Song Sung Blue

Director: Craig Brewer
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Hudson, Michael Imperioli, Ella Anderson, King Princess, Mustafa Shakir, Hudson Hensley, John Beckwith, Fisher Stevens, John Belushi, Jackie Cox, Cecelia Riddett
Running Time: 132 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

Going strictly off the trailer, it's understandable some would assume Craig Brewer's musical drama Song Sung Blue is a Neil Diamond biopic that charts the legendary crooner's ascent to superstardom and relationship with his long suffering spouse. Well, at least until realizing you can't recall a wife or any other aspect of the singer's personal life, leaving us with just the sight of Hugh Jackson in a wig singing "Cherry, Cherry" to go on. But it's actually based on Greg Kohs' 2008 documentary about a married Midwestern couple who performed as an enormously popular Diamond tribute act in the 80's and 90's. And despite its flaws, or maybe even partially because of them, it's the kind of feel good crowd pleaser you can recommend to anyone, regardless of how they feel about the artist. 

Though this isn't focused on the man himself, it's a more accurate reflection of Diamond's impact, popularity and fandom than any traditional biopic could be, with some cheesiness to spare. It also contains alcoholism, depression, a few heart attacks, a couple of car crashes, a bizarre Eddie Vedder impersonation, unplanned pregnancies and a recurring fixation on one of Neil's most overlooked songs. Brewer really piles it on, and yet this works, mostly due to its leads, both of whom play engagingly likable dreamers who pay their dues in biker bars and local fairs before eventually packing arenas across the country. But success is easy compared to what comes next.

It's 1987 when musical impersonator and recovering alcoholic Mike "Lightening" Sardina (Jackman) is set to perform as Don Ho at the Wisconsin State Fair. But when he quits after insisting to play his own material, he meets hairdresser and Patsy Cline double Claire Stengl (Kate Hudson) who suggests he start performing as a Neil Diamond tribute act. It's an idea he initially dismisses until singing with Claire and realizing this idea will only work with them as a duo. 

It isn't long before Mike and Claire begin dating and take their show on the road as the newly christened "Lightening and Thunder," with Claire insisting they open with "Sweet Caroline" after a rough first few shows. They marry just as the band starts gaining traction, selling out shows nationwide and even opening for Pearl Jam. But when a horrific accident leaves Claire fighting for her life and Mike struggling to maintain his own sobriety, they consider the possibility their performing days are over. That is until they plot a comeback, hoping to recapture the spark they once had.             

When we get our first look at Mike singing at an A.A. meeting, your first thought might be that Jackman's too old for this role, his weathered, lived in look seemingly at odds with the buoyant, energetic entertainer at the film's center. And while a similar observation could even be made about Hudson's casting, you'll quickly realize how wrong those assumptions are since it tracks with this story of two middle-aged single parents who've already faced their fair share of personal and professional disappointments. 

It helps that Jackman and Hudson are great singers who share a natural chemistry that's on full display during their early living room duet of "Play Me," which not only solidifies their union as a Diamond themed act, but sets the template for more theatrical performances that follow. One of the smarter touches is Mike's initial rejection of this whole idea, fearing any kind of impersonation would somehow be disrespectful to his hero. 

The charismatic but stubborn Mike also applies a similar logic in refusing to open shows with "Sweet Caroline," a song he admires, but doesn't believe should define a legendary career that's about so much more. And it's a philosophy the film takes to heart, spotlighting Diamond's less heralded "Soolaimon"  alongside his catchiest, most famous hits like "Forever in Blue Jeans," "Holly Holy" and "I Am...I Said." 

Once Mike puts on that sequined jumpsuit and adopts Diamond's Jazz Singer era haircut to team with Claire, it's game on, as Brewer captures the hysteria surrounding a pair that isn't your typical cover act. Fun, welcome supporting turns are also provided from from Michael Imperioli as a Buddy Holly impersonator and promoter turned band guitarist, Fisher Stevens as Mike's dentist/agent and Jim Belushi, whose bus driver becomes their unlikely manager.

One of the better executed subplots involves a touching bond that forms between new step-sisters Rachel (Ella Anderson) and Angelina (King Princess), who find common ground over their respective parents' issues and similarly messed up home lives. Anderson is particularly effective in a meatier role than expected, bringing surprising dimension to what could have become another moody, disaffected teen trope. 

Just when "Lightening and Thunder" strikes, so does tragedy, seemingly over and over again. And it's here where an Oscar-nominated Hudson takes over, believably portraying Claire's mental and physical decline after her entire world is turned upside down. Brewer does lay it on a little thick, and while this chain of events can resemble a surreal stretch of manufactured catastrophes, Hudson is spontaneously authentic enough to sell it. She carries this to the end, nearly pulling double duty in the third act when Mike's misfortunes precipitously grow. 

This has multiple endings before getting to a real one some will like, even if others find themselves wishing for a title card telling us what happened to their real life counterparts. But that's way too restrained for a movie that's all about being as big, emotional and demonstrative as possible, much like the performer himself. But credit Brewer for going all in, never underestimating how ridiculously fun and heartwarming a fairly basic, well acted underdog story can be. And considering how few entertainers have a karaoke ready catalogue better suited to this treatment, Diamond's songs only sweeten the deal.                                                       

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery

Director: Rian Johnson
Starring: Daniel Craig, Edward Norton, Jannelle Monáe, Kathryn Hahn, Leslie Odom Jr., Kate Hudson, Dave Bautista, Jessica Henwick, Madelyn Cline, Noah Segan, Jackie Hoffman, Dallas Roberts
Running Time: 139 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★) 

What's immediately obvious about Rian Johnson's much anticipated Knives Out sequel, Glass Onion, is just how wildly different it is from its predecessor. Whereas the 2019 original boasted a carefully constructed but relatively straightforward mystery plot, there are few more extra layers to peel back here, making good on its title. It's bigger, messier and more bitingly satirical, with a very recognizable all-star cast throwing themselves into their wildly eccentric characters. More elaborate and convoluted than the first film, an inordinate amount of time is spent establishing the suspects, and we're so caught up in their crazily flawed personalities that when the actual murder comes, it almost seems like an intrusion. And that's not even the real crime, but instead a gateway leading down another rabbit hole.

It's only when Johnson pulls the proverbial trigger that you realize all of this was less set-up than actual story, brimming with substantial clues you wouldn't think to notice the first time around. Flashing back to fill in the gaps, we realize the killing in question is just a small piece of a much larger puzzle, though certainly not an unsolvable one for Daniel Craig's super sleuth Benoit Blanc. There's probably little reason to rewatch the film knowing how everything plays out, but it earns points for timeliness, incorporating some really hot button issues ripe for parody. More broadly comedic and far from flawless, it still does what's necessary really well, resulting in a worthy, entertaining follow-up.

When Miles Bron (Edward Norton), billionaire co-founder of the Alpha technology company decides to host a murder mystery weekend getaway at his mansion, the Glass Onion, in Greece, he sends an elaborate wooden puzzle box invites to five friends. Among the recipients are Alpha's head scientist Lionel Toussaint (Leslie Odom Jr.), Connecticut governor Claire Debella (Kathryn Hahn), famous fashion designer Birdie Jay (Kate Hudson), men's rights influencer Duke Cody (Dave Bautista) and ousted Alpha co-founder Cassandra "Andi" Brand (Jannelle Monáe). Birdie's handler and assistant Peg (Jessica Henwick) and Duke's girlfriend Whiskey (Madelyn Cline) also come along, but the true outlier is famed private investigator Benoit Blanc (Craig), whose presence Miles immediately questions despite brandishing an invitation. 

