Life is like a box of chocolates...you know the rest

It's "Can't Get Enough Gump Week" on AMC -- seven nights of "Forrest Gump" in a row. Back when the film first came out on video I watched it more times than I can count, but it had been a while since the last time I saw it. Thanks to AMC, my love for "Forrest Gump" has been renewed. What is so special about this movie? Obviously, it's just an enjoyable film to watch -- it's inspiring, it's wholesome, it'll make you laugh and cry. Beyond that, "Forrest Gump" is a classic depiction of the American dream that isn't seen so often in modern films. Here is a man who comes from modest beginnings and finds great success in his life. Forrest Gump isn't particularly intelligent, but what he lacks in brains, he makes up for in heart. He isn't greedy or ambitious, he just does what he thinks is right. Thanks to his goodness, honesty, and loyalty (plus some kick-ass ping pong skills), he becomes a millionaire, meets the president three times, and still manages to get the girl in the end. His naivety is refreshing at a time when most movie heroes seem to be utterly cynical, utterly flawed, or just utterly ridiculous. "Forrest Gump" is the ultimate feel-good film, and let's face it, couldn't we all use that right about now? Catch it on AMC this week while you can and fall in love with it all over again. And that's all I have to say about that.

Evolution of a teen heartthrob

He's come a long way from the pages of Tiger Beat, folks. That's right, with his latest film, "Shutter Island," Leonardo DiCaprio has once again reminded the movie-viewing populace that's he more than just a pretty face. Like most girls around my age, I loved him back when he was prancing around in "Romeo + Juliet" and "Titanic." And why wouldn't I? With his feminine features and unintimidating physique, he was a pre-teen girl's dream. But not everyone was a fan back then. The very characteristics that drove the young girls wild often drove other people nuts. Bring up the subject of Leonardo DiCaprio these days and those very same people might start to make some snide comment about "Leonardo Di-Crap-rio" -- but then they'll stop and say, "Wait, I actually LIKE that guy now." Yes, it seems Leo has turned the tables and won the hearts of his harshest critics. But how did he do it? How did this tree-hugging thespian shed his girly-man reputation and become one of the coolest cats in Hollywood? Two words: Martin Scorsese. Sure, DiCaprio might have earned his first Academy Award nomination for "What's Eating Gilbert Grape," but let's be honest, he lost most of that street cred after that steaming pile otherwise known as "The Man in the Iron Mask." It's my theory that it was Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" that really helped begin to bring DiCaprio back from the brink. Next, this dynamic duo teamed up to make "The Aviator," which I didn't love, but it earned DiCaprio his second Academy Award nomination. Then came "The Departed," which was just an all-around great movie. (Seriously, if you have not seen "The Departed," drop everything and go rent it immediately. You can thank me later.) At that point it became clear, you can't hate this guy anymore -- he's awesome. Which brings us back to "Shutter Island." I don't want to give too much away, because if you've seen the trailer, you've seen enough. Just know that it's good. I first heard about "Shutter Island" a few months ago and had been looking forward to seeing it ever since. There are lots of movies I want to see and a few that I really want to see, but sometimes a movie comes along that I just get super pumped about. "Shutter Island" was not a "maybe we'll go see a movie this weekend" occasion -- it was a "planned out for weeks ahead of time" event. Why? Leonardo DiCaprio. Same as when I was 13, only now, I don't see a movie because Leonardo DiCaprio is in it, I see a movie because I know if he is in it, it's going to be amazing.

