Five children's books deserving big-screen treatment

Spike Jonze’s film adaptation of one of the all-time greatest children’s books Where the Wild Things Are comes out Friday and it makes me wonder, what took ‘em so long? If feature-length films could be made of Dr. Seuss legends How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Cat in the Hat and Horton Hears a Who!, what’s to keep Maurice Sendak’s ode to the child’s imagination from becoming a successful motion picture?

Well, we need not answer these questions, because we’re a day away from what looks to be a box office smash. If the nostalgia of the story, beautiful lighting or wonderfully furry costume/CGI wild things didn’t hook you in the trailer, than the amazing choice of Arcade Fire music did. Whoever thought we’d see an indie send-up of a family movie and think it was a great idea? Anyway, I’m convinced this will be the best wide release film of the fall movie season.

So when it does happen, when Where the Wild Things Are surpasses expectations critically and financially, we can expect some kind of immediate response from major production companies who will be convinced there could be a market for more of these films. The question then becomes, what’s next?

My childhood was full of books that I’d love to revisit cinematically as an adult and with that thought came this list: The five beloved children’s book best-sellers that ought to be optioned or whose options should be dug out of some dusty file cabinet and put into production. What do you think? Leave a comment if there’s a key piece of your childhood I didn’t mention that ought to be made for the big screen.

The Little Engine that Could

This book has been poisoning children’s minds for more than a half century with the unrealistic notion that optimism equals progress and that if you believe in yourself you can do/overcome anything – but what the kids don’t know can’t hurt them – until they graduate college and can’t find jobs. But that’s for another day.

At the least, I’d think a producer is smart if he says “I think I can” in terms of adapting this classic story of a small train that hauls a broken loco over a mountain when all other trains think it impossible. Adapted as a 30-minute film nearly 20 years ago, I still think this story could be expanded and even done live action/without sticking a dumb pasty Thomas the Tank Engine face on the train. Add some human characters to help or maybe try and loot the train, stretch out the perils of the journey and change the title to something more adventurous and maybe The Little Engine can.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

It’s hard to believe Eric Carle’s book about a ridiculously insatiate caterpillar that feasts on lollipops and Swiss cheese is already forty years old, but it’s been teaching how to count and read short words as well as learn about metamorphosis to every generation in that time period. My thought is an animation studio could borrow on Carle’s beautiful illustrative style to bring the world of the VHC to life.

Ok, I admit there’s not much of a plot to this book; you can’t make an entire scene about how on day three that darn hungry caterpillar ate three strawberries, but you could thread that into a bigger, more imaginative (and probably humorous) narrative. Give him a friend like the Dieting Grasshopper and there’s some potential. I can perfectly imagine the VHC being voiced by Seth Rogen, a bit of a lazy caterpillar as well who for some reason hasn’t managed to pupate yet, maybe because he’s too fat for a cocoon. Heimlich in A Bug’s Life is a good example though I’m thinking a little more toned down than that. Anyway, bugs and food have sold well in the past on the screen, so adding 40 years of reputation to that formula seems like an idea.

Green Eggs and Ham

Of all the Dr. Seuss books that have gotten big screen treatment, you’d think someone would’ve tried adapting one of the best ones. I understand that GE&H is more about the rhymes than the story, but that means total creative reign over what it’s about. As long as you include a couple kids and a character named Sam I Am and some food with green food coloring in it, you can let the title sell the rest.

I think an adaptation unlike what the last couple live-action Seuss films have done could suit this story well. Those tried to recreate the Seuss world as well as the stories, but this could work in a totally contemporary setting. It would give the Seuss-ian events more of a magical impact too – you’d really get a sense of green eggs and ham being totally weird.

Where’s Waldo?

Talk about plot freedom. Obviously you wouldn’t just have a search for Waldo, but Waldo going missing and his friends the Wizard, the dog and the cute nerdy chick-Waldo going all over the world to find him. The adventure story potential is through the roof here.

One of my favorite things to do as a kid was look around and find all the little sub-stories going on in all the locations. There are literally hundreds of ideas in the pages of a Where’s Waldo? book. He’s an iconic character begging to come to life and as long as he’s not played by Will Ferrell, we should be fine.

