Sorkin is reportedly very interested in the project and “strongly considering” the project. Sorkin revealed that he is still thinking about the project and considering a lot of factors. He said the movie is going to be big and acknowledges – quite humbly – that the movie will be an awesome one regardless of the writer who eventually bags the project.

Sorkin’s optimism about how successful and great the proposed Jobs biopic will be is quite justified. In just six days after the release of “Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography”, more than 379,000 copies of the book were sold – and that’s just in the United States.

Sorkin is a great choice as the scriptwriter for the Jobs. He was instrumental in the success of The Social Network, which would spiritually be in the same vein as Jobs’ movie – a biopic about a man deeply involved in technology. But more than that, Sorkin does have a personal connection with Jobs. Sorkin has actually spoken with Jobs a number of times and at one point he was supposed to write a script for Jobs’ wildly successfully 3D animation outfit, Pixar.

Whatever happens to the project, it is almost sure that it is going to be one of the most hotly anticipated movies to be release in the future.

One reason why my friends love the horror movie marathons I host is the diversity I provide them. They’re sure to watch a movie they haven’t seen before and not the tired old Hollywood horror movies that everyone knows about.

If you want to host your own horror movie marathon and want to give your friends a real movie treat, why don’t you get some of these great horror films that were made in Europe. They probably haven’t heard anything about these movies, which will make it a scarier experience for them.

Dead Snow

Zombies are the new vampires. The zombie genre has become quite popular these days so if you want to give your friends an extra special treat, give them a movie that’s got zombies that come from left field. And nothing gives you that feeling than Dead Snow. So what does this movie offer that other zombie movies don’t? Two words – Nazi zombies. It doesn’t get more left field than that.

Rec

Rec has gained popularity because it was remade into that utterly disappointing Hollywood movie Quarantine. I’ve always maintained that if you want the best entertainment, go to the source, and Rec delivers like only the original can. Do check out the sequel, Rec 2 as well for more of the same horror goodness. The Rec series has been so successful that two more Rec movies are going to be released.

Haute Tension

Forget American slasher movies, this French horror movie defines the genre for the new century. Merciless, gory, and absolutely serious, Haute Tension will dfrive to the edge of your seat with your hand firmly clasped on your mouth.

Mum and Dad

Talk of British horror the most common peg would be the old Hammer Horror films from thirty to forty years ago. But Mum and Dad is British horror turned on its ear. It is a deeply disturbing movie that evokes the twisted family tropes used in movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or The Hills Have Eyes but with a twist that only makes this horror subgenre all the more frightful.

Sauna

Sauna is a little known Finnish film that elevates horror to a philosophical discussion of evil, sin and retribution. Don’t expect gore or any overtly frightening scenes here. This is a quiet horror movie, if there ever is such a creature. But what it does successfully is to creep under your skin. This is a very unsettling movie that provokes deep questions about morality.

5 – Season of the Witch

Critics call it “slow, cheap-looking, dull” and a big failure on being an “unintentional comedy.” So what made “Season of the Witch” earned at least $71.6 million? Is it the Cage-Perlman tandem or the beautiful Claire Foy? Or maybe it’s the natural curiosity of moviegoers on why these stars were casted, in the first place? Well whatever it is, you got to see it before making a sound judgment.

Season Of The Witch – Blu Ray Disc

4 – Black Swan

So far, the psycho-thriller “Black Swan” has earned nearly half a billion dollars. Critics believe that it’s all thanks to Natalie Portman’s intense acting and Darren Aronofsky’s intelligent and creative directing. Well that’s true enough with Portman’s winning as the Academy’s Best Actress and Aronofsky’s nomination as the Best Director.

3 – True Grit

It’s one of the highest grossing western films of all time and one of the family-favorites. Not only grandparents and parents love it—even teenagers do. No wonder why “True Grit” earned at least $250 million worldwide. Why wouldn’t it be? It’s an adaptation of a great novel and it has adapted so well to surpass the original’s greatness. Plus, it’s a far, far way better version of the 1969 “True Grit.”

Experience True Grit in Hi-Def on Blu Ray

2 – The Fighter

Mark Wahlberg + Christian Bale + Amy Adams = a captivating performance. So don’t be surprised why a Rambo-type movie got the second spot. It’s both critically-acclaimed and a box office hit. Consider “The Fighter” as the best movie since Robert De Niro’s “Raging Bull.”

The greatest boxing movie since Raging Bull? Find out for yourself.

