2010 movies to avoid like a plague

Given that the movies that seem to have the most hype also have been on the list of movies that I think will be good in 2010, there is also a fair chance they won't match the hype and be among the list of the worst movies of 2010. But that's a gamble and I've made my bet. As for the rest of the films in 2010...

Here is my list of films that I am ABSOLUTELY sure will be horrendous wastes of time and money. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

Tooth Fairy - Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson needs a new agent. He is not a great actor, never was. He was decent in action films where he didn't need to say a lot and could use his muscles often. Kind of Arnold Schwartzennager. But unlike the now Governator, Johnson has yet to build up enough action films to allow him to make these awful kids movies he seems hell-bent on starring in. Just wait for the bargain bin DVD sale.

I Love You Phillip Morris - Jim Carrey is the opposite of The Rock. We love his comedic skills. The man is funny. But put him in a serious role and you are looking at a bomb of a movie. Make that film about a prison escapee, with a gay love story at its heart, and you are looking at a film that even DVD sales won't help. But France might like it.

Cop Out - I like Bruce Willis films. He is great as a cop and authority figure. He brings a great everyman quality to the films he is in. But none of that makes him capable of making a bad film good. Oh, and Tracy Morgan just isn't that funny.

Alice in Wonderland - Yes I will stand alone on this one. I know that Johnny Depp is in the film. I know Tim Burton directed it. But people forget that both men LOVE extreme cinema that is anything but mainstream. And the story of Alice in Wonderland is really nigh incomprehensible to the mainstream as is. It will be a good art film, but no where near a commercial success.

Clash of the Titans - Fans of the original movie will be disappointed. Fans of Transformers will likely be in love with this film. Everyone else will have moments of appreciation of the CGI, and depression at the plot in this revisioned movie.

The Back-up Plan - Jennifer Lopez is the star. Do you really need another reason to avoid this film? Ok, it's about artificial insemination as the key plot device.

Wall Street 2 - A thinly veiled political message packaged in a sequel that really is well past it's prime.

Robin Hood - Russell Crowe is no Erroll Flynn. It's another film trying to improve on a universally accepted perfection in movies. The only positive is that it should be better than Kevin Kosner's try at it.

Sex and the City 2 - Did anyone really want a sequel to this rehash of a truly mediocre television show brought to the big screen?

Marmaduke - Live action versions of comic strip characters never work. Didn't Garfield end this concept?

The A-Team - I really would like to be wrong about this. I liked the 80's television show. But revisioning of television shows to fit on the big screen just don't work. At least Ben Stiller is not in this fiasco waiting to happen.

Jonah Hex - Ever hear of the comic book? I didn't think so. This is a comic book to movie conversion of a 3rd rate comic book that no one cared about 38 years ago. Even comic book fans will avoid this. And if you think the plot might help, you haven't read what the plot is.

SAW VII - When a horror movie (slasher, whatever) goes to 3-D for a sequel you just know it's all over.

Red Dawn - Another revisioned remake of an 80's film. Sure to be filled with political messages straight from the far-left field of view. The only thought that might be of interestr is how Hollywood might resolve America-bashing with a movie that is supposed to be pro-America. I really hope I am wrong on this one, but the November launch date does not give me reassurance (it's a slot only slightly better than January).

Yogi Bear - I'll say it again, live action films don't work.

The Green Hornet - Reaching way back in television time, this is a revisioned retread of the 60's show. I just can't buy Seth Rogen as the Green Hornet. Likely the writing will target campy and hit on awful. I shudder at what it will be like.

Next up are the films that are too ugly to classify as good or bad.

Models, actresses, and Valerie Bertinelli on People magazine

So here is a question. What is fat? Because the answer is very different for men and women. And that answer is the motivation of tens of millions of dollars in weight loss programs, ads, diet fads, magazines and so on.

I was wondering this recently as I was looking for models for my upcoming model photo shoot for my designer clothing lines. I decided to write on it after seen the cover of People magazine with Valerie Bertinelli.



