"Look--another failure."

Why Some Movie Franchises Fail

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Why let incompetent directors take on potential franchises?

The release of “Priest” (or is it titled “Priest 3D”? To be honest I can never tell anymore) has me reminiscing on all of the franchise failures of Hollywood’s past.

In 2006, when Matthew Vaughn dropped out as director of “X-Men: Last Stand,” 20th Century Fox did the most logical thing they could think of,  They replaced him with Brett Ratner.

Wait, the guy behind the “Rush Hour” franchise? Really, 20th Century Fox? That’s the man you want to take the reins of your high-grossing franchise with a fan base ready to take a bullet for Bryan Singer?

Poor choice.

It gets even better. Let’s move forward four years to 2010, when Paramount handed over its popular Nickelodeon property “Avatar: The Last Airbender” to M. Night Shyamalan.

Shyamalan, of course, had come off a string of very unpopular movies including “Lady in the Water,” “The Village” and “The Happening,” the last of which I still hopelessly defend. He was looking to stay relevant and it made sense for him to take on the project. From Paramount’s perspective, though, I’m not entirely sure what they were thinking. After all we’re talking about a studio, here. I’m not sure they’re ever actually thinking per se.

Whatever the case, it was another unwise decision for what could have been a billion-dollar franchise with many installments. Paramount flushed it down the toilet. Congrats, guys.

You throw Christopher Nolan behind the camera of a Batman movie and you exceed $500 million domestically. If you give James Cameron whatever he wants, you’re going to get the highest-grossing movie of all time. Rope Darren Aronofsky into doing a Wolverine movie (which, yes, he backed out of), you’re going to generate oodles of positive Internet buzz.

There’s a trend here. All of these aforementioned directors are talented as hell. And nine times out of 10, when studios put their faith in directors who are as artistically successful as they are commercially, it pays off at the box office.

When will studios learn?

Apparently not this weekend, as Sony’s Screen Gems puts Scott Charles Stewart -- the special effects wizard who directed 2009’s waste of time “Legion” -- to the test with “Priest.”

Although the film’s budget is currently unknown, it certainly doesn’t look cheap. And whatever Screen Gems spent on it, I’m willing to wager that it doesn’t make that back domestically. I would even speculate that “Priest” will top off at $35 million or $40 million total. We’ll find out when Friday’s numbers come in.

Assuming I’m right (and that’s always a dangerous thing), that’s not exactly what studios want for any major summer releases. Had Screen Gems put someone more trusted and respected behind “Priest,” maybe they could turn a serious profit. Or maybe you would even expect (or want) a “Priest 2 3D.”

But with Stewart at the helm, it’s unlikely.

So, when will studios figure this out? Maybe after “Priest.” I’m holding out hope that there’s a silver lining to all of these failures, and that studios will smarten up now.

Hold up just a minute. We can’t forget that Warner Bros. has put Zack Snyder in charge of “Superman: Man of Steel.”

… I’m going to go find a brick wall to beat my head against.

"Look--another failure."

Why Some Movie Franchises Fail

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Why let incompetent directors take on potential franchises?

The release of “Priest” (or is it titled “Priest 3D”? To be honest I can never tell anymore) has me reminiscing on all of the franchise failures of Hollywood’s past.

In 2006, when Matthew Vaughn dropped out as director of “X-Men: Last Stand,” 20th Century Fox did the most logical thing they could think of,  They replaced him with Brett Ratner.

Wait, the guy behind the “Rush Hour” franchise? Really, 20th Century Fox? That’s the man you want to take the reins of your high-grossing franchise with a fan base ready to take a bullet for Bryan Singer?

Poor choice.

It gets even better. Let’s move forward four years to 2010, when Paramount handed over its popular Nickelodeon property “Avatar: The Last Airbender” to M. Night Shyamalan.

Shyamalan, of course, had come off a string of very unpopular movies including “Lady in the Water,” “The Village” and “The Happening,” the last of which I still hopelessly defend. He was looking to stay relevant and it made sense for him to take on the project. From Paramount’s perspective, though, I’m not entirely sure what they were thinking. After all we’re talking about a studio, here. I’m not sure they’re ever actually thinking per se.

Whatever the case, it was another unwise decision for what could have been a billion-dollar franchise with many installments. Paramount flushed it down the toilet. Congrats, guys.

You throw Christopher Nolan behind the camera of a Batman movie and you exceed $500 million domestically. If you give James Cameron whatever he wants, you’re going to get the highest-grossing movie of all time. Rope Darren Aronofsky into doing a Wolverine movie (which, yes, he backed out of), you’re going to generate oodles of positive Internet buzz.

There’s a trend here. All of these aforementioned directors are talented as hell. And nine times out of 10, when studios put their faith in directors who are as artistically successful as they are commercially, it pays off at the box office.

When will studios learn?

Apparently not this weekend, as Sony’s Screen Gems puts Scott Charles Stewart -- the special effects wizard who directed 2009’s waste of time “Legion” -- to the test with “Priest.”

Although the film’s budget is currently unknown, it certainly doesn’t look cheap. And whatever Screen Gems spent on it, I’m willing to wager that it doesn’t make that back domestically. I would even speculate that “Priest” will top off at $35 million or $40 million total. We’ll find out when Friday’s numbers come in.

Assuming I’m right (and that’s always a dangerous thing), that’s not exactly what studios want for any major summer releases. Had Screen Gems put someone more trusted and respected behind “Priest,” maybe they could turn a serious profit. Or maybe you would even expect (or want) a “Priest 2 3D.”

But with Stewart at the helm, it’s unlikely.

So, when will studios figure this out? Maybe after “Priest.” I’m holding out hope that there’s a silver lining to all of these failures, and that studios will smarten up now.

Hold up just a minute. We can’t forget that Warner Bros. has put Zack Snyder in charge of “Superman: Man of Steel.”

… I’m going to go find a brick wall to beat my head against.

"Virus" is #5

One Blogger's Opinion: Five of the Worst Comic Book Movies of All Time

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Comic book fans are spoiled these days, with movies that have high production budgets and get treated with respect from critics, as well as studios, producers and directors.

People such as Jon Favreau and Christopher Nolan put some serious TLC into the comic book movies they’ve put out, and directors Matthew Vaughn (“X-Men: First Class”), Kenneth Branagh (“Thor”), Martin Campbell (“Green Lantern”) and maybe, just maybe even Joe Johnston (“Captain America: The First Avenger”) look to follow in their footsteps.

As “Thor” kicks off a summer overflowing with comic book movies, here are five of the worst comic book movies that I’ve ever seen. And before you even ask, no, “Batman and Robin” didn’t make the cut. It’s far too amusing. Whether it’s intentional or not is another debate altogether.

5. “Virus” (1999)

Based on Dark Horse comic series, John Bruno’s “Virus” took a swing at becoming a blockbuster and whiffed. Hard. The January release date should have been a good indication of that.

Bruno, whose background is in visual effects, worked extensively with James Cameron before hamming it up with Billy Baldwin, Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Sutherland. So you would expect a lot more coming from Bruno than another “Alien” or “The Thing” knock-off.

Alas, we expected more, and got less. A lot less. “Virus” turned out to be a mess, both from critical and financial standpoint, and Bruno’s career never left the ground as a filmmaker.


4. “Spawn” (1997)

This is a movie that does not hold up on repeat viewings. Trust me, I’ve sat through it more times than I’d like to admit.

In 1997, it didn’t seem too bad. The special effects were all right considering its $38 million budget, John Leguizamo did the best with the material that he was handed, and I was only slightly disappointed when I left the theater.

Boy, was I being generous. Looking back at the decisions of director Mark A.Z. Dippe (what could the A.Z. possibly stand for anyway?), “Spawn” is an embarrassment, especially considering the incredible fan-base that Todd McFarlane had gained from the title character who pretty much defined a generation of comics. Another prime example of why guys who specialize in special effect should stay away from directing. What a shame.

Mr. Dippe, of course, moved back into something that was more his pace, directing Disney Channel original movies like “Halloweentown High” and “Pixel Perfect.”


3. “Steel” (1997)

When I first read the introduction of Steel, John Henry Irons, I wondered who would play him in a movie. Ving Rhames, coming hot off of “Pulp Fiction,” perhaps? That would nice.

Sadly, Warner Bros. had a different “actor” in mind -- NBA All-Star Shaquille O’Neal. Now that he’s an on-again, off-again Boston Celtic, I have to take it easy on him. But not too easy. Some people just weren’t meant to act. To put it kindly, Shaq is one of the leaders in that category. The choice by Warner Bros. was inexcusable, and has made the DC character a running joke.

“Steel” will always be one of the worst comic book movies of all time, but it goes deeper than that. It might just be one of the worst movies released theatrically of all time.


2. “Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.” (1998)

Before he was eating hamburgers on the floor in viral videos, David Hasselhoff had already sunk low enough by starring in a made-for-TV adaptation of “Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.” Sadly, it was a high point in Hasselhoff’s career at the time.

Needless to say, Samuel L. Jackson he is not. And it shows. Other than the poor idea of a made-for-TV action movie (yeah, that will be awesome with a shoe-string budget), the untalented actors and boring television director Rod Hardy make for a pretty painful experience.

But what’s worse is that “Nick Fury” was written by David S. Goyer. The same David S. Goyer who helped write “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight.” The business is cruel, especially for writers. Some days you’re on top, and some days you’re a bottom-feeder. “Nick Fury” clearly wasn’t one of Goyer’s proudest moments.


1. “Generation X” (1996)

What was Fox thinking? This was made just a couple of years before the aforementioned “Nick Fury,” and is one of the worst memories from my childhood.

When I was younger, I was obsessed with X-Men. I was also a huge fan of movies. This, unfortunately, was as close to an X-Men movie as I would get until 2000, when 20th Century Fox finally got their heads out of the sand.

“Generation X” is a cheap, dated, made-for-TV comic book movie that ACTUALLY made it to air. It follows Emma Frost and Shawn Cassidy (The White Queen and Banshee) lead a group of young mutants at Professor Xavier’s School for Gifted Students in fighting Matthew Frewer’s evil scientist Russell Trask.

The only good thing that came from “Generation X” is that it didn’t tread on any of the characters people really love, like Wolverine or Cyclops. In doing that, it really saved face, unlike Roger Corman’s “Fantastic Four” or that 1997 “Justice League” pilot. Now that’s embarrassing.

Let’s hope that studios remain smart (ha … ha) with this new generation of comic book movies, and not fall back into this black-hole. We really don’t need to revisit it.

"Virus" is #5

One Blogger's Opinion: Five of the Worst Comic Book Movies of All Time

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Comic book fans are spoiled these days, with movies that have high production budgets and get treated with respect from critics, as well as studios, producers and directors.

People such as Jon Favreau and Christopher Nolan put some serious TLC into the comic book movies they’ve put out, and directors Matthew Vaughn (“X-Men: First Class”), Kenneth Branagh (“Thor”), Martin Campbell (“Green Lantern”) and maybe, just maybe even Joe Johnston (“Captain America: The First Avenger”) look to follow in their footsteps.