New York, je t'aime

In general, I'm not a huge fan of "artsy" films. I prefer movies driven by a plot as opposed to a concept, but I made an exception for "Paris, je t'aime" and it's companion piece "New York, I Love You." "Paris, je t'aime," the first of the two, is a collection of 20 short films about love in all its forms, each set in Paris. The shorts were all made by different people, mostly French directors, but some American, including the Coen brothers and Wes Craven. And for all you foreign-film-phobes out there, fear not, it was only about half in French. The cast features many big-name American, British and French actors (Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Gerard Depardieu, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bob Hoskins, Emily Mortimer, Nick Nolte, Natalie Portman, Elijah Wood -- just to name a few) and also many foreign actors most of us have probably never seen before. What I enjoyed about "Paris, je t'aime" most, and what sets it apart from other similar films, is that the stories weren't interconnected and there was really not much of a central theme other than the setting. They were totally separate short films -- some were sweet and tender, some were comedic, some were a little more out there, but all were entertaining and showed a unique perspective on love. To be able to introduce characters, tell their story and resolve their conflicts within a two-hour movie takes talent, but to do it in just a few minutes, and to have the audience emotionally-invested within that time is amazing. The directors, writers and actors were able to achieve this with most of these shorts. Beyond the stories, I also loved seeing all the different parts of Paris featured in the movie. It's really such a beautiful city, and it definitely made me miss my days of travelling the world. "New York, I Love You" follows the same concept, except obviously the short films are set in New York. Again we have various directors and an even more star-studded cast (Rachel Bilson, Orlando Bloom, James Caan, Bradley Cooper, Ethan Hawke, Shia LaBeouf, Blake Lively, Christina Ricci, Robin Wright Penn, etc.) I enjoyed "New York, I Love You," but not quite as much as "Paris, je t'aime." While the stories were still compelling, I felt they lacked the variety seen in the other movie, as if many of them could have easily been directed by the same person. This may have been intentional though, because in many of the transitions, characters from different segments came into contact with each other, so I think there was more of an effort to create cohesiveness than was seen in "Paris, je t'aime." All in all though, two great films. It's refreshing to see love depicted realistically, whether it's between husbands and wives, family members, friends, or even sometimes strangers.

If you are what you eat, I think I might be a loser

We've all heard about how obesity is a national epidemic in America, and how rates of diet-related illnesses, such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, continue to rise. Many think of these conditions as self-inflicted, meaning you choose what you eat, so if your diet makes you unhealthy it's your own fault. But when we live in a country where huge corporations control every aspect of food production, from agriculture, to marketing, to the government agencies designed to regulate and protect our food supply, how much of a choice do consumers really have? This is one of the questions explored in "Food, Inc.", a thought-provoking documentary by filmmaker Robert Kenner. The film, which is up for "Best Documentary Feature" at next month's Academy Awards ceremony, includes interviews with Eric Schlosser (author of "Fast Food Nation") and Michael Pollan (author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food"), as well as other crusaders in the fight to change how America eats. Most people probably don't give much thought to what they are putting in their mouths every day, but our food choices are not only affecting our own physical well-being, but also the economic, social, and environmental health of our nation. I chose to stop eating meat about a year and a half ago after reading "Fast Food Nation" and some other food-related books and articles. But even after making that decision, I still sometimes feel like someone else is controlling what I eat. Living in a small rural community, I don't have easy access to a Whole Foods store or a farmer's market, and even if I did, like most people these days, my biggest limitation when I'm at the grocery store is my budget. In "Food, Inc." a low-income family of four is shown trying to find bargains in the produce section of a supermarket. What they learn is that any way you slice it, fresh vegetables and whole grains are more expensive than four sandwiches off the Dollar Menu at McDonald's. And why is that? Because McDonald's wants it that way. When you are the largest purchaser of ground beef, potatoes, etc. in the United States and you want to keep your costs down, you get to have a lot of say in which crops the government subsidizes. And that my friends, is why we have $1 burgers, but not $1 broccoli. I could go on and on about the issues discussed in "Food, Inc." -- the treatment of the animals, the amount of corn in the average American's diet, the lack of regulation by the USDA and FDA, etc. -- but that could take all day. Instead, I'll just encourage you to watch this film, watch other films about this subject, read books on the topic, and just pay attention to what you're eating in general and where it is coming from. The food industry may be able to decide what gets sold, how much it costs, and how it's made, but we at least still get to decide whether we want to buy it.

How to tell how "overwhelmingly romantic" the movie you're viewing is

Today is Valentine's Day -- a holiday marked by sappy cards and even sappier movies. This year's offerings included "Dear John," a film that has been described as the "most overwhelmingly romantic movie since 'The Notebook.'" I don't know exactly what makes a movie "overwhelmingly romantic" as opposed to "just sort of romantic," but I got to thinking about this claim. What if there was a way to actually determine a movie's romantic-ness? And so I came up with the SAP-Max Scale. That's right, the SAP-Max is a measure of a film's Sadness Potential, Actor Hotness, Plot, and Maximum Sparks. To demonstrate how this method works, I will compare "Dear John" and "The Notebook" using the SAP-Max Scale.

