably stupid calls at every turn.
• Laid to Rest is poorly written, poorly edited or both.  Ideas and little features that seem to have potential relevance to the story go nowhere.  Trust me when I tell you that they’re not meant to be that way.
• There are only two potential reasons you might care even slightly about the fate of anyone in the movie.  You might want someone to make it to the end so you can learn more about Chrome Skull or you might find the lead actress attractive.  As noted, Chrome Skull remains a dull mystery and Bobbie Sue Luther’s good looks aren’t a point of emphasis.

Laid to Rest isn’t scary.  It isn’t interesting.  It isn’t much of anything other than bloody.    If you need a gore fix, watch it.  Otherwise, steer clear.

In July of 1972, US bombers were working to crush Quong Tri from above as the South Vietnamese embarked on what was to become a failed two-month effort to wrest control of the northern Binh Dinh province. Plus, Jane Fonda was in country.

Barbarella wore fatigues and boonie hats. She straddled Charlie’s anti-aircraft guns–the same kind that fired shots at those planes over Quong Tri. The Oscar-winner from Klute went from being Henry’s girl to being Hanoi Jane. She even took to the airwaves, with NVA assistance, to decry America’s military activity.

That happened about a week after the release of a Francine Parker documentary, FTA. FTA is an acronym with at least four potential meanings. It was “f*ck the army”, “free the army” and “Free Theater Association”.   It could also mean “freedom, travel and adventure” (perks touted by army recruiters at the time).

The documentary tracks a travelling anti-war road show featuring Jane Fonda and her Klute co-star, Donald Sutherland. This folk-singing, joke-telling collection of performers put on a series of shows near military installations and attracted a large number of soldiers–including many who were openly expressing their discontent with the war. American Independent Pictures distributed FTA. It had been in theaters for a week when Fonda’s controversial date with Charlie began to claim headlines.

AIP summarily pulled FTA from the theaters in the wake of the Fonda controversy. Some people say that AIP just didn’t want the hassles that would come by being associated with Fonda. Others claim that threats from increasingly unpopular White House were behind the decision.

Regardless of the reason, FTA disappeared from theaters. They didn’t just lock the prints away. Someone had them destroyed. FTA vanished. The only people to see the movie for years were those with bootleg copies.

Eventually, a complete print showed up somewhere, allowing for a 2009 DVD release.

OCTOBER 2010

Today, we’re stuck in another seemingly endless land war in Asia. Circumstances are radically different but just like then, there’s a large component of the population who’d like to see the combat end.

This time, though, Hollywood isn’t talking about it the way they did forty years ago. Sure, you’ll hear occasional comments from the best-known left-leaning creatives from time to time, but no one is bringing an anti-war vaudeville show to the towns near military bases.

After watching this documentary, I’m not sure that we’re missing much.

FTA consists of two different elements. The movie is a fifty-fifty split between interviews of US soldiers who felt a strong distaste for US activity in Vietnam and the group’s campy stage show.

The interviews are interesting. It’s amazing to see enlisted Marines decry violence in the name of imperialism and to express their doubts and disappointment. None of them says anything earth-shattering, but hearing from them provides the viewer with a clear glimpse of the period and the concerns of those who were charged with the responsibility to carry out an ultimately failed plan of attacks.

The unhappy soldiers and Marines aren’t necessarily spot-on in terms of their analysis, but they got the basics right about Vietnam. They saw the writing on the wall long before the last chopper pulled away from the embassy.

The other half of the movie, the part that documents the actual FTA touring show, is almost unwatchable. Fonda and Company wanted to create a counterpoint to the Bob Hope USO shows of the day. Instead, they did something that looks, sounds and feels a lot like something put together by a bad junior college theater class with a vaguely politically aware high school student serving as head writer.

The folksy songs are catchy, but in an irritating way. The jokes and jibes are delivered earnestly, but they’re dull and obvious. The skits won’t make you smile.

The hearts are in the right place. Whether you agree of disagree with the sentiments of FTA, you can tell that those involved felt like they were doing the right thing. They believed.

They just didn’t have a very good show.

Sutherland is the sole exception. If anyone comes out of FTA looking good, it’s Sutherland.  He has one inspired bit as a sportscaster announcing a firefight between US and NVA forces. He also brings some pathos to the affair with a reading from “Johnny Got His Gun”.