1 – The King’s Speech

Academy Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay are not enough. “The King’s Speech” has also touched Queen Elizabeth II “by a moving portrayal of her father.” It earned at least $4 billion and overall positive reviews. These are enough to say that this historical drama will leave you ‘speechless.’

The King’s Speech – Best Picture, director, actor and screenplay at the 83rd Academy Awards.

You don’t want to miss any of these best 5 movies of 2011. Watch them while they’re hot!

• 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.

The Devil’s Rejects (2005)

Attack of the F-Bombing Super Fan

I remember the movie fan.  She was in her late teens or early twenties.  She was excited.  My brother-in-law went to a late showing of The Devil’s Rejects and she approached us as we left the theater as if we were old friends.

“That was awesome.  Awesome.  Wasn’t it great?”

Well, that wasn’t her exact opening to the conversation.  In reality, she punctuated every sentence with one or two variations of the F-word.  She wielded the F-word like a grammatical Swiss Army knife.  It was a noun, an adjective, an exclamation, a verb and I think she even found ways to use it as an adverb.

Our reaction to her rave review, which probably consisted of no more than a slight nod of acknowledgment or a mumbled “yeah” was enough.  She turned the talkativity dial to 10.

“I liked House of 1,000 Corpses.  I know lotsa people didn’t, but I did.  A clown?  Awesome.  But I know people thought it was crap.  Whatever.  This one.  Man.  This one was so awesome.  This one was perfect.”

She explained that she was excited to watch the next installment of the Saw series.  She talked about the soundtrack to The Devil’s Rejects.  She babbled on and on about Rob Zombie’s overall awesomeness.  She recounted her favorite kill scenes.

Eventually, she decided to find someone who was slightly more communicative and she bounded off, energized by two hours of on-screen carnage, sadism and a rip-off ending to a movie that took everything including the kitchen sink, coated it in retro slime and dumped it right into the theater.

We weren’t as thrilled with The Devil’s Rejects.  My brother-in-law and I both enjoyed it, though.

I can’t explain his rationale.  This is mine.

A Bad Movie

Sometimes, horrible ideas, horrible execution, poor choices, ham-fisted technique and a general lack of talent can somehow merge to create something good.  That is the story of The Devil’s Rejects, a movie justifiably maligned by most critics and just as justifiably loved by people including the stranger in the theater.

Let’s get rid of the bad stuff right away.  There are a billion reasons to hate The Devil’s Rejects.  Here are a few high(low)lights:

• The casting was more of a tribute to B-movie horror veterans with a little 70s kitsch on the side than it was an effort to create a credible ensemble.
• Zombie overuses the soundtrack in a heavy-handed effort to shove the desired retro feel down the throats of audience members.
• The Devil’s Rejects contains multiple scenes that do little to advance either the plot of the movie or the development of its characters.  The scene with the chicken peddler, for instance, exists only to showcase a series of unfunny jokes.
• The movie’s attempts to balance tension and sadism with comedy fail.  It may be jarring, but it’s not the kind of disconnect for which any sane filmmaker would strive.
• Rob Zombie’s appreciation for the contours of his wife’s butt may be great for their relationship, but it’s not something the audience needs to explore during a horror/road movie.
• The movie’s moral compass isn’t just a little off.  It’s in a room of electromagnets that spun it so hard and fast that it finally ceased to point anywhere.
• The ending is an accidentally comic mish-mash of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid and Bonnie and Clyde with a little bit of Thelma and Louise tossed in for good measure.  It’s utterly ridiculous, but not in the “let’s make wriggle room for a sequel” mode of most horror flicks, which is at least understandable from a dollars and cents perspective.

So, The Devil’s Rejects is an amoral mess that frequently insults its audience, features inferior performances and reveals a serious of weird, if not flat-out stupid, directorial choices.

And I liked it.

So Bad, Yet Pretty Good

I didn’t like it as much as the F-bomber, but I did enjoy it.

Why?

I have a tender little place in my heart for movies that try extremely hard, even if they fail miserably.  That’s why I’ve confessed to an appreciation for the ridiculous Legends of the Fall, and its oh-so-earnest attempt to be a stirring epic.

That’s why I like Armageddon, a moronic space movie that merged the Magnificent Seven team assembly strategy with poorly acted romance, Bruce Willis’ Christ-like sacrifice for humanity and Billy Bob finally getting his mission patch.

