They don't make movies (or stars) like they used to

Watching, or listening to, all of the hoopla surrounding tonight's 87th Academy Awards ceremony in Hollywood, I have to stifle a yawn. I just can't get excited about a bunch of movies, or performances, that in 10 years (probably much less) few will remember or care about (and most people don't even care about now).

Would Boyhood and Patricia Arquette have been up for Academy Awards if the movie had been shot in 12 weeks instead of over 12 years?

And speaking of Patricia Arquette, it almost seems as though the category, or Oscar, should be called the Award for a Supporting Actress Who Didn't Succumb to Cosmetic Surgery, as seemingly all every Hollywood reporter (and many actors) seems to talk about is how marvelous it is that Arquette hasn't gone under the knife, or gotten Botox or fillers, even though she is only 46, which is like 112 in Hollywood Years -- and was in her early 30s when Boyhood started shooting.

Indeed, these days it often seems that the Best Acting categories have as much to do with makeup (or lack thereof) or physical appearance (ability to gain 20 pounds or adopt certain mannerisms) and/or costumes (or lack thereof) than with actual acting. Though yes, I know, it takes acting ability to successfully pull off an accent (Meryl Streep) and convince people you have a physical impairment (loved Colin Firth in The King's Speech and I hear Eddie Redmayne is great in The Theory of Everything).

And while there have been some good movies over the last 20 years, part of me, a rather big part, longs for the days when movies entertained or moved us not because they had loads of cool (usually gratuitous) special effects, or car chases, or whips and chains (Raiders of the Lost Ark, good; Fifty Shades of Grey, bad) -- but because they had good, or great, actors/acting, and directors and scripts.

Do this year's Best Picture nominees even hold a candle to those from 1939, when Dark Victory, Gone with the Wind, Goodbye, Mr. Chips, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Of Mice and Men, The Wizard of Oz, and Wuthering Heights were just some of the nominees? (Granted, that was an incredible year, movie-wise, and Hollywood has had several not-so-great years between then and now.)

[For a complete list of films nominated for Best Picture, along with the winners, click here.]

And what about those great actors and actresses from the 1930s and '40s and '50s? Yes, yes, there are many good, even very good, actors around right now -- Dustin Hoffman, Daniel Day-Lewis, Tom Hanks, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Colin Firth immediately spring to mind -- and actresses, such as Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Cate Blanchett, and Julianne Moore.

But how many of today's "stars," or their performances, will we remember 50 or 80 years from now? How many can truly compare to the likes of actors Cary Grant, Clark Gable, Gregory Peck, Spencer Tracy, James Stewart, and Humphrey Bogart -- and actresses like Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland, Ingrid Bergman, Judy Holliday, and Audrey Hepburn?

Granted back then, under the studio system, it was easier to create (and manage) stars. But how is it I can easily recall, and still watch, and enjoy, movies from that Golden Era and can rarely find anything of more recent vintage to watch on On Demand today, when there are hundreds of movies available for streaming?

And speaking of the number of bad movies out there.... What happened to screenwriting -- and originality?

Granted, I am probably pickier than most when it comes to choosing, or viewing, movies. (Okay, a lot pickier, according to the spouse.) But when is the last time you were excited to go see a movie -- actually went to see it in a movie theater -- and came away saying "Wow! That was an amazing movie!" or "Wow. What a great movie!" or "What an incredible well-written, well-acted movie that was. It should get an Academy Award"?

I'm not talking about movies that entertained you for a couple of hours. Movies that dazzled you with their special effects, or violence, or nudity -- or let you tune out for a couple of hours.

I'm asking, how many movies have you seen in the last five or 10, or 20 years, do you think that if you saw them again in five, or 10, or 20 years you would still think "Wow, that was a great movie"?

Anybody remember Mira Sorvino in Mighty Aphrodite or rushing to rent Gladiator or The Artist?  

I rest my case.

Great movies + TV shows shouldn't be remade

By now most of you have probably heard that CBS gave the go-ahead to Matthew Perry (of Friends fame) to do a re-boot of The Odd Couple. (It debuts in mid-February.)

Granted, The Odd Couple has been remade several times since premiering on Broadway in 1965 (starring Walter Matthau as Oscar Madison and Art Carney as Felix Ungar, and directed by Mike Nichols). The two most successful remakes, or versions, being the 1968 film starring Walter Matthau (again as Oscar) and Jack Lemmon as Felix (now Unger, with an "e"), and the beloved 1970s television series of the same name starring Jack Klugman as Oscar and Tony Randall as Felix.

Since then every attempt at remaking the TV show (or movie) has flopped. And this one will, too. Why? I'll give you three reasons:

1) How can you possibly improve upon the Jack Klugman and Tony Randall television classic? (That's a rhetorical question. You can't.)