Each of the guests (or "disruptors" as Miles endearingly calls them) seem to share a unique history or parasitic relationship with their host, whose intentions to stage a mystery game revolving around his own murder are quickly derailed when more serious issues concerning his company and the attendees' intentions surface. All isn't what it seems, especially when it comes to his future plans for Alpha and ex-CEO Andi's inexplicable invite. Someone will be murdered on Miles' private island before the weekend ends, and it'll be up to Blanc to not only uncover the killer, but their motivation. Then he'll have to prove it. 

Johnson's taking shots at the easiest possible targets in wealthy, elite weirdos, but that still doesn't make it any less funny or true. Norton's Miles is clearly an Elon Musk stand-in, with maybe just a pinch of other narcissistic billionaires like Jeff Bezos thrown in for good measure. But mostly, it's Musk. Norton hasn't played a role even vaguely resembling this so it's fun to see him tear into it, as Miles pretentiously talks in pointless platitudes, reiterating to anyone willing to listen how this technology will change the world and they should be grateful for his existence. These "friends" are all in, largely because they're hanger-ons whose entire lives, careers and financial endeavors depend on him. 

No one exactly likes Miles, but he's their meal ticket, so the gang doesn't see much choice in the matter, bending over backwards to make him happy. Of course, Blanc sniffs that out right away, recognizing the pompous billionaire as a potential target whose mystery game could soon turn very real. But there's still a lot we don't know, and most of the fun comes in that info slowly slipping out. And set against a spectacular visual backdrop from production designer Rick Heinrichs that encapsulates Miles' opulent oddball sensibilities, the Glass Onion compound could be considered as memorable a character as the selfish people inhabiting it for the weekend.

The loaded cast have their moments to shine, with some leaving larger impressions than others. As ditzy, airheaded fashion magnate Birdie, Hudson probably has the meatiest supporting role, and one that comes closest to approximating the kind of part her mom would have played decades earlier. She does well with it, as does a quietly scene-stealing Jessica Henwick as her exasperated assistant, seemingly always a minute away from quitting. She also gives the single best line delivery in the film upon discovering the true extent of her boss's stupidity. 

As a chauvinistic social media streamer, Bautista plays somewhat of an entitled jerk for a change, but finds a lot more in the character as his arc progresses, earning a certain degree of empathy for Duke, who's yet another pawn in Miles' game. Madelyne Cline brings more to the table than expected as Duke's girlfriend Whiskey, adding some needed dimension to what could have been a throwaway role. And the always great Kathryn Hahn is dependably sarcastic and hilarious as the image-conscious politician, leaving Leslie Odom Jr. with probably the least to do as Miles' loyal scientist, even as he still makes the most of it. There are also some clever cameos, two in particular marking final screen appearances for a pair of legends.

In a breakout comparable to Ana de Armas' in the original, Jannelle Monáe outright hijacks the movie as Andi, the ex-CEO with a grudge to settle with Miles and maybe a few others. It's established early that the question is less why she's been invited, but her motivation in accepting. Their history is at the core of the case and it gradually becomes apparent just how tricky a role Monáe has, sort of a performance within a performance, calling on her to constantly balance comedy and drama while also carrying a large load of intense action scenes. She basically does it all as the most intriguing and mysterious character of the group, driven by intentions that differ from anyone else. Craig's dry humor is probably the most noticeable carry over from the previous film, and seems to gain even more mileage this time. Blanc's kind of a suaver Columbo in that the crazier things get, the more nonchalant he appears to be, even as we know the wheels are always turning in his head and the true culprit rarely stands a chance of outwitting the master. 

Despite a bloated length and some early rough patches, enough is done at the midway point to justify much of what came earlier. The plot of the first may have been tighter, but Glass Onion makes up for it with ambition, sticking a landing that's less dependent on evidence and clues than pure unbridled revenge and emotion. It's a sequel with a point to make, with Johnson unafraid of foregoing more conventional, predictable routes in getting there. He knows the most interesting part of a whodunnit isn't the crime, but all the little details surrounding it.           

Top 10 All-Time Favorite Oscar Nominations (That Didn't Win)

Just to clarify, this is NOT a list of Oscar's biggest injustices or snubs, as you'd need a whole separate web site for that. While I'm sure there's little doubt Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz and Robert DeNiro were robbed in their respective years you won't find them anywhere near here. To give you a heads up these mostly start from the 1960's and beyond just because that's the Oscar history and films I'm most familiar with. These are my FAVORITE nominations, where just simply seeing them listed made me so happy I couldn't have cared less about the result (okay, I wish they won). The best news is that maybe only two or three of these would qualify as flat-out injustices and in a few cases what beat it was actually quite deserving. I'll keep the complaining to a minimum and just be grateful these were recognized at all since most years our favorites aren't, which made compiling this easier than it should have been. Below is a list of my favorite losing nominees and the ten I'd hand statues to right now. Here's hoping after Sunday The Social Network won't be joining them.

10. THE TOWERING INFERNO (Best Picture, 1974)

LOST TO: THE GODFATHER PART II

Tell me it isn't cool that they actually nominated The Towering Inferno. Some refer to the flagbearer of 70's disaster movies as the worst Best Picture nominee of all-time. Maybe they've never seen it, or if they have, lack a sense of humor. Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire a burning high rise and O.J. Simpson. What more needs to said? It's three hours of non-stop cheesy excitement and if it went on three hours longer than that I wouldn't have complained. With 10 nominees now I wish The Academy would make more wild, outside-the-box selections like this, provided they're deserving. This is. No shame in losing to The Godfather Part II. 
 

 
9. HAL HOLBROOK (BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, INTO THE WILD, 2007)

LOST TO: JAVIER BARDEM (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN)

"In 'Into the Wild,' that scene in the truck where Hal Holbrook is asking to adopt the young man, that is one of the best performances I've ever seen. It broke me into pieces. In life, as you grow and become comfortable in your own skin and create who you are you can escape from what you are. Then the whole disguise falls apart and you are just a human being. With a mature actor, you see a face totally naked, someone who is just speaking and being in front of the camera, and that is so powerful. That explains why performing is an art, when somebody shows us the sculpture of the human soul. It hits you and makes you wonder what you are."

That quote comes from Javier Bardem, who beat Holbrook to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for No Country For Old Men and it couldn't be truer. 2007 was the strongest year for film in a while and no one can begrudge The Academy for their selection here in an ultra-competitive category. Had another actor played the aging retiree who befriends Chris McCandliss (the unnominated Emile Hirsch) on the final leg of his journey the film wouldn't have even come close to carrying the same impact it did. His understated, dignified work took the picture exactly where it needed to go in its crucial third act. Classic "support" in every sense. 

   

8. KATE HUDSON (BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS, ALMOST FAMOUS, 2000)

LOST TO: MARCIA GAY HARDEN (POLLOCK)

Um....on second thought. Is it possible the Academy knew? That they glimpsed into Hudson's acting future and were trying to protect us. Regardless, we're supposed to be judging the nominated performance not the actress or the embarrassing work that followed. But in a single film she created one of the screen's most indelible female characters in Penny Lane and briefly filled us with hope that we'd witnessed the arrival of a major talent. We didn't. She deserved the win, even if in hindsight they look like geniuses for not giving it to her. The wrong actress came out on top, but Harden can now sleep guilt free.


