Is it too much to ask for a little blood-sucking?

I recently caught the latest installment of the Twilight Saga, "Eclipse." Yes, I have seen all three movies, and no, I haven't read the books. I'll admit I'm a fan of the vampire movie/television genre, but lately I've been a bit disappointed. Whatever happened to the blood-sucking, soul-less demons we all loved to hate? Vampires have gone soft. If you need proof, look no further than Twilight's hero, Edward Cullen. Instead of lusting after the blood of innocent villagers, Edward only has eyes for Bella. But wait, he doesn't even really lust after her -- he wants to wait until they're married to have relations. All arguments about the legality and practicality of a vampire-human marriage aside, come on man, don't you just kind of want to eat her? It's no wonder all the teen girls are flocking to Team Jacob, I guess werewolves are the only real men left out there these days (except of course for REAL men, but dating humans doesn't seem to be an option for young Bella.) The friendly vampire theme can be found outside of the Twilight Saga as well. Another film that's out on video now is "Daybreakers," starring Ethan Hawke. In this sci-fi thriller a virus has turned the majority of the world's population into vampires. The remaining humans are hunted and farmed for their blood, but as the human race dwindles, an alternative food source is needed. Hawke plays a vampire who is sympathetic to the human plight, survives off only animal blood, and dedicates his time to creating a synthetic blood substitute, eventually teaming up with the humans to find a peaceful solution to the problem. "Daybreakers" is by far a much more interesting and unique twist on the old vampire tale, and I actually really enjoyed the movie, but again with the non-killing. One of my favorite shows back in high school was "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," in which the character Angel was a vampire whose soul had been restored, thus making him one of the "good guys." At the time this was fresh -- now this idea seems tired. My issue is that when every movie or tv show keeps trying to come up with a new twist or a different variation on the theme, variation itself becomes cliche and redundant. Meaning the "vampire with a heart of gold" story is no longer the exception, it has become the rule. So basically, if all the excitement Edward Cullen can muster is that he's a well-mannered vampire who enjoys long walks on the beach and big hair, sounds like he's a pretty dull guy. We've been there, done that. I'm ready for some good old-fashioned neck chomping.

My "Robin Hood Trifecta" marathon

Saw the new Ridley Scott version of "Robin Hood" last night. Umm, left a little to be desired, but I was having trouble putting my finger on exactly what was missing. When I was little I was a big fan of the Disney version, and then "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" when I got a bit older. So today I embarked on a quest to review these modern classics and find out what makes the perfect Robin Hood film. (And yes, I know there are other Robin Hoods out there -- Errol Flynn, "Men in Tights," etc. -- but come on, I did need to get a couple other things accomplished today besides watching Robin Hood movies, so I had to draw the line somewhere.) I started with Disney's "Robin Hood," a cartoon featuring personified animals as the Robin Hood gang. Obviously being a children's movie, this is the most light-hearted of the three films, with jaunty musical numbers in place of violent battle scenes. I felt the biggest strength of the Disney version was that it featured the best Robin Hood. Okay, so yes, I understand he's a cartoon fox, but hear me out. Unlike the over-brooding Russell Crowe or the over-American Kevin Costner, Disney's Robin Hood seemed to hit the perfect note. Imagine if James Bond were a medieval do-gooder/archer, who knows when to be dashing and charming, when to courageously save the day, and when to provide comic relief. THAT's Robin Hood. Another great thing about this movie? It's never to early to train American children about the evils of paying taxes. But should we cut government spending or just steal from the rich to feed the poor? Ahh, the debate remains. Next I popped in my VHS copy of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." My favorite part about this version was the "buddy comedy" relationship between Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman. After Robin saves Azeem's life by helping him escape from the Turkish prison where they were both enslaved, Azeem vows to stay at Robin's side until he can return the favor. So the dynamic duo (a pair that probably wouldn't fly in today's anti-Muslim climate, but that played quite nicely in 1991) brings their cross-cultural shenanigans from the Holy Land all the way to Sherwood Forest. Also, I loved Alan Rickman's scene-stealing performance as the Sheriff of Nottingham and the excellent archery displayed throughout. Which brings us to the latest Robin Hood variation starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. After watching the other two films, I believe I figured out what was missing here -- the fun! I did enjoy the drunken revelry of Robin Hood's band of merry men, but otherwise, this movie was definitely missing its sense of humor. The jokes were few and far between and the ones that were attempted seemed to come across as forced and awkward. Compared to Kevin Costner, I appreciated the badass quality that Russell Crowe brought to the role, but on the other hand, he fully takes himself too seriously. And okay, sure, Ridley Scott is entitled to make his gritty take on the Robin Hood legend, but don't expect me to love it. I mean, isn't swashbuckling silliness part of the essence of Robin Hood? Do we really want to see Robin debating politics and Marian sweating in the fields? I should say though, I didn't hate this film. It wasn't terrible -- it was just void. But come on Hollywood, we're still in a recession, so just lighten up and let us have a good time at the movies this summer!