2) Matthew Perry? Really? The guy who hasn't had a hit since Friends, whose presence almost guarantees the movie or TV show will flop? (Is it just me, or is every character Perry plays just some version of Chandler? And admit it, you never really liked Chandler, did you?) Which CBS executive thought it a great idea to give this guy the green light to develop, produce, and star in the re-boot of a beloved series (as Oscar Madison)?

3) Re-boots, re-makes, or sequels, especially of classic or great TV shows or movies are never as good as the original (with possibly one or two exceptions, none of them recent).

With all of the writers out there looking for work, some of them even good, talented writers, you would think that movie studios and television networks could come up with something original. But no.

They have to go ahead and remake The Odd Couple. And Jurassic Park. And Ghostbusters.

None of them, I guarantee you, will be nearly as good, or as clever, or as  funny, or as witty, as the original. Though I have no doubt that Jurassic World, starring Chris Pratt, will take in millions of dollars, at least the first couple of weeks, as will the all-female version of Ghostbusters, starring Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, which will basically be Bridesmaids II: Ghouls Gone Wild, with lots of crude and lewd humor.

Sigh.

Why, Hollywood? Why?

Finally, an honest (+ very funny) movie trailer

Ever wonder, how is it that a movie that hasn't even opened yet managed to get so many great reviews? Or squinted at the television screen trying to figure out who exactly uttered or wrote (or tweeted) those laudatory words (because the film's promoters purposely made the attribution so tiny no one could actually read them)? Or wished that some movie studio would have the guts to promote its films honestly?

Well friends, that day has finally come. I give you the trailer for Muppets Most Wanted (opening in theaters March 21st!), which wasn't nominated for a single Golden Globe or Academy award (because technically it wasn't eligible, though that is entirely beside the point).



As for whether Muppets Most Wanted is actually any good (though I will probably rent it regardless), I will leave the last word, or words, on that to those unassailable critics, Statler & Waldorf.

Harry Potter: Everything You Need to Know in Just 6 Minutes

The final Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, opened today. And for those of you who are unfamiliar with the terms Hogwarts, quidditch, muggle, and horcrux, the helpful folks over at Slate V put together this amusing video Cliff Notes version of the previous seven films, which is must viewing.



So today's question: Are you planning on seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2? And, if so, will a child be accompanying you?

FWIW, I read all seven books, as soon as they came out, but I only saw the first film. My daughter, however, has seen all seven films and is looking forward to seeing the final Harry Potter film while at sleepaway camp later this month.

Brooklyn Decker's breasts, appearing at a theater near you!

Just days before the 2011 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue hits newsstands (on February 15 -- and yes, there will be a blog post), Brooklyn Decker and her breasts are hitting the big screen in the new Adam Sandler movie Just Go With It, the touching story (because there is a lot of touching) of a plastic surgeon (Sandler) trying to woo a much younger school teacher (Decker).

Now, I don't know about all of you, but the only place I've ever seen a school teacher that looked anything like Brooklyn Decker was in that Van Halen video, "Hot for Teacher." Though come to think of it, Adam Sandler does look a bit like the nerdy kid in that video (which came out in 1984). Hmmm...

Getting back to Just Go With It, the movie buffs among you may be interested to know that it is actually a remake of the 1969 movie Cactus Flower, which starred Walter Matthau in the Adam Sandler role (as a dentist) and Goldie Hawn in the Brooklyn Decker role (for which she won the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award). Not to sell Brooklyn Decker short, but I doubt she's being nominated for an Academy Award next year for her work in Just Go With It, though I could be wrong.

Oh, and did I mention Jennifer Aniston also stars in Just Go With It, as Sandler's loyal but (wink wink) plain Jane assistant, whom he enlists to pose as his soon-to-be ex-wife to make Brooklyn Decker jealous? I know! Poor Adam Sandler.

(Btw, in the 1969 movie, Ingrid Bergman played the Jennifer Aniston role. And let me just say, Jennifer Aniston is no Ingrid Bergman. Then again, Adam Sandler is no Walter Matthau. Also, interestingly, Cactus Flower, which was originally a Broadway show, starring Lauren Bacall in the Jennifer Aniston role, is currently being revived, with previews starting in just a couple weeks. And I may just have to see it. Anyone want to go with me?)

Anyway, in case you've been living under a rock, and have no idea what I am talking about, here is one of the many trailers for Just Go With It (all of which prominently feature Brooklyn Double D-ecker's breasts), which aired during Super Bowl XLV:



So quick poll: How many of you female readers plan on seeing Just Go With It? Guys? Let me know via the Comments section (because I'm too lazy to create an actual poll).

And for the record, I have nothing personally against Brooklyn Decker, who may be the sweetest, nicest, most deserving person on the planet for all I know (as well as the best endowed). I'm just a bitter, flat-chested old broad with a blog to grind.

Teachable moments, courtesy of The Social Network

So on Sunday, the spouse and I took our daughter (who is 12) and a male friend of hers (also 12) to see The Social Network (aka The Facebook Movie). Now before you start to gasp, please know that I told her and the spouse that I did not feel The Social Network was appropriate for 12-year-olds and was very hesitant to take her and her friend. But the spouse had already told her we would take them, so I caved, though I insisted we chaperone.