 
7. PAT MORITA (BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, THE KARATE KID, 1984)

LOST TO: HAING S. NGOR (THE KILLING FIELDS) 

This and Best Original Screenplay tend to be favorite categories of mine year after year as I find that's where the most interesting work is. A nomination that best exemplifies that was the late, great Pat Morita's unforgettable turn as karate teacher Mr. Keisuke Miyagi in the kind of inspiring, mainstream supporting performance that's so good it's in danger of being taken for granted. The role of the old, wise mentor has unfairly been turned into a running joke by inferior performances before and since but that does nothing to diminish what the former Happy Days star was able to do with it. Few are even aware he was nominated, which is proof of how under-appreciated the performance is, as well as how infrequently the Academy actually pays attention. Luckily they did this time.


 
6. ELISABETH SHUE (BEST ACTRESS, LEAVING LAS VEGAS, 1995)

LOST TO: SUSAN SARANDON (DEAD MAN WALKING)

Nicholas Cage officially won an Oscar that he should cut in half and split with my favorite 80's actress Elisabeth Shue.  Both faced with the challenge of playing what's widely regarded as movie stereotypes (the drunk and the hooker with a heart of gold) they transcended those limitations, especially Shue who as the strong-willed Sera transforms it into something much sharper and smarter, free of any  cliches. Cage's work was so (justifiably) hyped at the time that voters could have easily snubbed her,  falsely assuming she was just along for the ride. But they didn't.  By her own admission she made questionable career choices following this and didn't translate the nod into greater success but that's okay. It's good enough for me that she can permanently and deservedly put the title "Academy Award nominated actress" in front of her name.


 
5. BACK TO THE FUTURE (BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY, 1985) 

LOST TO: WITNESS

Yep, it was nominated for screenplay. Among the many nominations Back To The Future should have gotten and missed in 1985 (you could make a serious case for Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, and Original Score) it seems a little strange it got the nod for Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale's original screenplay. Then again, it really isn't at all. It's the story, above everything else, that keeps bringing new fans to the movie and it's almost impossible to believe something so brilliantly constructed wasn't based on previously published material. That said, because it was overlooked in every other category it feels like the Academy's just throwing the film a bone here to make up for it. But it's the thought that counts, so thanks anyway. 

4. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (BEST PICTURE, 1971) 

LOST TO: THE FRENCH CONNECTION

I know. I can't believe it either. They actually nominated Stanley Kubrick's controversial ultra-violent, sexually graphic, ahead of its time A Clockwork Orange for Best Picture. And even better than that, it lost to a respectable film in good year. I'm shocked they recognized it all, especially considering it was banned in England, released with an "X" rating in the U.S and at the time hardly carried the flawless reputation it does now. They even nominated Kubrick for director.  One of the few cases where the term "it's a thrill just to be nominated" actually holds true.  

3. DUSTIN HOFFMAN (BEST ACTOR, THE GRADUATE, 1967)

LOST TO: ROD STEIGER (IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT)

I had to go back and double check this because I actually assumed Hoffman had won. A lot of people probably did, which tells the story right there. Maybe the most influential nomination ever in this category, its reverberations still being felt this year with Jesse's Eisenberg's performance in The Social Network (and to an even greater extent his work in 2009's Adventureland). Hoffman threw Hollywood for a loop, completely changing perceptions of how a leading man is supposed to look and act. Who even remembers Steiger's performance now?



2. E.T. (BEST PICTURE, 1982)

LOST TO: GANDHI

Let's not even try to pretend Steven Spielberg has made a film since that's equaled what he accomplished with E.T. There's nothing wrong with Gandhi per se  but this is one of the few selections here that could reasonably top any list of Oscar's biggest injustices. You know it's bad when even the director of the winning film says he thought E.T. was robbed.


 
1. STANLEY KUBRICK (BEST DIRECTOR, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, 1968)

LOST TO: CAROL REED (OLIVER!)

On the bright side, let's give credit to the Academy for at least acknowledging the greatest director to never win an Oscar with nominations for this, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon since his films, for all their brilliance, were extremely cold and polarizing, and definitely not for all tastes. His reclusive, press-shy reputation probably didn't do him any favors here, though we probably care more than he did that he lost, if he cared at all. What he cared about was the work and the results were evident on screen. Still... Carol Reed for Oliver!? Oliver! also won Best Picture, while 2001 went unnominated. Even those who hate 2001 would call highway robbery on this. Ironically, this year's big match-up has faint echoes of '68 with an unpopular perfectionist filmmaker attempting to defeat a safe, emotional, audience pleasing "Oscar movie." It'll be interesting to see if the Academy's finally learned from their mistakes.


MORE FAVORITES

Best Picture: Bonnie and Clyde (1967), The Graduate (1967), Star Wars (Best Picture, 1977), Apocalypse Now (1979), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Pulp Fiction (1994), The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Babe (1995), Fargo (1996), There Will Be Blood (2007)

Best Actor: Peter Sellers (Dr. Strangelove, 1964, Being There, 1979), Dustin Hoffman (Midnight Cowboy, 1969), Jack Nicholson (Five Easy Pieces, 1970, Chinatown, 1974), Marlon Brando (Last Tango in Paris, 1973), Robert DeNiro (Taxi Driver, 1976), Woody Allen (Annie Hall, 1977), Burt Lancaster (Atlantic City, 1981), Robin Williams (Good Morning Vietnam, 1987), Tom Cruise (Born on the Fourth of July, 1989), Richard Dreyfuss (Mr. Holland's Opus, 1995), Billy Bob Thornton (Sling Blade, 1996), Robert Duvall (The Apostle, 1997), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation, 2002), Bill Murray (Lost in Translation, 2003), Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler, 2008) 

Best Supporting Actor: Alec Guinness (Star Wars, 1977), Gary Sinise (Forrest Gump, 1994), Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, 1994), Brad Pitt (12 Monkeys, 1995), William H. Macy (Fargo, 1996), Burt Reynolds (Boogie Nights, 1997), Tom Cruise (Magnolia, 1999) 

Best Actress: Faye Dunaway (Bonnie and Clyde, 1967), Audrey Hepburn (Wait Until Dark, 1967) Jane Fonda (They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, 1969), Sissy Spacek (Carrie, 1976), Ellen Burstyn (Requiem For a Dream, 2000), Nicole Kidman (Moulin Rouge!, 2001), Diane Lane, (Unfaithful, 2002)

Best Supporting Actress: Janet Leigh (Psycho, 1960), Shelley Winters (The Poseidon Adventure, 1972), Jodie Foster (Taxi Driver, 1976), Melinda Dillon (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1977), Anne Ramsey (Throw Momma From the Train, 1987), Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction, 1994), Minnie Driver (Good Will Hunting, 1997), Julianne Moore (Boogie Nights, 1997)

Best Director: Alfred Hitchcock (Psycho, 1960), Stanely Kubrick (Dr. Strangelove, 1964), Steven Spielberg (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1977, Raiders of the Lost Ark 1981), Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, 1994), Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood, 2007), David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, 2008)  

Best Cinematography: Robert Surtees (The Graduate, 1967), Roger Deakins (Fargo, 1996, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 2007, No Country For Old Men, 2007), Emmanuel Lubezki (The New World, 2005) 