Time to shake your body down to the ground

When Michael Jackson died last year I can't say it surprised me, because of all celebrities, he seemed to be the one you might expect to die unexpectedly. Shocking or no, his death was still mourned by millions -- our "King of Pop" was gone. But out of the tragedy came "Michael Jackson's This Is It." The film was not meant to be a documentary, it was just raw footage of the preparations for Jackson's upcoming "This Is It" concert tour, but in the wake of his death, it became a celebration of the performer and a small consolation to his mourning fans. What I enjoyed most about watching "This Is It" was that the rehearsal footage was a great reminder of how Michael Jackson was truly and undeniably one of the greatest performers of our time. In the past two decades, his talent and energy as an artist became so overshadowed by the controversies and quirks of his private life. It seemed in all the craziness, many people forgot that Michael Jackson was still Michael Jackson. But he was there all along, and this film is proof. Hearing him sing his greatest hits and dance like no 50-year-old man should reasonably be able to dance was inspiring, but not just that, it was fun. I found myself singing along to the songs, which included everything from "Black or White" to "Thriller" to hits from back in the Jackson 5 days. It's just nice to know that a superstar who probably knew he could easily get fans to shell out $100 plus for tickets no matter the quality of his show still wanted to work so hard to deliver perfection. Even in rehearsal, the sets and special effects were amazing, the dancing was tight, and Michael Jackson was larger than life. "This Is It" isn't a "documentary" per se, so there were no interviews with Jackson, but watching the behind-the-scenes footage of the genius at work seemed to give an even more intimate feel to the film than a typical question-answer format would have. My biggest complaint about the movie is that it was just kind of a tease. I found watching snippets of rehearsals for what looked like the greatest concert that never was to be a bit disappointing -- I want to see the full "This Is It" show! Yeah, I know it's never going to happen. Even if Michael Jackson were still alive and the show had gone on, I'm sure tickets would have been well out of my price range anyway. But at least we'll always have the movie.

A childhood favorite revisited

"I went to see 'Joe and the Volcano.' It was very funny. It had tom Hanks and meg Ryan. My mom and dad took me my sister went too. I like the part when Joe was on a raft and he started danceing. Soon he reached the Island. They had fun until the time Joe had to jump in the volcano. But when Joe and his girl friend jumped into the volcano they got Busted out agin. Joe's lugege poped out of the water and Joe out of it. Joe and his girl friend floated away." (Written by me on September 28, 1990. Please excuse spelling and grammatical errors -- I was 7.)

For the record, the movie is actually called "Joe Versus the Volcano." I saw it as a child and it has been a favorite of my family's ever since. Some films don't really stand the test of time and maturity. For example, a movie like "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" might not hold the same charm for me now as it did 20 years ago. But I recently watched "Joe Versus the Volcano" again and it was as good, nay better, than it was back when I was 7. As an adult, I can relate to the story on a whole new level -- not to mention I understood more of the jokes. Anyone who is tired of the daily grind will love the opening sequence where Tom Hanks arrives at his utterly depressing office and pours himself a cup of bad coffee under the flickering fluorescent lights. After being diagnosed with a mysterious terminal illness called a "brain cloud," Joe is asked to travel to Waponi Woo and jump into a volcano as a human sacrifice to an island god. Joe must decide between spending his remaining days punching his card at the office or having the adventure of a lifetime -- a no brainer it seems. Between then and his run-in with the volcano on Waponi Woo, Joe encounters a variety of interesting characters and sees and does things he never could have imagined. It's an example of the classic irony, he never learned how to really live until he was facing death. If you're around my age and haven't seen "Joe Versus the Volcano" in a couple decades, I highly recommend that you check it out again. If you liked it back then, you'll love it now. And if you didn't like it (which is highly possible because it's an entirely under-appreciated film), maybe you'll learn to love it. And hey, it's Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, and the most awesome set of luggage ever witnessed by mankind -- what's not to love?