As predicted, the movie was wildly inappropriate (definitely not PG-13 material, though we all thought it was a good film). And I spent much of the two hours practicing my apology to the boy's parents for scarring their son for life.

Of course, me being me, I used the rest of the time trying to come up with "teachable moments." You know, life lessons that the kids could use and benefit from, gleaned from watching The Social Network. But all I could come up were things like, "don't snort cocaine off your friend's naked stomach, especially at campus parties," "don't drink and code," and "if you're going to have random sex people you barely know, make sure you/the guy is wearing a condom." Which, upon quick reflection, while good advice, did not seem like things one should be dispensing to a 12-year-old.

That said, we did all discuss the movie afterward, particularly the Mark Zuckerberg character (i.e., the guy who founded Facebook), and whether we thought he was a sympathetic character or not (not) and why (he was a jerk and betrayed his best friend, at least in the movie version); if we thought he stole the idea for Facebook (we all did) -- and if that was a crime (undecided); would you betray your best friend for fame and/or fortune (no); and did the kids now want to go to Harvard after seeing the movie (they did not, amazingly, in fact quite the opposite).

So maybe we did all learn something from The Social Network after all, though I still apologized (profusely) to the boy's father, who, much to my relief, told me his son had probably seen much worse (not totally comforting, but let me off the hook). Still, it is going to be a while before I agree to let my daughter go see another PG-13 movie -- and really really do not want her to get a Facebook account. (I know: Good luck with that. Though we will make her wait until she is of legal Facebook age, i.e., 13, which is still waaaaay too young.)

Punxsutawney Phil predicts five more weeks until Oscars

This morning, around the same time that Punxsutawney Phil was predicting six more weeks of winter, movie critics, morning news show anchors, and reporters began predicting who would be taking home an Oscar at the 82nd Annual Academy Awards on March 7.

My suggestion? Just have Punxsutawney Phil predict this year's Oscar winners. It would have been far more entertaining -- and could be the start of a whole new tradition.

Btw, for those five of you who haven't yet seen the list of Oscar nominees yet, here are the ones for the major categories:

Best Picture

* “Avatar” James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
* “The Blind Side” Nominees to be determined
* “District 9” Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham, Producers
* “An Education” Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey, Producers
* “The Hurt Locker” Nominees to be determined
* “Inglourious Basterds” Lawrence Bender, Producer
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, Producers
* “A Serious Man” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, Producers
* “Up” Jonas Rivera, Producer
* “Up in the Air” Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, Producers

Actor in a Leading Role

* Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
* George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
* Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
* Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
* Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

Actor in a Supporting Role

* Matt Damon in “Invictus”
* Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
* Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
* Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
* Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

Actress in a Leading Role

* Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
* Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
* Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
* Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
* Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

Actress in a Supporting Role

* Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
* Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
* Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
* Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”
* Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”

For a full list of the nominees, click here.

While I saw Up in the Air, which I thought was great (timely story, great acting) and highly recommend, I haven't seen most of these movies, so don't feel qualified to make any predictions (though I could have told you there would be at least six more weeks of winter).

But if any of you have any Oscar predictions, leave a comment.

Bonus Groundhog Day video clip [H/T to EW.com]:

A documentary about beer? I'll drink to that! Beer Wars opens this Thursday!

Recently I was pinged by friend and reader of the blog Amy S., who asked if I would help promote her new movie, Beer Wars, "a no holds barred exploration of the U.S. beer industry that ultimately reveals the truth behind the label of your favorite beer." My response? Hell yeah! (A toast and some burping may also have been involved.)


I am always happy to help a friend -- and a worthwhile cause. And as my readers well know, I am a big fan and supporter of American brewed beer (though I have been known to quaff the occasional Stella or Bass).

Btw, for those of you who have been following the blog since last summer, this winter we finally finished up our stash of Fat Tire Amber Ale, which the spouse and I "discovered" on our Pacific Northwest bike trip last July. However, because Fat Tire is impossible to get on the East Coast, we had a back-up plan, or rather, beer, Black Dog Ale, which some friends in New Hampshire introduced us to, and which I highly recommend. We've also been drinking American Ale, which, as you probably know, is made by... Budweiser. I know, I know. Yet it is surprisingly refreshing and delicious. (It's all about drinkability, baby.)

But getting back to Beer Wars, the movie, if beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, as Benjamin Franklin is attributed with saying, a documentary about beer must mean that Hollywood loves us and wants us to be happy -- or at least drink more beer. And personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that (in moderation, of course).

Btw, the movie, which is being released on April 16, looks pretty good:



So this post's for you, Amy, and to beer lovers across this great nation. Cheers and best of luck with Beer Wars the movie.

And to everyone reading this post, make a date to see Beer Wars this April 16 (or soon thereafter)!