Best Original Score: John Williams (Superman, 1978, The Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981), Ennio Morricone (The Mission, 1986) 

Best Original Song: "Eye of the Tiger" (Rocky III, 1982), "Ghostbusters" (Ghostbusters, 1984), "The Power of Love" (Back to the Future, 1985), "Blaze of Glory" (Young Guns II, 1990), "Save Me" (Magnolia, 1999) 

Best Original Screenplay: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Easy Rider (1969), American Graffiti (1973), Star Wars (1977), E.T. (1982), Brazil (1985), Big (1988), Boogie Nights (1997), The Truman Show (1998), Bulworth (1998), Being John Malkovich (1999), Magnolia (1999), Memento (2001), The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), The Squid and the Whale (2005) 

Best Adapted Screenplay: Dr. Strangelove (1964), The Graduate (1967), A Clockwork Orange (1971), Apocalypse Now (1979), The Stunt Man (1980), Full Metal Jacket (1987), Field of Dreams (1989), JFK (1991), The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Leaving Las Vegas (1995), Wag The Dog (1997), Out of Sight (1998), Primary Colors (1998), Wonder Boys (2000), Adaptation (2002)

Frequently Asked Movie Reviewing Questions

I'm approaching my fourth year reviewing, which is, well, kind of weird, and I'm still not quite sure what to even think about that. But I do know I have my readers to thank for hanging with me for so long. In honor of that I've decided to do something a little different and pull back the curtain. With the decade in movies coming to a close this seemed as good a time as any to take a breather and talk about my approach and feelings on reviewing. I tried to answer the following questions as honestly as I could, which wasn't too hard since I came up with all of them myself, but hopefully you'll be surprised by at least some of the answers.

When and why did you start reviewing movies?
I always loved writing and enjoyed watching movies but it never really occurred to me to combine the two. While on vacation in '06 I was stuck in a hotel room with a cold and while watching a couple of movies got the idea to just scribble down a couple of reviews on a piece of paper out of pure boredom. Then I started posting online. What's so funny is I never had any intention or desire to write reviews. I'm still not exactly sure how it happened and part of me thinks I'm doing it just because I'm addicted. But there's that other part that thinks I'm lucky to have a hobby I actually enjoy.

Ever think about stopping?
I always think every review is my last, and treat it like it is. And after 2008 I really thought I was done because that was just a miserable year for movies that sucked nearly everything out of me. But the great thing is whenever I seem to lose interest some movie always seems to comes along or I read something on movies that completely reignites my passion for doing it.

How do you choose which movies to review?
More selectively than I did in the past that's for sure. Before, I tried to review as much as I could regardless of whether I wanted to see it or not. That was problematic for a number of reasons, chief of which it drained my enthusiasm. Now I realize quality is more important than quantity and I review movies I want to see or I think will make an interesting review. As you can tell though, I try to hit all the major releases releases and stay clear of movies no one's ever heard of (with a few exceptions). I do this primarily for me, but make no mistake about it, I care a lot about whether people and read and enjoy the reviews. If I didn't, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

Does reviewing the movies sometimes hurt your enjoyment as a fan?
Absolutely it can, but that really depends on the film. I like to think there's a "Critic" mode and a "Fan" mode and I can shut either on or off at will, but the reality is they often uncomfortably overlap.

Are you against reading other reviews before you watch or review a film?
No, not at all. The only reason I'd ever stay clear from a review before I see a film is if it gives away key plot details I don't want to know about or for some reason I want to go in fresh. Most of the time though I find it just further informs my review to read others' takes on it and think it's a joke that anyone would think I'm just reacting to others' reactions of the movie.

I think the public's response to a movie is INCREDIBLY RELEVANT, especially if it forces you to look closer at certain aspects of the film. How could I possibly talk about Juno without bringing up the backlash against it? Or review Knowing without analyzing how Roger Ebert could have given it four stars? I could, but there would be a giant pink elephant in the room and the reviews wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I'm of the belief that reading and considering other viewpoints, whether to agree or shoot them down, can only make the piece more interesting.

Which critics (if any) do you read?
Roger Ebert is a big one and while many have accused him of slipping in recent years I still think his passion and insight is unmatched. Kim Morgan, who's actually more of an essayist, which isn't to say she's not an awesome critic and probably one of the most knowledgeable and passionate writers out there. I also read James Berardinelli, whose opinions I almost always disagree with and name I always misspell, but I appreciate his no-nonsense, analytical approach. I read too many bloggers to name without forgetting anyone, many of whom are better than the "professionals." Those are my favorites but usually I try to read as many reviews on a film as I can if I'm interested in it.

How do you feel about print criticism being essentially left for dead?
I feel bad for people who work at magazines and newspapers losing their jobs. The bottom line is that times have changed and film criticism in general just isn't as relevant to the public as it once was, which is a shame. Anyone can go online and write something, which sucks for people who made their living doing that. Then again, on the bright side...anyone can go online and write something.

How do you feel about Facebook, MySpace and Twitter?
I started reviewing movies on MySpace in 2006 and then when all the action moved to Facebook I followed it because it was the smart thing to do. It's still growing on me but I'm at least grateful it's brought (slightly) more traffic to the site. I actually like the concept of Twitter much more because it enables you to follow things, people and topics that interest you at a relatively quick pace.

What are your favorite movie genres?
Longtime readers and probably even more newer ones already know the answer to this one. My favorites are sci-fi, coming-of-age films, mystery/suspense, bio-pics, romantic comedies (surprisingly) and even though it's more of a sub-genre, dysfunctional suburban dramas (like The Ice Storm or American Beauty) People tend to think I'm a huge fan of horror but that's not completely true as I can usually only take it in small doses and find that the genre is full of too much junk to be ranked as a favorite of mine. I probably like analyzing those films more than actually watching them, which could be said of the superhero genre as well. That said, both have really grown on me since I've started doing this.

Least Favorite Genres?
Genres I'm less inclined to like are mob/gangster pictures, war/espionage films, musicals, fantasy films (with wizards, goblins, elves and such) and sports movies. That's not saying it's impossible for me to like any of those films or I intentionally avoid them, just that they have a much rougher road to travel to gain my favor. I find when reviewing it's better to honestly embrace my predisposed bias or personal preference and just work with it. We all have them. I like to think that I'm very fair and if a movie's good enough it should have no problem overcoming the odds. Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Karate Kid and more recently, but to lesser extent, The Hurt Locker, We Are Marshall and Across The Universe were all able to. I couldn't have been any less interested in seeing Atonement but was surprised just how much I liked it.

Which movie(s) did you most enjoy reviewing?
Southland Tales would really have to be up there. A perfect storm converged with that one. My favorite genre, a dream cast and an opportunity to passionately defend a movie I thought was unfairly maligned. It's rare when the experience of watching a film and reviewing it become one in the same but that's what happened there. I also enjoyed reviewing The Dark Knight probably more than I enjoyed watching it. I'm Not There was a blast to write on as well since it was a biopic (if you could even call it that) on a subject I was actually deeply interested in. Not to mention it was completely insane so it was even more up my alley. And even though it's a TV series, I loved writing about Veronica Mars. It's unusual that I dip into TV for a review so that I did for that (and all three seasons to boot) should give you an idea how much I enjoyed it. I'd put it up there in quality with the best in any medium, be it film or television. With all of these I felt as if the review was finished in my mind before I even touched the keyboard.