Everyone involved in movies like those seemed to be giving it their all.  They played it straight, without an ironic wink.  These movies are so sincere in their intentions and so audacious in their goals that it’s hard not to root for them even when their weaknesses are so readily apparent.

The Devil’s Rejects is the Armageddon of horror.  It’s the Legends of the Fall of road movies.

Rob Zombie and his limited-talent cast try hard.  They don’t deliver, but they put forth the effort.  You can tell that Zombie wanted to make a MOVIE, not just another movie.  He built a world with its own rules and its own feel.  He shoehorned Marx Brothers references into the script and he found places to feature actors he loves, even if the audience is unlikely to feel the same way.

Most people hate it because it seems like an utterly pointless and sadistic tale incapable of adding anything to their lives.

Some people love it, completely oblivious to its many, many, many flaws.

Between those two poles, there’s room to enjoy this dusty, broken horror movie without being a Zombie super-fan.

How to Like The Devil’s Rejects

You might not naturally find yourself in that space between oblivious super fans and sane normalcy, so let me give you a few recommendations.  If you follow them, you can enjoy watching The Devil’s Rejects.

• Surrender the idea of emerging from the movie with any thing remotely associated with moral enlightenment.  The Devil’s Rejects is an exercise in atmosphere that preaches an amoral gospel.  Don’t even think about trying to feel good about humanity based on the actions of the film’s characters.  Any of them.
• Focus on the few really tremendous moments in the movie.  The hotel hostage scene is extremely intense and frightening in a way that rises well above traditional slasher fare.  Kudos to Priscilla “Three’s Company” Barnes for this scene.
• Appreciate the fact that Rob Zombie actually manages to take a collection of utterly grotesque and despicable murderers and transforms them into the very folks for whom you’re rooting as they roll down the highway toward their demise.
• Make a game out of finding elements Zombie has either lovingly lifted or cheaply stolen from other movies.  Engage in an internal dialog, debating whether these thefts make The Devil’s Reject an homage to other horror movies or a if they demonstrate a lack of originality on the part of the filmmaker–or both.

And, most importantly…

• Don’t take it too seriously.

I read a review of Saw 3D today in which the critic lambasted the movie for its misogyny and for not somehow living up to the standard established by its Saw precursors.

One of the first comments in response to that review pointed out how silly it seemed to criticize a Saw movie for being anything other than a fairly dumb, gory, somewhat scary diversion.  That response makes a great deal of sense.

At some point, we need to adjust our movie expectations based on what we know before we buy a ticket, rent the DVD or add something to our NetFlix queue.

If you were looking for a spine tingling, thrilling masterpiece of horror that would somehow provide you with tremendous insights about the human condition while not offending you with sadistic violence and other ugliness…

Well, picking The Devil‘s Rejects was stupid.

Give yourself two hours to disappear into a world of head scratching dumbness, jeans sagging off the butt of Sherri Moon Zombie, Sid Haig with rotten teeth and serial killers eating ice cream on the run.  Try to forget what you know for a while and take The Devi’s Rejects for what it is.  If you do, The Devil’s Rejects is a (and it’s hard to believe I’m writing this) pretty good movie.

You can critique it later.  I did.

Or, maybe you’ll come out the other side of raining bullets and “Freebird” with a strange compulsion to approach strangers and to talk at length about just how much you fucking loved everything about The Devil’s Rejects.

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.

It’s forgivable when a bad actor is in a bad movie (i.e., The Guardian with Ashton and another of his ilk, the always wooden Kevin Costner).  It’s not forgivable however when a good solid actor with some real chops, phones it in. You know what I’m talking about – the actor who you know only took the job because of the paycheck (or maybe something more sentimental like the movie was filming in Aspen and he wants to be close to his family during their ski vacation). I guess I can sort of understand those reasons but something about a good actor slumming it makes me a little sad. Below is a list of just a few said actors and the movies they would have been better off without.

Michael Caine
Harry Brown – A modern day Death Wish wannabe without the grittiness of Charles Bronson.
Bewitched – “Sir” Caine can do so much better.
Secondhand Lions – Caine with a Texas accent, nuff said.
Miss Congeniality – Caine must have been in the mood for some lighthearted fare.
Beyond the Poseidon Adventure – Maybe he just wanted to work with Jack Warden or Telly Savalas.

Robert De Niro
Everybody’s Fine – A road trip movie about a widower who tries to reconnect with his family… yawn/snore…
Godsend – Originally De Niro was only supposed to have a cameo… should have stayed that way!
City By the Sea – A disaster of a movie with a constantly crying James Franco (who can also do better)
Jackie Brown – He probably just wanted to work with Tarantino.
15 Minutes – Ed Burns… really?