As “Thor” kicks off a summer overflowing with comic book movies, here are five of the worst comic book movies that I’ve ever seen. And before you even ask, no, “Batman and Robin” didn’t make the cut. It’s far too amusing. Whether it’s intentional or not is another debate altogether.

5. “Virus” (1999)

Based on Dark Horse comic series, John Bruno’s “Virus” took a swing at becoming a blockbuster and whiffed. Hard. The January release date should have been a good indication of that.

Bruno, whose background is in visual effects, worked extensively with James Cameron before hamming it up with Billy Baldwin, Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Sutherland. So you would expect a lot more coming from Bruno than another “Alien” or “The Thing” knock-off.

Alas, we expected more, and got less. A lot less. “Virus” turned out to be a mess, both from critical and financial standpoint, and Bruno’s career never left the ground as a filmmaker.


4. “Spawn” (1997)

This is a movie that does not hold up on repeat viewings. Trust me, I’ve sat through it more times than I’d like to admit.

In 1997, it didn’t seem too bad. The special effects were all right considering its $38 million budget, John Leguizamo did the best with the material that he was handed, and I was only slightly disappointed when I left the theater.

Boy, was I being generous. Looking back at the decisions of director Mark A.Z. Dippe (what could the A.Z. possibly stand for anyway?), “Spawn” is an embarrassment, especially considering the incredible fan-base that Todd McFarlane had gained from the title character who pretty much defined a generation of comics. Another prime example of why guys who specialize in special effect should stay away from directing. What a shame.

Mr. Dippe, of course, moved back into something that was more his pace, directing Disney Channel original movies like “Halloweentown High” and “Pixel Perfect.”


3. “Steel” (1997)

When I first read the introduction of Steel, John Henry Irons, I wondered who would play him in a movie. Ving Rhames, coming hot off of “Pulp Fiction,” perhaps? That would nice.

Sadly, Warner Bros. had a different “actor” in mind -- NBA All-Star Shaquille O’Neal. Now that he’s an on-again, off-again Boston Celtic, I have to take it easy on him. But not too easy. Some people just weren’t meant to act. To put it kindly, Shaq is one of the leaders in that category. The choice by Warner Bros. was inexcusable, and has made the DC character a running joke.

“Steel” will always be one of the worst comic book movies of all time, but it goes deeper than that. It might just be one of the worst movies released theatrically of all time.


2. “Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.” (1998)

Before he was eating hamburgers on the floor in viral videos, David Hasselhoff had already sunk low enough by starring in a made-for-TV adaptation of “Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.” Sadly, it was a high point in Hasselhoff’s career at the time.

Needless to say, Samuel L. Jackson he is not. And it shows. Other than the poor idea of a made-for-TV action movie (yeah, that will be awesome with a shoe-string budget), the untalented actors and boring television director Rod Hardy make for a pretty painful experience.

But what’s worse is that “Nick Fury” was written by David S. Goyer. The same David S. Goyer who helped write “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight.” The business is cruel, especially for writers. Some days you’re on top, and some days you’re a bottom-feeder. “Nick Fury” clearly wasn’t one of Goyer’s proudest moments.


1. “Generation X” (1996)

What was Fox thinking? This was made just a couple of years before the aforementioned “Nick Fury,” and is one of the worst memories from my childhood.

When I was younger, I was obsessed with X-Men. I was also a huge fan of movies. This, unfortunately, was as close to an X-Men movie as I would get until 2000, when 20th Century Fox finally got their heads out of the sand.

“Generation X” is a cheap, dated, made-for-TV comic book movie that ACTUALLY made it to air. It follows Emma Frost and Shawn Cassidy (The White Queen and Banshee) lead a group of young mutants at Professor Xavier’s School for Gifted Students in fighting Matthew Frewer’s evil scientist Russell Trask.

The only good thing that came from “Generation X” is that it didn’t tread on any of the characters people really love, like Wolverine or Cyclops. In doing that, it really saved face, unlike Roger Corman’s “Fantastic Four” or that 1997 “Justice League” pilot. Now that’s embarrassing.

Let’s hope that studios remain smart (ha … ha) with this new generation of comic book movies, and not fall back into this black-hole. We really don’t need to revisit it.

Sheenwatch 2011: THERE WILL BE NO DISCUSSIONS

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Nick Hanover

As successful as Charlie Sheen's road trip has been, the actor turned wannabe folk hero is already setting his eye on...the job he had himself forcibly removed from. Yes, that's right, Charlie Sheen is already claiming that he's in talks to make his triumphant return to "Two and a Half Men." The only problem? Everyone else says those discussions haven't, and will not, happen.

Of course, Sheen and his lawyers claim that those claims about his initial claims (say that three times fast) are incorrect. The only thing that's clear for the moment is that this whole affair is a gigantic mess and likely won't be resolved any time soon. Luckily for Charlie, he's got plenty to fall back on. Like his own signature Sex Doll, lovably named "Crackhead Charlie." Yes, this is a real thing.

On a more serious note, Sheen's tour does seem to be picking up since its initial not-quite-winning fan problems. A show in Toronto received lots of attention after Sheen was sternly warned not to smoke on-stage by a Canadian Health Promotion Minister warned the actor that he could be fined for such an act and then directed him towards a hotline number he could call about quitting smoking. On that same stop, Sheen also toasted the ashes of an audience member's dead husband. Tellingly, though, Ricky Gervais apparently views Charlie Sheen as so much of a sad joke in his current state that the ferocious comedian refuses to joke about him.

Sheenwatch 2011: THERE WILL BE NO DISCUSSIONS

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Nick Hanover

As successful as Charlie Sheen's road trip has been, the actor turned wannabe folk hero is already setting his eye on...the job he had himself forcibly removed from. Yes, that's right, Charlie Sheen is already claiming that he's in talks to make his triumphant return to "Two and a Half Men." The only problem? Everyone else says those discussions haven't, and will not, happen.

Of course, Sheen and his lawyers claim that those claims about his initial claims (say that three times fast) are incorrect. The only thing that's clear for the moment is that this whole affair is a gigantic mess and likely won't be resolved any time soon. Luckily for Charlie, he's got plenty to fall back on. Like his own signature Sex Doll, lovably named "Crackhead Charlie." Yes, this is a real thing.

On a more serious note, Sheen's tour does seem to be picking up since its initial not-quite-winning fan problems. A show in Toronto received lots of attention after Sheen was sternly warned not to smoke on-stage by a Canadian Health Promotion Minister warned the actor that he could be fined for such an act and then directed him towards a hotline number he could call about quitting smoking. On that same stop, Sheen also toasted the ashes of an audience member's dead husband. Tellingly, though, Ricky Gervais apparently views Charlie Sheen as so much of a sad joke in his current state that the ferocious comedian refuses to joke about him.

An Alternative to Forbes: Five of the Poorest Fictional Characters

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

As it does annually, Forbes recently released its list of the 15 richest fictional characters, and topping the list was Scrooge McDuck, “Twilight's” Carlisle Cullen and Artmeis Fowle II. But seriously, who can relate to those rich bastards? Oh, only about 10 percent of the population.

The rest of us – that 90 percent – are more interested in the goings on of Launchpad McQuack (a strong, hardworking Irish duck), “Twilight's” Billy Black or maybe even Waldo, of “Where's Waldo” fame (unlike Mr. Fowle, he can only afford one outfit). These individuals certainly aren't the wealthiest guys on the block, and neither are we.

Without any further ado, here's a list of five of the financially poorest fictional characters:

5. Mel Gibson's Martin Riggs from “Lethal Weapon”: A gainfully employed, edgy cop who chooses to live the life of an alcoholic bum (the death of his wife really left him broken). Yeah, he could move on and stop wasting his life on the bottle, move out of his beach-side trailer and get a real home. But let's leave that for the underwhelming sequels.

4. Bradley Cooper's Eddie Morra in the first part of “Limitless”: Eddie Morra begins “Limitless” as a penniless writer struggling to make do financially. The key sign, though, that Morra belongs on this list is that he has long, disheveled hair, and not in a GQ way. He's a vagabond roaming the streets trying to write his novel. Thankfully, Morra takes a pill to access the rest of his brain, enabling him to make better life decisions. Somehow it wasn't enough to make him realize a “Hangover” sequel just might be a bad idea.

3. Ron Weasley from the Harry Potter series: Harry's the reluctant hero, Hermione's the smart one, and Ron's the poor one. The redheaded friend in the Harry Potter franchise is really a victim of circumstance. There are simply too many Weasleys and not enough money to go around, thus he receives hand-me-downs and a pet rat while his friends have invisibility cloaks, owls and cats. Where's the justice?

2. Danny Trejo's Machete in “Machete”: Danny Trejo portrays a former Mexican Federale who now works as an on-again, off-again laborer. What a financial fall from grace. As he says in the movie: “Machete don't text.” That's probably because his cell plan doesn't support texting anymore. Fortunately for Machete, he has a higher calling in life that doesn't necessarily involve tons of cash, only his weapon of choice. Bruce Wayne he is not, but he has helped redefine the word badass.

1. Rutger Hauer's Hobo in “Hobo with a Shotgun”: How can Rutger Hauer's homeless vigilante not be No. 1? The rare antihero (other than maybe “Watchmen's” Rorschach) to be homeless. What a bold move, even if it is a movie paying homage to exploitation movies. It's hard to say whether or not anyone will top this flat-out broke fictional character. After all, audiences would much rather watch filthy rich characters in their escapist journey to the cinema than facing the reality – or surreality – of poverty. Right?

Let's ask the Kardashians.

Those are just a few of the brokest fictional characters. Who are some of your favorite poorest fictional characters?

An Alternative to Forbes: Five of the Poorest Fictional Characters

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

As it does annually, Forbes recently released its list of the 15 richest fictional characters, and topping the list was Scrooge McDuck, “Twilight's” Carlisle Cullen and Artmeis Fowle II. But seriously, who can relate to those rich bastards? Oh, only about 10 percent of the population.

The rest of us – that 90 percent – are more interested in the goings on of Launchpad McQuack (a strong, hardworking Irish duck), “Twilight's” Billy Black or maybe even Waldo, of “Where's Waldo” fame (unlike Mr. Fowle, he can only afford one outfit). These individuals certainly aren't the wealthiest guys on the block, and neither are we.

Without any further ado, here's a list of five of the financially poorest fictional characters:

5. Mel Gibson's Martin Riggs from “Lethal Weapon”: A gainfully employed, edgy cop who chooses to live the life of an alcoholic bum (the death of his wife really left him broken). Yeah, he could move on and stop wasting his life on the bottle, move out of his beach-side trailer and get a real home. But let's leave that for the underwhelming sequels.

4. Bradley Cooper's Eddie Morra in the first part of “Limitless”: Eddie Morra begins “Limitless” as a penniless writer struggling to make do financially. The key sign, though, that Morra belongs on this list is that he has long, disheveled hair, and not in a GQ way. He's a vagabond roaming the streets trying to write his novel. Thankfully, Morra takes a pill to access the rest of his brain, enabling him to make better life decisions. Somehow it wasn't enough to make him realize a “Hangover” sequel just might be a bad idea.