Which movie(s) did you hate reviewing?
The Good Shepherd While I did find it a chore to sit through, I didn't despise the movie and even gave it a near-miss score of two and a half stars. The real torture was when I had to sit down and write a review of a three hour movie I had nothing to say about. I stared at a blank screen for so long I thought my eyes would start bleeding.

Which movie disappointed you most?
As strange as this sounds, probably The Dark Knight. I do think it's more a testament to all the hype than the movie's actual quality, but the fact remains that it fell short of expectations, as out of control as they may have been. And it was still the best film of '08 and maybe one of the best of the decade so it's frightening to think how good it COULD HAVE BEEN.

How do you feel about star ratings?
I hate them. I wish I were confident enough in my own writing to abandon it and believe people would still read the reviews but I'm not. My concern is always that the number of stars will inform the review when it should always be the other way around. But as someone who reads a lot of reviews I have to admit most of the time I like seeing some kind of a quantitative assessment attached. But many reviewers don't use it, nor do they need them. It really all depends on personal preference I guess. There was only one case where I refused to assign one. The whole idea of it is damaging, but I can never bring myself to abandon it.

In retrospect, ever feel like you've given any movies the wrong star ratings?
When haven't I? Not to keep beating the same drum on 2008, but I felt I gave many, many movies released that year the wrong star rating. When this happens I usually have to force myself not to adjust it later by remembering:

a) The star rating MEANS nothing in the broad scheme of things.
b) It reflected my thoughts AT THE TIME.
c) It's the actual review that counts
d) It takes two viewings to really SEE a movie.

Usually when I do my year-end list all my thoughts get ironed out and the problem takes care of itself. The good news is that I never felt I gave something the WRONG REVIEW entirely. I can barely recall more than three instances I underrated a movie but can name dozens of times where I felt I overpraised one. I like to think the star rating problem keeps lessens over time because the more movies I watch the more sure I seem to become of my opinions.

How much does a theater experience effect your opinion of the film?
Greatly, as The Dark Knight proved. That was one of the worst theater experiences I've ever had where an unpleasant environment magnified that movie's weaknesses while hiding its strengths. Repeated DVD viewings have been much, much kinder to it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Australia was really a complete mess of a movie but the theater experience was so memorably bizarre and the crowd so insane that it probably made the movie play better than it actually was. It was fun watching their energy level slowly drain as the movie just kept going...and going...and going. I'm convinced those people are still in there right now watching it. I know I'm committing a film critic sin by saying this but I actually far prefer watching movies on DVD at home than in a theater. It's cheaper, more comfortable, I can go to the bathroom or get a snack without missing anything. There are just less distractions.

How long does a review take?
I've never actually timed it but I can tell you I never do it in one sit-in. I'm the kind of person who always has to be moving around and have difficulties staying in front of the computer too long. So I might write part of it and then go back to it later or the next day depending on my mood. Unfortunately most of it is written really late at night though so sleep is lost and I sometimes wake up the next morning having not recognized what I wrote (which might be a good thing).

What's your least favorite part of writing a review?
Recapping the plot...by far. It's a pain. I wish I could just skip it and get right to what I liked and didn't.

How much do you weigh blogs views in choosing what films or topics you choose to write about?
I look at them that's for sure. I do primarily write for me but if I come up with a piece that's just not connecting with readers at all and I put a lot into it I can pretty much guarantee you won't see anything like it again. The best (worst) example of this was when I did the "Fantasy Casting" pieces. I thought it was a great idea and loved doing it. But it was like a tree falling in the forest as far as its reception and blog views. One of the worst ever. So I can't justify doing it again.The same thing tends to happen when I review older films. Those do very poorly, but when they're are incorporated into a list of some sort it always does well. I tend not to solicit too much feedback on this issue because I find people to be understandably reluctant to tell me that an idea sucks. Blog views can't lie.

Which review of yours got the harshest response?
I remember everyone unanimously, and rather passionately, disagreed with my take on Death Sentence. I couldn't believe how worked up everyone got over it and was so thrilled that no one held back in letting me know it. Sometimes it can be boring when everyone agrees with you all the time. That's a movie that will have strong reactions either way but I just thought it was two hours of gratuitous violence masquerading as grief exploration with Kevin Bacon killing everyone in sight. And this coming from someone whose all-time favorite films include A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club.

Any movie(s) you think you may have gone too hard on?
Miami Vice, Superman Returns and Birth. Especially that last one. This rarely happens so it's a big compliment to those three that, despite what I considered to be their failings, they still stuck with me enough that I'd be open to going back and giving them another look.

Do you have a review or reviews you're most proud of?
This is going to sound awful but it would be tough to name something specifically. I might have a fleeting moment where I'm really proud of something I've written but then I'm quickly brought back down to Earth after I go to reread it and find about 50 things I didn't like about it. Then I might go and read other reviews and that just about kills it for me right there. Plus I'm usually so focused on the next review that I don't like to look back. But the best answer to this question is to look above at the ones I enjoyed reviewing the most. Those are the ones I feel best about.

What bad reviewing habits do you think you have or try to avoid?
Trying to say more in fewer words than with many. Whenever I edit a review it's always to take things out and never add, which is a good sign I guess. The key to good editing is to change enough so it's more readable but not so much that it changes the message. I try to stay away from using the same adjectives or phrases over and over again, not only in a single review, but throughout all of them. I also try to steer clear of comparing the movie I'm reviewing to other other ones unless it's completely relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Ever get writer's bl0ck?
No, never. Kidding. All the time. What I usually do is just leave the computer. If I'm not feeling it, I'm not feeling it. There's no sense just sitting there frustrated when most writing is done in your head when you're away from the keyboard anyway. When I'm stuck I do find it helpful to remind myself of Ebert's advice:

"Did you like the movie? Why or why not?"

It sounds so dumb and simple but you'd be surprised how well it works. Most of the time writers block stems from just thinking too hard or over-analyzing. I find that question helps with the problem.

Ever think of doing more with the site or more to get your reviews out there?
I have but I'm not exactly the most web savvy person in the world and am far more consumed with focusing on the actual work. Believe me I'm under no illusion that I'm anything other than a needle in a haystack online. That said, I should be doing much more in that area and plan to. Of course, I've said that before and haven't done anything.

How many movies do you see a week?
Usually only one or two. No more than your average, everyday moviegoer with the difference being I've written reviews on them. I think the max I've ever seen in a week was three or four, but that rarely happens. I only REALLY started getting into movies when I started doing this and am willing to bet a lot of my readers probably have me beat on classic film knowledge still feel like I'm learning as I go along.

What's your DVD collection look like?
Embarrassingly small. I never counted but it's barely two shelves worth. I think that's a testament to just how few movies hold up on repeated viewings or are worth owning for me. Most of the movies I have bought have been used and a lot of the time I resell or exchange them. As far as what I review, aside from theatrical releases, this whole time I've basically just been renting them for a dollar from a Redbox or DVD Xpress kiosk system in the supermarket. The amount of money I've saved on buying DVDs in the past few years is probably more than five times the salary of any paid reviewer.

Do you use NetFlix?
Not right now. About a year ago I tried it briefly and didn't like it. I found the wait for new releases to be unbearably long and by the time it came I practically lost interest in watching them. I also found updating and keeping track of movies in the queue to be a thankless task. I'm giving it another chance soon (probably by the time you read this) since the titles in the dollar machines are now pretty much exclusively Direct-to-DVD junk due to legal trouble with the studios who are losing money on it. There also tons of of older movie titles I want to see as well as seasons of TV series' I can't get because I lost HBO and Showtime. There's really no choice at this point.