The Giving Tree

Shel Silverstein’s classic is an automatic tear-jerker and if done properly and in a similar spirit to Where the Wild Things Are, it could be just as good on the screen as sort of a family drama/coming of age story with a twist of fantasy. The book is about a young boy who bonds with a tree in his childhood but ends up dismantling her for use in his adult life. It’s a beautiful story of growing up and selflessness and sacrifice that with a good accompanying story line could be nothing short of moving.

It could even be done as 1960s period piece, since the book was published in ’64 and the ‘50s and ‘60s were the heyday of kids growing up and discovering themselves – according to film. Truthfully, however, they didn’t have nearly enough to amuse themselves indoors as we do now, so a boy bonding with a tree in the ‘60s makes more sense than a boy bonding with one when he can just sit on the couch and bond with his Nintendo DS.

Archive Review: City Lights (1931) - 4.5/5 Stars

Wish that today's romantic comedies full of superficial blabber and polluted ideas about love and sex would just -- shut up? Hold on to your ten dollars and rent the Charlie Chaplin classic "City Lights," a heart-warming romance and physical comedy -- where no one talks.

It seems like the era and even the idea of the silent love story has been long gone and forgotten. Relationships and courtship are full of drama, selfish sexual desire and prejudices and attitudes about what's attractive. In a modern context, "City Lights" can be viewed as an hour and a half trip back to innocence.

The already famous Chaplin returns to the screen in "Lights," his first silent film in the dawn of the "talkie" era. Chaplin once again plays the Tramp, this time befriending a suicidal drunken rich man and taking a fancy to a blind flower salesgirl. As a social commentary, Chaplin picks on the snootiness of the upper class and their fancy parties that only mask their unhappiness, as well as championing those who are not as wealthy but don't create social prejudice. But "Lights" is a love story at heart.

Maybe it's only because he knows she won't judge him by his appearance that the Tramp is immediately infatuated with the blind flower seller, but his unblinking kindness toward her is just heart-warming. As he tries to find the money to pay for her rent, (leading to some hysterical scenes, namely a boxing fight) you know deep down that he'll never fully be repaid for his kind deeds. That is until the classic ending that could win even the coldest of fish over with its simple but perfect execution.

There's plenty opportunity here for us to laugh at the Tramp too, but it's just not what you take away most from "City Lights.' You can name the classic comedy scenes without problem, but the impression does not follow them. It's the beautiful story of two seemingly nobodies who treat each other with unconditional kindness amidst a city of superficial and judgmental people that makes you stop and wonder. The fact that in all honesty we still search for that ideal today despite an even greater setting promoting the opposite, and that's what makes "City Lights" a classic.

4.5/5 Stars

"City Lights" (1931)

Directed and Written by: Charles Chaplin

Starring: Charles Chaplin, Virginia Cherrill

New on Blu-ray: South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut (1999) - 4/5 Stars

I love the older movies coming to Blu-ray these days. Honestly, I think there are two special effects shots in this entire movie. Even so, are paper cut-outs going to look that much better in high-def? Whatevs, it was an excuse to post this.

There's one problem with television: You can't say &#*%, or $@&%, or #^&@%$. So what did Trey Parker and Matt Stone -- the creators of the hit mature animated series "South Park" -- turn? The movies, where anything goes (just about). Although the idea for a "South Park" movie probably came about before the idea to exploit the MPAA's more flexible ratings system for the TV show's impeccable satire, it's no less the perfect choice to bring the little Colorado mountain town and its foul-mouthed children to the big screen in "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut."

Using the movies, Parker and Stone immediately come out singing (yes, this is a movie musical) that the movies are responsible for society's cultural education. The third graders Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny all go to see the new Terrence & Philip movie, based on the show's fictional hit Canadian TV show about two farting roommates, mirroring the experience of the likely underaged crowd going to see the "South Park" movie, and there you have the brilliance of "South Park" and this film.

The Terrence & Philip movie introduces the kids to a whole world of swears and insults they never knew before (because they couldn't use them on TV) and they start using it in talking back to teachers and their parents. As usual, the parents of South Park take things too seriously and point the finger for their children's bad behavior at well, Canada, who else? Single-handedly, Parker and Stone introduce the Canada joke to Americans.