3. Ron Weasley from the Harry Potter series: Harry's the reluctant hero, Hermione's the smart one, and Ron's the poor one. The redheaded friend in the Harry Potter franchise is really a victim of circumstance. There are simply too many Weasleys and not enough money to go around, thus he receives hand-me-downs and a pet rat while his friends have invisibility cloaks, owls and cats. Where's the justice?

2. Danny Trejo's Machete in “Machete”: Danny Trejo portrays a former Mexican Federale who now works as an on-again, off-again laborer. What a financial fall from grace. As he says in the movie: “Machete don't text.” That's probably because his cell plan doesn't support texting anymore. Fortunately for Machete, he has a higher calling in life that doesn't necessarily involve tons of cash, only his weapon of choice. Bruce Wayne he is not, but he has helped redefine the word badass.

1. Rutger Hauer's Hobo in “Hobo with a Shotgun”: How can Rutger Hauer's homeless vigilante not be No. 1? The rare antihero (other than maybe “Watchmen's” Rorschach) to be homeless. What a bold move, even if it is a movie paying homage to exploitation movies. It's hard to say whether or not anyone will top this flat-out broke fictional character. After all, audiences would much rather watch filthy rich characters in their escapist journey to the cinema than facing the reality – or surreality – of poverty. Right?

Let's ask the Kardashians.

Those are just a few of the brokest fictional characters. Who are some of your favorite poorest fictional characters?

Sheenwatch 2011: It's All Part of the Show

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Nick Hanover

Last week saw everything coming up Sheen, with the actor's $100 million lawsuit against his employers apparently not as much of a stretch as one might think it would be since legal experts are now leaning on the proof that until recently CBS was pretty much fine with Sheen being, well, Sheen. Then the less than stable actor took to his own little Internet show, "Sheen's Korner," to rail against enemies real and imagined before signing off, claiming that would be the last webisode. A lot of folks just assumed what Sheen meant was that he'd be taking his brand of crazy elsewhere and they were right.

According to TMZ, Sheen's planned comedy/beat poetry/stream of consciousness rambling and all around lowbrow lunacy/performance art extravaganza of a tour had sold out in a record 18 minutes after being announced. Which makes Alec Baldwin's advice to Sheen to sober up and beg for his old job back look a little like bad business sense (despite how good the life decision aspect of it is, but, uh, this is Sheen we're talking about here).

It's clear that Sheen is now a full blown media spectacle in a time when that seems to be all America wants. The crazier, more volatile Sheen gets the more the public eats it up and Sheen continues to reside in his own reality. That residence continues to cost him real jobs, such as the Major League 3 project he keeps referring to despite emphatic declarations of unease by execs and outright denials that pretty much everything Sheen says about the project is true.

But that's okay, because Sheen literally has porn to fall back on. Yes, that's right, even if "Two and a Half Men" never recovers from Sheengate, there will at least be the opportunity to see a Sheen-directed porn parody instead.

Sheenwatch 2011: It's All Part of the Show

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Nick Hanover

Last week saw everything coming up Sheen, with the actor's $100 million lawsuit against his employers apparently not as much of a stretch as one might think it would be since legal experts are now leaning on the proof that until recently CBS was pretty much fine with Sheen being, well, Sheen. Then the less than stable actor took to his own little Internet show, "Sheen's Korner," to rail against enemies real and imagined before signing off, claiming that would be the last webisode. A lot of folks just assumed what Sheen meant was that he'd be taking his brand of crazy elsewhere and they were right.

According to TMZ, Sheen's planned comedy/beat poetry/stream of consciousness rambling and all around lowbrow lunacy/performance art extravaganza of a tour had sold out in a record 18 minutes after being announced. Which makes Alec Baldwin's advice to Sheen to sober up and beg for his old job back look a little like bad business sense (despite how good the life decision aspect of it is, but, uh, this is Sheen we're talking about here).

It's clear that Sheen is now a full blown media spectacle in a time when that seems to be all America wants. The crazier, more volatile Sheen gets the more the public eats it up and Sheen continues to reside in his own reality. That residence continues to cost him real jobs, such as the Major League 3 project he keeps referring to despite emphatic declarations of unease by execs and outright denials that pretty much everything Sheen says about the project is true.

But that's okay, because Sheen literally has porn to fall back on. Yes, that's right, even if "Two and a Half Men" never recovers from Sheengate, there will at least be the opportunity to see a Sheen-directed porn parody instead.

Has The Flash Missed His Window of Opportunity?

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Among this new generation of comic book movies (beginning somewhere around “X-Men,” elevated by “Iron Man,” and will stop whenever the studios take mercy on us), there’s one classic character that has yet to make the cut--The Flash.

There have been rumors circulating for years about a potential movie for DC’s Silver Age pioneer, but here we are, in 2011, and there has been little progress while other DC characters are making the leap to major movies or TV shows, like Green Lantern or Wonder Woman.

Much like every superhero these days, there is a franchise in the works. It’s currently in the scripting stages with “Green Lantern” writers Greg Berlanti, Michael Green and Marc Guggenheim (all three of whom Warner Bros. seems to putting a lot of stock into) rumored to be working on it for a 2013 release.

It’s ironic that a character known for his speed will pretty much be the last major hero to get a film in theaters -- that is assuming Barry Allen hasn’t missed his window of opportunity.

In an era where the trigger-happy Marvel is releasing, rebooting and recasting any and all characters in its arsenal, DC has been surprisingly gun shy to push projects into development. “Green Lantern” should have been rushed into production after the success of 2008’s “Iron Man,” and “The Flash,” should have followed suit. Unfortunately, they didn’t, and it could cost Warner two very profitable franchises.

With a summer market so saturated with comic book movies (“Thor,” “Captain America,” “X-Men: First Class” and “The Green Lantern), you have to wonder what effect it will have on movie-goers, and if there will be some kind of backlash. The reality is that past 2011 there may not be a market for any new superhero franchises, and some of those that are already established may see waning audiences.

Of course, whether or not film fans want it, the comic book movies will keep coming until the market is completely depleted (something studios are very good at), because projects such as “The Avengers,” “Superman: Man of Steel,” “The Amazing Spider-Man” and a number of others are already in development. But it’s not too late for Warner to pull the plug on “The Flash,” whose existence in cinema depends almost entirely on how successful “The Green Lantern” is this summer.

Flash fans can only hope that things work out in their favor.

Thankfully, there will always be a place for Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies. But that doesn’t do The Flash any good. You might have to sit this one out, champ.

Below is the trailer for “Green Lantern,” DC’s hopeful new franchise. If it finds success at the box office this summer, “The Flash” might someday see the light of day.

Has The Flash Missed His Window of Opportunity?

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Among this new generation of comic book movies (beginning somewhere around “X-Men,” elevated by “Iron Man,” and will stop whenever the studios take mercy on us), there’s one classic character that has yet to make the cut--The Flash.

There have been rumors circulating for years about a potential movie for DC’s Silver Age pioneer, but here we are, in 2011, and there has been little progress while other DC characters are making the leap to major movies or TV shows, like Green Lantern or Wonder Woman.

Much like every superhero these days, there is a franchise in the works. It’s currently in the scripting stages with “Green Lantern” writers Greg Berlanti, Michael Green and Marc Guggenheim (all three of whom Warner Bros. seems to putting a lot of stock into) rumored to be working on it for a 2013 release.

It’s ironic that a character known for his speed will pretty much be the last major hero to get a film in theaters -- that is assuming Barry Allen hasn’t missed his window of opportunity.

In an era where the trigger-happy Marvel is releasing, rebooting and recasting any and all characters in its arsenal, DC has been surprisingly gun shy to push projects into development. “Green Lantern” should have been rushed into production after the success of 2008’s “Iron Man,” and “The Flash,” should have followed suit. Unfortunately, they didn’t, and it could cost Warner two very profitable franchises.

With a summer market so saturated with comic book movies (“Thor,” “Captain America,” “X-Men: First Class” and “The Green Lantern), you have to wonder what effect it will have on movie-goers, and if there will be some kind of backlash. The reality is that past 2011 there may not be a market for any new superhero franchises, and some of those that are already established may see waning audiences.

Of course, whether or not film fans want it, the comic book movies will keep coming until the market is completely depleted (something studios are very good at), because projects such as “The Avengers,” “Superman: Man of Steel,” “The Amazing Spider-Man” and a number of others are already in development. But it’s not too late for Warner to pull the plug on “The Flash,” whose existence in cinema depends almost entirely on how successful “The Green Lantern” is this summer.

Flash fans can only hope that things work out in their favor.

Thankfully, there will always be a place for Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies. But that doesn’t do The Flash any good. You might have to sit this one out, champ.

Below is the trailer for “Green Lantern,” DC’s hopeful new franchise. If it finds success at the box office this summer, “The Flash” might someday see the light of day.

'Mortal Kombat: Rebirth' Ushers in a Mew era of Video Game Adaptations

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Video games and movies are like water and oil. The two just don't mix. Take a look at “Super Mario Bros.,” or Jean Claude Van Damme in “Street Fighter,” or the “Tomb Raider” movies, or practically every Uwe Boll film. There's always something that gets lost in translation between the console and the big screen (for Boll, that would be common sense).

In 1995, Paul W.S. Anderson realized this and made a simple, stupid adaptation of John Tobias and Ed Boon's “Mortal Kombat,” which was highly derivative of Bruce Lee's “Enter the Dragon.” Yeah, it sucked, but it did well enough to spawn a bastard sequel, “Mortal Kombat: Annihilation,” and a syndicated TV series, “Mortal Kombat: Conquest,” which ended in 1999.

Since then, “Mortal Kombat” was dead as far as the movie world was concerned.

And then an unlikely hero stepped up. Kevin Tancharoen, the director of the “Fame” reboot, stepped up and took an interest in the franchise and gave “Mortal Kombat” something to be excited about for the first time since 1993.

In June, Tancharoen released an 8-minute short appropriately titled “Mortal Kombat: Rebirth,” starring Michael Jai White (“Spawn,” “Black Dynamite”), Jeri Ryan (“Star Trek Voyager”) and Ian Anthony Dale (“The Event”).

Rather than present audiences with a cinematic regurgitation of the video game a la Anderson, Tancharoen created a new, gritty universe that liberally used the characters, themes and story lines from “Mortal Kombat.” The director intended to use “Rebirth” as a way to pitch a new “Mortal Kombat” film to Warner Bros.

The result was, quite frankly, awesome, especially when considering the $7,500 budget. It also showed what the “Fame” director was really capable of.

Apparently Tancharoen also impressed Warner Bros., because late last month the studio gave him the green light for a 10-episode Web series, which White and Ryan signed on for on Feb. 14. We can only hope that Dale and the rest of the cast will follow.

If the 8-minute short is any indication of how this series will be, then it will not doubt be popular among fans and may even grow an audience outside of gamers. It's a small step toward redemption for video game movies. As a whole, they still have a long way to go and a lot of history to apologize for. We can hope that Tancharoen's vision will pave the way for future video game adaptations.

The real question remains, however, will Tancharoen find a way to incorporate “Techno Syndrome” aka “The Mortal Kombat Theme” by The Immortals? We can only hope.

Either way, “Mortal Kombat: Rebirth” remains a small victory for gamers.