Have a Blu-Ray Player?
Nope. I realize I must be coming off as the cheapest movie critic on Earth right now but I just don't see the point in investing in something that could disappear in a couple of years. I learned my lesson with laserdisc years ago and considering I don't purchase many DVDs it just isn't worth it for me when my player suits me just fine for my purposes. The only thing that really bothers me is that the Blu-Ray discs contain special features the regular DVDs don't. Knowing me I'll probably cave eventually but for right now I'm fine.

How long do you let a movie sit in your head before reviewing it?
It depends on the film. Obviously some require more time for thought and reflection than others. I usually write the first couple of paragraphs right after though, while it's still fresh in my mind. The other details take a little longer to come into focus and with some it can really take a while. You don't want to jump the gun, yet you can't wait so long that you don't care anymore.

What do you think it takes to review movies?
1. A genuine passion for movies
2. The ability to express that in writing
3. Being sure of your opinion, but admitting when you're not.
4. Having a knowledge of a wide variety of topics and reading and keeping up with what's going on in the world so you can incorporate that insight into the reviews (my weakest area but I'm improving).

Have any desire to write or direct?
I know no one's gonna believe me when I say this, but no. I did take a screenwriting course years ago and found I was more interested in analyzing the study films and talking about what goes into writing a good screenplay than actually writing one. When it came to sit down at the keyboard, I discovered I had no ear when it came to dialogue. I didn't enjoy the experience and wanted to just keep analyzing the study films instead. As far as directing, no way. The technical aspects that go into making a film doesn't play to my strengths and there are too many elements that could spiral out of control. And I can't stand not being in control. It looks like a big headache that could potentially kill me from stress. Of course this should be taken with a grain of salt since I've never tried it, but I can't envision that I ever would.

While I feel writing and directing are out of my grasp, I do think I'd make a better producer, casting director or agent than many of these studio executives being paid to tell us what we want. You may have noticed during my reviews I often pause and examine how a movie was (mis) marketed or what steps could have been taken in the production stages to make it better. But I'm certainly not "paying my dues" in an industry where I feel most of the decision makers are clueless or hold views that clash entirely with mine. I love movies and want to keep it that way.

How much does personal experience effect how you view a movie?
It's everything. I think we all see a different movie because of the experiences we bring into it. I recently re-watched a film for consideration on my decade-end list and it personally spoke to me like it never did before. It couldn't have carried the impact it did now even just a few years ago just because of where I was at in my life. Sounds silly, but it's totally true.

Would you ever judge someone by which movies they like or don't like (be honest)?
No. They're still just movies. Having said that, I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think a person's list of their all-time favorite films told me at least something about them. And if it didn't, it's likely not a list I'd be interested in reading.

Greatest director of all-time?
Kubrick. There's no other name I would mention as even coming close even though I know some would say Hitchcock, but he only worked in one genre. I don't think for a second he could do what Kubrick did whereas I have no doubt that Kubrick could not only step in and direct one of Hitch's films, but probably make it even more interesting. Spielberg is great, but I don't think he belongs in the discussion.

Favorite Director(s) working now?
No surprises here. My three favorites are David Fincher, Richard Kelly and Paul Thomas Anderson. Right now, they're making the types of movies I enjoy watching most.

Most overrated director?
Spike Lee. Never got with him at all.

Favorite Actors/Actresses
Too many to list but here are the big ones. As far as actors I'm a fan of Michael Douglas, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey Jr., Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ben Foster, Emile Hirsch, Sean Penn, DiCaprio, Bill Murray, Jeff Bridges, Brad Pitt, Ed Norton, Josh Brolin and Patrick Wilson. Surprisingly, also Tom Cruise, who I think has always been underrated as an acting talent. As far as actresses, you can sign me up anytime Jennifer Connelly, Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman (possibly my favorite), Naomi Watts, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Kristen Bell or Zooey Deschanel are in anything. Clooney and Jolie are two actors I was previously never a fan of but lately they've really been earning their stripes and I've come around.

Least Favorite Actors/Actresses?
Almost Famous notwithstanding, Kate Hudson has given one awful performance after another in some dreadful films. But I only complain about her so much because I know she's capable of better. Don't care for Dane Cooke or Jessica Alba as actors, but that almost seems too easy. I've completely given up on Kate Beckinsale who would be the blandest, most wooden actress working today if Jennifer Aniston weren't around. Everyone else would just fit into the "overrated" category for me. Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson have surprisingly little to show for themselves despite being surrounded by a ton of hype and I never understood all the praise for Johnny Depp, who hasn't proven to me yet he can effectively play anything other than misfits and freaks.

Actors/Actresses you're most disappointed in?
Hudson obviously tops the list, followed closely by Nicolas Cage. I'd say Sandra Bullock also but after The Blind Side I guess the joke's on me. She's probably busy rolling around in a giant pile of cash right now.

What famous classic or famous movies would people be surprised you haven't seen?
I still haven't made it all the way through Gone With the Wind (not a knock on the film, just time constraints always got in the way). Haven't seen the Godfather Parts II and III, although I hear I'm not missing much with that last one. Never saw Terminator 2: Judgment Day either, or the Harry Potter films and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, both of which I have very little interest in (see "least favorite genres"). I've also never seen any of the Bourne films.

Any movies you refuse to see?
The Blind Side. Just kidding (kind of). "Refuse" is a little strong but...the Twilight "saga." This is actually a much bigger insult than it seems because, despite preferring certain types of movies, I'm usually willing to see ANYTHING.

What trends in the movie industry today do you hate?
Every movie released these days being aimed at the tween demographic (see above). Inflated ticket prices. Double and triple dipping on DVD releases. Movies being advertised as something they're not [i.e. Slumdog Millionaire as a Bollywood Musical, (500) Days of Summer as a whimsical "date movie"]. Certain films being shoved down my throat by the media. Movies with political agendas. Only movies released in the last month of the year getting Academy Award consideration. That last one pisses me off the most. Besides being criminally unfair, I actually think that's the major reason no one bothers watching the Oscars.

Worst Oscar snub in history?
It's impossible to pick just one and this will seem completely random but for some reason two that really stick out for me are A Christmas Story (1984) and Back to the Future (1985) being overlooked for Best Picture nominations. If I could give any two "correction" Oscars out it would be to those two films which, over time, have proven just how worthy they are. There just so few pictures released that families can enjoy together through the decades regardless of age and also be effective as perfect mainstream entertainment. When I think of the template for the perfect nominee or winner I immediately get an image of those two movies in my head. The Academy has gotten it wrong many times, but that they snubbed those two make me sick to my stomach.

Do you read the novel before seeing the film?
No. Never. Shamefully, I don't read as much as I'd like in general. I really do feel guilty about that because I know it would make me a better writer but between watching and reviewing movies and other stuff I just don't have the time. But I don't like to read a novel before watching the movie it's based on (especially if it's something I know I'll be reviewing) because I find it taints the experience and don't want to turn into one of those people whining about how "the book was better." And usually, if I've seen the movie first and like it enough to read the novel, I tend not to because I felt the movie got the job done for me.