The film doesn't crusade for allowing bad language, but rather shows how silly it is to take language so seriously, particularly when Mothers Against Canada invokes a war with our neighbors to the north.

Parker and Stone should take their act to Broadway with the quality of the music in this movie, from the Oscar-nominated "Blame Canada" to "What Would Brian Boitano Do?" They do enlist the help of the talented Tony winner Marc Shaiman, but the show has always been known for its musical prowess. The songs are memorable, fun and break up the film well considering its structured like a long television special.

Fans of the show get exactly what they'd expect from "South Park" including some extra goodies and appearances from all the most liked characters. The language of course is off the charts, but the childish ignorance of adult content (Stan seeks the clitoris after Chef tells him that's how you keep a girl around) is there too. By film's end it's not the sharpest satire that the show has ever delivered, but it was obviously the perfect plot choice for making "South Park" into a movie, not just picking some random story line, but maximizing the satire potential of the new medium.

4/5 Stars

"South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut" (1999)

Directed by: Trey Parker

Written by: Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Pam Brady

Starring: (voices) Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Mary Kay Bergman

Archive Review: Moulin Rouge! (2001) - 4/5 Stars

If there was an ultimate and absolute antonym for "Moulin Rouge!" it would be the adjective "shy." Hundreds of gorgeous costumes, lavish studio sets, a digitally reproduced city of Paris and an abrupt and cartoonish comedic style make this movie musical a one-of-a-kind spectacle.

From the very first musical mash-up number in the Moulin Rouge club that consists of around five songs, two of which are Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend," you get a sense that "Moulin Rouge!" wants desperately to be different and ultimately unforgettable. The initial gut reaction to the film's camp and genre- butchering is to dismiss it as forced and unnatural, but once the recycled albeit powerful love story takes over, the derring-do of Baz Luhrmann's visually striking show becomes much more easily appreciate.

Despite a mix of songs that defies the historical context, "Moulin Rouge!" takes place in turn-of-the-century Paris in the "underground," inspired by the paintings of Toulouse- Lautrec of the burlesque dancers, courtesans and Absinthe-drinkers. Christian (McGregor) is a hopeless romantic poet whose talent earns him a shot to convince the most famous dancer/performer/courtesan, Satine (Kidman), and her manager/pimp, Harold Zidler (Broadbent) at the city's most famous club, the Moulin Rouge, to let him create the show that will turn Satine into a star. At the same time, a wealthy Duke (Roxburgh) is funding the show and one of his conditions is for Satine to be his.

"Moulin Rouge!" is also not shy about love or letting you know its themes are love and everything to do with love and that it's all that matters in life. If not for Kidman's wonderful performance as a morally conflicted woman dealing with masculine pressures and discovering love is indeed possible, one could make the case that the focal relationship between her and Christian around which the rest of the film blooms might never even begun to ripen.

Christian, after all, is a one-dimensional character seeing as he's motivated only by Satine and true love -- he has no other desires. So as Satine falls for him and his incredible ability to steal the material of famous songwriters decades after his lifetime and perform it with a soaring tenor, something must ground the film, and her very real issues, which are inspired by a combination of famous story lines including "La Boheme" and "La Traviata," do the trick.

Then there's Luhrmann's (1996's "Romeo + Juliet") influences on the film. As it progresses, we begin to love his work here more and more. As the plot thickens and turns for the dramatic (and convincingly so despite so much early antics), his lightning-fast editing choices and lighting become even more effective and the musical numbers being fashioned out of a wide array of songs (like Sting's "Roxanne" mixed with original tango music) become all the more impressive.

Sweeping zoom-ins of a city done all by computer and music numbers that are shot and choreographed in an all too showtune-y manner go from questionable choices to beautiful ones as Luhrmann's twist on a classic love story archetypes matures before our eyes and the true spirit of his film becomes clearer. There are still some goofy elements that don't fit, but the spontaneity of song and its often times non-traditional use is one of the biggest things to make sense and fit Luhrmann's vision with time.