Now there is no question that Ms. Bertinelli looks good. Considering her age and being a mom, very good indeed. But it was not like she was a slobbering mass of fat previously. In fact, if you look across the nation, at 172 pounds and 5’2” just 2 years ago she was about the norm.

But such a shape won’t get you on the cover of a magazine, or in many a movie role. For a woman. Yet I have to wonder why?

I recall how the nation was ogling the shape of Jennifer Lopez. Because she was considered by Hollywood standards to be voluptuous and extremely curvy. But in fact she was just the normal size of just about any Hispanic/Latino woman of her age in New York City. Hell, in the Bronx you can walk down the street and see a dozen women with better figures every day of the summer.

I recall how I had a conversation with a friend, who informed me that Beyonce is a plus-sized woman. I still reel with amazement at that. Most Black women I know have her shape and weight – again if not better.

So why is it that women must strive to look like Gabrielle Anwar from Burn Notice. Who I equate with anorexia and would never want to touch for fear of breaking her.

This is especially true when you consider men are not held to the same standard. Jack Nicholson, which Hollywood still considers sexy, is hardly fit or trim. And there are a host of men, Will Pertersen, Sean Connery, Laurence Fishburn, ect. that have varying degrees of extra weight and yet are still considered good looking and ready to work.

Now there is nothing wrong with anyone who wants to lose weight. Or anyone losing an extra person in fat off of them. It’s great that looking and being healthy is acknowledged. But I don’t get the drama associated with it.

I have been told that some models and actresses are just too big. That they are not thin enough by industry standards. Yet I know that most men find the more realistic female models and actresses to be very attractive. In fact every model I have used or will be using in my next photo shoot is an attractive successful real woman. As opposed to the look of starvation found in say America’s Top Model.

So, I want to ask the women out there. Does it matter to you. Beyond any one woman losing weight, does it matter when you see an actress in a movie how much she weighs? Will a woman buy clothing modeled by a woman that looks anything but anorexic?

And to the guys, virtually all of whom date and marry a woman that is anything but a size 0, do you really want a woman with the shape of one of the Olsen twins – or Beyonce?

I really want to know, because I think all my models are beautiful and real examples of women. And I will not go with an anorexic looking model for my clothing lines. So I want to know if that’s shooting myself in the foot or not. I won’t change, but I want to know the battle I am facing.

How much for a Yahoo accolade?

I noticed something over the weekend. Yahoo had a little blurb on the top movie stars of 2008. It was an interesting photo selection for one big reason. Almost every one of the people they were touting had a flop in 2008.

The list starts with Gong Li. You may not recall her name. Then again you probably didn't recall Hannibal Rising, with good reason. The list moves on to Nicole Kidman. She has become synonymous with Hollywood failure, which the film Australia confirms yet again. But then the list loses all perspective. It goes into a tailspin of stupidity.

The next "actress" on the list is Paris Hilton. A woman so without talent she couldn't make sex look interesting to watch. Her claim to fame was the film the Hottie and the Nottie. The hottest thing about the film is akin to the apparent intelligence of Hilton - just not being there at all. Is the possibility she will inherit a major company really that important to Hollywood?

The list moves on to Jennifer Lopez. Who is lauded for giving birth to twins. Which does deserve notice. But not on a list of top movie performers. Even when some thought she had a movie career she was bad. And she hasn't gotten better.

To disguise the fact that there were so few good movies and to bolster the huge number of movie stars with flops the list then goes international with Aishwarya Rai. She is a top Bollywood actress. I've never seen her in a film and have no comment.

But the list jumps back to the ridiculous with Hillary Duff and her performance in the mega-flop War, Inc. I reviewed that movie and to summarize both her performance and the movie, disappointing and a waste of time.

The list goes on to name Mary Kate Olsen, The Wackness, Lindsey Lohan, Chapter 27, Jessica Alba, The Love Guru, right up to Angelina Jolie. Jolie is the only actress on the list with a film the average person can say they saw, and actually liked. She is the only woman on the list (perhaps excluding Rai) that had films that made real money. In effect only she and perhaps Rai deserve to be on a list of top movie stars. The rest need to be on the top of a pile of dung for their performances.