There’s a chance that earlier FTA shows may have been better than those from the Pacific Rim show featured in the movie. An interview with Fonda included on the DVD release reveals that the group originally featured Peter Boyle and Howard Hesseman.

They parted ways when Fonda decided to tackle the issue of the group’s racial composition, responding to a black/white cast imbalance. She says the cast changes helped FTA to connect with the black GIs. That may be true, but it’s too bad Hesseman and Boyle couldn’t still be a part of the act.

In terms of moviemaking, FTA is a very straightforward documentary. There’s no omniscient narration and no one really speaks over the footage. There are a few smart shots and the camera finds occasional artifacts that do a good job of underlining key points. Parker’s primary gift to viewers is a snapshot of a time that’s quite different than today.

I can’t imagine Sean Penn and Will.I.Am embarking on a tour outside of US military installations today. I can’t visualize them sitting down for rap sessions with soldiers or coming right out and making unmistakably strong statements about the Army and its policies. Today, the Dixie Chicks can lose half of a career by expressing disappointment in a President. Jane Fonda will always be Hanoi Jane to a large percentage of the population. Getting as loud and as straightforward as the FTA team is bad career mojo.

The DVD’s interview with Fonda circa 2009 is a must-watch. In it, she admits to a political immaturity in the early 70s and there are moments when you can tell that the beliefs of “the movement” that fueled FTA still move her.

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.

Brilliant and undirected in Good Will Hunting.
Scared yet resolute in Saving Private Ryan.
Resourceful shitk*cker in The Bourne Identity.

Unique roles, good acting = Matt Damon.

But there are other actors who are revered for their skills who seem to take on the same role on an annual basis.

Julia Roberts as the likeable fish out of water.
John Cusack awkwardly navigating a relationship.
Jennifer Aniston looking for love in all the wrong places.
Ben Stiller snarkily keeping his anger in check.
Katharine Heigl (see Jennifer Aniston)

What fun is acting if you are either playing yourself or always playing the same role?

Are there any actors you’d like to call out for recycling a part?

Chris Chambers – Stand by Me
Chris was the ultimate friend; fiercely loyal, honest, and flawed. You know he’d have your back in a fight and even if it scared the heck out of him, he’d go into battle with you. Once you earned his trust you know you had a friend for life. He was the type of guy that commanded respect without asking for it and yet he was also sensitive and insightful.

Red – The Shawshank Redemption
What better friend than a guy who could get you things. Red was the ultimate bunkmate (although technically him and Andy never shared a cell) mostly because he was quiet. Red is the type to quietly observe the crowd, forming his silent (and very accurate) judgements and only befriending those who are worthy of his friendship. By acquiring the rock hammer for Andy, he unknowingly became his accomplice in his great escape… but more importantly he saved Andy’s life – his friendship offered hope.

Doc Brown – Back to the Future trilogy
Imagine having a zany, older, brilliant scientist as your best friend! Such was the good fortune of Marty McFly. He friendship with the doc allowed him to time travel, ride a hoverboard (why don’t these exist yet??), see and alternate version of how his life could have turned out, and be a part of the wild west! Writing this now, I think Doc Brown is my number one pick for my new BFF!

The cast of the 40yr. Old Virgin
Just imagine that the one goal of all your friends was to get you laid. Nuff said!

Below are just a random sampling of some movie and TV worlds I would occasionally like to inhabit.

Cheers – I would love to plop myself on a barstool (preferably next to Norm) and just wax poetic all day with a mild buzz from whatever beer was on tap. The bar itself always looked so cozy, tucked away underground, enveloped by cool wood tones, and surrounded by friends. We know that there is a world going on outside of the bar but we rarely venture out  – and that’s just fine.

The Truman Show – I don’t know what this says about me but something about the bright, clean, safe world of the Truman Show is very appealing. Sometimes I think I could live Truman’s life if I didn’t know it was all a sham. He’s married, has a decent job, neighbors he says hi to, a loyal best friend, and an easy commute to work. What more could one ask for? Of course as a viewer, we know that it’s all fake but what if you didn’t know? I believe this movie was filmed in the planned community of Celebration, Florida. If that’s the case, I might just be booking a ticket…

True Blood – You might be scratching your head on this one but if you think about it, Bon Temps is a pretty cool place to live! Sure if you can survive the occasional fang (or claw) this place is full of exciting new things. You can stop into Merlottes for a nice cold beer and some lunch and end the night taking in a show at Fangtasia. Vampires, Werewolves, Shape-shfters, oh my!