Despite only one original song in "Come What May," (which should have been allowed to contend for an Oscar) it's more the placement of the songs, the way they follow traditional musical theater rules for song placement -- either setting the mood and foreshadowing the story or expounding on the characters' inner feelings at appropriate times -- makes them so effective.

Similar can be said of "Moulin Rouge!" on the whole: though there's an inherent abruptness, randomness and even a faux quality to much of the film, it keeps the traditional love story at its core and everything else is merely growing bountifully from it. There's a reason the same kinds of love stories get recycled in the theater and movies and simply get dressed up a different way and it's because those stories work; they appeal to something human. So as flamboyant and absurd as this movie gets, it never goes wrong because it sticks to its universal storytelling ideas.

4/5 Stars

"Moulin Rouge!" (2001)

Directed by: Baz Luhrmann

Written by: Baz Luhrmann, Craig Pearce

Starring: Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor

Weekend Recap 10.9.09 - Some Paranormal Activity at the box office

I don’t know what’s better: super-low-budget horror film Paranormal Activity breaking insane box office records or the fact that I don’t have to talk about Couples Retreat because of it.

If you haven’t heard of Paranormal Activity yet, don’t worry. It only means that you don’t follow trending topics on Twitter, which is acceptable. Believe me, however, you are far from done hearing about this movie if this is your first time.

“Activity” is what The Blair Witch Project was to cinematic lore only it’s apparently ten times better. Made off a $10 ,000 budget by an Israeli-American named Oren Peli, it’s a camcorder-shot film about a couple moving into a suburban home that encounters a demonic presence.

But it must really be about a hell of a lot more than that to pull a completely unprecedented $7.9 million dollars out of only 160 theaters nation-wide. That’s nearly $50,000 dollars per movie theater. That means Peli could have gone to one of these theaters, sat around collecting the money himself all weekend, and made a profit on his movie.

This weekends actuals:

1. Couples Retreat - $34.2 M (weekend) … $34.2 M (gross)
2. Zombieland - $14.8 M … $47.6 M
3. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs - $11.5 M … $95.7 M
4. Paranormal Activity - $7.9 M … $9.1 M
5. Toy Story/Toy Story 2 3D - $7.7 M … $22.7 M
6. Surrogates - $4.2 M … $32.7 M
7. The Invention of Lying - $3.3 M … $12.3 M
8. Whip It - $2.8 M … $8.8 M
9. Capitalism: A Love Story - $2.6 M … $9 M
10. Fame - $2.5 M … $20 M

So the question becomes, how did “Activity” pull this off? Two weekends ago, it was being released in only 12 theaters nation-wide, making $77.8 thousand. The number of theaters expanded to 33 and then to 160. Word is that Paramount was only expanding this movie to people who “demanded” it. Theaters that begged for it and people online that asked for it.

Apparently Paramount concentrated on going viral for this film to create the buzz it knew it would have because of the film’s quality (they had apparently proposed to Peli to reshoot the film with a bigger budget, which says a lot of their confidence in it). I had seen a lot of articles online and kept glancing over them until I saw so many that I had to at least see what this was about.

Make no mistake ladies and gents, we are the verge of cultural phenomenon. If just Internet buzz can get that many tickets sold in that few theaters, imagine what a wide release of 1,000 could do. Screw Saw VI, this is where it’s at. Depending on how big they expand, box office predictions will be tough next week. I’m not thinking this film could jump to No. 1, but it’s easier to predict films when they follow the trend and lose money week to week, not gain more of it.

To recap the rest of the Box Office, I was dead on, although this weeks’ biggest surprise, “Activity,” came close to topping even the “Toy Story” movies. This week’s biggest flop, The Invention of Lying did quite the opposite of stay strong, dropping more than 50% to No. 7, that’s steeper than all the rest of last week’s Top 5. That tells you just how many couples went to see “Retreat” after all and sucked away “Lying’s” audience.

Toy Story 3 trailer up!

After Disney pulled the leaked versions of the much-awaited Toy Story 3 trailer off various movie websites, the first trailer is officially up today! Much of what I talked about when I posted news from the D23 convention is in the trailer.

View the Apple trailer here

The trailer is very carefully planned. It doesn't give away very much (none of the new characters appear) but tells you the story line and gives you plenty to get excited about.