Christopher Walken – I can comment below but really, what’s the point?
Balls of Fury
Hairspray
Wedding Crashers
The Stepford Wives
America’s Sweethearts

Morgan Freeman
The Bucket List – This movie is not on my list!
Evan Almighty – I guess I don’t blame him for not wanting to pass up a chance to play God.
Unleashed – He plays a blind piano tuner with a heart of gold…
Dreamcatcher – Freeman’s role was just too small in what could have been a decent movie.
Nurse Betty – Apparently this was Freeman’s first on-screen kiss… maybe that’s why he took the role?

Jack Nicholson
The Bucket List – This movie is STILL not on my list!
About Schmidt – Is this a companion piece to the Bucket List?
Anger Management – Maybe he wanted to work with Adam Sandler?
The Evening Star – His character was still alive after Terms of Endearment?
Wolf – Actually Jack Nich probably could really be a wolf!

Add your picks below!

Love it or hate it, Hollywood will continue to recycle tried and true content to make a buck rather than go out on a limb. But there are a few wildly popular TV shows from yesteryear that I just can’t see making the jump.

Diff’rent Strokes. Whoever thought that bad boy Willis would be the “successful” one? The show’s concept of a rich white man adopting underprivileged black boys who have “nothing but their jeans” just doesn’t work in the 21st century. Plus casting for a Gary Coleman clone would be a tall order.

Friends. Where’s Chandler, Monica, Rachel, Joey, Ross and Phoebe now? Nowhere, that’s where! I can understand why people pay to see the SATC girls go buck wild, but very few people would spend the money to watch the homogenous crew slurp down coffees at Central Perk and hear Phoebe’s sings about a stinky pet.

Now there are a few shows that could work.

Golden Girls. As Betty White has proven, old people can be funny – and I don’t mean by laughing at them! Recasting Rose, Dorothy and Blanche would usher in a “new” crop of talent. Seniors certainly don’t have it easy, and the right touch of humor and compassion could flood theaters (especially in Florida!).

Alien Nation. Racism between humans and the Newcomers?! Never! As cheesy as the show was, it explored issues of morality that are just as deep today as they were back in the late 80′s. Today’s special effects could spice the show up and potentially make it a box-office success.

What TV shows do you think should or shouldn’t be made into a movie?

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Imagine Entertainment, which is operated by both Brian Grazer and Ron Howard, will be producing the movie.

For those of you who don’t know Hoover, he was the first director of the FBI. He was actually one of the leading lights in the founding of the Agency and he remained its director until his death in 1972. He was credited for many of the advances that made the FBI such a formidable law enforcement agency. But he was also a very controversial figure because he was seen as a man who tried to exceed the reach and jurisdiction of the FBI. He is also reportedly a closet homosexual.

Dustin Lance Black, who wrote Milk, will write the biopic’s script.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Universal Pictures has plans to reboot the American Pie franchise. It’s surprising to realize that the first American Pie movie was released way back in 1999. The third movie, American Wedding, hit theaters in 2003. After this third movie, a number of direct to video movies carrying the “American Pie Presents…” banner came out to varying degrees of success in terms of delivering the laughs.

Some of the original American Pie cast are reportedly interesting in coming back for the reboot but everything’s still up in the air. I’m pretty sure though that Alyson Hannigan is not going to come back. With her tremendous success with How I Met Your Mother, there’s really no need for her to go back and try to milk a little more media mileage.

Hugh Grant’s stammer had a clumsy kind of charm that worked in “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and, to some degree, “Notting Hill.” (We also concede that “About a Boy” was surprisingly entertaining, but it just fell flat at “Music and Lyrics” and “Two Weeks Notice”).

But the lameness factor just hit rock bottom with his latest movie, “Did you Hear about the Morgans?” He teams up with Sarah Jessica Parker, to deliver a totally forgettable romantic comedy that makes you want to say, “No I haven’t heard about the Morgans– and they’re not worth hearing about.”

Hugh once again dons that pained expression, as he plays Paul Morgan, whose marriage to Meryl (Parker) is on the rocks after his recent infidelity. He tries to win her back. She isn’t interested. And actually the whole audience why they’re together at all, because the two have no chemistry on-screen.

Their marriage is saved by, of all things, a murder. They both witness it, and they are sent by the FBI to a rural town that’s worlds away from their Manhattan lifestyle.