Back to School – Sometimes I really long for the days when I was… well, back in school! What better movie to take me back to those semi carefree days than this old Rodney Dangerfield classic. Messy dorm rooms, interesting classes (or classes with interesting characters), keggers, swimming competitions, and a great cameo by Sam Kinison. When I’m sitting at my desk doing some mundane task, that’s what I want my life to be like sometimes.

High Fidelity – Sparked by his break-up with current girlfriend Laura, High Fidelity follows John Cusack’s character Rob as he tries to figure out why all of his relationships have failed. The movie takes place in Chicago and if you’re into architecture, there’s really no better place to set up shop. Not that this movie focuses on the architecture, but it does make great use out of it’s two main locations; Rob’s apartment and the very cool record store he owns. I imagine myself working at the store with characters like Jack Black and (the underrated) Todd Louiso and I immediately feel at home.

So how about you? What movie or TV show would you like to live in?

The passengers on this night ride include Beau Bridges as a soldier with a broken arm from the mid-west and his Manhattan GI buddy, Ed McMahan as a harried young father (nope, no “Herrrre’s Johnny!” in this flick), a whiny old husband and wife, a gay guy, a black couple, and a few other typical subway strap hangers. An under cover cop disguised as a sleeping alcoholic stays that way, helping no one. As the two thugs enter the subway car, they begin to size up their prey. The night’s young, and they’re looking for ‘kicks’. Like most bullies, they have an almost intuitive sense of their victims’ weak spots.  And they work them, mercilessly and methodically. Other than for the injured soldier, all the other passengers either pretend to ignore, or revel in, the suffering of others. The angry black guy, played by Brock Peters, even thoroughly enjoys watching “whitey beat whitey”; but of course it’s not long for his turn to come. The passengers are, in turn, threatened, beaten and thoroughly humiliated. The thug’s delight is hard to take. Eventually, the soldier, alone and abandoned, decides to fight back. His dignity and courage help to reset a bizarrely out of whack moral compass. The seemingly endless ride is finally over; though the memories will continue to haunt.

A few months ago, the local media was hot to pick up on the story of a homeless man who, after coming to the rescue of a female mugging victim, died on a well-trafficked NY street. And yes, there was the obligatory video of passers by doing just that; literally stepping over the dying man, as they went about their business. As TV reporters scurried to the scene, they eagerly searched-and found-some of these folks. Most responded that they thought the old guy was just sleeping on the sidewalk. Of course, this then prompted the phony soul-searching for which the media is so notorious. They all, without exception, dredged up the old (and infamous) New York story of Kitty Genovese. This young woman was raped and murdered in her apartment, while the neighbors simply ignored her desperate screams for help. This tragic case did wonders, as you can imagine, for New York’s reputation.

Unfortunately, the nastiness portrayed in The Incident can be considered rather mild when compared to today’s substantially elevated levels of violence. Because now it’s not just about a couple of aimless dirtbags getting cheap thrills by harassing  a bunch of weary subway riders. Today, the venues for violence, like airplanes, schools, cruise ships, etc. have expanded, as have the so-called motivations of the criminals who infest them. No matter whether the perpretrators’ reasons are religious or political, the stark reality for the victims remain the same. The Incident shows us that ignoring violence, or appeasing the perps, isn’t just the cowards way out, it just doesn’t work. That’s why The Incident needs to be re-made, with an updated and fresh look at who we really are. We need it now more than ever.

The first few times I saw it, my dad and I always used to be more interested in the side players, those great character actors who really gave color to the story and provided us with endless movie quotes. We used to laugh at the scene where Bigelow finds out that he was poisoned and how the doctors deliver the news. We couldn’t wait for the scenes where Chester keeps hitting him “in the belly” (although writing this now, I’m realizing how sadistic it was!) But it wasn’t until this last viewing that we really got a sense of just how sad it is for Bigelow and Paula, that they’ll never get the chance to continue their relationship, and they really love each other. The phone conversations between them, where both Bigelow and the audience know he’s doomed but she has no clue are really tough to watch and even weirder that both me and my dad experienced the same thing. We didn’t laugh at our usual points and at the end of the movie we were both amazed by how heartbreaking the story really was, as if we’d never seen the movie before.