See how far “Mortal Kombat” has come. Watch Tancharoen's short film and compare it to the trailer for Paul W.S. Anderson's “Mortal Kombat” from 1995.

'Mortal Kombat: Rebirth' Ushers in a Mew era of Video Game Adaptations

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Video games and movies are like water and oil. The two just don't mix. Take a look at “Super Mario Bros.,” or Jean Claude Van Damme in “Street Fighter,” or the “Tomb Raider” movies, or practically every Uwe Boll film. There's always something that gets lost in translation between the console and the big screen (for Boll, that would be common sense).

In 1995, Paul W.S. Anderson realized this and made a simple, stupid adaptation of John Tobias and Ed Boon's “Mortal Kombat,” which was highly derivative of Bruce Lee's “Enter the Dragon.” Yeah, it sucked, but it did well enough to spawn a bastard sequel, “Mortal Kombat: Annihilation,” and a syndicated TV series, “Mortal Kombat: Conquest,” which ended in 1999.

Since then, “Mortal Kombat” was dead as far as the movie world was concerned.

And then an unlikely hero stepped up. Kevin Tancharoen, the director of the “Fame” reboot, stepped up and took an interest in the franchise and gave “Mortal Kombat” something to be excited about for the first time since 1993.

In June, Tancharoen released an 8-minute short appropriately titled “Mortal Kombat: Rebirth,” starring Michael Jai White (“Spawn,” “Black Dynamite”), Jeri Ryan (“Star Trek Voyager”) and Ian Anthony Dale (“The Event”).

Rather than present audiences with a cinematic regurgitation of the video game a la Anderson, Tancharoen created a new, gritty universe that liberally used the characters, themes and story lines from “Mortal Kombat.” The director intended to use “Rebirth” as a way to pitch a new “Mortal Kombat” film to Warner Bros.

The result was, quite frankly, awesome, especially when considering the $7,500 budget. It also showed what the “Fame” director was really capable of.

Apparently Tancharoen also impressed Warner Bros., because late last month the studio gave him the green light for a 10-episode Web series, which White and Ryan signed on for on Feb. 14. We can only hope that Dale and the rest of the cast will follow.

If the 8-minute short is any indication of how this series will be, then it will not doubt be popular among fans and may even grow an audience outside of gamers. It's a small step toward redemption for video game movies. As a whole, they still have a long way to go and a lot of history to apologize for. We can hope that Tancharoen's vision will pave the way for future video game adaptations.

The real question remains, however, will Tancharoen find a way to incorporate “Techno Syndrome” aka “The Mortal Kombat Theme” by The Immortals? We can only hope.

Either way, “Mortal Kombat: Rebirth” remains a small victory for gamers.

See how far “Mortal Kombat” has come. Watch Tancharoen's short film and compare it to the trailer for Paul W.S. Anderson's “Mortal Kombat” from 1995.

Something to 'Gossip' About: CW Stars Try to Transition Into Movies

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Oh, the things I love about the CW's “Gossip Girl” are so numerous that you would need pages of blog posts to truly capture them all.

But my favorite thing (other than Chuck Bass's made-for-radio voice) is that, despite having relatively low ratings and a demographic that most networks find unenviable, “Gossip Girl has created an illusion. It's like a teen-dream David Copperfield, somehow tricking the media into thinking that it's far more relevant and popular than it actually is.

I suppose that comes from the mostly young(ish) cast, all of whom are full of potential talent. In that sense, “Gossip Girl” is sort of like a long-term investment. For whom, exactly, will the investment pay off? Certainly not for the CW – they haven't capitalized on anything popular since the first season of “Smallville.”

I suppose, if anybody's going to benefit from “Gossip Girl,” it's going to be the actors themselves. Some have already started to increase their presence in the film world, others have tried and failed, and still, others haven't even bothered.

This past weekend, Leighton Meester (Blair Waldorf, the show's unsung antihero) took her first real stab at a starring role on the big screen with “The Roommate,” which, as expected, received a lot of poor reviews.

Certainly, the verdict for Ms. Meister's career is still out. But it's clear – as it is with many of the CW's stars – there is a lot of potential there. With two more movies slated for 2011--“The Oranges” and “Monte Carlo"--by the end of the year, we'll be able to better gauge where Ms. Meester's career is headed.

On top of acting, Leighton has found a niche in the music world and, if the rumor's true, she makes the good girls go bad.

But enough about Leighton Meester, what about the rest of the cast? Well, here's a rundown of how the “Gossip Girl” cast is fairing so far in the film world:

Those who have found early success:

Blake Lively: You could almost consider this cheating, considering that before she hit it big on “Gossip Girl,” Lively already had a film career with “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.” More recently, however, Lively has raced to the head of the class by landing roles in Ben Affleck's critically acclaimed Boston crime-drama “The Town” and this summer's potential blockbuster “Green Lantern.”

Penn Badgley: Everyone's favorite Dan Humphrey (OK, maybe not everyone's favorite, but certainly one of mine) got off on the wrong foot taking the lead in 2009's “The Stepfather.” Sure, it sucked, but it put Badgley on the map outside of the Cwverse. He followed that up with a strong supporting performance in “Easy A,” and, in doing so, has established himself as a young actor to watch.

The Ones Who Have Tried and Failed … So Far

Chace Crawford: It would be more appropriate to label this section “The One Who Has Tried and Failed,” but I didn't have the heart to throw Chace Crawford under the bus alone.

So far we've really only seen Crawford in “The Haunting of Molly Hartley” (one of the worst of 2008) and Joel Schumacher's disaster “Twelve.” Nice effort on the latter, though.

With his dashing leading-man good looks, it's really only a matter of time before Crawford lands something huge. But for now, it seems as though his name only comes up in rumors (such as Captain America or Spider-man) that are, in fact, false. Someday, though, Crawford's going to land the big one – someday.

Those Who Haven't Even Tried … Yet

Ed Westwick: Westwick is one of those guys who has established his character, Chuck Bass, so well on “Gossip Girl” that I'm not certain I'll be able to buy him as anything else. But, at one point I probably would have said the same thing about Will Smith on “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” or Drake on “DeGrassi.” But, then again, I would have said the same thing about Mark-Paul Gosselaar or Mario Lopez on “Saved by the Bell,” and I would have been right.

Taylor Momsen: Her name's Taylor, and because she's a young star, that means she has to be huge (Lautner, Swift, Hicks...anyone?) Although she has no movies on the horizon, we can only hope this 17-year-old actress does something with vampires. Because, certainly, I haven't had enough of that yet.

Who do you think will be the biggest star to emerge from “Gossip Girl”?

Something to 'Gossip' About: CW Stars Try to Transition Into Movies

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Oh, the things I love about the CW's “Gossip Girl” are so numerous that you would need pages of blog posts to truly capture them all.

But my favorite thing (other than Chuck Bass's made-for-radio voice) is that, despite having relatively low ratings and a demographic that most networks find unenviable, “Gossip Girl has created an illusion. It's like a teen-dream David Copperfield, somehow tricking the media into thinking that it's far more relevant and popular than it actually is.

I suppose that comes from the mostly young(ish) cast, all of whom are full of potential talent. In that sense, “Gossip Girl” is sort of like a long-term investment. For whom, exactly, will the investment pay off? Certainly not for the CW – they haven't capitalized on anything popular since the first season of “Smallville.”

I suppose, if anybody's going to benefit from “Gossip Girl,” it's going to be the actors themselves. Some have already started to increase their presence in the film world, others have tried and failed, and still, others haven't even bothered.

This past weekend, Leighton Meester (Blair Waldorf, the show's unsung antihero) took her first real stab at a starring role on the big screen with “The Roommate,” which, as expected, received a lot of poor reviews.

Certainly, the verdict for Ms. Meister's career is still out. But it's clear – as it is with many of the CW's stars – there is a lot of potential there. With two more movies slated for 2011--“The Oranges” and “Monte Carlo"--by the end of the year, we'll be able to better gauge where Ms. Meester's career is headed.

On top of acting, Leighton has found a niche in the music world and, if the rumor's true, she makes the good girls go bad.

But enough about Leighton Meester, what about the rest of the cast? Well, here's a rundown of how the “Gossip Girl” cast is fairing so far in the film world:

Those who have found early success:

Blake Lively: You could almost consider this cheating, considering that before she hit it big on “Gossip Girl,” Lively already had a film career with “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.” More recently, however, Lively has raced to the head of the class by landing roles in Ben Affleck's critically acclaimed Boston crime-drama “The Town” and this summer's potential blockbuster “Green Lantern.”

Penn Badgley: Everyone's favorite Dan Humphrey (OK, maybe not everyone's favorite, but certainly one of mine) got off on the wrong foot taking the lead in 2009's “The Stepfather.” Sure, it sucked, but it put Badgley on the map outside of the Cwverse. He followed that up with a strong supporting performance in “Easy A,” and, in doing so, has established himself as a young actor to watch.

The Ones Who Have Tried and Failed … So Far

Chace Crawford: It would be more appropriate to label this section “The One Who Has Tried and Failed,” but I didn't have the heart to throw Chace Crawford under the bus alone.

So far we've really only seen Crawford in “The Haunting of Molly Hartley” (one of the worst of 2008) and Joel Schumacher's disaster “Twelve.” Nice effort on the latter, though.

With his dashing leading-man good looks, it's really only a matter of time before Crawford lands something huge. But for now, it seems as though his name only comes up in rumors (such as Captain America or Spider-man) that are, in fact, false. Someday, though, Crawford's going to land the big one – someday.

Those Who Haven't Even Tried … Yet

Ed Westwick: Westwick is one of those guys who has established his character, Chuck Bass, so well on “Gossip Girl” that I'm not certain I'll be able to buy him as anything else. But, at one point I probably would have said the same thing about Will Smith on “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” or Drake on “DeGrassi.” But, then again, I would have said the same thing about Mark-Paul Gosselaar or Mario Lopez on “Saved by the Bell,” and I would have been right.

Taylor Momsen: Her name's Taylor, and because she's a young star, that means she has to be huge (Lautner, Swift, Hicks...anyone?) Although she has no movies on the horizon, we can only hope this 17-year-old actress does something with vampires. Because, certainly, I haven't had enough of that yet.

Who do you think will be the biggest star to emerge from “Gossip Girl”?

Can Bieber's 'Never Say Never' Break Pop Star Curse?

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

If I had one piece of advice to pass along to young pop stars (mainly Justin Bieber), it would be to stay out of film. And whatever you do, do not make 3-D concert movies.

Oh, wait. Unfortunately for Mr. Bieber, he's already taken that step in his career. Well, I guess it's a bad time to break the news to him, but I have a strong suspicion that there is a curse on all pop stars who try to make the leap to the big screen – unless you're Timberlake.

My first piece of evidence comes in the form of the “Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience.” Every time I write those words, there's an executive at Disney who shudders – but it has to be said.

At best, you could write off “The 3D Concert Experience” as a singular box-office flop, not even grossing $20 million domestically. More accurately, however, you could argue that it was the beginning of the end for Disney's Jonas cash cow.

Since the film, the brothers went from platinum-selling artists to barely being able to push their 2009 album, “Lines, Vines and Trying Times,” past gold certification.  Trying times, indeed, JoBros. On top of that, the trio had to shed some 2010 tour dates amid a crumbling season for concerts.