The list then turns to men. And the choices are only moderately better. The star is with Tom Cruise because of his appearance in the flop Tropic Thunder, but more likely the Valkyrie movie that has yet to show. Next we get Patrick Swayze - because he has pancreatic cancer. Like Lopez I have to wonder how that has anything to do with movies. It's sad, but it does not go to the top of a list of movies.

Then the list does another odd change of direction. They pick Denzel Washington, who did not have a film in 2008. But at least he was nominated for an award this year. That's closer to a reason to be on this list then most. The list then flies off with failures like Bankock Dangerous (remake) with Nicolas Cage, Orlando Bloom - also without a movie this year. At this point we finally get to someone who was in a movie that made money and most people saw (for the men).

Will Smith is 5th with Hancock and the upcoming Seven Pounds. And right above him on the list is Brad Pitt with a flop - Burn After Reading - and the nominated Benjamin Button arthouse film. Leonardo DiCaprio broke even as I recall with Body of Lies but took 3rd. Next is Johnny Depp who like Bloom and Washington didn't have a film, and like Washington was nominated. And of course 1st went to the dead guy Hollywood can't stop talking about - heath ledger.

This entire list is Bollocks. Of the entire group Aishwarya Rai, Angelina Jolie, Will Smith, and Heath Ledger deserve to be on it. Maybe an honorable mention to Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise. That's it.

I don't know what pipe the people at Yahoo are smoking, but it must be powerful. Either that, or there must be one hell of a kickback coming from advertising for Yahoo to tout this kind of rubbish as a top list of anything. Maybe if they named it the Top Movies Stars of 2008 - whose companies gave us a lot of money. Or is that too long.

And people wonder why the quality of movies is dropping faster than the average IQ of a high school graduate. When you can buy accolades who needs writing. It's just sad.

Celebrities and entertainers that should retire

Things in Hollywood tend to happen in 3’s. Whether it’s a franchise of movies (before everyone stops caring about the series of films), celebrity deaths, or now early retirement. The current news flash about the silver screen is that Joaquin Phoenix, Angelina Jolie, and Nicole Kidman have all lost the acting bug. But does it matter?

What happened to the old days where good actors and actresses worked until they stopped getting roles or just sucked so bad that they stopped trying? When did entertainers publicly announce the fact that directors and Hollywood execs had lost faith, or found them too problematic, and stopped taking their calls?

Now this may not be true of each of the above movie stars. Angelina Jolie still packs in the crowds and her movies have been quite good of late. WANTED was a good film and made decent money (though she was way too skinny). Changeling seems to be doing alright in theaters, Beowulf and Kung Fu Panda don’t count as they were animated. And she was nominated twice for her work in A Mighty Heart. So to see her give up film work is a bit of a loss. Then again no one is really looking forward to Lara Croft 3.

Joaquin Phoenix is still riding high off of his work on Walk the Line (which was excellent). But his work on Gladiator, Ladder 49, and Hotel Rwanda easily cover the lesser known Two Lovers and Reservation Road. And the fact that he is Puerto Rican (which most do not seem to focus on) is a bonus to me at least. But like many actors, music is a drive that is currently consuming him.

Nicole Kidman though needed to retire years ago. Seriously, her retirement is more the fact that she does not deserve the pay she makes. The last success she had was Happy Feet, which was animated. It could be argued that Cold Mountain was a hit, but you really need to go back to The Hours or Moulin Rouge – roughly 8 years ago. Her career seriously peaked in 1990 with Days of Thunder, which former husband Tom Cruise (and the NASCAR cars) had more to do with.

But if every one of these actors stopped making films, who would care? Besides their fan clubs, not many. These are not the Humphrey Bogart’s, John Wayne’s, Lucille Ball’s, Lena Horn’s, or Katherine Hepburn’s of film. 2 of the 3 are very good, but not a single one is great. Their loss really amounts to nothing.