All I can say is Toy Story 3 is poised to be one of the highest-grossing animated films if not films period of all time. If Up and WALL*E can make tons of money for Pixar, imagine what going back to their No. 1 all-time franchise could do.

Think about the kids that grew up watching this movie, myself included (I think I was 9 or 10), are now paying their way at the movies in addition to the appeal it already has to parents and children. Plus, it's not like this is going to be a bad movie if Pixar's track record has anything to say about it. That said, name a demographic not excited by this movie. There is none. Now we just have to wait eight months.

New on DVD: The Brothers Bloom (2009) - 3.5/5 Stars

"The Brothers Bloom" sounds like a traditional con movie: two talented con men brothers are known for their epic, almost literary cons, when one brother wanting out leads to a concession that the next one, cheating a lonely heiress out of a million or so, will be their last. There's a bit of the classic con movie "The Sting" as well as "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" mixed in to that. Seems unoriginal, but just you wait.

Rian Johnson has written a non-traditional con flick, one that acts like a quirky modern comedy but is dressed in '30s period garb and filmed where the world's architecture and backdrops are most classically stunning: Greece, Prague and Montenegro. It doesn't make much sense, but it gives "The Brothers Bloom" and its trio of talented actors undeniable class.

Stephen (Ruffalo) is the mastermind who writes his younger brother, Bloom (Brody), into his fantastical stories/cons as the "hero." Bloom, however, is ready to write his own life -- presumably one in which he falls in love for real. Agreeing to one last con, he must fake his feelings for Penelope (Weisz), an epileptic heiress with no social skills. As long as he doesn't fall in love with her, all should go well. It sounds easy considering Penelope is one strange fish, but it's not.

There's nothing too complicated about the plot, which hooks you on trying to discern what's real vs. what's part of the con. Johnson keeps it simple so that he can give you what you don't expect -- colorful characters, such as Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi from "Babel"), the brothers' Japanese assistant with, aptly, an affinity for explosives made of Barbie dolls.

Weisz really gets to have the most fun as a total crackpot. In the period dress along with Weisz' excellent film resume and our familiarity with the genre, we come to expect her to play some classy woman who won't be willed easily, but she's a total nut and Weisz gets to work with this incredible element of surprise.

In a scene in her mansion when she reveals to Bloom she's basically never left the mansion and is terrible at conversation, she shares that she just checks out books on how to do things, which Johnson follows up with a hysterical montage of Weisz showing off a dozen or so different talents from juggling chainsaws to riding a unicycle -- while juggling chainsaws. Another wonderful scene is her first passionate kiss with Bloom -- something she's never experienced before.

Con movies also give you the expectation of a twist, and though Johnson does give us one when it's all said and done, he also uses that expectation to his advantage, filling the moments that creates with comical flourishes or moments revealing of character.

At the same time, there's something unsatisfying about the twists of the film. The expectation of being wowed in that regard by con films is something "Bloom" must work against. We want a surprise ending that reveals something about the characters, or at least if the surprise is mild at best, something that is logical and true to the film and its characters. "Bloom" doesn't fully capture the scope of either. It's no failure by any means, but it hinges on elements of the story that didn't seem to be all that important.

If anything, Johnson proves with "Bloom" that he has the chops to deliver something conceptually mainstream (like a con movie) in a unique way. We shall hopefully see much more of him in the future. What we want at the movies is familiarity with a breath of freshness and he gives us just that with his talented cast of characters that defy our expectations in only positive ways.

3.5/5 Stars

"The Brothers Bloom" (2009)

Directed by: Rian Johnson

Written by: Rian Johnson

Starring: Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel Weisz

Archive Review: Midnight Cowboy (1969) - 4/5 Stars

Forty years later, it's much harder to call John Schlesinger's film "Midnight Cowboy" avant- garde, but the greatest X-rated film of all time is as much a reflection of the '60s as it is a study of unusual and pitiable characters.

Joe Buck (Jon Voight) is a cowboy by attitude, hustler by trade who travels to New York City in hopes of making a killing on the massive numbers of sexually frustrated urban married women. Unfortunately, Joe is not only naive, but all kinds of stupid and he's haunted by a difficult past that comes to us in trippy flashbacks edited like a classic horror film. In the city he meets Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a scummy pickpocket with a bum leg who offers to be his "manager."