Maybe the young hoards have grown out of their JoBros obsession. Maybe their parents weren't committed enough to hear “Burnin' Up” another 10 million times, or watch the floppy-haired brothers in three dimensions. Or maybe -- just maybe -- it was the curse.

The second piece of evidence is Miley Cyrus and her alter ego Hannah Montana, another financial tour de force from Disney. Miley's much-anticipated “Hannah Montana: The Movie,” grossed nearly $80 million domestically – not a terrible haul.

But, with Miley and Hannah, it wasn't the film so much as the aftershock that have put her career in dire straits. Miley has made more headlines being photographed taking Salvia bong hits, grinding up on “The Last Song” producer Adam Shankman, making an ass of herself in interviews and being nominated for a Razzie Award. Tisk-tisk, Miley.

“Justin Bieber: Never Say Never” hits theaters theaters this Friday, Feb. 11, and the question remains whether Bieber can break the curse. Will he fall into the same trap that the JoBros did with their “3D Concert Experience”? Will he make poor decisions and self-destruct like Miley? I don't think so.

The deck is stacked against young Justin. He's been the butt of so many jokes and taken so much criticism that it seems as though he already has a target painted on him. However, I'm going to be the dissenting voice of my snarky generation and say that I'm rooting for the Biebs.

Timberlake has proved that breaking into movies is doable, you just have to be smart about it. Whether Bieber intends to one day work with David Fincher (ha … ha) is unknown, but if Bieber can just make it through this one, documentary-style 3-D experience, he'll be doing pretty well for himself – far better than his pop predecessors.

Sure, many people find him annoying, but he does seem far more genuine than any of the Disney-produced teen idols. If he keeps his head on straight, he might be able to keep his career going far beyond this teen-idol stage. Kind of like Timberlake.

So go forth, young Bieber, and break the curse.

Can Bieber's 'Never Say Never' Break Pop Star Curse?

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

If I had one piece of advice to pass along to young pop stars (mainly Justin Bieber), it would be to stay out of film. And whatever you do, do not make 3-D concert movies.

Oh, wait. Unfortunately for Mr. Bieber, he's already taken that step in his career. Well, I guess it's a bad time to break the news to him, but I have a strong suspicion that there is a curse on all pop stars who try to make the leap to the big screen – unless you're Timberlake.

My first piece of evidence comes in the form of the “Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience.” Every time I write those words, there's an executive at Disney who shudders – but it has to be said.

At best, you could write off “The 3D Concert Experience” as a singular box-office flop, not even grossing $20 million domestically. More accurately, however, you could argue that it was the beginning of the end for Disney's Jonas cash cow.

Since the film, the brothers went from platinum-selling artists to barely being able to push their 2009 album, “Lines, Vines and Trying Times,” past gold certification.  Trying times, indeed, JoBros. On top of that, the trio had to shed some 2010 tour dates amid a crumbling season for concerts.

Maybe the young hoards have grown out of their JoBros obsession. Maybe their parents weren't committed enough to hear “Burnin' Up” another 10 million times, or watch the floppy-haired brothers in three dimensions. Or maybe -- just maybe -- it was the curse.

The second piece of evidence is Miley Cyrus and her alter ego Hannah Montana, another financial tour de force from Disney. Miley's much-anticipated “Hannah Montana: The Movie,” grossed nearly $80 million domestically – not a terrible haul.

But, with Miley and Hannah, it wasn't the film so much as the aftershock that have put her career in dire straits. Miley has made more headlines being photographed taking Salvia bong hits, grinding up on “The Last Song” producer Adam Shankman, making an ass of herself in interviews and being nominated for a Razzie Award. Tisk-tisk, Miley.

“Justin Bieber: Never Say Never” hits theaters theaters this Friday, Feb. 11, and the question remains whether Bieber can break the curse. Will he fall into the same trap that the JoBros did with their “3D Concert Experience”? Will he make poor decisions and self-destruct like Miley? I don't think so.

The deck is stacked against young Justin. He's been the butt of so many jokes and taken so much criticism that it seems as though he already has a target painted on him. However, I'm going to be the dissenting voice of my snarky generation and say that I'm rooting for the Biebs.

Timberlake has proved that breaking into movies is doable, you just have to be smart about it. Whether Bieber intends to one day work with David Fincher (ha … ha) is unknown, but if Bieber can just make it through this one, documentary-style 3-D experience, he'll be doing pretty well for himself – far better than his pop predecessors.

Sure, many people find him annoying, but he does seem far more genuine than any of the Disney-produced teen idols. If he keeps his head on straight, he might be able to keep his career going far beyond this teen-idol stage. Kind of like Timberlake.

So go forth, young Bieber, and break the curse.

Hollywood Surprised Terrible Movies Aren't Making Money

Movie News/Commentary

By our guest blogger, Nick Hanover

This week, EW is offering a look at what they're calling "Hollywood's box office slump," which is in reference to the now 10-week stretch in which box office numbers have been down in comparison to the previous year. The bad news for this week in particular is that neither the "Green Hornet" nor "The Dilemma" have done particularly well at the box office, though the former did post a profit, just not a major one.

Of course, this shouldn't really be news to anyone who pays attention to us neglected critics, who have mostly savaged both the "Green Hornet" and "The Dilemma," both posting depressingly low aggregate scores. In fact, our own Matthew Schimkowitz (who we appear to be punishing this week for unknown reasons by forcing him to review both these films) seemingly summed up everyone's feelings about the "Green Hornet" by shrugging his shoulders and saying "the film isn't half bad..." and then later calling "The Dilemma" a "mixed bag."

EW continues their (blindingly obvious) reporting by pointing out what the holiday roster was this year, mentioning that such well-received films as "The Tourist" (Metacritic score: 37), "How Do You Know" (Metacritic score: 46) and "Gulliver's Travels" (Metacritic score: 33) all underperformed. EW then decides to pour further salt on the wound by reminding everyone that last holiday season offered, by contrast, "Avatar," which more than likely earned more than all of the aforementioned films combined.

To go into editorial mode for a moment, here's the thing--people like variety. You can only feed them slop for so long before they realize it's crap and it would seem that Hollywood's current plan of endless rebooting and adaptations of such hot properties as decades old board games is by even the most generous estimates a weak one. EW almost comes to the same realization, albeit through the implementation of an extremely poorly constructed comparison to the cinematic climate of the '70s (which they quickly backpedal on). As their article points out, smaller, independent fare like "Black Swan" and "True Grit," films that are, you know, good and thus have aggregate scores that aren't in the F range, are faring extremely well at the box office.

What EW misses is that it isn't necessarily quality or intelligence that's drawing crowds in, it's the variety aspect. Think: what do "Black Swan" and "Avatar" have in common?

Novelty.

Love it or hate it, "Avatar" offered something completely new, a completely mesmerizing world of beautiful visuals and creatures that audiences simply hadn't seen before. Similarly, Aronofsky's "Black Swan," like "The Wrestler" before it, explored an otherwise little-mined world in a breathtaking way. "Avatar" might have been a bloated, pandering mess but you can't say it didn't offer escape and fresh ideas and that would seem to be the sweet spot "Black Swan" has hit on as well. So to say "True Grit" performed nearly as well in the box office game as "Little Fockers" is to miss the point- one of these films is a revisionist Western by a directing team known for breaking new ground and the other is the third installment in an already tired franchise. And who in their right mind is going to continue to pay for something they've already seen three times?

Hollywood Surprised Terrible Movies Aren't Making Money

Movie News/Commentary

By our guest blogger, Nick Hanover

This week, EW is offering a look at what they're calling "Hollywood's box office slump," which is in reference to the now 10-week stretch in which box office numbers have been down in comparison to the previous year. The bad news for this week in particular is that neither the "Green Hornet" nor "The Dilemma" have done particularly well at the box office, though the former did post a profit, just not a major one.

Of course, this shouldn't really be news to anyone who pays attention to us neglected critics, who have mostly savaged both the "Green Hornet" and "The Dilemma," both posting depressingly low aggregate scores. In fact, our own Matthew Schimkowitz (who we appear to be punishing this week for unknown reasons by forcing him to review both these films) seemingly summed up everyone's feelings about the "Green Hornet" by shrugging his shoulders and saying "the film isn't half bad..." and then later calling "The Dilemma" a "mixed bag."

EW continues their (blindingly obvious) reporting by pointing out what the holiday roster was this year, mentioning that such well-received films as "The Tourist" (Metacritic score: 37), "How Do You Know" (Metacritic score: 46) and "Gulliver's Travels" (Metacritic score: 33) all underperformed. EW then decides to pour further salt on the wound by reminding everyone that last holiday season offered, by contrast, "Avatar," which more than likely earned more than all of the aforementioned films combined.

To go into editorial mode for a moment, here's the thing--people like variety. You can only feed them slop for so long before they realize it's crap and it would seem that Hollywood's current plan of endless rebooting and adaptations of such hot properties as decades old board games is by even the most generous estimates a weak one. EW almost comes to the same realization, albeit through the implementation of an extremely poorly constructed comparison to the cinematic climate of the '70s (which they quickly backpedal on). As their article points out, smaller, independent fare like "Black Swan" and "True Grit," films that are, you know, good and thus have aggregate scores that aren't in the F range, are faring extremely well at the box office.

What EW misses is that it isn't necessarily quality or intelligence that's drawing crowds in, it's the variety aspect. Think: what do "Black Swan" and "Avatar" have in common?

Novelty.

Love it or hate it, "Avatar" offered something completely new, a completely mesmerizing world of beautiful visuals and creatures that audiences simply hadn't seen before. Similarly, Aronofsky's "Black Swan," like "The Wrestler" before it, explored an otherwise little-mined world in a breathtaking way. "Avatar" might have been a bloated, pandering mess but you can't say it didn't offer escape and fresh ideas and that would seem to be the sweet spot "Black Swan" has hit on as well. So to say "True Grit" performed nearly as well in the box office game as "Little Fockers" is to miss the point- one of these films is a revisionist Western by a directing team known for breaking new ground and the other is the third installment in an already tired franchise. And who in their right mind is going to continue to pay for something they've already seen three times?

Looking Ahead at Season 10 of "American Idol"

Television Commentary

By our guest blogger, Catherine Fuentes

The tenth season of "American Idol" is finally upon us, and there are dozens of questions about the new season and all the change it will bring. What will the new judges’ dynamic be? What are the new rounds? Will there be a new Casey James?

In case you haven’t heard, season 10 of "American Idol" has many changes in store for the milestone season. The most visible change is the one that has gotten the most press: Randy Jackson is the only original judge on the panel. Simon is out, Kara is out and Ellen is out. Iconic Aerosmith front man Steven Tyler and Jennifer Lopez are in. What will this bring? I think it might be better than people are anticipating. Both judges can offer industry insight from their experiences as musicians – not as producers, record executives, or songwriters.