Hugh’s saving grace is his ability to give great one-liners, which periodically break the monotony of the movie. Unfortunately the good ones are too few and far between… just like Hugh’s movie career.

The movie tackles the love story of a divorced couple who are friendly but get, uhm, a little too close during their child’s college graduation party. After way too many drinks they end up sleeping together (talk about a different kind of family reunion!).

It throws Jane (Meryl Streep) off balance. She’s finally over her ex, who cheated on her and impregnated his mistress (and later married her). Finally, her life’s going great — new business, more confidence, and a “kinda-sorta” dating thing going with her architect, played by Steve Martin.So, now… “it’s complicated.”

Common sense is to stay away from her ex, but no — they keep having sex (and a little marijuana). And so follows a comedy of errors, which will entertain you. What do you expect from a movie with Steve Martin and The Office’s John Krasinski? Just don’t over analyze it, which sadly, Meryl Streep sometimes does. Laugh, and pass the popcorn.

Raimi has officially signed on as producer for the supernatural horror movie Refuge. The movie will revolve around a town that is being attacked by a Yeti.

I’m looking forward to this movie.

Anyway, back to the “Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince.” What I liked about the movie (let’s not discuss the story anymore because we all know it’s good) is that it delivered. The CG was spectacular, a lot better than in the last movie “Order of the Phoenix” where we were introduced to Hagrid’s giant half-brother, Grawp. Grawp was adorable but like the centaurs was obviously CG. In contrast I don’t remember any part of the “Half-Blood Prince” looking unrealistic. Watching the film makes you think that everything is being shot as is.

The actors/actresses did not disappoint as well. The cast has obviously grown not just in age but in maturity in their acting skills. Those that stood out to me were Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), who was able to embody his very conflicted role, Rupert Grint (Ron Weasly), though I must be biased because Ron is my favorite character, and Frank Dillane (older Tom Riddle), who just sent shivers down my spine…he was so creepy! Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) did a good job as ever showing as Harry growing to be more than a boy. Others who did not stand only because in relation to their own achievements as actors (they always do an excellent job) are Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix), Alan Rickman (Snape) and Michael Gambon (Dumbledore). Cutest character in this movie is the same one in the last movie – Luna Lovegood (played by Evanna Lynch). She’s so cute I can’t help but wish Harry would just hook up with her instead of Ginny.

“Transformers Revenge of the Fallen” was a fact-paced action-filled movie with such loud booms that my seat vibrated time and again. It was definitely entertaining and did deliver on the promise that it will provide plenty of action and lots of visual effects. My problem with the movie though was that I actually found the action scenes a bit too much. There were way too many action scenes that the storyline, though an interesting one, seemed like an excuse just to make a blockbuster action movie at times. Not only were there too many action scenes but the action scenes though they really looked great, were often too confusing. Half the time I couldn’t distinguish whether the Decepticons or the Autobots were getting blasted.

I did like the concept because it was great to learn more about the Primes and the history of the Transformers. The problem was that I would have liked the movie to be a bit more cerebral giving us more insight to the history and not coming up with lame symbols that looked senseless when Sam (Shia LeBouf) explained why Einstein’s theory was all wrong.

As for the actors the ones that did entertain were mostly the CG twins and the Decepticon that fell in love with Mikaela (Megan Fox). I liked Sam and Mikaela’s characters in the first Transformers movie but this time their characters seemed a bit lacking in substance this time. Megan Fox managed to be as sexy as ever but this time around it just fell flat, like they were just shooting scenes to show how sexy she was, it wasn’t funny, cool, nor significant, like in the first movie when her sexiness underlined the reason why Sam had the hots for her. Sam’s character also managed to seem a little shallow with his wanting to be normal problems. The Sam before meeting the Transformers is permitted to be shallow but who would still be totally wrapped up in oneself after such experiences? The characters I did like this time around were Agent Simmons (John Turturro), Leo (Ramon Rodriguez), and of course Sam’s mom (Julie White), who provided the laughs in the movie.

With all my criticism about the movie would I say that it wasn’t worth watching on the big screen? Definitely, not. It just didn’t deliver for me but it was still entertaining. If you plan on watching it at least watch it on the big screen to be able to enjoy the visual and sound effects, because it is the kind of movie where you can do without watching it at all if not for that. Watch it because of the CGI. Watch it because the first movie just compels you to watch this one. But don’t expect to be blown away by this film.