Many movies have re-watch value, especially comedies, and of course we all experience different emotions as we grow, but try watching a movie you loved when you were younger and see if it still holds up today. I still love D.O.A., but I wonder how I’ll feel when I watch it again in my twilight years. I wonder if I’ll still laugh at those scenes as I did when I was younger… I have a feeling I will.

I like to call the beginning of the movie (or Act 1) the calm before the storm. This act usually serves as an opportunity for the filmmaker to get in the most exposition. This part of the movie establishes characters, relationships, plots, conflicts, and most of all it introduces us to the world in which we’ll reside for the remaining 2+ hours. I love this part because it’s usually before anything goes wrong. Of course there are exceptions where we’re plunged right into the action (Total Recall and The Shawshank Redemption come to mind) but for the most part, our main characters are happy in the beginning. They’re still blissfully ignorant to the s$%! storm coming their way, and that’s just the way I like them.

Let me explain what I mean with a few examples of some of my favorites.

The Truman Show
Truman is so wonderfully unaware of this true predicament at the beginning of the movie that you can’t help but just be happy along with him. Waving to his neighbors, whistling on his way to work, and happily married to his wife, Truman doesn’t really have too many worries, except for a mild fear of the water (based on some foggy memories of seeing his “dad” disappear at sea). I usually watch up until the part where he tries to drive off the island with Meryl in the car because up until then, I kinda wouldn’t mind living Truman’s life.

Say Anything
The opening scenes of their high school graduation set up Lloyd and Diane for a romance most people dream of and few probably truly experience. Lloyd already has it in his head that he’s going to ask out the thought-to-be-unattainable Diane and you can feel the hopefulness and enthusiasm pouring out of him. He gathers up the nerve to call her and ask her to go to an end of the year party with him and, surprisingly she says yes. The subsequent party scene/first date feels really true and we just know that good things are on the horizon for our duo. I usually watch up until the awkward dinner scene where Lloyd gives his “bought, sold, processed” speech and before the whole messy business with Diane’s father ripping off old people comes to a head.

Fatal Attraction
Michael Douglas’s character, Dan Gallagher has a loving family, a successful job, close friends, and a nice apartment in the city. However as we all know, his good times don’t last long as his innocent flirtations with Glen Close’s character Alex (both character and actor have male first names… interesting) quickly come to a boiling point (pun intended). I love the scenes in the beginning showing Dan’s family life because Michael Douglas has a way of making you like him even though you know you shouldn’t. I’ll usually watch up until the scene where he sees Alex struggling in the rain and they decide to go for a drink. I change the channel and I imagine that Dan made the right decision and went home to his wife and daughter to live happily ever after.

How about you? Do you change the channel on some of your favorite movies?

The A-Team’s $26M haul, despite playing on 5,200 screens, have some people wondering if the film’s PG-13 rating was a money-making kiss of death.

According to Darren Franich at PopWatch, “Hollywood’s craven attempt to make teen-friendly films has practically destroyed a sainted genre: the contemporary action movie.”

I think that’s a very fair statement. However, I also believe that not every TV show is ripe for the big screen. Television has always had an innocence (well, up until this century) that people not only accepted, but actually liked! I realize that our ever-devolving culture and the widespread ADD outbreak has many people hankering for raunchy jump cuts – but I have another thought…

Perhaps Bradley Cooper is simply not a big draw. The ladies like him, but the A-Team ain’t no romcom. And I’m not sure that men have accepted him as a ‘man’s man.’ After all, if you take away The Hangover and the monster-sized cast of the very weak Valentine’s Day, what had B-Coop really done aside from bed several Hollywood starlets? (There WAS All About Steve).

I’m not sure if we can blame the A-Team’s sub-par performance on its ratings or the cast – but they definitely did something wrong. I’m right in the wheelhouse of its target audience and I have absolutely no interest – even if it was NC-17.

Topping the list of fear for many of us is a trip to the dentist’s office.  So when “Dr.” Szell wields a drill with evil intention’s in the 1976 Dustin Hoffman thriller Marathon Man, the anxiety level rises.