5 Actors/Actresses Who Need a New Agent (Badly!)

When I recently reviewed Adventureland I noted that the big surprise of the movie for me was the performance of Kristen Stewart. It was the kind of perfectly written part any young actress would dream to play and she hit it out of the park. Those who know Stewart only from THAT OTHER THING she starred in will be equally surprised. Unfortunately for her, due to said choice, her reputation as an actress is pretty much shattered and she'll now have to work about a million times harder to prove herself. This got me thinking. When the right actor or actress meets the right role magic can happen, but more often then not that's like hitting the lottery. And to be able to build on that momentum and sustain a consistently successful career is nearly impossible. The fact is many of these actors probably have agents who don't have a clue what they're doing and the ones that do might not listen because their egos are too big. Angelina Jolie doesn't have an agent. Neither does Bill Murray. And they've done just fine.

The actors/actresses on the list below don't have careers that are in dire straits, nor do they necessarily need a "comeback" (that's a different list entirely) since they're still planted firmly in the public's conciousness, but if things keep going in the direction they are, it won't be long before they do. Yes, they're all making money but they could be making MORE MONEY and MAKING GOOD MOVIES also. In a perfect world, they go hand in hand. The good news is that the situations of these five (with the exception of one) could be considered "fixable" and don't have problems a simple change in representation or a dose of reality couldn't quickly solve. At one time or another I was fan of all of them and if anything they should take it as a compliment they were singled out because it means I think they're talented and still have a lot left to offer. If I didn't I just wouldn't have wasted my time. This list could easily be expanded but I've chosen to narrow the focus only on these five because their careers are most worth salvaging. Two of these sting because I was a huge fan of theirs, but only one makes me furious with disappointment (it'll be obvious who). This person has been torturing us with her shitty choices for nearly a decade and it's time for an intervention. As a special gift I'll be giving all of them some free advice as to how they can turn things around. They'd be wise to take it.
 
5. Nicolas Cage-Okay, so he lucked out with Knowing which, thanks to a good director, turned out to be successful despite on paper carrying the hallmarks of his embarrassing blockbuster action choices over the past decade (frequently featuring him with crazy hair). That minor success aside, things haven't been great creatively for Cage, who basically traded in his Oscar for cash. He's an action star, not an actor, which would be fine if the movies he made weren't Ghost Rider, Next and Bangkok Dangerous. Things don't look good for the upcoming Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. Seeing his name on the marquee is practically a dead give away that the film is going to blow. Only The Weather Man and Lord of War stand out as anything worth writing home about in the past few years.

I think it's great that he used the Oscar to leverage for bigger paydays in action movies, but I wish they were good movies and that he mixed it up occasionally with dramatic roles (like his brilliant turn in Adaptation) that remind us he is a very talented actor. Compared to others on this list he isn't in such bad shape because the public actually likes him and wants to see him do well. All he needs to do is pick better scripts and work with better directors and he's set. Easily solvable. 

4. Sandra Bullock-Anyone who thinks that the moderate success of The Proposal in any way signifies some kind of return to form for Sandra is kidding themselves, especially considering that her latest, All About Steve, is sitting at 0% (!) on the Rotten Tomato Meter. Everyone (well, at least the ladies) saw The Proposal because of Ryan Reynolds, who probably could have co-starred with a corpse and still opened it huge. But the good news is that no one stayed away because she was in it and the public will always like her.

It's now just a matter of finding the right projects, which is difficult because of how Hollywood tosses actresses aside when they hit 40. A select few like Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep have been able to overcome this but they have more talent and versatility than she does. Bullock is more similar to Meg Ryan in that while she's a solid actress, she was popular throughout the 1990's primarily on the basis of her cuteness and likability. What Sandy should do is the opposite of Cage. Take a huge blockbuster type role in a mindless action franchise to get audiences accustomed to seeing her as a big deal again. Playing an ordinary woman thrown into extraordinary circumstances is what drew audiences to her to begin with so there's no reason to think it can't happen again. Four words: SPEED 3 JASON STATHAM. Then after that she can attempt to stretch a little dramatically (which she once did to awesome effect in 2005's Crash).



3. Harrison Ford-It seems these days the only way you're going to see Ford in a good movie is if he's being referenced in a sight gag or used as a punchline [like in Fanboys and (500) Days of Summer]. Who can forget his "accent" in K-19: The Widowmaker or his unfortunate turns in Hollywood Homicide and Firewall? No matter how much money Indy 4 raked in it didn't do anything for him as far as a career resurgence. The film being awful likely contributed to that.

What he needs to do is stop taking silly comedies (he isn't funny) and cool it on the action roles. Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone can still get away with it at their age. He can't. Not because he isn't believable but because he's a different kind of actor than they are. He's a lot quieter and more low-key, making him difficult to cast. The answer at this stage is to take more gritty, independent character driven parts, even if they're supporting roles. He needs to take a page out of Stallone's book and pull a Cop Land (but of even higher quality). Ford is lucky in that he's a big star and age isn't nearly as much of a factor for actors as it is for actresses. It's really perplexing that he's struggled this much. 

2. Katie Holmes- Katie, Katie, Katie. When The Dark Knight opened last summer, one of the biggest surprises to come out of it were the amount of Holmes fans coming out of the woodwork claiming they actually preferred her take on Rachel to Maggie Gylennhaal's. I disagree, but it was a much closer call than expected. While she was definitely the weak link in Batman Begins, looking back the performance couldn't have been as bad as everyone originally thought if Maggie just barely managed to top it and no one can claim the sequel would have been any worse off had Katie chosen to return. That's cause enough for her to celebrate. What isn't is that she backed out of one of the most critically and commercially successful movies of all-time so she could co-star in Mad Money, which is cause for alarm any way you look at it. But the public's lukewarm reception (misplaced or not) to Gylenhaal in the role proves moviegoers may finally be willing to put concerns over Katie's personal life aside to give her a chance again.

Many forget that she was really on a roll for a while and could have possibly achieved the fame she has now through her work if things had continued down the path they were going. Make all the jokes you want about Dawson's Creek but she was amazing on it and there would have been no show without her. She had small but memorable turns in The Ice Storm, Go, Wonder Boys, Phone Booth, Abandon and The Singing Detective. And of course an appearance in Sam Raimi's The Gift that's legendary for reasons completely unrelated to her acting. Her career high point came in 2003's Pieces of April, where as the title character she delivered her best performance to date. She may have been woefully miscast in Thank You for Smoking but at least she had the foresight to work with a future Oscar nominated director. What's interesting is that the parts weren't showy or huge, just great fits for her. Her agent deserved a raise, a new house and a yacht. Instead, she got her walking papers when YOU KNOW WHAT happened in 2005.

Taking a couple of years off and keeping a relatively low profile may have been the best possible thing she could have done in terms of her public perception. The timing feels right now for a comeback. I'd start with really good supporting roles and then work my way up. If under a good director she can find a part that somehow combines the girl next door we originally fell for with her new mature persona it would be a solid first step. Even though she cheated a little, her name alone is now big enough to open a movie whereas just a few years ago it wasn't. That's an opportunity she can't pass up.


1. Kate Hudson-

2002- The Four Feathers
2003- Le Divorce, Alex & Emma, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
2004- Raising Helen
2005- The Skeleton Key
2006- You, Me and Dupree (I actually liked this one but it was still an unquestionable flop)
2008-Fool's Gold, My Best Friend's Girl
2009- Bride Wars

I don't even know what to say about her anymore. If we combined all the pitiful choices of everyone else on this list it wouldn't equal an eighth of the damage Hudson has done to her career in the past five to ten years. Most frightening of all is how someone so young could have amassed a filmography of such garbage. Even if I refuse to believe she's Goldie Hawn's biological daughter until I see a birth certificate, she's insisted on taking roles her mother would of played 20 or 30 years ago. The difference: Her mom was funny.