It’s not like the masses are losing anything. And telling the world that you won’t make another bad film we wouldn’t watch on DVD (mostly in Kidman’s case) only means we have something to look forward to, not lament.

No what this really says to me is that Hollywood is sitting on it’s laurels too much. That too many are overhyped. That the dearth of real talent is more obvious today than perhaps at any point in movie history. And that many of the more bankable and successful actors and actresses are still not going to get the attention they deserve.

If anything I hope this leads to a flood of retirements among the current crop of entertainers out now. Perhaps the following could retire and save us the movies, trailers, and DVD’s that flood the market now. I’d love to hear that the following are going to avoid smiting my eyes in 35mm

Johnny Knoxville
Vince Vaughn
Jennifer Lopez
Halle Berry (yes she has an Oscar, but name the film she won for. Or a great role she has done? Or a great film she was in.)
Jennifer Aniston
Ashton Kutchner (he was bad on television. Take away Demi Moore and you have nothing worthwhile about him)
Topher Grace
Ben Stiller
Leonardo DiCaprio (over-hyped)
Jessica Alba (looks but no talent)
Hillary Duff
Lindsey Lohan
Jean Claude Van Damme
Steven Segal (his time is passed)
Beyonce Knowles (stick to singing)
DMX
Ja Rule
Virtually every gangsta rapper
Cedric the Entertainer
Ben Afflect

The list is not perfect (there should be more on it) but in each case it is clear that the people here are each in need of serious acting classes, or at least better screening of the scripts they agree to.

I’m sure some will not agree with at least a few of these choices. Every actor that makes it to the big screen has a few fans. And looks trump talent these days. But not one of these actors or actresses can match up to real talent – thankfully they don’t even appear in movies where real talents appear. As I recall none of the above have performed with

Denzel Washington
Jamie Foxx
Robert Downey Jr.
Terrence Howard
Michael Douglas
Al Pacino
Benicio Del Toro
Johnny Depp
Kiera Knightley
Susan Sarandon
Tom Hanks
Forest Whitaker
Morris Chestnut

I don’t think I need to go on.

But if you could pick anyone to remove from movie screens and television forever who would you pick? Do you agree with my choices, and who might I have left out?

The New Year's battle: Thin or Healthy

As the holidays progress, there are a few things you can count on. Most people will gain a bit of weight, Christmas office parties will embarrass someone after the holidays, you’re bound to get a gift that you won’t like/use, and It’s a Wonderful Life will be on television. Now of the above factors the one that will be most troubling to the general populace will inevitably be the weight gain. (Well depending on if there were pictures taken at the office party or not).

As with the never ending obsession of weight that is America today, one of the biggest New Year’s resolutions will be to lose the weight gained over the holiday season. Millions of men and women will start 2008 with the intent of dropping the pounds and looking healthier if not being so. Some will try the various fad diets that never work for more than a few days.

Some will take on various pills that promise to burn fat or restrict its absorption, avoiding the effort of eating properly and working out. The detriments of such pills are numerous, including the multiple side-effects they invariably create, the extreme cost, and often the limited results they provide.

Many will actually seek out professionals that will evaluate the BMI, nutritional diets, work-out needs of the individual. A balanced diet, with exercise has always been the most effective program, and the only one with real long-term lasting results. There are no ill effects and the only side products are the reduction in chances of cardiac disease, diabetes, looking better, and feeling wonderful.

But in that last plan, which is the most beneficial, I want to put in a point of caution and question. Don’t over do it. Far too many people want to, as an example, drop their BMI to extremely low levels. I personally don’t think that is a good thing. In addition, I don’t agree with the BMI, or the general image of health presented by the major media.

What I mean is that there is some level of common sense that needs to be applied in all this. There is no question that being thinner has been shown to be better, but looking like a model seems wholly unhealthy to me. For those that want to look like some 100 pound, 6 foot model I suggest a re-evaluation of images. Especially for Black and Hispanic/Latino women.

Too often the media says that Black, Hispanic/Latino women are fat, when that is far from true. We have often heard how stars of color are insured because of their measurements, and how they stand out in Hollywood. Take for example Mrs. Jennifer Lopez, or Beyonce. Neither is the typical waif lauded by Hollywood, and thank goodness.