Nazi war criminal Szell, played by a stellar Laurence Olivier, is determined to find out if graduate student and avid runner Babe (a young and naive Dustin Hoffman) knows if the government is monitoring his illegal stash of “blood” diamonds stowed in a  safe deposit box.  Unbeknownst to Babe, his brother is a U.S. government agent, hence his implication.

Why is this movie ripe for a remake?

1) It was both a critical and financial success.  Aside from scoring several Oscar nominations and a Golden Globe win for Olivier (Best Actor), the film also scored $22M at the box office.

2) The fictional character of Szell continually lands on “worst villain” lists.  The scenes where he tortures Babe by drilling his teeth without any anesthetic are shocking, scary and memorable.  People of all generations, even if they have not seen the movie, are familiar with the torture scenes.  With all of the advancements in dentistry technology, think of the gruesome possibilities!

3) While nothing will be able to touch the venom between Nazis and Jews in post-WWII times, the movie could be adapted to the modern day and center around the current war on terror.  With a focus on hatred and greed, the movie is, unfortunately, timeless.

Who should be cast?

Forget Hollywood agents and big pay days, which actors do you think could do Marathon Man justice?

What do you think about Tobey Maguire as Babe?

Ian McShane a Szell?

Or, do you think this classic should just be left alone?

This past weekend I checked out a double feature of  Iron Man 2 and Shutter Island at the drive-in.  And it was a treat.  Part of me thinks this is the way movies were meant to be watched.  The other part thinks not.  Here are a few pros/cons of the drive-in movie theater.  Add your thoughts in the comments section below.

PROS:

AFFORDABLE. The theater I visited currently charges $8 per person for BOTH movies – a pretty affordable rate considering the megaplex down the road wants $12 for a single movie.

BIGGER IS BETTER. Most drive-ins don’t have big screens, they have HUGE ones.  Nab a good parking spot, and you’ll be in the middle of all the action.

COMFORT. From the volume of the audio (usually played through an FM radio station) to the level of  the air conditioning, at a drive-in, you are in
complete control of your immediate environment.   Wanna squirm in your seat?  Go for it!  Need to stretch your legs?  Step out of your car with out
saying “excuse me” or stepping on anyone’s feet.

IN SIGHT. The worst part of getting the munchies during a movie is missing the action.  The an outdoor concession stand, you’ll still have the screen in your line of sight.

CONS:

HEADLIGHTS. There’s nothing worse than focusing in on the action, only to be interrupted with bright lights in your eyes.  A surprisingly large majority of people understand the unwritten rules of the drive-in, but a few yahoos always mess it up for the rest of us.

BUGS. A seasonal activity, warm weather was custom made for a drive-in experience.  It’s also a magnet for bugs, moths and other irritating summertime critters.

FEAR. There’s something somewhat frightening about sitting in the middle of a tremendous (and dark) open field surrounded by strangers.

ECHO. Remember earlier how I mentioned the joy of controlling your own audio volume.  Well with power comes great responsibility, and in many cases, some people are just plain rude.  You can end up hearing the movie’s track coming from 100 different directions, and that can be downright distracting.
What do you think?

Not all movies need to be great ones with very deep stories and/or super cool cutting edge animation. What matters is that there are movies that we can all go to and relax for a while and forget your worries for an hour or so.

How about you? Why do you watch movies?

Who doesn’t love Clint Eastwood? Men admire his tough characters. Women gush over his manliness. It is always a win-win situation for this veteran of the movies. With his latest stint in the movies, any doubts as to his versatility and star power are certainly dispelled.

The advertising posters for the move Gran Torino portray the usual scowling face of Clint Eastwood, giving the impression that his Dirty Harry character would be coming alive on screen yet again. However, even Eastwood himself says that the movie is more than the bad boy dirty Harry image he became famous for.

Gran Torino is all about a recently widowed Korean War veteran named Walt Kowalski, whose greatest challenge at the moment is to sit back and watch his neighborhood evolve. The issue of race is at the center of this movie as much as the struggle of one person as he recalls his own dark deeds in the past.

And where did the title come from? Eastwood’s character, Kowalski, has this most prized possession of his sitting in his garage – a 1972 Gran Torino.

I have not seen the movie – but I will definitely see it as soon as I can – but judging from the trailer and what other people have been saying, Gran Torino is something worth watching. It is bold, it does not hold anything back. Just try listening for all the racial slurs that you can catch and you will know what I mean. Probably not for those with delicate sensibilities. But that’s Dirty Harry for you.