The "Integration Under the Sea" dance -- only in Mississippi

In 1997, actor Morgan Freeman offered to pay for the senior prom at Charleston High School in his hometown of Charleston, Mississippi, where he still resides today. The school declined. Why? Because Freeman was only willing to foot the bill on one condition: The prom had to be integrated. Even though the school had been desegregated since 1970, every spring the seniors had two separate privately-hosted proms -- one for white students and one for black students. Ten years later, filmmaker Paul Saltzman approached Freeman and asked if the offer was still on the table. This time, the school agreed, and thus the HBO documentary "Prom Night in Mississippi" begins. When I first heard about this film about a year ago, I was still living in Greenwood, about an hour south of Charleston. If you're living in (insert name of any non-southern white-bread American suburb here) and you hear about a high school that doesn't allow white and black students to mix at the prom and it's the 21st century, you might be shocked. But if you live in the Mississippi Delta or in many other places around the South, this story is so familiar you feel like you could have written it yourself. In Greenwood, for example, having separate proms isn't an issue -- because black and white students don't even attend the same school (yes, this is still happening, in the United States, in 2010.) "Prom Night in Mississippi" focuses mainly on the students of Charleston High School, many of whom don't agree with the segregated proms and are excited about changing the tradition and making history at their school. As Saltzman learns through the school administrators and the students themselves, it's mostly the parents and the school board members who have forced this out-of-date custom. And as plans for the integrated prom are underway, the film crew learns that some parents, who refused to be interviewed, are still planning on hosting a "private" prom for the white students. This theme of passing the blame onto the older generations is replayed throughout, but the film's weakness is that it's missing the voices of these parents and school board members. We hear the students, staying true to their young ideals, calling the separate proms "stupid" and saying they "don't care about race and just accept people for who they are," but it doesn't dig much deeper than that. In fact, though the racism of the people of Charleston was discussed throughout the film, no one who actually represented these views agreed to an interview. So we never really get a taste of the bitterness at the heart of the story. So, in the end, even though the school's first integrated prom went off without a hitch, there was still a white prom, and we don't quite understand why. Perhaps for many people, just the idea of modern high school students being subjected to Jim Crow-esque segregation is a novel concept, but I was hoping for more out of "Prom Night in Mississippi." More information, more insight, and especially more honesty. I was left wondering how the students of Charleston High School and residents of the town REALLY felt about each other and about this historical event.

Fear and loathing in Connecticut

I recently read "The Feminine Mystique," mostly just so that I could say I read it, but I did really enjoy it. In addition to being a fascinating book in and of itself, I've also found that many films and television programs have become more interesting to me when viewed in the context of "The Feminine Mystique" -- most notably AMC's "Mad Men" and the 2009 film "Revolutionary Road." If you're not watching "Mad Men," you should be. It's probably one of the best shows on television right now. But, since I've chosen movies as my focus here, let's turn our attention to "Revolutionary Road." The film, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, takes place in the 1950s and tells the story of the Wheelers, a middle-class suburban couple who, despite their big dreams, have turned out to be average, no different from anyone else. The first time I saw the film, this concept drew me in instantly, because don't we all feel this way sometimes? As children, most of us have big dreams about becoming an astronaut, a movie star, a football player, etc. But then we grow up and settle for more realistic professions, get married, have kids -- we become "ordinary," just like we told ourselves we'd never be. Of course, most people never take their frustration to the extremes that the Wheelers do, they just sigh and move on with life, but that's why they aren't fictional characters. After reading "The Feminine Mystique," I saw "Revolutionary Road" a second time. This time, I got to thinking about Frank Wheeler, DiCaprio's character, and how he seemed even more trapped and confused than his wife. He was even less willing to dare to dream bigger than she was. Though "The Feminine Mystique" focused on women and was a driving force behind the feminist movement, wasn't Betty Friedan's "problem that has no name" an issue affecting men as well? Perhaps even as much as it affected women? Didn't men also feel trapped by the expectations of society during that time period? Another interesting tidbit was that "Revolutionary Road" was directed by Sam Mendes, who a decade ago brought us "American Beauty," which shows a family dealing with many of these same issues in modern-day suburbia. Again, this got me thinking about how far we've actually come in the past 50 years. Of course social progress has been made in terms of gender equality, but psychologically, aren't people still looking around and thinking, "Is this it? Wasn't there supposed to be more to life than this?" Thought-provoking issues aside, "Revolutionary Road" was a brilliant film all around, especially the performances by Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, two of my favorites. And yes, I will stop carrying on about how awesome Leonardo DiCaprio is...just as soon as he stops being awesome.