If you were to go by BMI, or by media perceptions, you might think either of those women are fat. You might think that Oprah Winfrey eats nothing but bon-bons without ever working out. This of course is ludicrous. Each of these women work-out regularly, eat carefully balanced and prepared meals, and are examples of fitness. Yet none are a model.

The fact is that while too much weight is easily a bad thing, too little is equally unattractive, at least to this writer. Oprah looks ghastly at a size 8-10. Jennifer Lopez would look anorexic minus another 20 pounds (talking about pre-pregnancy weight). And so on.

My point is, as a man so take that as you will, that being thin is not nearly as important as being healthy. Trying to match up to the variable standards stated by the government (you do recall that the BMI index was reset recently and instantly made millions overweight overnight because of it) and the major media is anything but beneficial in some cases. Beyonce, J-Lo, Angela Bassett, Gabriel Union, Regina King, Gloria Estafan, Salma Hayek, Renee Zellweger, and Drew Barrymore are all sexy and beautiful women. They aren’t model thin either.

So as the New Year’s resolutions are made, and the plan to lose the holiday weight is started, remember that health trumps an airbrushed near-anorexic magazine cover non-figure any day. Expert government or Hollywood status quo be damned.

Can the Wayans make it on VH1

**This post can also be seen at All American Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

Do we need another celebrity reality series? Is there any reason for another ‘reality’ program of any sort? Obviously network television executives think so. And one of the upcoming programs has potential. That is the potential to by abysmally bad, or astoundingly good. My bet is towards the bad, and mark my words, there is no middle ground.

Why are there so many ‘reality’ programs? They are cheap. They are dumb. They embarrass, in general, individuals and more commonly these days’ celebrities. The first 2 reasons are attractive to networks because it means they are easy to profit off of. No real sets, smaller crews, no writers (sort of), and no debates on renewing contracts. But all the profits of a successful show even if it’s only in the lower half of all programs on television.

The last reason is self-defining. The public loves to watch entertainers and celebrities fall. Add into the mix the fact that these shows tend to emphasize the bottom tier of notables, those with lesser or barely existent talents and the envy gives way to mean spirited laughter at their expense. That’s the honest answer why most watch these things. It’s not humor with, but at those on the program. It’s the most base and scraping the bottom of the barrel common denominator in television since it was invented.

This reminds me of what Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams used to call television, ITV. Meaning idiot television. 20 years after the fact he is more correct than ever before.

But there are moments of real human interest. Like when Flava Flav would up in a relationship with Bridgette Nielsen, who would have guessed that? Or that Christopher Knight would wind up marrying model Adrianne Curry. But such real and warm moments are fleeting.

Then there are the programs made to emulate the reality of life, with a twist. Like the show Entourage. I’ve never seen it, so I have no clue on its appeal or quality. But I trust the multiple sources that state it’s wonderful. Even moreso because it seems that the Wayans’ family will be involved with a similar (possibly rip-off) version of the program. You know you are doing well in Hollywood when others copy what you are doing.

Now the word is that this will be on VH1. And thus we see how it could be great or horrendous and nothing in-between. VH1 LOVES celebrity ‘reality’ programs. They love to talk about anything involving un-scripted celebrity life. Entourage is right in that vain. And as one blogger mentioned (Whudat.com) if it’s about the lives of the various Wayans clan that could be interesting.

But on the other side are the issues. VH1 is owned by Viacom, the company responsible for the programming at Black Entertainment Television (BET) for years. VH1 is home of the various Flava Flav programs like Flava of Love. To say it succinctly, Viacom has shown a repeated, company wide, ideology of portraying African Americans in the worst light possible.

Add to that that the last several project headed by Shawn Wayans, Lil Man and White Chicks, have neither been the most successful or highest quality to come out of the family. While there is a relationship with Viacom (the old WB program headed by Shawn and Marlon is shown regularly on BET) that is not to say it’s a great one. And if this Entourage-esque program is just their written work, given the standards and expectations of Viacom, horror seems a big potential.