You all have probably seen The Dark Knight – who hasn’t, right? I just read an article from Popwatch, written by Mike Bruno, which highlights how disappointed the writer was with the movie. Apparently, he only saw the movie over the weekend due to a busy schedule. His main message is this: he thinks that all the hype ruined the movie for him. He writes:

Don’t get me wrong: I enjoyed The Dark Knight, and I was not disappointed in the slightest by Ledger’s freakish, lip-smacking fiend. But at the same time, I was let down given the movie’s gargantuan box office haul, the almost universal critical praise, and the Oscar buzz surrounding it and its fallen star. I could see Ledger taking Supporting Actor, but while I haven’t yet seen all the other Oscar contenders this year, I would be a bit surprised if The Dark Knight took Best Picture.

Mostly, I think this movie was successful –- as well as hugely popular –- because it featured a character that we couldn’t take our eyes off of played by an actor who recently died way too young. Before it appeared on a single screen this summer, the movie was already larger-than-life because of Ledger’s passing, and six months of the hype machine working at full steam had no doubt set my expectations way too high. So maybe this really is an Oscar-worthy movie and I just need to hire a babysitter more often and catch movies earlier and with less context. But if I’m to be honest, I was disappointed with The Dark Knight and hope for more from this year’s other Best Picture contenders.

I have to agree with him that one reason behind the movie’s success was Heath Ledger’s untimely death. In fact, that was one observation I made right after seeing the movie – The Joker overshadowed Batman. However, I do think that the movie deserves an Oscar. How about you?

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?

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.

That is, with respect to style. For many people, style is everything. What they wear, how they wear it, and when they wear it – these are very important factors. And what better inspiration than the movies? How many times have you walked away from a movie thinking, “Wow, I should try to emulate the style of so and so!” I be that you have experienced this more than once – and you are not alone.

In the history of films and movies, there is probably a small percentage of flicks which actually held the power to influence the general public in terms of style. I think that The Los Angeles Times hit the nail right on the head with its list of 10 classic style movies that inspire moviegoers. Interested in finding out if you were ever influenced by the “right” movies? Here’s a snippet of the article:

Movies have always influenced style. In 1934 — when Clark Gable shed his shirt in the Frank Capra comedy “It Happened One Night” to reveal his bare chest — men’s undershirt sales reportedly plummeted. Men didn’t suddenly tire of layering. They saw an easy “in” to becoming a bit like Gable, who played an extraordinarily dashing ordinary Joe.

A woman slips into her husband’s trousers and striped necktie and she suddenly has entree to be as zany as Diane Keaton in “Annie Hall.” A guy, tired of his milquetoast silhouette, adopts the gait of a hungry thug wearing a slim-cut suit and Wayfarers, à la “Reservoir Dogs.” Clothes help shape our identities, and copying a film icon is like taking a shortcut to cool.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg, folks. You can read the whole story in the link above. Reading this left me wondering, though…are we ever going to have movies that would leave us wanting to be like the characters like the old films?

Year in and year out, when December comes and January is just around the corner, we see all sorts of lists. Countdowns, best games, best songs, best TV shows, and of course, best movies. Naturally, every agency, person, and web site has his own “best list.” Which to believe? I’d say go ahead and make your own best movies of 2008 list!

If you’re too lazy to do that on your own and you need some help, though, here is one very interesting list from a reputable source – CNN International’s list. I wouldn’t be surprised if you find some of your favorite movies of this year on this list.

1. The Dark Knight
2. Slumdog Millionaire
3. Hunger
4. Wall-E
5. Leonera
6. Gomorrah
7. Waltz with Bashir
8. Hellboy II: The Golden Army
9. W.
10. Elite Squad
11. The Good, The Bad, The Weird
12. Il Divo
13. Cloverfield
14. The Wrestler
15. Happy Go Lucky
16. Linha De Passe
17. Man on Wire

I think that the beauty of this list is that it includes more than American movies. Truth be told, a large number of people are limited to what Hollywood churns out year after year. There are, however, countless other excellent films to be seen and experienced, which are created by people from the international scene. Perhaps it is time for you to try and see what they are about; expand your horizons so to speak? This list is a good place to start.