Sadness Potential: How sad is the movie in question? Let me preface this by saying I know a lot of people thought "The Notebook" was super sad, but I didn't really. It had a happy ending. Of course, when I walked out of the theater with dry eyes, it prompted my two friends who were with me (both crying) to accuse me of having a heart of stone. Be that as it may, I'm only giving "The Notebook" 3 teardrops out of 6. "Dear John," on the other hand, is getting 4 teardrops.

Actor Hotness: How hot are the actors? The two actors we are comparing here are Ryan Gosling in "The Notebook" and Channing Tatum in "Dear John." Gosling is an Oscar-nominated actor who is one of the more respected performers of his generation. His roles in films such as "Half Nelson" and "Lars and the Real Girl" have earned him a reputation as a thinking woman's hottie. Meanwhile, Tatum boasts two Teen Choice Awards from his appearances in "Step Up" and "She's the Man." Yet what he lacks in prestige and heavy-weight dramatic roles, he makes up for with his technically good physique (aka, hot bod.) I'll give them both a 10, but "The Notebook" also gets 5 bonus points for featuring James Marsden in a supporting role.

Plot: Is the plot romantic? "The Notebook" is about a young couple who have a whirlwind summer romance, but then are driven apart for various reasons. She goes off to college, he goes off to war, and she gets engaged to someone else. But ***Spoiler Alert***, it all works out in the end. There are a few differences, but just for the sake of saving time, "Dear John" has basically the same plot. They both sound pretty romantic though, so I'll give each 3 hearts.

Maximum Sparks: Is the movie based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks? If the answer is yes, then it earns Maximum Sparks.

So there you have it, based on their SAP-Max ratings, "Dear John" and "The Notebook" are indeed both overwhelmingly romantic. And before you start to argue, this is not subjective, it's science.

1 cheap camcorder + 4 community college drama students + 1 Ouija board = "Paranormal Activity"

Remember when the television spots for "Paranormal Activity" aired last fall? They featured crowds of terrified theater-goers cringing and screaming while watching the film, yet remained somewhat vague about what the movie was actually about. Basically, the message was that "Paranormal Activity" is scary, very scary, one of the scariest movies you'll ever see. So when it came out on video, we had a few friends over and sat down to watch it, preparing ourselves to be appropriately terrified. The film follows Katie and Micah, a young couple who share a lovely home. Oh wait, and Katie forgot to mention that there's this demon spirit that's been haunting her since she was a child and it starts terrorizing them every night. (But hey, Micah probably leaves the toilet seat up, so we'll call it even.) Micah decides he's going to pull out his video camera and start documenting the spooky happenings, and thus the film enters the "fake amateur video footage" genre. This means what you see is what you get. Unfortunately, what you get is not much. Instead of a haunting score, the audience is treated to nondescript noises coming from the other room. (So scary!) Instead of creepy special effects, we get to watch Micah pour baby powder on the floor and then see the invisible demon leave footprints in it. (I'm shaking!) Instead of spooky lighting, we're limited to the view provided by the camcorder's night vision. (Oh, the horror!) Don't get me wrong, nothing against low-budget films, but when it comes to horror movies, the do-it-yourself approach can sometimes lead to pretty weak-sauce thrills. During the day when they aren't being haunted, Katie and Micah get in arguments about whether Micah should buy a Ouija board or whether Katie should call a demonologist. The results? He buys the Ouija board and she doesn't call the demonologist. And herein lies the problem with trying to make a "realistic" horror movie: Inevitably, the characters will still use unrealistic horror movie logic. Because despite the fact that the unknown dark entity in Katie and Micah's home is getting more aggressive every night, they just want to handle it themselves and hope it goes away. Guess what? That never works. In the end, I guess I didn't really have the same terrifying experience as those people in the trailer. Was "Paranormal Activity" scary? Sure. Was it one of the scariest movies I've ever seen? No, not even close.