The answer to my love-hate relationship with rom-coms

So don't get me wrong, I love a good romantic comedy as much as the next gal. Problem is, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find "good" movies within this genre. Most of the rom-coms out there these days follow the same generic formula and are: A) Not funny, so can barely be classified as comedies, and B) So unrealistic that they bear little resemblance to actual relationships and make us all question our existence as imperfect people. That being said, it's hard to even consider "(500) Days of Summer" a romantic comedy because it is: A) Funny, and B) A truly realistic depiction of a relationship -- the ups and downs, the exhilaration and the depression. If you've ever fallen in love or had your heart broken, you'll be able to relate. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel play Tom Hansen, a hopeless romantic looking for the love of his life, and Summer Finn, an aloof young woman who is not, as it turns out, the love of Tom's life. Don't worry, I didn't just give away the ending. "(500) Days of Summer" begins at the point of the couple's break up and then examines the relationship in reverse through Tom's eyes, from the initial attraction to the point where things went wrong. In that sense, it reminded me of sort of a less depressing version of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," which is a great film and one of my all-time favorites, but let's be honest, kind of a drag. (Speaking of, I can't find my DVD copy of "Eternal Sunshine." If you borrowed/stole it, please return. You can just drop it on my doorstep -- no questions will be asked.) Tom's first attempts to win Summer over and then his later efforts to cling to her as Summer becomes obviously bored with him were played with such charm that Joseph Gordon-Levitt (yes, the kid from "Third Rock from the Sun") has definitely solidified his place as one of my new favorite actors. And of course, Zooey Deschanel is always a pleasure -- Bonus: you get to hear her sing in one scene. I think what I loved so much about "(500) Days of Summer" also is that it avoided the traps that many independent films tend to fall into. It was intelligent without being pretentious, and it was off-beat without being inscrutable. I get tired of movies that try way to hard to be "artsy" and end up sacrificing anything that would have made them actually enjoyable to watch. "(500) Days of Summer" proves that a film can be witty, original, AND entertaining.

This blog post is for humans only

As of now, I haven't seen most of the films that were nominated for "Best Picture" before the Academy Awards aired last weekend, but one I did catch was "District 9." "The Hurt Locker" took home the prize, but make no mistake, "District 9" is no loser. In short, it's a sci-fi action movie with a brain. It's the classic "aliens invade Earth" scenario, but instead of coming to New York or London intent on destruction, these aliens arrived in Johannesburg, South Africa, in the 1980's, malnourished, sick, and seeking refuge. They are initially welcomed by the humans and housed in a temporary government camp, called District 9. Twenty years later, the "prawns" as they come to be known, are still living in the camp, which has become a slum, and the humans of Johannesburg are growing tired of their presence. A Nigerian warlord has moved into District 9, where he deals in inter-species prostitution and gives the aliens cans of cat food in exchange for their weapons. The Multi-National United company (MNU) wishes to move the aliens to a "better" camp outside of Johannesburg, but in reality they are more interested in studying alien genetics and weapons than in ensuring their well-being. MNU field operative Wikus van der Merwe is the man charged with moving the aliens to the new camp. When he arrives with his team to serve the eviction notices, he is accidentally exposed to a strange alien fluid. He begins to feel ill, and after collapsing at a surprise party at his home that night, he goes to the hospital and discovers that he is beginning to take on alien characteristics. MNU now wants him for genetic and weapons testing, but Wikus escapes and returns to District 9 to seek help. He teams up with an alien who says he can help Wikus become human again if he'll help him return to his ship and get back to his home planet. I read that the director and writer of "District 9," Neill Blomkamp, based the film on his experiences growing up in South Africa during apartheid. In fact, the set for District 9 in the movie was no set at all. It was an actual South African slum, which the filmmakers risked their safety entering every day. The director's driver reportedly had his car stolen at gunpoint one night while driving to the site. Despite the parallels to the real history of Johannesburg though, I actually found the new take on aliens to the be the most interesting part of "District 9." Most science-fiction films depict aliens as hostile creatures who mean to destroy us and take over our planet. But what if this wasn't the case? What if they did show up as poor, hungry, huddled masses? How would the human race react? Considering how cold we tend to be to people of other races and nationalities, it's hard to imagine we would show any kindness to beings from a completely different planet. I thought the idea of setting up government housing for the aliens was probably a vast overestimate of the welcome they would get in reality. I don't know if I believe in aliens or not, but I do know one thing, if they do exist, they're probably much better off wherever they are, far away from Earth.