Perhaps the biggest change next to the almost entirely new judging panel is the audition structure. This year, there will be no semifinal round as there typically has been to get down to the Top 12. After Hollywood round, 60 contestants move on to a new Beatles-themed Las Vegas round, where the pool will lose 20 contestants and send 40 back to a second Hollywood round, which will narrow the pool to 20 contestants. When there are 20 contestants, America will vote in what has been described as a single sudden death round to select the finalists. It hasn’t been announced whether there will be a Top 12 or a Top 10. The sudden death rounds will more or less work like a typical episode of ‘Idol’: on March 1 and March 2, the remaining 20 contestants will have one song to sing live before America will have a chance to call-in votes. On March 3, the finalists will be announced.

Another big change is that now, 15-year-olds can audition for the show. This may not seem a big deal, but each season there are some standout 16-year-olds, so will the introduction of 15-year-olds do much to the talent pool? It certainly might deepen it, but who knows what maturity level a 15-year-old can bring to such a high-pressure situation.

In case try-outs were in cities too far from home, this year, "Idol" producers allowed hopeful contestants to audition via Myspace videos. I wonder if we’ll have an episode of just fuzzy webcam auditions, or if we’ll just see them a few steps into the process if any are lucky enough to make it.

Last season there were plenty of complaints (many surrounded around my favorite, Casey James) that contestants relied on their instruments to get them further in the competition… and that the performances really suffered as a result. This season, instruments may be permitted, but their use will be seriously limited – it’s rumored that contestants may only be allowed to use an instrument once per season. This means that the cute guy with guitar phenomenon probably won’t exist this season, and we will hopefully return to a vocal powerhouse like a Carrie Underwood. "Hopefully" being the key word, here.

The head of Interscope/Geffen/A&M, Jimmy Iovine, will appear as a consistent mentor on the season, and will eventually offer the winner a recording deal that I imagine will be more hands-on than in "Idol" past. He’s already announced that he’s planning on bringing him high-profile producers like Timbaland to work with the contestants, and it certainly seems like more in the way of artist development will be done this season than in any prior. This could make the show appear more hip, but it could also make the contestants more commercially successful when they graduate from "Idol." Judging by the abysmal record sales of last season’s top two finalists, maybe a little artist development could be a good thing. However, this also means that there may not be many guest mentors, which might be an unfortunate thing if you think someone awesome like Harry Connick Jr. might not get to work with the contestants (but, on the flip side, it will remove people like Miley Cyrus from mentoring musicians far talented than herself).

Also, there are rumors that there will no longer be any theme nights when we hit the Top 12 or 10 rounds. In the past, the contestants were subjected to find a song that fit their musical vision that fit into a preordained theme like country music, or the Rolling Stones, or even something heinous like disco. Eliminating these will keep contestants rooted in musical hits throughout history in a broad sense, and should help them develop their own musical identity easier in the competition. I think this should be a good thing--if it’s executed correctly.

Looking Ahead at Season 10 of "American Idol"

Television Commentary

By our guest blogger, Catherine Fuentes

The tenth season of "American Idol" is finally upon us, and there are dozens of questions about the new season and all the change it will bring. What will the new judges’ dynamic be? What are the new rounds? Will there be a new Casey James?

In case you haven’t heard, season 10 of "American Idol" has many changes in store for the milestone season. The most visible change is the one that has gotten the most press: Randy Jackson is the only original judge on the panel. Simon is out, Kara is out and Ellen is out. Iconic Aerosmith front man Steven Tyler and Jennifer Lopez are in. What will this bring? I think it might be better than people are anticipating. Both judges can offer industry insight from their experiences as musicians – not as producers, record executives, or songwriters.

Perhaps the biggest change next to the almost entirely new judging panel is the audition structure. This year, there will be no semifinal round as there typically has been to get down to the Top 12. After Hollywood round, 60 contestants move on to a new Beatles-themed Las Vegas round, where the pool will lose 20 contestants and send 40 back to a second Hollywood round, which will narrow the pool to 20 contestants. When there are 20 contestants, America will vote in what has been described as a single sudden death round to select the finalists. It hasn’t been announced whether there will be a Top 12 or a Top 10. The sudden death rounds will more or less work like a typical episode of ‘Idol’: on March 1 and March 2, the remaining 20 contestants will have one song to sing live before America will have a chance to call-in votes. On March 3, the finalists will be announced.

Another big change is that now, 15-year-olds can audition for the show. This may not seem a big deal, but each season there are some standout 16-year-olds, so will the introduction of 15-year-olds do much to the talent pool? It certainly might deepen it, but who knows what maturity level a 15-year-old can bring to such a high-pressure situation.

In case try-outs were in cities too far from home, this year, "Idol" producers allowed hopeful contestants to audition via Myspace videos. I wonder if we’ll have an episode of just fuzzy webcam auditions, or if we’ll just see them a few steps into the process if any are lucky enough to make it.

Last season there were plenty of complaints (many surrounded around my favorite, Casey James) that contestants relied on their instruments to get them further in the competition… and that the performances really suffered as a result. This season, instruments may be permitted, but their use will be seriously limited – it’s rumored that contestants may only be allowed to use an instrument once per season. This means that the cute guy with guitar phenomenon probably won’t exist this season, and we will hopefully return to a vocal powerhouse like a Carrie Underwood. "Hopefully" being the key word, here.

The head of Interscope/Geffen/A&M, Jimmy Iovine, will appear as a consistent mentor on the season, and will eventually offer the winner a recording deal that I imagine will be more hands-on than in "Idol" past. He’s already announced that he’s planning on bringing him high-profile producers like Timbaland to work with the contestants, and it certainly seems like more in the way of artist development will be done this season than in any prior. This could make the show appear more hip, but it could also make the contestants more commercially successful when they graduate from "Idol." Judging by the abysmal record sales of last season’s top two finalists, maybe a little artist development could be a good thing. However, this also means that there may not be many guest mentors, which might be an unfortunate thing if you think someone awesome like Harry Connick Jr. might not get to work with the contestants (but, on the flip side, it will remove people like Miley Cyrus from mentoring musicians far talented than herself).

Also, there are rumors that there will no longer be any theme nights when we hit the Top 12 or 10 rounds. In the past, the contestants were subjected to find a song that fit their musical vision that fit into a preordained theme like country music, or the Rolling Stones, or even something heinous like disco. Eliminating these will keep contestants rooted in musical hits throughout history in a broad sense, and should help them develop their own musical identity easier in the competition. I think this should be a good thing--if it’s executed correctly.

Ricky Gervais Just Said What We Were All Thinking

Television/Awards News

By our guest blogger, Joe Oliveto

Last night’s Golden Globe Awards were memorable, to say the least. Not because of the winners--there weren’t any big surprises, and the acceptance speeches tended to be short, to the point and not terribly emotional. True, De Niro won the C.B. DeMille award, but for a person who has made a living performing, he’s not a great public speaker and his speech consisted of several awkward jabs at the Holly Foreign Press that fell pretty flat.

No, the only thing really worth talking about in response to last night was the behavior of host Ricky Gervais, who didn’t pull any punches with the crowd in the room. Gervais is known for a particularly scathing style of humor, and he wasn’t going to tone things down just so the stars of Hollywood could feel safe.

In his opening monologue, Gervais went after the easy target of Charlie Sheen, who being both a major embarrassment to himself and, thankfully, not present at the show, was fodder for some good laughs. It was when Gervais decided to actually go after the people in attendance, that some people seemed to get angry.

Gervais made it a point to crack jokes about whichever presenter he was introducing, be it Bruce Willis, who he called “Asthon Kutcher’s dad,” or Sylvester Stallone, who he praised for having the acting skills to play both a boxer and Rambo.

Many at home probably enjoyed seeing Hollywood’s pampered stars get taken down a peg, but a few of Gervais’ targets were probably less pleased. He made the easy joke about Robert Downey Jr.’s history with drugs, and to be fair, that was a major personal struggle for the star and it could have been embarrassing to be reminded of it in front of a room of his peers.

But, speaking as a dedicated RDJ fan, I’ll say this--Ricky Gervais never crossed the line. I love movies and I love movie stars, but you can’t help feeling angry when these people commit crimes or fall into addiction but still get treated like royalty by countless yes-men. They have all the money anyone could ever need and, while with celebrity status comes the burden of sacrificing privacy, they get all the attention they crave. It’s about time someone had the guts to let them know that they aren’t perfect.

It was all in good fun, and if these stars lack a sense of humor, that is their problem.

Ricky Gervais Just Said What We Were All Thinking

Television/Awards News

By our guest blogger, Joe Oliveto

Last night’s Golden Globe Awards were memorable, to say the least. Not because of the winners--there weren’t any big surprises, and the acceptance speeches tended to be short, to the point and not terribly emotional. True, De Niro won the C.B. DeMille award, but for a person who has made a living performing, he’s not a great public speaker and his speech consisted of several awkward jabs at the Holly Foreign Press that fell pretty flat.

No, the only thing really worth talking about in response to last night was the behavior of host Ricky Gervais, who didn’t pull any punches with the crowd in the room. Gervais is known for a particularly scathing style of humor, and he wasn’t going to tone things down just so the stars of Hollywood could feel safe.

In his opening monologue, Gervais went after the easy target of Charlie Sheen, who being both a major embarrassment to himself and, thankfully, not present at the show, was fodder for some good laughs. It was when Gervais decided to actually go after the people in attendance, that some people seemed to get angry.

Gervais made it a point to crack jokes about whichever presenter he was introducing, be it Bruce Willis, who he called “Asthon Kutcher’s dad,” or Sylvester Stallone, who he praised for having the acting skills to play both a boxer and Rambo.

Many at home probably enjoyed seeing Hollywood’s pampered stars get taken down a peg, but a few of Gervais’ targets were probably less pleased. He made the easy joke about Robert Downey Jr.’s history with drugs, and to be fair, that was a major personal struggle for the star and it could have been embarrassing to be reminded of it in front of a room of his peers.

But, speaking as a dedicated RDJ fan, I’ll say this--Ricky Gervais never crossed the line. I love movies and I love movie stars, but you can’t help feeling angry when these people commit crimes or fall into addiction but still get treated like royalty by countless yes-men. They have all the money anyone could ever need and, while with celebrity status comes the burden of sacrificing privacy, they get all the attention they crave. It’s about time someone had the guts to let them know that they aren’t perfect.

It was all in good fun, and if these stars lack a sense of humor, that is their problem.

Extreme highs and lows: The career of Nicolas Cage

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

On Jan. 7, when Nicolas Cage turned 47, it also happened to be the day Relativity Media unleashed “Season of the Witch” upon the world. It was as though the distributor decided to celebrate Cage’s birthday by giving audiences -- and Cage’s career -- a cinematic kick to the nuts. Happy birthday, Nic!

But this is nothing new for Cage. He stars in so many of these movies -- the films that make you question certain studios’/filmmakers’ sanity -- that my reaction to “Season of the Witch” was surprisingly blase. I’ve simply shrugged it off, wagged my finger at the actor and said “Oh, Nic, you’ve done it again.”

Yet, it would be unfair, however, to solely judge Cage’s career on the “Season of the Witches” or “Bangkok Dangerouses.” Cage, who has become a polarizing actor audiences either love or hate -- mostly hate -- has had so many great performances in well-received movies. It’s a shame that they get overshadowed by, well, “Season of the Witch.”