The sexuality of the film is nothing surprising to the modern viewer, but for 1969 it's conceivable that it was. The original tagline was "Whatever you hear about "Midnight Cowboy" is true." That gives you a sense of what it was perceived as upon its release. Prostitution is a constant (although nudity not as gratuitous as one might expect), homosexuality is suggested on more than a couple occasions and the sexual liberation of women is acknowledged. That's a lot for that era, which combined with Woodstock makes '69 the beginning of a new one.

Look behind the shocking social issues in "Midnight Cowboy," however, and there's a much simpler quality story that most film-lovers watching today will tap into. Religious fanatic Mr. O'Daniel (John McGiver) gets it out early when he questions Joe about his loneliness. From then on, despite the conscious objectives of the film and its characters to try and make a living and survive in a downtrodden NYC, "Midnight Cowboy" is about all the characters having the satisfaction of companionship in every sense and on every level.

Very little positive happens to Joe because of his lack of street smarts. He keeps getting screwed over or taken advantage of by everyone in the city until Rizzo changes his mind and the two look out for each other. The way these two handle their adversity is the most interesting part and what really allowed Voight and Hoffman to earn their Oscar nominations.

Another way the film stands out as groundbreaking is through Schlesinger's direction. Although we're left wanting more definitive answers and insights regarding Joe's bad dreams and flashbacks about his past, they're still edited in a way that makes them critical to the story. We're able to draw our own understanding from how the past and present are stitched together, able to like or be interested in Joe because this abrupt style communicates the psychological impact it has on him.

"Midnight Cowboy" isn't a cathartic story, but more a simple one shrouded in social issues and more radical film-making decades ahead of its time. The way it's best appreciated now is in that light, not in the way it pushed our boundaries and took a bite out of censorship back in its day, but in the fundamental and universal message it comes to and instills in its audience about loneliness by way of unique characters that many of us might find morally questionable.

4/5 Stars

"Midnight Cowboy" (1969)

Directed by: John Schelsinger

Written by: Waldo Salt, James Leo Herlihy (novel)

Starring: John Voight, Dustin Hoffman

Weekend at a Glance (10.9.09)

What happens when you get a date comedy mega-giant like Couples Retreat released with virtually no competition? Put it on top and slide the rest down. That’s my strategy for predicting this weekend’s box office.

There are tons of quadruple-booked weekends this month, (take last week's films for example) yet none wanted to compete with this movie. It’s got a cast that can swoop up audiences from ages 20 to 60 and it’s PG-13, so teenagers can even get in on the action. Good thing for Universal, who is coming off a brutal comedy summer with Bruno and Funny People drastically underperforming in addition to the biggest flop, Land of the Lost, which was so bad I forgot to add it to my summer flop rankings.

No worries for Couples Retreat, however. Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau made bank with last year’s poorly reviewed Four Christmases, so this could end up one of the fall’s highest-grossing movies. That doesn’t mean, however, that you should go see it. There were lots of good or at least decent movies released last week that my recommendation is to give one of those your Hamiltons. Also, if the new Blair Witch Project-esque horror flick Paranormal Activity is playing near you, word about that film is spreading like wildfire, so you could consider that too.

Red Flag: If you couldn’t tell, I’m warning you now not to see Couples Retreat. I marked it as a red flag in my Fall Preview and the reviews so far have affirmed that completely. I know what you’re thinking: Look at that cast … Vince Vaughn, he’s so funny … and Jason Bateman! … oh my god and is that Charlotte from “Sex and the City”? … I know you people think these things. So that is why I issue warnings.

Did you actually laugh at the trailer, or did you think you laughed? When was the last time Vince Vaughn made a movie you liked? Don’t you think that huge awesome cast could be a ploy to get you to see just another movie about dysfunctional couples on an island where the surf instructors seduce the women? These are the questions you need to ask yourself. I’ve heard first hand this is a bad movie. Don’t see it.