What happens in Vegas makes for entertaining cinema

So let's say you're writing a film about four guys out to have the ultimate bachelor party. At some point in the action, you want the characters to win $80,000 to pay off a crazed Asian high-roller, kidnap Mike Tyson's tiger, and marry one of their friends off to a stripper/escort. What setting do you choose for said film? Boise? You might be able to find a strip club, but it'd be hard to come up with the cash. Minneapolis? No Mike Tyson tigers there. Orlando? Possibly, but too many kids around. No, there's only one place -- Vegas baby! Las Vegas is arguably the best place in America to go crazy in. If you want to enjoy a no holds barred, hang out with your wang out good time, there's no place better than Sin City, and that's what makes it a dream location for Hollywood scouts. "The Hangover" is an example of Vegas cinema at its raunchy finest. Ed Helms (who we all know and love as Andy Bernard on "The Office"), Zach Galifianakis (who has turned the quasi-ruhtard Alan into a household name), and Bradley Cooper (who really needs no explanation because he's EVERYWHERE right now) play three guys who have to hit the streets using missing teeth and hospital wristbands as clues to find their friend Doug after a night of drunken debauchery that none of them can remember. Only in Vegas, folks. What are some other Las Vegas movie classics? "Oceans Eleven" (1960 and 2001 versions): A gang of thieves plans an elaborate casino heist. "Viva Las Vegas": Elvis Presley and Las Vegas, a match made in tacky heaven. "Rain Man": There's only one place to go when you want to exploit your autistic older brother's card-counting talents. "Honeymoon in Vegas": What to do when you can't pay your gambling debts? Trade in your fiance! (P.S. This movie also get a bonus for featuring flying Elvises.) "Casino": Why come up with a money-laundering scheme when you can steal from gamblers legally? "Showgirls": Just one little stripper, who never hurt anyone, who is just trying to make her way in the world -- naked! "Leaving Las Vegas": When you want to drink yourself to death in the arms of a prostitute, again, there's nowhere better. "Fools Rush In" and/or "What Happens in Vegas": After drunken one-night stands, grown men and women learn absolutely no lesson from their mistakes when they fall in love anyway. "Swingers": You're so money baby and you don't even know it. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas": Title says it all. "Pay It Forward": A child's do-gooder theory sweeps the nation, but started at his Clark County public school. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but just some highlights (and lowlights) of films set in Las Vegas. And as long as people can still cash their paychecks at the casinos, carry open containers down the street, and get married at drive-through windows, I'm sure there will be many more to come. Viva Las Vegas!

Lifetime: Are you man enough?

Life has been busy lately and I'm afraid I haven't been able to watch many movies, which means I've also been neglecting this blog a bit. But tonight I had a chance to light some candles, draw a nice hot bath, and watch some Lifetime (aka television for women.) Just kidding about the first two, but I did watch a Lifetime movie (hanging head in shame.) As much as it pains me to admit it, this was not my first, or my second, or third -- I pretty much lost count a long time ago. Lifetime is a guilty pleasure of mine, and even better is its sister station, the Lifetime Movie Network, where it's all made-for-tv movies all the time. Now, in my defense, it's not as if I go out of my way to watch these films. It's usually a situation where a) There's nothing better to do or b) I start watching and then can't seem to bring myself to change the channel. Anyone who's ever watched a Lifetime movie can back me up here -- they do seem to suck you in. There seem to be three formulas at work: the true-life drama, the false-life drama, or the completely ridiculous comedy. My favorites are the comedies, because sometimes the plots just get so nuts, you have to admire them for going there. You know how all the great Oscar-worthy films get released around Christmas? Well, if there were an awards show coming up for silly Lifetime movies, here are a few doozies I saw back in December that would be up for the honors:

1. Eve's Christmas: A few days before Christmas, a young woman, played by Elisa Donovan, makes a wish and wakes up 8 years in the past to rethink the decision she made when she left her fiance on Christmas Eve to follow her career in New York City. (I liked this movie better the first time I saw it, when it was called "The Family Man" with Nicholas Cage.)

2. Road to Christmas: Jennifer Grey stars as a woman who hitches a ride across the country to get to her Christmas Eve wedding in Aspen. In a fully predictable twist, she ends up falling for the guy driving her, but it all works out because her fiance turns out to be gay. (Sure ladies, hitch-hiking with strangers could be dangerous...or you could live happily ever after. Worth the gamble?)

3. Secret Santa: A newspaper reporter, played by Jennie Garth, tries to uncover the identity of "Secret Santa" a kind soul who grants a Christmas wish to one lucky person in need every year. As the tagline says, she discovers that "the best gift to open is your heart." (Such a lame movie, but I did find myself sticking it out to the end because I wanted to find out who Secret Santa was.)

4. 12 Men of Christmas: Kristen Chenoweth plays a New York City publicist who ends up in Montana helping some lumberjack-types make a shirtless hunk calendar to raise money for their emergency rescue program. No really, that's the actual plot. (Shameless Lifetime, absolutely shameless.)

That's just to name a few. There are countless Lifetime movies out there that are equally groan-inducing. Anyone want to share one of their favorites?

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.