It was “Leaving Las Vegas” that really got the ball rolling for Cage. Yes, he had a number of successful movies (“Raising Arizona,” “Wild at Heart” and the appropriately titled “Kiss of Death”) before Mike Figgis’ 1995 Oscar-nominated picture for which Cage won the Academy Award for Best Actor.

Like most Oscar winners, Cage knew exactly what he wanted to do after his big win and critical success -- blow stuff up. And he did just that. In 1996, he took the lead in Michael Bay’s “The Rock” as a neurotic scientist who doesn’t care for cursing

So, he made “The Rock” and got the action hero out of his system. Or did he?

Cage followed up in 1997 with his “double-action album” with Simon West’s “Con Air” and John Woo’s “Face/Off,” both of which were incredibly ridiculous and equally enjoyable. In other words: It’s ’97 and we’re still with you, Nic.

Over the next few years, he made a few shoulder-shruggers in “City of Angels,” “Snake Eyes” and “8MM,” all of which performed fairly well at the box office and received mixed or poor reviews.

Glossing over Scorsese’s “Bringing Out the Dead,” we’ll skip to 2000’s “Gone in Sixty Seconds,” which was directed by Dominic Sena (who also made “Season of the Witch”).  Essentially, it was a pretty weak attempt to recapture what he had in ’96/97. It didn’t work, but he went down in flames with co-stars Robert Duvall and Angelina Jolie. Not bad company.

In 2001, Cage hit a career low trying to pull off an Italian accent in John Madden’s “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin.” It was mostly just embarrassing. In 2002, his second time out with John Woo in “Windtalkers” was pretty poorly received, but he bounced back with an Academy Award nomination for a brilliant performance in “Adaptation.” It’s easily one of the actor’s best performances.

He followed “Adaptation” with another great character in Ridley Scott’s “Matchstick Men.” In 2003, things seem to be going well for Nic. Maybe a little too well.

The calm before the storm came in the form of the box-office powerhouse “National Treasure,” followed by “Lord of War,” “The Weather Man” and “World Trade Center,” the three of which were all fairly well received.

But it was 2006 when things really got out of hand. The release of Neil LaBute’s “The Wicker Man” (love Lebute, but the movie, not so much) and 2007’s “Ghost Rider,” within months of each other, was the dagger in Cage’s career. In his defense, who wouldn’t want to work with Neil LaBute? And who wouldn’t want to portray a bad-ass hero like Ghost Rider? But it just wasn’t in the cards for Cage, and they were far worse than anyone could have predicted.

From there, Cage’s career has been a whirlwind of hit or miss -- and you generally know in advance which ones will hit and which will miss. “Next,” “National Treasure Book of Secrets,” “Bangkok Dangerous” mark a streak of drivel from Nic. “Knowing,” a film from Alex Proyas, did better than expected at the box office and even garnered a four-star review from Roger Ebert, although many critics disagreed.

Werner Herzog’s “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” helped re-establish Cage’s credibility, and his performance in “Kick-Ass” was one of the film’s highlights. And then he went and ruined everything with “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” (not too bad) and now, “Season of the Witch,” a dark cloud over this cold January.

I believe that underneath all of that shrieking about bees in “The Wicker Man,” or that terrible Italian accent in “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin,” that there is a genuinely talented actor in Nicolas Cage. He just chooses to come out when he wants to, and I guess that’s just something I’ve learned to accept.

Nicolas Cage’s next movie is “Drive Angry 3D,” in theaters Feb. 25. Any thoughts?





Also, take the time to admire some of Cage’s best scenes in “The Wicker Man.”

Extreme highs and lows: The career of Nicolas Cage

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

On Jan. 7, when Nicolas Cage turned 47, it also happened to be the day Relativity Media unleashed “Season of the Witch” upon the world. It was as though the distributor decided to celebrate Cage’s birthday by giving audiences -- and Cage’s career -- a cinematic kick to the nuts. Happy birthday, Nic!

But this is nothing new for Cage. He stars in so many of these movies -- the films that make you question certain studios’/filmmakers’ sanity -- that my reaction to “Season of the Witch” was surprisingly blase. I’ve simply shrugged it off, wagged my finger at the actor and said “Oh, Nic, you’ve done it again.”

Yet, it would be unfair, however, to solely judge Cage’s career on the “Season of the Witches” or “Bangkok Dangerouses.” Cage, who has become a polarizing actor audiences either love or hate -- mostly hate -- has had so many great performances in well-received movies. It’s a shame that they get overshadowed by, well, “Season of the Witch.”

It was “Leaving Las Vegas” that really got the ball rolling for Cage. Yes, he had a number of successful movies (“Raising Arizona,” “Wild at Heart” and the appropriately titled “Kiss of Death”) before Mike Figgis’ 1995 Oscar-nominated picture for which Cage won the Academy Award for Best Actor.

Like most Oscar winners, Cage knew exactly what he wanted to do after his big win and critical success -- blow stuff up. And he did just that. In 1996, he took the lead in Michael Bay’s “The Rock” as a neurotic scientist who doesn’t care for cursing

So, he made “The Rock” and got the action hero out of his system. Or did he?

Cage followed up in 1997 with his “double-action album” with Simon West’s “Con Air” and John Woo’s “Face/Off,” both of which were incredibly ridiculous and equally enjoyable. In other words: It’s ’97 and we’re still with you, Nic.

Over the next few years, he made a few shoulder-shruggers in “City of Angels,” “Snake Eyes” and “8MM,” all of which performed fairly well at the box office and received mixed or poor reviews.

Glossing over Scorsese’s “Bringing Out the Dead,” we’ll skip to 2000’s “Gone in Sixty Seconds,” which was directed by Dominic Sena (who also made “Season of the Witch”).  Essentially, it was a pretty weak attempt to recapture what he had in ’96/97. It didn’t work, but he went down in flames with co-stars Robert Duvall and Angelina Jolie. Not bad company.

In 2001, Cage hit a career low trying to pull off an Italian accent in John Madden’s “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin.” It was mostly just embarrassing. In 2002, his second time out with John Woo in “Windtalkers” was pretty poorly received, but he bounced back with an Academy Award nomination for a brilliant performance in “Adaptation.” It’s easily one of the actor’s best performances.

He followed “Adaptation” with another great character in Ridley Scott’s “Matchstick Men.” In 2003, things seem to be going well for Nic. Maybe a little too well.

The calm before the storm came in the form of the box-office powerhouse “National Treasure,” followed by “Lord of War,” “The Weather Man” and “World Trade Center,” the three of which were all fairly well received.

But it was 2006 when things really got out of hand. The release of Neil LaBute’s “The Wicker Man” (love Lebute, but the movie, not so much) and 2007’s “Ghost Rider,” within months of each other, was the dagger in Cage’s career. In his defense, who wouldn’t want to work with Neil LaBute? And who wouldn’t want to portray a bad-ass hero like Ghost Rider? But it just wasn’t in the cards for Cage, and they were far worse than anyone could have predicted.

From there, Cage’s career has been a whirlwind of hit or miss -- and you generally know in advance which ones will hit and which will miss. “Next,” “National Treasure Book of Secrets,” “Bangkok Dangerous” mark a streak of drivel from Nic. “Knowing,” a film from Alex Proyas, did better than expected at the box office and even garnered a four-star review from Roger Ebert, although many critics disagreed.

Werner Herzog’s “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” helped re-establish Cage’s credibility, and his performance in “Kick-Ass” was one of the film’s highlights. And then he went and ruined everything with “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” (not too bad) and now, “Season of the Witch,” a dark cloud over this cold January.

I believe that underneath all of that shrieking about bees in “The Wicker Man,” or that terrible Italian accent in “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin,” that there is a genuinely talented actor in Nicolas Cage. He just chooses to come out when he wants to, and I guess that’s just something I’ve learned to accept.

Nicolas Cage’s next movie is “Drive Angry 3D,” in theaters Feb. 25. Any thoughts?





Also, take the time to admire some of Cage’s best scenes in “The Wicker Man.”

2010's Entertainers of the Year -- for the Ladies

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

How a 13-year-old actress could raise the bar for more seasoned veterans in 2010 is beyond me, but somehow Chloe Moretz did just that. Moretz, the star of “Kick-Ass,” “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” and “Let Me In,” transcended the role of child actor more intensely and coolly than those who have come before her to the point where she wasn’t even treated as a “child star.”

Mortez’s career has also benefited from her choice of roles, starring in movies targeting fan boys, film fans and, well, wimpy kids, rather than opposite puppies or horses. In doing so, Moretz has broken down misconceptions about children as movie stars -- they can have range. And that’s why she’s one of 2010’s entertainers of the year.

Speaking of break out stars, The Mara sisters, Rooney and Kate, were relative unknowns before 2010, but have since become household names (more or less). Kate, the elder Mara, had a tiny part in “Iron Man 2,” she was in the indie film “Happythankyoumoreplease” and she finished 2010 in a supporting role in “127 Hours,” one the year’s best films.

Rooney began the year in “A Nightmare on Elm Street” -- not so cool -- but finished strong in “The Social Network” and, opposite Sam Rockwell, in “The Winning Season.” Above all that, Rooney was thrust into the spotlight landing the coveted role of Lisbeth Salander in David Fincher’s remake of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” slated for a December 2011 release.

And it wouldn’t be fair to mention “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” without giving credit to Swedish actress Noomi Rapace for 2010’s “Millenium Trilogy” (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” “The Girl Who Played with Fire” and “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest”). It’s easily enough to put her among 2010’s entertainers of the year.

And one actress who hasn’t received nearly enough credit for her work in 2010 is Patricia Clarkson, whose year wasn’t even spoiled by WWE Films’ John Cena-driven “Legendary.” Clarkson was one of the best parts of “Easy A,” while also appearing in Scrosese’s “Shutter Island” -- a role that left me scratching my head in a good way.

But it was her role in “Cairo Time” as a wife who is hit with an unexpected and complicated romance while waiting for her husband in Cairo, that really makes her one of entertainers of the year. It’s one of the best performances of 2010, and easily deserves an Academy Award nomination.

Who do you think had the best year of 2010?

2010's Entertainers of the Year -- for the Ladies

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

How a 13-year-old actress could raise the bar for more seasoned veterans in 2010 is beyond me, but somehow Chloe Moretz did just that. Moretz, the star of “Kick-Ass,” “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” and “Let Me In,” transcended the role of child actor more intensely and coolly than those who have come before her to the point where she wasn’t even treated as a “child star.”

Mortez’s career has also benefited from her choice of roles, starring in movies targeting fan boys, film fans and, well, wimpy kids, rather than opposite puppies or horses. In doing so, Moretz has broken down misconceptions about children as movie stars -- they can have range. And that’s why she’s one of 2010’s entertainers of the year.

Speaking of break out stars, The Mara sisters, Rooney and Kate, were relative unknowns before 2010, but have since become household names (more or less). Kate, the elder Mara, had a tiny part in “Iron Man 2,” she was in the indie film “Happythankyoumoreplease” and she finished 2010 in a supporting role in “127 Hours,” one the year’s best films.

