You almost feel bad for Uma Thurman

When Uma Thurman was picked to star in the comedy/drama Motherhood, you know that producers and the movie studio expected her name to draw fans. When the plot was written you know that the target audience was women. What no one knew, was that the film would be rejected by everyone - worldwide.

I have heard of bad films, every actor has a few, but this may have set a record. Seriously, this film is so bad that 12 people in England came out to see the priemere. It made a grand total of $130 (not a typo) it's opening weekend in the UK this past weekend. There are films made by students, appearing in a single theatre, without a single known actor, filled with bad writing and worse acting, that made more money last weekend.

In America, you might have missed the opening of the film. It wasn't in theaters long in 2009. It made all of $93,000 to date stateside. So far, with 5 more countries to preimere in, it has made a global total of $700,000. Which doesn't cover the cost of the posters most likely.

So you have to wonder how this film could have been so bad. What actively kept people away.

"Entertainment Weekly" speculates that "Motherhood"'s failure could be blamed on Thurman's dyed, bright-red hair..."

Yeah, red hair. That did it. Or, just maybe, it might have been reviews and word of mouth like this

"The problem I personally had with the movie is that I can't seem to categorize it. It's not a comedy, it's not a drama, it's not a love story, and it's definitely not a family movie. The only thing that comes to my mind is that it's perhaps a movie made for mothers who probably won't find to watch it, but if they do, it will make them feel better for a day or two...

Motherhood is extremely disappointing as a movie, especially if you weren't born with an uterus; instead of trying to diminish the fact that some mothers are indeed a little psycho, it creates even a bigger gap between the men and the women, between the fathers and the mothers."

No matter the reason, I think that Uma Thurman just may have set a record in Hollywood for an established international star. What a dubious honor indeed.

Featured Artists’ Coalition means more music for fans

As credit markets tumble, while people and corporations scramble to find solid footing (you can see my interview discussing real estate), artists in the U.K. are taking steps to secure their fortunes as well. And the moves seem to be reasonable if not fair.

The newly formed Featured Artists’ Coalition is a venture of musicians and performers that are looking to keep control of their work. Some might presume that they would already control their music and have the full rights to it, but that has never been true in the U.K. and in America for most artists. Far too often the real controlling power has been the music companies, which doles out a pittance to performers and musicians while reaping hordes.

Unlike other such organizations in the past, this one has a huge and solid support of artists from every genre and time period. Already there have been over 60 artists involved as charter members. Some involved include:

Radiohead
The Verve
Kaiser Chiefs
Kate Nash
David Gilmour
Billy Bragg
Klaxons

This is a venture that is determined to achieve a level of fairness that has not existed in the industry ever before. One of the biggest motivations for artists today is the fact that the internet has changed the industry forever.

MP3 players and the ability to digitally download music on a single or album basis has changed the way the music industry makes music. This is even more expansive and environment changing than music videos and cable proved to be. And many artists have been excluded from the income that has been generated from these new formats.

So Featured Artists’ Coalition has sought changes, and I have no doubt that artists in America are watching closely on the result of these efforts. They want to be fairly compensated whenever the music companies make money off of their efforts, which seems reasonable. They want to keep the rights to their music, not being forced to automatically lose their rights to the music company. Again a fair request.

Perhaps the biggest thing they want is one that makes the most sense to me; they want music companies to either ‘use or lose’ the copyrights they have on an artists work. Effectively this means that all the work of an artist must be made available for purchase to the public in some format or the music company loses the rights to those songs. I for one would love to be able to get some of the less known or hard to find songs of several artists that music companies feel are not cost-effective enough to make available in a mass format.

If this Coalition takes flight and forces change in the U.K. then I expect sweeping reforms across the globe. This of course would be a win for the artists and performers, but they are not the ultimate winners. We the fans would gain the most from these changes. Ultimately it means that artists would have more reasons to perform, and more of their recordings would be available to the public either through the music company or the artist themselves.

So music fans should keep an eye to the U.K. and the music companies there. Change is coming and for the public it will be good.

Legally marked for Ridicule

Oh the injustice, if only we could have seen it coming.

Seriously, there is an injustice and it is unexpected. In fact, psychics here in the U.S. should keep an eye out. The problem is not an astral or paranormal one but is a concern of law.

In the U.K. a law has been passed that required mediums, psychics and others in the paranormal pursuits that enhance or earn a living via this arena to have to label their communications with the public as 'only entertainment'.

There are millions if not billions that believe in some form of the paranormal. There have been documentations of mediums, psychics, fortune tellers and so on since before recorded time, and mentioned in tomes as revered as The Bible. Given all that, it is still looked upon with suspicious eyes and mistrust. This law is the next step on that path.

Even worse is the thought that if any one industry can be labeled for chastisement and ridicule then where does it end? Especially in an industry where the main purpose is the benefit and comfort of the general public?

Some would say, well that’s the U.K. America is different, we’re free. Of course that does not resolve one thing. England is free too.