Now I have nothing against the probably most successful Black family in television and movies. I like the work that Keenan and Damon have done, generally. There’s even been one or 2 things that Shawn and Marlon have done that was of some interest. And I love the fact that they provide more work for more African Americans and minorities than roughly a dozen other programs or films, in front of the camera and behind it.

But I still have reservations. Will I see what the program is like when it’s announced? Surely. Will I be happy to know that they are employing so many that every other studio and Production Company seems to be oblivious to, definitely. Would I look at the minor characters and sideline people for up and coming stars? Without doubt, as the family has a knack for finding and developing talent everyone else ignores. [Where did Jim Carrey, Jennifer Lopez, Tommy Davidson, and Jamie Foxx all come from?]

So I will wait and see what VH1 goes with. I hope for a great show, which is quite possible. But I also will steady myself if Viacom is true to its unspoken corporate policy and the program is horrendous. At least we know what the odds are.

Booty augmentation, what's next - 1.20.2007.1

There was some news yesterday that caught my attention. It was reported on Mr. Neil Cavuto’s show on Fox News at 4:50pm that there is a new trend in plastic surgery. The trend, which is like wildfire now, is for augmentation of the buttocks. Bigger and firmer butts are the rage, and plastic or cosmetic surgery is the answer that many are using to fill out those designer jeans.

Now this is kind of sad. Spending $25,000 dollars to make your bottom emulate Beyonce or Mrs. Jennifer Lopez is just a waste of money. Sure there are millions of women that could use the improvement, but it just seems like a waste of money. It also makes me feel a little ill thinking of what that could feel like. There’s no silicon in this process, they use body fat from the stomach it seems. According to the experts discussion of the process and the number of procedures a week he is doing (3) I am led to believe that this is being done for ‘larger’ people. I say people because men are getting this done as well, though in far fewer numbers, I say larger because of the liposuction that is involved. Of course the age range on this is like breast augmentation going from young women to those in their 60’s.

Listening to this bit of news I could not help but think that this is yet another example of White America trying to be Black, but not admitting it. Seriously, it’s just one more example. Madonna never inspired anyone to get a butt like hers. Cher may have helped promote cosmetic surgery (debatable) but no one is out trying to emulate her. Yet ‘J-Lo’ and Beyonce definitely have as has the desire to be called ‘bootylicious.’ How many billions are spent each year to get a tan, whether it’s real or from a bottle? How far do people travel to get to a beach or other tropical locations just to get a touch of deeper color to the skin.

Think of the language used sometimes. How many women speak of wanting a “tall dark handsome” man? Or the compliment for having a “healthy glow” because they have a tan. These are just a few.

Then I must ponder how there are so many kids today that want to, safely, live the “thug” “ghettofabulous” life proffered by rappers. I think of the fact that rap, hip hop and hip hop clothing could never make as much money as they do without the cross-cultural buying makes a statement. Listening to the slang and quasi-uneducated eubonics of non-African Americans highlights the undercurrent of admiration.

Still with all these various statements, actions and emulation there is the fear of Black Americans. Perhaps fear is too strong, but I think its accurate. I know it’s a generalized statement. Many do not isolate or discriminate. Yet the American culture does find that having too much color is bad. You can have Beyonce’s butt, wear Apple Bottom Jeans, listen to Jay – Z and Snoop Dogg on your Ipod and speak like you have a third grade education if you do it when you’re not on duty at work as a doctor (for example) if you are White and there is no consequence. But I can be in a suit, speak perfect English, prefer to listen to Rock and Roll, don’t own an Ipod, and own my own businesses and people think I’m a drug dealer, or walk up to me and speak to me about how wearing a suit must “help me pick up hoes.”
It’s just an observation. Some of you may have seen the same things, wondered the same thoughts. What does it mean? I don’t know. But I do find it ironic that there is this dichotomy in the society. I wonder what cosmetic surgery will be next?

This is what I think, what do you think?