Rooney began the year in “A Nightmare on Elm Street” -- not so cool -- but finished strong in “The Social Network” and, opposite Sam Rockwell, in “The Winning Season.” Above all that, Rooney was thrust into the spotlight landing the coveted role of Lisbeth Salander in David Fincher’s remake of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” slated for a December 2011 release.

And it wouldn’t be fair to mention “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” without giving credit to Swedish actress Noomi Rapace for 2010’s “Millenium Trilogy” (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” “The Girl Who Played with Fire” and “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest”). It’s easily enough to put her among 2010’s entertainers of the year.

And one actress who hasn’t received nearly enough credit for her work in 2010 is Patricia Clarkson, whose year wasn’t even spoiled by WWE Films’ John Cena-driven “Legendary.” Clarkson was one of the best parts of “Easy A,” while also appearing in Scrosese’s “Shutter Island” -- a role that left me scratching my head in a good way.

But it was her role in “Cairo Time” as a wife who is hit with an unexpected and complicated romance while waiting for her husband in Cairo, that really makes her one of entertainers of the year. It’s one of the best performances of 2010, and easily deserves an Academy Award nomination.

Who do you think had the best year of 2010?

One Blogger’s Opinion: 2010’s Entertainers of the Year

Commentary 

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

When it comes to 2010, there is one man who just could not be outdone: James Franco

Franco is not comfortable with being comfortable -- and that’s what we love about him. More than any actor working right now, Franco wants to challenge himself, and he displayed that in 2010 with “127 Hours,” “Howl,” posing in drag for "Interview" and, of course, appearing in “General Hospital.”

Add to that Franco’s seemingly endless list of endeavors (painting; striving for his PhD in English at Yale; publishing “Palo Alto," his book of short fiction; working on poetry; and, oh yeah, filming funny videos with his grandmother), and you have one of the busiest men in Hollywood. Scratch that. One of the busiest men period.

Fortunately for us, it appears as if Franco is going to have just as strong of a 2011. Here’s a list of what he has on tap:

-- Writing, directing, producing and starring in a biography of poet Hart Crane titled “The Broken Tower.”

-- Starring in “Your Highness,” “Maladie” and the highly anticipated “Rise of the Apes.”

-- Being awesome.

James Franco, here’s to taking a moment to breath in 2011, however unlikely that may be.

Speaking of not having time to breath, Andrew Garfield had a whirlwind year.

It was only a matter of time before directors, studios and audiences discovered Garfield. In 2010, he was cast in two much-talked about movies -- “The Social Network” and “Never Let Me Go” -- and one could argue that he stole the show in both.

Although he’s a new face to many, Garfield actually had his breakout roles in 2007, holding his own opposite Robert Redford in “Lions for Lambs” and delivering an emotionally crushing performance in the Irish drama “Boy A.”

All I have to say is that it’s about time. Although I disagree with Garfield being cast as Peter Park/Spider-man in the 2012 3-D reboot (he’s far too talented to get his career caught in a project like that), things still seem to be looking up for the actor.

And finally, Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the entertainers of the year for two reasons: 1) Because he’s Leonardo DiCaprio and 2) Because he had two of my favorite movies of the year in 2010 with “Inception” and “Shutter Island.” This is old hat for Leo.

It’s not just DiCaprio’s natural ability to command the screen as a leading man that earns him this honor, it’s the luxury he has of being coveted by the most prestigious directors (Scorsese and Christopher Nolan this year). It’s something that hasn’t failed him yet. There’s really no one like him working today, and there probably won’t ever be again.

Who do you think had the best year in 2010?

One Blogger’s Opinion: 2010’s Entertainers of the Year

Commentary 

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

When it comes to 2010, there is one man who just could not be outdone: James Franco

Franco is not comfortable with being comfortable -- and that’s what we love about him. More than any actor working right now, Franco wants to challenge himself, and he displayed that in 2010 with “127 Hours,” “Howl,” posing in drag for "Interview" and, of course, appearing in “General Hospital.”

Add to that Franco’s seemingly endless list of endeavors (painting; striving for his PhD in English at Yale; publishing “Palo Alto," his book of short fiction; working on poetry; and, oh yeah, filming funny videos with his grandmother), and you have one of the busiest men in Hollywood. Scratch that. One of the busiest men period.

Fortunately for us, it appears as if Franco is going to have just as strong of a 2011. Here’s a list of what he has on tap:

-- Writing, directing, producing and starring in a biography of poet Hart Crane titled “The Broken Tower.”

-- Starring in “Your Highness,” “Maladie” and the highly anticipated “Rise of the Apes.”

-- Being awesome.

James Franco, here’s to taking a moment to breath in 2011, however unlikely that may be.

Speaking of not having time to breath, Andrew Garfield had a whirlwind year.

It was only a matter of time before directors, studios and audiences discovered Garfield. In 2010, he was cast in two much-talked about movies -- “The Social Network” and “Never Let Me Go” -- and one could argue that he stole the show in both.

Although he’s a new face to many, Garfield actually had his breakout roles in 2007, holding his own opposite Robert Redford in “Lions for Lambs” and delivering an emotionally crushing performance in the Irish drama “Boy A.”

All I have to say is that it’s about time. Although I disagree with Garfield being cast as Peter Park/Spider-man in the 2012 3-D reboot (he’s far too talented to get his career caught in a project like that), things still seem to be looking up for the actor.

And finally, Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the entertainers of the year for two reasons: 1) Because he’s Leonardo DiCaprio and 2) Because he had two of my favorite movies of the year in 2010 with “Inception” and “Shutter Island.” This is old hat for Leo.

It’s not just DiCaprio’s natural ability to command the screen as a leading man that earns him this honor, it’s the luxury he has of being coveted by the most prestigious directors (Scorsese and Christopher Nolan this year). It’s something that hasn’t failed him yet. There’s really no one like him working today, and there probably won’t ever be again.

Who do you think had the best year in 2010?

Exorcisms, Movie Studios, the Church...and the Masses

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

While many of the Roman Catholic Church’s practices have fallen out of favor with the public (such as actually attending church services and praying ), there’s one that still fascinates the masses--exorcisms. And there’s nobody who wants to cash in on that age-old practice more than Hollywood.

“The Last Exorcism,” released in August, cashed in on demonic possession and grossed $65 million worldwide. If Warner Bros. has their way (and they probably will), the new Anthony Hopkins’ film “The Rite,” about an American priest who studies at an Italian exorcism school, will be a sleeper hit when it opens Jan. 28.

Yes, the idea of a school for exorcists seems a bit far-fetched, but you might be surprised. In November 2010, the New York Times reported on a Baltimore conference held by the Roman Catholic Church to train 66 priests and 56 bishops in the rite of exorcism.

Exchange Italy for Baltimore and what you have, in a nutshell, is the new Anthony Hopkins film, or 122 potential John Constantines in a closed-door conference. Or, more likely than either of those scenarios, there was probably a lot of talk about a bogus archaic practice that has been glorified far too often over the past few decades.

After all, everyone now knows what a demon looks and acts like. Right?

When you hear the word “exorcism,” your mind turns to Linda Blair’s Regan from 1973, spider-walking, twisting her head 360 degrees, spitting up pea soup and engaging in a number of other unnatural, unhealthy and obscene actions. It’s all very evil, and it has now become tangible and universal for anyone even vaguely familiar with “The Exorcist.” And in this day and age, who isn’t?

Movies have materialized a “bad guy” in the minds of the movie-goers, and have given the church an easy way to grab headlines and the public’s attention. But what might initially seem like a propaganda stunt, the church is only supplying a service to the public that is, sadly, demanding it.

The Times article states that the few priests who were trained to perform exorcisms in the United States were “overwhelmed with requests from people who fear they are possessed by the Devil.”

Really, people? How, in a world where magic and tall tales have been replaced by science and a thirst for hard facts, is the number of Devil-possession claims on the rise?

So, who’s to blame for all of this unnecessary training of future Father Merrins? It is not up to the church, movie studios, Eli Roth or Anthony Hopkins, but the movie-goers to separate fact from fiction. When done effectively, horror movies are intended to scare you and make you feel a little uneasy at night. It is up to you to be a more responsible movie watcher (OK, maybe not you, because you’re already incredibly responsible, but your neighbor).

Enjoy “The Last Exorcism.” Enjoy movies about demons that may (or may not) scare the crap out of you. But don’t call for an emergency exorcism until you see some heads spinning.

"The Last Exorcism” is currently available on DVD. Below is the trailer for “The Rite,” which hits theaters Jan. 28. What are your thoughts on exorcisms?

Exorcisms, Movie Studios, the Church...and the Masses

Commentary

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

While many of the Roman Catholic Church’s practices have fallen out of favor with the public (such as actually attending church services and praying ), there’s one that still fascinates the masses--exorcisms. And there’s nobody who wants to cash in on that age-old practice more than Hollywood.

“The Last Exorcism,” released in August, cashed in on demonic possession and grossed $65 million worldwide. If Warner Bros. has their way (and they probably will), the new Anthony Hopkins’ film “The Rite,” about an American priest who studies at an Italian exorcism school, will be a sleeper hit when it opens Jan. 28.

Yes, the idea of a school for exorcists seems a bit far-fetched, but you might be surprised. In November 2010, the New York Times reported on a Baltimore conference held by the Roman Catholic Church to train 66 priests and 56 bishops in the rite of exorcism.

Exchange Italy for Baltimore and what you have, in a nutshell, is the new Anthony Hopkins film, or 122 potential John Constantines in a closed-door conference. Or, more likely than either of those scenarios, there was probably a lot of talk about a bogus archaic practice that has been glorified far too often over the past few decades.

After all, everyone now knows what a demon looks and acts like. Right?

When you hear the word “exorcism,” your mind turns to Linda Blair’s Regan from 1973, spider-walking, twisting her head 360 degrees, spitting up pea soup and engaging in a number of other unnatural, unhealthy and obscene actions. It’s all very evil, and it has now become tangible and universal for anyone even vaguely familiar with “The Exorcist.” And in this day and age, who isn’t?

Movies have materialized a “bad guy” in the minds of the movie-goers, and have given the church an easy way to grab headlines and the public’s attention. But what might initially seem like a propaganda stunt, the church is only supplying a service to the public that is, sadly, demanding it.

The Times article states that the few priests who were trained to perform exorcisms in the United States were “overwhelmed with requests from people who fear they are possessed by the Devil.”

Really, people? How, in a world where magic and tall tales have been replaced by science and a thirst for hard facts, is the number of Devil-possession claims on the rise?

So, who’s to blame for all of this unnecessary training of future Father Merrins? It is not up to the church, movie studios, Eli Roth or Anthony Hopkins, but the movie-goers to separate fact from fiction. When done effectively, horror movies are intended to scare you and make you feel a little uneasy at night. It is up to you to be a more responsible movie watcher (OK, maybe not you, because you’re already incredibly responsible, but your neighbor).

Enjoy “The Last Exorcism.” Enjoy movies about demons that may (or may not) scare the crap out of you. But don’t call for an emergency exorcism until you see some heads spinning.

"The Last Exorcism” is currently available on DVD. Below is the trailer for “The Rite,” which hits theaters Jan. 28. What are your thoughts on exorcisms?