As for the plot of the story there isn’t much you can say about it because there’s really not much of a story beyond Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) running around, in, and under the Smithsonian trying to save his wax friends and the world from Kahmunrah. The attempt to add depth to the story by giving us a lesson on doing what we love was more like an afterthought just so we can say that the movie had a story beyond trying to get some good laughs out of the audience. The ending was fun but ruined by the oh so corny appearance of the reincarnation/complete opposite of Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams).

All in all the movie was funny enough but I could have lived without seeing it on the big screen.

SPOILER ALERT: Don’t read this post if you haven’t seen the movie yet.

I know the entire plot changes how the Star Trek universe will proceed in the future, after all what will happen with two Spocks? I know some purists would love to have old Star Trek back but for the most part I would think that people, old Trekkers or new converts, are as happy as I am with the film. It just grabs your attention from the start and continues to hold it till the end. Non-trekkers wouldn’t have a hard time following the plot either because the movie is self-contained. My friend who has no clue said it was better though for the brief background I provided about the Enterprise and its crew right before the movie started (I managed to run my mouth off in between bites and sips).

As for the acting they were superb though I am left with mixed feelings about some things such as Spock and Uhura’s romance and Scotty. Simon Pegg was really funny but I’m thinking that he’s a bit too jaunty compared to the original Scotty. The ones I liked were Eric Bana (Nero), Anton Yelchin (Chekov), and Zachary Quinto (Spock). Everyone gives well-deserved praise to Karl Urban for his faithful portrayal as Dr McCoy. The best part for me though was seeing Leonard Nimoy step into his role. Zachary Quinto may do a really good job but Leanoard Nimoy really owns the character. I’m so glad the plot included a future Spock in it even though it throws the entire Star Trek universe into a spin.

When it comes to the effects and action sequences there’s no doubt about it that Star Trek is a winner. Naysayers may say that it just makes this movie a movie for the new “ADD Star Trek audiences” and that it lacks the depth and intelligence of old Star Trek movies but I say that the effects just gives the Star Trek concept justice. The movie may not reveal all the rich history of Star Trek but it is a great introduction if we want to get Star Trek back. For me, I’m just hoping that this will be a new start of a whole generation of Star Trek.

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.

Anyway I just saw Dead Silence this week though it came out 2 years ago. The verdict? It was really scary but since I’m not a horror connoiseur I wouldn’t trust my judgement. The movie is about a guy who goes back to his hometown after he receives a dummy in his doorsteps and his wife is killed a few minutes later. I never really cared for dummies just their mere appearance scares the hell out of me, and though I have great respect for ventriloquists I wonder why they don’t just use cute puppets like Terry Tator (winner of America’s Got Talent) does instead of those awful dummies. The story goes on with Jamie Ashen (played by Ryan Kwanten) doing his best to find out why his wife died and to find the truth behind the Mary Shaw poem his mother told him when he was a child. During the entire time he’s trailed by Detective Lipton (played by Donnie Wahlberg) who believes that he has something to do about his wife’s death. The story is pretty straight forward except until the end where…(SPOILER ALERT DON’T READ FURTHER IF YOUR DON’T WANT TO KNOW HOW IT ENDS)…he finds out that his dad has been dead all along and is being controlled by the perfect female puppet that’s possessed by Mary Shaw. Scary!

All in all it was pretty entertaining though be sure to watch it with someone if you scare as easily as I do.

So what I’m really torn about now is whether to even bring the kids to see the 3D version or just see it myself so I can come up with a reasonable review? In these tight days I sure wouldn’t want spend extra bucks on something the kids wouldn’t even appreciate much and I hate seeing movies repeatedly unless they’re great. So I guess that leaves me with a wait and see attitude. If the next doors neighbors kids come home talking about the 3D experience we’ll go but if they don’t even care about the effects I’ll just wait for the DVD release.

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.

The action sequences are cool with smarts and training factoring in to the character’s success. While the movie did show the horror of sex trade what’s really nice about the movie is that it didn’t get preachy and was realistic in the sense that the Liam Neeson’s character didn’t get too wrapped up with the issue (as horrible as it is!) especially after he got his daughter back. What I liked though was that he got to hurt those bad men pretty bad (I loved the torture he inflicted on Marco) because they deserved it! It does satisfy ones appetite for revenge.

You’ll love this film if you are into action films. And if not at least it will remind you once again why sex trade should be fought. As for girls like me it reminds me to be more careful when traveling!