I guess this finally settles the debate as to whether Kate was just "playing herself" in Almost Famous. She wasn't. Penny Lane would have never been dumb enough to sign on to those movies listed above. Nothing she's done can erase the magic of that performance but you can't say she hasn't been trying. Would it be wrong if my advice was to quit acting? Yes, it would. Which is why I'd tell her to just take a little break and then give Cameron Crowe a call. On the bright side, a lot of moviegoers like me still refuse to forget how unbelievable she was in that role and would be happy to welcome her back.

Appaloosa, My Best Friend's Girl

Appaloosa (**1/2 out of ****)
(Director: Ed Harris, Starring: Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renee Zellweger, Jeremy Irons, Lance Henriksen, Running Time: 118 min, Rating: R)

Ed Harris directs and stars in this methodical, lumbering character study. If you’ve ever wanted to see a movie focus squarely on two characters with a complete void of personality then this one’s for you. I love the Western as a genre and was thrilled to witness its resurrection last year with 3:10 To Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, but with the comeback of any genre there are bound to be setbacks. This is the first. It doesn’t necessarily feel inauthentic and Harris has a good understanding of the material, but the movie spins its wheels and as a result comes off feeling more like a Lonesome Dove mini-series than a feature-length film. Still, you can tell it was made with a lot of respect and appreciation and he deserves praise for trying.

Harris is lawman Virgil Cole, who along with his longtime Deputy, Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen), must defend the lawless town of Appaloosa from murderous Rancher Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons). The arrival of comely widower Allison French (Renee Zellweger) is complicated for Virgil, as he must wrestle with the foreign concept of “feelings” when she slowly emerges as the town whore. To both the film’s benefit and detriment the story doesn’t go in the direction you’d expect. Allison doesn’t exactly drive a wedge between Virgil and Everett in the way you’d think and the situation involving Braggs doesn’t have your standard resolution. The issues with Braggs are infinitely more interesting and better handled than the sub-plot with Zellweger’s Ally, which at times feels more like a needless distraction.

Harris tackles the grizzled Eastwood badass lawman type role (think High Plains Drifter) well, but while he’s a gifted actor, he’s also a draining one to watch for 2 hours for obvious reasons. Not surprisingly, Mortensen gives the film’s best performance and even though he’s relegated to the background until the final 40 minutes he still makes a strong impression. The chemistry between him and Harris is a highlight despite the fact neither character is particularly exciting. Irons wages war with his accent. The casting of Zellweger seems slightly off, but that could be more because we’re not accustomed to seeing the depiction of a traditional Western woman on screen, faults and all. To her credit, she dives into the role head first, dirtying herself up (literally and figuratively).

Appaloosa can’t help but suffer from the release of two 4-star Westerns last year. There really isn’t enough here to sustain a film that’s appropriate in scope for the genre, despite Harris’ firm direction. Visually, it isn’t that interesting either as cinematographer Dean Semler won’t be mistaken for the next Roger Deakins any day soon, as impossible as that standard is to live up to. The film doesn’t work but in the very least it’s a noble near miss. Plus, you can’t go wrong with some Tom Petty over the closing credits.

My Best Friend's Girl (**1/2 out of ****)
(Director: Howard Deutch, Starring: Dane Cook, Kate Hudson, Jason Biggs, Alec Baldwin, Running Time: 101 min., Rating: Unrated)

We’re getting to the point where Kate Hudson should start reimbursing audiences for the money they’ve wasted on her films. But as much as I’ve disapproved of her career direction this past decade and the fact that it’s never a good sign when the actors somehow give a bad performance in the movie's poster, this isn’t one of the year’s worst films like you’ve heard. Not even close.

I’m guessing most critics went extra hard on it because it starred Hudson and Dane Cook. And who could blame them? Both have amassed an astonishing track record of awfulness in just a few years. But fair is fair and there’s nothing about My Best Friend’s Girl that sets it so far below other bad romantic comedies that it should land on anyone’s worst of the year list. At times I even forgot I was supposed to hate it. Its worst offenses are problems balancing tone and an illogical, overreaching third act, which would really put it at about the same level as Knocked Up. If nothing else, it just further demonstrates how difficult it is to make mix raunchiness and romance onscreen effectively. That Judd Apatow has proven to be the only filmmaker close to capable of doing it and even he’s missed a few times proves just how tough it is. But at least this does it slightly better (or less worse) than Cook’s last crude rom-com disaster Good Luck Chuck.

Similar to Chuck this film has a gimmicky premise in which “emotional terrorist” Tank Turner (Cook) is hired by guys to take out their ex-girlfriends and give them the date from hell. The idea being that he’s such a disgusting, perverted, self-centered pig that they’ll run back into their waiting arms, appreciating what they had. The opening minutes of the film surprisingly aren’t bad in setting this up. When Tank’s best friend Dustin (Jason Biggs) starts smothering his new girlfriend and co-worker Alexis (Hudson) she justifiably wants out. More accurately, she just wants to be “friends.” His solution? Hire Tank to traumatize her. It doesn’t work. He’s met his match, as Alexis could care less what a jerk he is. The last thing she wants is another relationship anyway. Then everything gets expectedly messy when Tank starts having genuine feelings for her, threatening his friendship with Dustin. And of course we get to hear The Cars’ “My Best Friend’s Girl” a couple of times (but you knew that).

The chief problem with the film is that it’s just too mean and nasty, uncomfortably co-existing with the sweet romantic comedy elements that are struggling to come out. Director Howard Deutch just can’t make up his mind what he wants to do and Cook isn’t helping matters. He plays the obnoxious jerk perfectly (perhaps too well) but when he has to display even just a shade of likability he runs into problems. His performance is grating, but most of the time it’s supposed to be. He's better off in supporting roles and this is a definite step-down from his surprisingly solid work in Mr. Brooks and Dan in Real Life. As for Hudson, she at least shows up to work this time with her game face on and actually does share chemistry with Cook. That chemistry, however, is the repulsive kind in a movie like this. She's also about as likable as Cook, which creates a problem . Biggs still has great comic timing, even if Deutch unwisely directs him to give off a creepy, stalkerish vibe.

There is a smattering of laughs (like when Tank takes an unsuspecting date to a offensively themed pizza restaurant) but most of them from the supporting players. Alec Baldwin is hilarious as Tank’s father, a “women’s studies” professor who takes that title way too literally while Lizzy Caplan impresses as usual in another thankless roommate/best friend role. In just her few scenes she suggests how much better the film could have been if she were given the lead instead of Hudson. Had either taken on a larger role it could have been enough to take this to the next level. Diora Baird also has a small part and a little of her always goes a long way in my book.

The film completely flies off the rails and loses its head in the final act, rushing and forcing a conclusion that isn’t necessary and getting there in the most ass-backwards way possible. It does have one great moment though. A Dane Cook slow-mo entrance set to Johnny Cash’s “The Man Comes Around.” For just a brief moment Deutch accomplishes the impossible in making Cook briefly seem cool, suggesting the movie we could have had. That ends quickly. My Best Friend’s Girl is bad but it’s not THAT BAD. Still, it doesn’t say much for Hudson or Cook lately when two and a half stars is considered a major accomplishment.