My endorsement: Go see whatever you didn’t see last week that was supposed to be good, and if you didn’t see anything last week, see Zombieland. It’s a lot of fun. If you want a date movie, go see The Invention of Lying, which received generally favorable reviews. I’d even suggest Whip It over seeing the movie that came out this week. Or go to the independent theater near you and check out a limited release film such as An Education, which did really well at Sundance this year or the aforementioned low-budget horror movie Paranormal Activity. Honestly, my endorsement is just not Couples Retreat.

Box Office Prediction: You can tell I’m more grumpy than usual in this post, and that’s what happens when I predict a winner that I think will be a horrible movie. Couples Retreat has no competition except movies that came out already, so it’s a shoe-in if ever there was one. Millions of Americans won’t read my post and will think what I said they’re thinking and go see it with their spouse and another couple. Plus, the Columbus Day weekend means bigger Sunday totals.

I perfected the Top 5 winners last week and with only one new film threatening, that makes it even easier to predict. Box Office winner Zombieland should have no problem staying up at second place because Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is already in its fourth week and good word of mouth will keep ticket sales strong. With the long weekend, “Meatballs” should only slide down to third, however, as the re-release of the Toy Story movies in 3D proved it wasn’t enough competition. Toy Story/ Toy Story 2 3D should be next in line with the long weekend, extra cash from 3D sales and all those “last chance!” advertisements as it’s only a limited engagement.

As for No. 5, I think positive word of mouth in combination with bad reviews for Couples Retreat will allow The Invention of Lying to hold off third-week competition from sci-fi thriller Surrogates.

In summary, my predictions:

1. Couples Retreat
2. Zombieland
3. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
4. Toy Story/Toy Story 2 3D
5. The Invention of Lying

Rankings: Best and Worst of Vince Vaughn

I like Vince Vaughn. He’s a Chicago man (Cubs fan) and there’s no one I’d rather listen to complain. Few people are actually funny when they rant or complain, and Vince Vaughn is one of them.

Then again, Vince is one of those comedians who have gotten stale lately. It started with Fred Claus back in 2007 – though some people would insist it was The Break-Up, I’m going to say good Vince, not so good movie – he hasn’t really found positive spotlight since then.

I think he’s funny and he still has the capability of being funny. But he’s been the same funny for a long time now. Almost no one can stand Will Ferrell anymore and he’s been the same funny through it all with the exception of Stranger than Fiction. These guys need other outlets for their talent. They need someone to cast them in roles that will eliminate any possibility of relying on the same characterization.

Friday’s Couples Retreat is a step back for Vaughn. The TV spots end with him rambling about staying calm when he’s in the water with sharks. That is same old Vince, which is not what he needs. He needs to keep going the route he started by taking small parts in Into the Wild and Thumbsucker: something more laid back and less frenetic than couples therapy movies.

In the spirit of Vaughn needing a big boost to his career, I thought I would rank the five best and worst Vince Vaughn roles of all time based on his performance and with only a little influence from the quality of the overall movie. From here we might understand what types of roles Vince needs to be at the top of his game.

5 Worst Vince Vaughn Roles

5. The Break-Up – Gary Grobowski

Vince wasn’t bad in this movie so much as the movie was off. I wouldn’t say I hated The Break-Up, but calling it “off” is the best way to describe it. It sold itself as traditional break-up comedy and tried to be profound relationship drama for the last half hour. Vaughn has some absolute classic rants – some of his best material – but his character Gary, a couch potato and insensitive boyfriend is just kind of a shmuck in this movie, so in turn, it’s his least worst movie on my list.

4. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy – Wes Mantooth

Hilarious movie, yes, but Vaughn’s character, rival TV anchor Wes Mantooth was pretty awful. I’ll blame the writing for not giving him anything to work with other than “I hate you, Ron Burgundy, I hate you” and “Dorothy Mantooth is a saint!” (if he didn’t improvise at least one of those lines). Mantooth was one of those hollow, shallow, pointless movie villains, though Vaughn definitely benefited from increased exposure in such a high-profile comedy.

3. Psycho – Norman Bates

Vaughn’s lucky that accepting the role in Gus Van Sant’s 1998 remake of this absolute classic didn’t destroy his career. You’d have to be crazy to think that this would be a good career move – to try to equal or top the performance of Anthony Perkins as one of the most strangely terrifying antagonists of all time in Norman Bates. It’s one thing to be bad and it’s another to be just okay and draw comparisons to a fantastic original. This was more the choice to be in the film than the performance itself. No reason anyone should put that kind of pressure on himself.

2. Four Christmases - Brad

Vaughn’s second attempt at a Christmas movie was at least short and PG-13. Still not ideal work for Vince and certainly all about the cash, but Vince was certainly not terrible in it. Part of the film’s negative critical response, however, has to be attributed to his audience wearing out his role of guy in a non-committed dysfunctional relationship with a likable Hollywood actress.

1. Fred Claus – Fred Claus

When you’re as big of an actor as Vince Vaughn and you’ve made a name for yourself doing R-rated comedy, why do PG? Fred Claus had to have been about the money for Vince. This was intended to be star-studded Christmas fare with a main character that adults would be happily entertained by while their kids got the Christmas movie fix. I didn’t see the film after hearing how mediocre (and long) it was, but everything I’ve read proves the jerk loser character Vaughn always plays didn’t work PG or at the least had gotten annoying by this point. Vaughn should have seen the critics’ responses as time to re-evaluate his direction.

5 Best Vince Vaughn Roles

5. Thumbsucker – Mr. Geary

Vaughn dons a sweater vest and plays a high school teacher and debate club advisor in Thumbsucker, an indie growing-up/family drama. Although his performance didn’t blow me away, I was pleased with the results of him taking on the more dramatic role of the teacher who tries to push the main character toward achieving his goals. Channeling his star power into something simple worked for me, even if it wasn’t Vaughn doing what he does best.

4. Swingers - Trent

Without Swingers, we would have the Vince Vaughn we have today. Ridiculous outfit and wife-beater aside, we got a good taste of Vaughn’s potential in this film. The film is not really an all-out comedy, so the role is tamer than most, but it features Vince in a supporting role of a friend with some bad life advice … and a tendency to rant. Clearly a career-estbalishing role.

3. Dodgeball – Peter La Fleur

The concept of Vaughn in Dodgeball was excellent, albeit sophomoric. Surround a guy that’s really good at making fun of other people with a cast of complete nut jobs. Vaughn plays the troubled but still sane manager of a local gym called Average Joe’s and enters a bunch of his wacko clients along with himself into a dodgeball tournament to make the money he needs to save his gym from being taken over by competitor Globogym. Making Vaughn seem normal in comparison made Peter one of the most likable characters he’s ever played. His job is to sit there and react and occasionally deliver an inspirational speech. It only lets him express one side of his talent, but it doesn’t get annoying like some of his other roles.

2. Wedding Crashers – Jeremy Grey

The combination of an angry, complaining, stubborn Vaughn who loves lying to women in order to get laid with a softer and sorry son of a bitch like Owen Wilson was comedic gold. Vaughn is both victim of craziness (Isla Fisher’s character won’t stay away from him, neither can her brother Todd) and he does a fair amount of ranting, his best rants of all time really. It doesn’t get better in terms of Vaughn’s star vehicles and it might not ever again.

I think the reason it worked well for him, other than being both victim and rant perpetrator, is that his character was a con artist, intentionally a not so great person. The more normal he’s supposed to be, the more him ranting doesn’t work (hence why he never really ranted in Dodgeball). It’s not exactly what most leading men are like in films, but it’s what Vaughn needs to get favorable reviews.

1. Old School – Beanie Campbell

An unfaithful trash-talking audio equipment salesman with a kid: You can’t argue with Old School being the perfect role for Vaughn. A supporting role who gives bad advice and really helps push along the plot of the film in hysterical ways is not something you can argue with. I remember seeing this movie not knowing who Vaughn was and thinking he was one of the funniest guys I’d never heard of.

“Earmuffs” is something that just about everyone includes in their vocabulary. It’s fantastic. You replace “put your hands over your ears because Daddy doesn’t want you to hear this” with one word, an object that can be visualized easily, “earmuffs.” Then you follow it up with a man cursing obnoxiously in front of his child and saying questionable things about women. It’s been a long time since we saw Vaughn in this type of supporting role and if he can get there again, all the Vince Vaughn fans in this world will stop hiding in embarrassment.